# Cold email pack by sector

Seven adaptable templates for preparing short, coherent B2B messages subject to human review.

**This is an operational guide and does not replace legal validation.**

This pack does not authorise campaigns, validate contact sources or guarantee compliance or results. Before using any template, confirm the legal basis, purpose, electronic communications rules, internal policy and the recipient's reasonable expectations in the specific case.

Classify the subscriber and recipient before writing. Portuguese Law No. 41/2004 establishes different rules for natural and legal persons; an address with a business domain does not resolve that distinction on its own. As a general rule, promotional contact with natural persons requires prior consent, subject to the limited exception for existing customers and similar products or services when all legal conditions are met. The rules for legal persons also require validation, identification, an opt-out mechanism and checks against the applicable lists. **An address being publicly accessible does not, on its own, amount to permission for marketing.**

Do not use purchased lists, indiscriminately collected data or information from uncertain sources. Do not send to anyone who has already objected, asked you to stop or appears on a relevant suppression list.

## Initial gate: can the message be prepared?

Stop before writing if you cannot tick every applicable item:

- [ ] The company matches the approved segment and there is demonstrable business relevance.
- [ ] The recipient's role has a reasonable connection to the topic of the message.
- [ ] The source of the contact and signal has been recorded and is appropriate for the intended use.
- [ ] The signal is current, verifiable and relates to the company's activity, not a personal inference.
- [ ] The channel and purpose have passed the applicable legal validation and internal policy checks.
- [ ] The contact does not appear on any relevant suppression list.
- [ ] There is no objection, request to stop or other indication incompatible with making contact.
- [ ] The sender, sending company and commercial nature will be clear.
- [ ] The subject line will be truthful and match the message body.
- [ ] There will be a single CTA, proportionate and easy to decline.
- [ ] The opt-out mechanism will be visible and easy to use.
- [ ] The team has defined an attempt limit, retention period and stopping rule.
- [ ] A person will review all fields before sending.

If a field in square brackets remains unfilled, the template has failed the initial gate.

## Common fields

Use only the fields needed for each message:

- `[COMPANY_NAME]`: confirmed trading name;
- `[SECTOR]`: approved sector within the segment;
- `[CITY]` or `[REGION]`: published, relevant business location;
- `[VERIFIED_SIGNAL]`: observed and reviewed business fact;
- `[PUBLIC_SOURCE]`: appropriate page or channel where the signal was confirmed;
- `[PROCESS]`: process related to the signal, without claiming inside knowledge;
- `[RELEVANT_PROBLEM]`: plausible problem to be presented as a hypothesis, not a fact;
- `[POSSIBLE_OUTCOME]`: potential outcome, without a guarantee or invented number;
- `[VALIDATED_PROPOSITION]`: statement about what the sending company actually delivers, without an unsubstantiated promise;
- `[RELEVANT_EVIDENCE]`: case, evidence or capability the sending company can demonstrate; remove the statement if there is no suitable evidence;
- `[SENDER]`: name of the person responsible for the contact;
- `[SENDER_ROLE]`: professional role of the person writing;
- `[SENDER_COMPANY]`: entity sending the message;
- `[SENDER_WEBSITE]`: official domain of the sending entity;
- `[VALID_CONTACT]`: monitored address or channel where the recipient can reply;
- `[SMALL_CTA]`: question that can be answered in a few words;
- `[OPT_OUT_METHOD]`: simple instruction for asking you to stop contacting them.

Do not try to fill missing fields with inferences. Without a verifiable signal, remove the personalisation or do not send.

### Required identification and signature

All templates must identify the writer in the body itself and end with a verifiable signature:

> I'm `[SENDER]` from `[SENDER_COMPANY]`.
>
> `[SENDER]` · `[SENDER_ROLE]`
>
> `[SENDER_COMPANY]` · `[SENDER_WEBSITE]` · `[VALID_CONTACT]`

Do not use a person, role, company, domain or piece of evidence that the sender cannot verify.

## Template 1 — Clinics

Use only institutional information about the clinic's services, appointments or channels. Never use patient data, health conditions or inferences about individuals.

**Subject**

> Appointment enquiries for `[CLINICAL_SERVICE]` at `[COMPANY_NAME]`

**First line**

> I saw on `[PUBLIC_SOURCE]` that `[COMPANY_NAME]` receives enquiries for `[CLINICAL_SERVICE]` through `[PUBLISHED_CHANNEL]`.

**Short body**

> I'm `[SENDER]` from `[SENDER_COMPANY]`. `[VALIDATED_PROPOSITION]` `[RELEVANT_EVIDENCE]` I don't assume how your process works; I just wanted to understand whether `[PROCESS]` is something you are reviewing.

