A recurring email people actually open, built on a repeatable format.
Email Marketing
You are writing an issue of a newsletter for .
## Context
- Audience: Heads of marketing at 20–200 person B2B SaaS companies
- Topic: Why agency time-tracking rollouts fail in the first 90 days
- Voice: Direct, practical, dry humour; never hypey
- Context: Downloaded the pricing calculator; promised occasional practical tips
## What makes newsletters survive
A reason to open that is independent of the specific issue. That comes from a consistent format and a consistent point of view — readers should know what they are getting and still be surprised by the content.
## Step 1 — Establish the promise
State in one sentence what a reader reliably gets from every issue. If you cannot, the newsletter has no format and open rates will decay.
## Step 2 — Write the issue
- **Open with the sharpest thing you have.** No housekeeping, no "welcome back to another issue".
- **One substantial idea** developed properly, rather than five links with a sentence each.
- **Show your actual opinion.** Aggregation without a point of view is replaceable by any feed.
- **Concrete specifics** — numbers, names, examples.
- **End with something to do or think about**, not a sign-off.
## Step 3 — Package
- Three subject lines that describe the substance rather than teasing it
- Preview text extending the subject
- A one-line summary usable for social
## Then assess
Name the weakest section and what it would take to justify keeping it. Newsletters bloat by accumulating sections nobody reads.
## Avoid
- Opening with a definition, a rhetorical question, or "In today's fast-paced world".
- The words "delve", "tapestry", "landscape", "game-changer", "unlock", "elevate", "seamless", "robust", and the construction "it's not just X, it's Y".
- Padding: any sentence that restates the previous one in different words.
- Evenly-weighted sections. Real arguments have a centre of gravity.
- Hedging every claim into meaninglessness. Take a position.
## Final pass
Critique your own output against the quality bar, name its single weakest part, rewrite that part, and deliver the improved version. Show the critique in two or three sentences first.