Cold Email With No Trigger Event: 128 Sends, 3 Replies, Real Data

Every serious guide to cold outreach published in the last two years says the same thing: find a trigger, then write the email. A funding round. A leadership change. A hiring surge. A tool migration. The trigger becomes the reason you're in their inbox, and the first line writes itself.
I believe that advice. I also can't use it.
I run export business development from Nanjing, China. I sell switchgear, ring main units and transformers into Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. In July I built a list of 128 target accounts and worked through it. Here is what the signal audit looked like before I wrote a single email:
Tier A — a real, recent, verifiable event: 7 accounts, 5.5%
Tier B — a weak or ambiguous signal: 9 accounts, 7.0%
Tier C — no dynamic signal at all: 111 accounts, 86.7%
Held for sanctions or compliance review: 1 account, 0.8%
Eighty-seven percent of my list had nothing. Not a thin signal — nothing. No funding announcements, no LinkedIn posts, no press releases, no job listings, no product launches. An electrical distributor in Alexandria or Dhaka or Almaty does not broadcast. They have a website that was last updated in 2019 and a WhatsApp number.
So what do you do with 111 accounts that the entire outbound playbook says you shouldn't email?
The variable everyone gets wrong
The standard argument for signal-based outreach is that timing is the lever — you're catching someone in the window where the problem is live. That's real, and I'm not disputing it.
But it's not the mechanism doing the work in the first line.
Think about what actually happens in the recipient's head. They open a cold email. In roughly two seconds they answer one question: was I selected, or was I scraped? That's it. That's the entire gate. Everything downstream — whether they read sentence two, whether they reply — sits behind that judgment.
A funding round passes that gate. But it passes it because it's specific and verifiable, not because it's recent. Recency is a proxy. The real variable is verifiable specificity: something true about them that you could not have known without looking, and that they can confirm is accurate the instant they read it.
Which means the correct question isn't "do they have a trigger event?" It's "do I have a fact about this company that survives contact with the person who works there?"
For 111 of my accounts, the answer was yes. Just not a dynamic one.
Static anchors: what I used instead
A static anchor is a fact that's been true for years and will still be true next year. It has no urgency. It has full specificity. Here are the four categories that worked on an industrial distributor list:
1. Authorized brand relationships. "You're an authorized Eaton distributor in [country]." This is public, verifiable on the manufacturer's own partner locator, and — critically — it's identity. People who hold an official distribution authorization are proud of it. It's on their letterhead. Referencing it correctly signals you looked at their business rather than their industry code.
2. Product-line adjacency. What they already carry tells you what they don't. A distributor stocking LV panels and ATS units but no medium-voltage switchgear has a defined gap. You're not guessing at a pain point; you're reading their catalog.
3. Market and regulatory position. An EAEU-market distributor operates under different certification pressure than a Gulf one. A hazardous-area specialist has constraints a general electrical wholesaler doesn't. Naming the constraint correctly proves domain knowledge in a way no amount of clever copy can fake.
4. Structural role. Authorized panel builder vs. channel partner vs. stocking distributor are three different businesses with three different problems. My list had 103 distributors, 20 channel partners and 5 authorized panel builders — and treating them identically would have been the fastest way to sound scraped.
None of these are triggers. All of them pass the "was I selected or scraped" gate.
The rule that made this workable
I write cold emails with AI assistance, and the single most important constraint in my prompt system is negative:
> **When there is no real signal, you may not manufacture one.**
No "I saw your recent expansion." No "I noticed you've been growing your team." No vague "I came across your company and was impressed by your work in the sector." If I cannot point to a specific verifiable fact, the email opens on the static anchor and nothing else.
This sounds obvious. It is not what most AI-assisted outbound actually does. Hand a language model a company name and tell it to personalize, and it will produce a plausible-sounding observation that is quietly false. Your prospect knows it's false. That's a worse outcome than a plain email — you haven't just failed to prove selection, you've proved fabrication.
I also manually edit every AI-drafted email before it goes out. That's not purism; the drafts that got human touch-up ran meaningfully better than the ones that didn't. The model is a first-draft engine and a research compressor, not a sender.
The numbers, honestly
This is where most posts like this inflate. I'm not going to.
All figures below are from this one 128-account batch — the first of three batches going out across a two-week window. A later, separate campaign is covered in a different post, and I've kept them apart deliberately: merging batches is how people accidentally invent trends.