**CTA**

> Would it make sense to send a short example applied to `[PROCESS]`? `[OPT_OUT_METHOD]`

**Fields to adapt**

`[CLINICAL_SERVICE]`, `[COMPANY_NAME]`, `[PUBLIC_SOURCE]`, `[PUBLISHED_CHANNEL]`, `[SENDER]`, `[SENDER_COMPANY]`, `[VALIDATED_PROPOSITION]`, `[RELEVANT_EVIDENCE]`, `[PROCESS]`, `[OPT_OUT_METHOD]` and the signature fields.

## Template 2 — Property

Base the message on areas, services or properties published by the agency. Do not use inferences about owners, buyers or financial capacity.

**Subject**

> Qualifying enquiries in `[REGION]`

**First line**

> I saw that `[COMPANY_NAME]` presents properties and services in `[REGION]` through `[PUBLIC_SOURCE]`.

**Short body**

> I'm `[SENDER]` from `[SENDER_COMPANY]`. `[VALIDATED_PROPOSITION]` `[RELEVANT_EVIDENCE]` The hypothesis I wanted to test is whether separating enquiries by `[ENQUIRY_TYPE]` could be relevant to your process, without assuming how you work today.

**CTA**

> Is this something you handle, or is someone else better placed? `[OPT_OUT_METHOD]`

**Fields to adapt**

`[COMPANY_NAME]`, `[REGION]`, `[PUBLIC_SOURCE]`, `[ENQUIRY_TYPE]`, `[SENDER]`, `[SENDER_COMPANY]`, `[VALIDATED_PROPOSITION]`, `[RELEVANT_EVIDENCE]`, `[OPT_OUT_METHOD]` and the signature fields.

## Template 3 — Hotels and restaurants

Check whether the establishment advertises bookings, events, groups or another relevant service. Respect seasonality and avoid contact at unsuitable operational times.

**Subject**

> `[EVENT_TYPE]` enquiries at `[COMPANY_NAME]`

**First line**

> I found the option to request information about `[EVENT_TYPE]` at `[COMPANY_NAME]` on `[PUBLIC_SOURCE]`.

**Short body**

> I'm `[SENDER]` from `[SENDER_COMPANY]`. `[VALIDATED_PROPOSITION]` `[RELEVANT_EVIDENCE]` I wanted to understand whether routing by `[CRITERION]` is relevant to your current process.

**CTA**

> Would it be worth sending an example of a three-step workflow? `[OPT_OUT_METHOD]`

**Fields to adapt**

`[EVENT_TYPE]`, `[COMPANY_NAME]`, `[PUBLIC_SOURCE]`, `[SENDER]`, `[SENDER_COMPANY]`, `[VALIDATED_PROPOSITION]`, `[RELEVANT_EVIDENCE]`, `[CRITERION]`, `[OPT_OUT_METHOD]` and the signature fields.

## Template 4 — Training

Use the catalogue and business audience the organisation describes publicly. Do not claim that a team has skills gaps or use learner data.

**Subject**

> Training enquiries in `[TRAINING_AREA]`

**First line**

> I saw `[COURSE_OR_PROGRAMME]` for `[BUSINESS_AUDIENCE]` in `[COMPANY_NAME]`'s catalogue.

**Short body**

> I'm `[SENDER]` from `[SENDER_COMPANY]`. `[VALIDATED_PROPOSITION]` `[RELEVANT_EVIDENCE]` The hypothesis is to understand whether distinguishing enquiries by team size, format and schedule before handing them to an adviser would be useful.

**CTA**

> Would it make sense to share an example adapted to `[COURSE_OR_PROGRAMME]`? `[OPT_OUT_METHOD]`

**Fields to adapt**

`[TRAINING_AREA]`, `[COMPANY_NAME]`, `[COURSE_OR_PROGRAMME]`, `[BUSINESS_AUDIENCE]`, `[SENDER]`, `[SENDER_COMPANY]`, `[VALIDATED_PROPOSITION]`, `[RELEVANT_EVIDENCE]`, `[OPT_OUT_METHOD]` and the signature fields.

## Template 5 — Industry and technical services

Verify capabilities, certifications, regions or services through official channels. Do not assume downtime, incidents, non-compliance or internal technical needs.

**Subject**

> Quote enquiries for `[TECHNICAL_SERVICE]`

**First line**

> I saw on `[PUBLIC_SOURCE]` that `[COMPANY_NAME]` provides `[TECHNICAL_SERVICE]` in `[REGION]`.

**Short body**

> I'm `[SENDER]` from `[SENDER_COMPANY]`. `[VALIDATED_PROPOSITION]` `[RELEVANT_EVIDENCE]` I wanted to test whether classifying enquiries by application, location and actual urgency before technical review is relevant to `[PROCESS]`.

