Playbook replay
Media follow-up
A three-sentence follow-up carrying new data, plus the point at which chasing this placement stops being worth it.
Run for Lumira, a demo brand we invented for this page. No customer data. Nothing here runs against a live account.
Every session here was run once and saved, against a demo brand or public data. On your own account Naise works from your brand voice, your campaigns and your connected channels, so it reasons about your data instead of a stand-in.
Nine days is the right timing. Under a week reads as impatient on a non-urgent story, and past a fortnight the original context is gone and it becomes a cold pitch anyway.
The city breakdown is the whole message. A follow-up that leads with the original pitch is a bump, and a bump is what gets a sender filtered.
Subject: Refill return rates by city, including the one that surprised us
Hi Priya, following the note on our refill numbers, we have now broken returns down by city and the spread is wider than we expected: 71% in one market against 34% in another, same product, same price, same launch date.
The gap tracks almost exactly with how far people live from a collection point, which suggests take-back schemes are a density problem rather than a behaviour one.
Happy to send the breakdown if it is useful.
Three sentences. It does not mention the earlier email except as one clause of context, does not ask whether she saw it, and does not apologise.
Thread or new? New thread. The subject line is the pitch here, and burying it under a nine-day-old "Re:" costs you the only thing working in your favour.
The 71 against 34 is doing all the work. A number with an unexpected spread is a story. "We have more data now" is not.
Second follow-up: not before another 10 days, and only with something new again. Two follow-ups on the same story is the ceiling for a non-urgent pitch.
When to stop. After this one, if there is no reply, this specific placement has cost roughly an hour of drafting and two touches on a contact who might matter more later. That is the real cost: not the time, the relationship. A third chase on a story she has silently passed on is remembered, and it prices your next pitch.
If she does not reply, the density finding is a stronger story than the milestone ever was. Take it to a supply chain or urban policy desk rather than pushing it here.
One honest note. Silence at nine days on a business desk usually means the story did not clear their bar, not that they missed the email. This follow-up works because the new data changes the story, not because it reminds her. If the city breakdown were not genuinely interesting, the right move would be no follow-up at all.
Naise created an artifact
Three sentences carrying a new finding, sent as a new thread, with a stop rule attached.
Subject
Refill return rates by city, including the one that surprised us
The message
Following the note on our refill numbers, we have broken returns down by city and the spread is wider than we expected: 71% in one market against 34% in another, same product, same price, same launch date.
The gap tracks with distance to a collection point, which suggests take-back is a density problem rather than a behaviour one.
Happy to send the breakdown if it is useful.
Stop rule: one more touch after 10 days, then take it elsewhere. A third chase prices your next pitch.
That was a sample. Run it on your own brand.
Naise reads your brand, your channels, and your market, then does this against your real data.
Run this playbook free