Benchmark Learnings: Emailing Technical Buyers
How to Cold Email Technical Buyers (And What Our Benchmarking Data Says You're Getting Wrong)
Out of 231,818 cold emails in our latest Cold Email Benchmark Report, engineering and product are two of the most prospected technical departments in B2B. The reply rate? 5.2%.
That's actually above average. Technical buyers reply more than HR, marketing, finance, or ops. But there's a catch.
Only 11% of those emails earned a Lavender A grade. And when sellers write A-level emails to this group, the reply rate only climbs to 5.5% — a 6% lift. While that may be the smallest quality lift of any department grouping in the dataset, our models have helped an enterprise sdr team prospecting CISOs 10x their total replies.
So why is there such discrepancy?
Here's why that matters: for most departments, writing a "better" email reliably produces more replies. For technical buyers, the relationship between email quality and reply rates is weaker. It suggests that what makes a cold email "good" to a marketer or an HR leader doesn't map cleanly onto how engineers and product leaders evaluate your message.
So what does work? And how is it different?
Let's use some real examples as if we're a seller at Launch Darkly. Engineering uses it for safe deployments and infrastructure control. Product uses it for controlled rollouts, experimentation, and shipping features to specific segments. Both teams have real, distinct reasons to care.
Technical buyers aren't ignoring your email. They're ignoring your credibility.
The biggest pattern in the data is this: engineering and product buyers respond to people who clearly understand the technical world they operate in. Not people who borrow technical language from their marketing team. It’s the people who understand the actual workflows, tradeoffs, and constraints well enough that they can explain it to other non-technical people.
For engineers, you need to be able to get into the weeds. But there's a critical distinction here. Technical jargon turns engineers away. What performs better is speaking to a specific use case or workflow in language that feels authentic. If you can't explain it clearly, they assume you don't understand the technicalities well enough to be worth their time.
Product buyers are different but related. They don't want you to get technical too early. They want you to speak to broader roadmap initiatives and product priorities before any specific technical detail. Technical depth is earned, not led with.
Here's a summary from what the data shows is working and not working:
What works for engineering: Personalized relevance tied to requests, events, or context. Technical specificity with concrete use cases. Clear next-step CTAs. Brevity and credibility signals.
What works for product: Context tied to product priorities and roadmap themes. One focused value prop. Specific examples and proof. Low-friction CTAs to validate interest.
What doesn't work for either: Generic templates. Overly long emails with too much jargon. Weak CTAs ("learn more"). Broad product claims without context. Overly salesy tone.
The shared thread: authenticity. These are buyers who build things for a living. They respect people who understand what they build and why it's hard. They don't respect people who copy-paste buzzwords from a website.
But how you demonstrate that understanding shifts based on seniority. A CTO and a security engineer have very different filters. So let's break it down.
Selling to Technical Executives (CTO, VP of Engineering, VP of Product, CISO)
Titles you're targeting: CTO, VP of Engineering, VP of Product, VP of Infrastructure, VP of Security, Head of Engineering, Head of Product, Head of Platform, CISO
What the data says about executives: C-Suite buyers reply at 4.8%, VPs at 3.4%, and Heads at 4.4%. Heads see a 42% lift on A emails — the highest across the executive tier. This is likely because Heads tend to operate in smaller organizations or sit in a more execution-oriented seat inside larger ones. They're less likely to be thinking "should I delegate this to…"
What this means for technical execs specifically: Technical executives filter everything through two lenses: does this reduce risk, and does this help us ship faster? Revenue matters to them, but for engineering it's usually framed as the cost of not solving a problem: downtime, breaches, slowed velocity. It’s not a direct revenue play. For product, it’s also about solving problems and the opportunity costs associated with not hitting product milestones. That unlocks revenue, but its downstream.
The tone needs to be direct and credible. Not warm like HR. Not casual like marketing. Technical execs want to feel like they're talking to someone who understands the engineering org's constraints, not someone reading from a sales playbook trying to get chummy.
Reiterating an important nuance: product execs and engineering execs think differently. A VP of Engineering cares about infrastructure, reliability, and security posture. A VP of Product cares about roadmap priorities and where a solution fits into the product strategy. Adjust accordingly.
What to do
Lead with a company-level technical observation — a migration, an architecture decision, a security posture shift, a product launch. Connect it to a risk or velocity challenge that shows up at their stage. Keep proof concrete and technical (deployment time, coverage metrics, reduction in incidents). Frame the CTA as collaborative. Give them a path to delegate to the right technical lead.
What not to do
Don't lead with product features. Don't use buzzwords you can't back up. Don't write more than 100 words. Don't use hype language like "world-class," "cutting-edge," and "next-generation". These are instant credibility killers with this audience. And don't make multiple asks. Save the deep technical dive for a lower seniority.