**CTA**

> May I send a short qualification checklist for `[TECHNICAL_SERVICE]`? `[OPT_OUT_METHOD]`

**Fields to adapt**

`[PUBLIC_SOURCE]`, `[COMPANY_NAME]`, `[TECHNICAL_SERVICE]`, `[REGION]`, `[SENDER]`, `[SENDER_COMPANY]`, `[VALIDATED_PROPOSITION]`, `[RELEVANT_EVIDENCE]`, `[PROCESS]`, `[OPT_OUT_METHOD]` and the signature fields.

## Template 6 — Agencies and professional services

Use specialisms and cases the company has published. Avoid unsolicited “audits” that insult the current work or allege problems without evidence.

**Subject**

> Qualifying enquiries in `[SPECIALISM]`

**First line**

> I saw `[COMPANY_NAME]`'s work in `[SPECIALISM]` in `[PUBLISHED_CASE]`.

**Short body**

> I'm `[SENDER]` from `[SENDER_COMPANY]`. `[VALIDATED_PROPOSITION]` `[RELEVANT_EVIDENCE]` I don't know your internal process; I wanted to understand whether filtering enquiries by `[CRITERION]` would be useful.

**CTA**

> Would it make sense to send an example with no obligation? `[OPT_OUT_METHOD]`

**Fields to adapt**

`[COMPANY_NAME]`, `[SPECIALISM]`, `[PUBLISHED_CASE]`, `[SENDER]`, `[SENDER_COMPANY]`, `[VALIDATED_PROPOSITION]`, `[RELEVANT_EVIDENCE]`, `[CRITERION]`, `[OPT_OUT_METHOD]` and the signature fields.

## Template 7 — Software and SaaS

Base the message on features, integrations or audiences the product explicitly addresses. Never invent a vulnerability, security flaw or usage figure.

**Subject**

> `[INTEGRATION]` in the `[TEAM_OR_PROCESS]` workflow

**First line**

> I saw the reference to `[FEATURE_OR_INTEGRATION]` for `[TARGET_AUDIENCE]` in `[COMPANY_NAME]`'s public documentation.

**Short body**

> I'm `[SENDER]` from `[SENDER_COMPANY]`. `[VALIDATED_PROPOSITION]` `[RELEVANT_EVIDENCE]` The hypothesis is to connect `[VERIFIED_SIGNAL]` to a more consistent outreach process, without assuming internal product data.

**CTA**

> Would it be worth sending a short scenario for `[TEAM_OR_PROCESS]`? `[OPT_OUT_METHOD]`

**Fields to adapt**

`[INTEGRATION]`, `[TEAM_OR_PROCESS]`, `[COMPANY_NAME]`, `[FEATURE_OR_INTEGRATION]`, `[TARGET_AUDIENCE]`, `[SENDER]`, `[SENDER_COMPANY]`, `[VALIDATED_PROPOSITION]`, `[RELEVANT_EVIDENCE]`, `[VERIFIED_SIGNAL]`, `[OPT_OUT_METHOD]` and the signature fields.

## Final message review

Before sending, confirm:

- [ ] The subject and body cover exactly the same topic.
- [ ] The first line can be substantiated without disclosing excessive data.
- [ ] No sentence turns a hypothesis into a fact.
- [ ] There are no promises, numbers or claims the team cannot support.
- [ ] There is only one CTA.
- [ ] The recipient can easily decline or redirect the message.
- [ ] All links, names, accents and fields have been reviewed by a person.
- [ ] The sender is prepared to reply and fulfil opt-out and rights requests.

## Stopping, objections and suppression

Silence does not amount to consent. Define an attempt limit proportionate to the context in advance, and do not extend a sequence simply because there has been no reply.

When you receive an objection or a request not to contact the person again:

1. stop the messages covered by the request;
2. record only the data needed to implement suppression;
3. propagate suppression to the relevant systems and providers;
4. confirm internally that new imports do not reactivate the contact;
5. route rights requests to the person designated by the organisation.

Do not hide the opt-out behind a complex process or ask the person to justify their decision.

## References for validation

- [Portuguese Law No. 41/2004](https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/legislacao-consolidada/lei/2004-106523049)
- [CNPD — unsolicited promotional communications](https://www.cnpd.pt/comunicacao-publica/noticias/comunicacoes-promocionais-nao-solicitadas-e-cookies-destacados-em-conferencia-de-marketing-direto/)
- [EDPB — respecting individuals' rights](https://www.edpb.europa.eu/sme/be-compliant/respect-individuals-rights_ga)
- [Gmail — email sender guidelines](https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126?hl=en)

These references support the review, but do not replace an assessment of the specific situation by those responsible for legal, privacy and operational matters in your organisation.