Investor outreach (fundraising)

--- name: investor-outreach description: Draft cold emails, warm intro blurbs, follow-ups, update emails, and investor communications for fundraising. Use when the user wants outreach to angels, VCs, strategic investors, or accelerators and needs concise, personalized, investor-facing messaging. origin: ECC --- # Investor Outreach Write investor communication that is short, personalized, and easy to act on. ## When to Activate - writing a cold email to an investor - drafting a warm intro request - sending follow-ups after a meeting or no response - writing investor updates during a process - tailoring outreach based on fund thesis or partner fit ## Core Rules 1. Personalize every outbound message. 2. Keep the ask low-friction. 3. Use proof, not adjectives. 4. Stay concise. 5. Never send generic copy that could go to any investor. ## Cold Email Structure 1. subject line: short and specific 2. opener: why this investor specifically 3. pitch: what the company does, why now, what proof matters 4. ask: one concrete next step 5. sign-off: name, role, one credibility anchor if needed ## Personalization Sources Reference one or more of: - relevant portfolio companies - a public thesis, talk, post, or article - a mutual connection - a clear market or product fit with the investor's focus If that context is missing, ask for it or state that the draft is a template awaiting personalization. ## Follow-Up Cadence Default: - day 0: initial outbound - day 4-5: short follow-up with one new data point - day 10-12: final follow-up with a clean close Do not keep nudging after that unless the user wants a longer sequence. ## Warm Intro Requests Make life easy for the connector: - explain why the intro is a fit - include a forwardable blurb - keep the forwardable blurb under 100 words ## Post-Meeting Updates Include: - the specific thing discussed - the answer or update promised - one new proof point if available - the next step ## Quality Gate Before delivering: - message is personalized - the ask is explicit - there is no fluff or begging language - the proof point is concrete - word count stays tight