~60 emails sent → 1 positive reply from a managing director.
At 120 emails → 2 more: an engineer in Bangladesh and a CEO in Egypt, both asking for product catalogs.
3 positive replies across 128 sends ≈ 2.3%.
These are running totals, not final ones. The reply window on this batch is still open, and I have a documented case of a positive reply arriving four to five days after send. If a fourth reply lands next week the rate moves to 3.1%, and I'll say so here rather than quietly leaving the old number up. Treat every figure in this post as a reading taken mid-experiment.
Published benchmarks put average cold email reply rates around 4.5%, with positive reply rates near 1.4%. So my overall reply rate is below average, and my positive reply rate is above it. Both facts are true and neither is a victory lap.
Two things to say about that.
First, this list was deliberately hostile. Any campaign built on 87% no-signal accounts should underperform a campaign built on funding-round triggers. The relevant comparison isn't "signal-based outreach vs. mine" — it's "static-anchor outreach vs. not emailing these 111 companies at all." On that comparison, the static anchors won.
Second, and more importantly: I did not tag replies by signal tier. I don't know whether those three replies came from the 7 A-tier accounts or the 111 C-tier ones. That is the single biggest hole in this data set, and it means the strongest version of my own argument is currently unproven. I'm fixing it in batch two — every send gets tagged, and I'll publish the split whichever way it falls.
Worth being explicit about something else: these 128 accounts are what survived screening, not what I sourced. The rules that decide which companies get deleted before anyone writes them an email are documented separately in the post on my disqualification layer, and they kill far more of the pipeline than any copywriting decision ever will.
If you take one methodological thing from this post, take that one. Most outbound "results" you read are un-segmented totals that can't distinguish the tactic being sold from everything else in the campaign.
The layer nobody writes about
There's a whole category of constraint in cross-border industrial outbound that simply doesn't exist in the SaaS-centric content everyone reads. It shaped my emails more than any copywriting decision:
Certification language is a legal exposure, not a selling point. My emails mention no certification marks at all — not CCC, CQC, CE, IEC, ATEX or IECEx. Medium- and high-voltage products in my category don't carry CCC or CQC, and I don't hold European conformity documentation. Writing "CE certified" into a cold email because it sounds credible is how you create a problem that outlives the deal.
Explicit scope disclaimers. Roughly 36 accounts on my list serve hazardous-area applications. Every email to them states plainly that we supply standard industrial power distribution equipment, not certified explosion-proof products. I lose some of those conversations at the first line. I'd rather lose them there than at the purchase order.
Sanctions and export control. One account in a sanctioned jurisdiction never received an email. No copy was written for it at all — it goes to legal review first, and until that clears, it doesn't exist as a prospect. Two accounts in EAEU countries got flagged for mandatory-certification review before outreach.
Calendar awareness. No bulk sends during Ramadan across the MEA segment. This is not a deliverability tactic. It's the minimum competence you'd expect from someone claiming to understand the market.
None of this shows up in a cold email course. All of it determines whether you're a supplier or a liability.
What I'm changing in batch two
Tag every send by signal tier so the core claim in this post becomes testable.
Split-test static anchor types — brand relationship vs. product-line gap vs. regulatory position — on matched segments.
Cap at 1–2 decision-makers per company. Contacting one to two people per account outperforms three or more by a wide margin, and it also protects the receiving domain from looking spammed.
Keep open-tracking off. Campaigns without open tracking reply better, and the tracking pixel buys me nothing I actually act on.
Source against yield, not against volume. A batch of 128 contactable accounts is not the output of sourcing 128 companies — it's the output of sourcing roughly ten times that, then screening and verifying down. I broke the full funnel down with real cost and survival numbers in this post on pipeline yield.
Three touches, then stop. Three messages roughly doubles total reply rate versus one. A fourth and fifth doesn't; it just annoys people who already decided.
The takeaway
Signal-based outreach isn't wrong. It's unavailable to a large share of the people being told to do it — anyone selling into markets where buyers don't broadcast, which is most of the world outside US and European tech.
If that's you, don't fake the signal. Find the fact. A verifiable static anchor does the same job as a trigger event, because the job was never timeliness. The job was proving you looked.
---
This is the first of three posts on how I actually run outbound from Nanjing into African, Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian markets. The second covers the screening rules that delete most of my pipeline; the third covers what the whole thing costs and what fraction of it survives. Batch two results, segmented by signal tier, will be posted here.