Example: You're an AE at LaunchDarkly, emailing a VP of Engineering
You noticed their company recently shipped a major product update and their engineering blog mentioned moving to weekly release cycles.
James,
Read the post on moving to weekly releases. Big shift. Guessing team is wrapping every release in feature flags?
Realize you might have an in house fix. But, that’s a lot of new code. This could be an opp to have the team maintaining less if we automatically wrapped every release.
If DevOps is closer to this, happy to connect w/ them directly.
Why it works:
The Opener: Referencing the actual engineering blog post (not a job listing or a LinkedIn post) signals technical credibility immediately. It’s a technical workflow shift.
The Problem: Shipping safely and managing rollbacks are the obvious problem, we don’t need to tell them what they already know. We establish credibility by assuming they’re using feature flags. Instead, we reframe the problem as maintaining feature wraps on all the new code they’re releasing.
The Solution: We quickly give them an alternative to help them move faster and safer.
The CTA: Two paths — engage directly or delegate. Tagging DevOps shows you understand how engineering orgs are structured.
Style: 64 words. Direct. No hype. The abbreviation "w/" and informal phrasing keep it from feeling corporate.
Selling to Technical Directors and Senior Leaders
Titles you're targeting: Director of Engineering, Director of Product, Director of Security, Director of Infrastructure, Director of Platform, Senior Engineering Manager, Senior Product Manager, Director of DevOps, Director of Cloud Engineering
What the data says about this tier: Directors reply at 3.4% overall. Senior-level buyers jump to 8.4% on A emails — the biggest absolute lift in the entire seniority dataset.
This group is underserved by good outbound. That's your opportunity.
What this means for technical directors specifically: Directors own specific technical domains. A Director of Infrastructure cares about uptime and scaling. A Director of Security cares about threat detection and compliance. A Director of Product cares about the roadmap for their product area. Broad pitches miss completely because they don't map to anything this person actually owns.
The data calls it out clearly: this group responds to clear relevance to functional priorities and specific use cases. Generic templates and salesy language are the top killers. For engineering directors specifically, technical specificity paired with concrete use cases is what works. For product directors, it's context tied to roadmap themes with one focused value prop.
What to do
Get specific about the domain they own. Anchor your observation in something visible — an architecture pattern, a recent incident, a product release, a compliance requirement. Connect it to a challenge specific to their function. Keep proof to one relevant example with concrete outcomes. Frame the CTA as a chance to compare approaches, not buy anything.
What not to do
Don't pitch broad. Don't use multiple value props. Don't write long intros. Don't use jargon you can't back up. Directors will catch it fast. And don't use salesy framing. "I'd love to show you a demo" reads very differently to this group than "want to see how other companies have set it up."
Example: You're an SDR at LaunchDarkly, emailing a Director of Product
You noticed their company recently launched a freemium tier alongside their existing enterprise product. It’s visible from their pricing page update and a few tweets from the marketing team.
Priya,
With the new freemium tier, I imagine the team’s expecting a lot of new product data. How’s the team set up today to deploy experiments? Guessing that would inform a lot of future roadmap choices that could impact the enterprise offerings.
Would it help if we could get those experiments into product instead of dev?
Atlassian was able to ship 25x more experiments using our feature toggle system. No worries if your crew feels like you’ve got this under control. Thought it was good timing.
Why it works:
The Opener: The freemium launch is a visible, verifiable product decision with downstream impacts on the data they’ll have access to. Framing it as a control problem sets them up to be the hero of the next winning release.
The Problem: Experiment velocity gives product the ability to make better decisions. If they can’t control it, they can’t solve it.
The Solution / CTA: Positioned first as a question ("how do you deploy experiments?") which opens dialogue. Then the problem is further poked at by questioning if they’d value having an alternative. Then backed with a relevant proof point.
Credibility: Engineers don’t love name drops… but product does. The case study was intentionally name dropped. Engineers would respond better to a clearer understanding of how it fits into the workflow.
Selling to Technical Managers
Titles you're targeting: Engineering Manager, Product Manager, Security Manager, DevOps Manager, IT Manager, Infrastructure Manager, Cloud Operations Manager, Application Security Manager
What the data says about managers: Managers reply at 4.3% overall, with A emails climbing to 6.3% — a 49% lift. Nearly half as many replies added just from writing a better email.
What this means for technical managers specifically: Technical managers straddle execution and planning. Engineering managers are managing sprints, allocating resources, and keeping their team unblocked. Product managers are defining requirements, prioritizing the backlog, and making tradeoff decisions. Both care deeply about practical usefulness — how does this fit into the work we're already doing?
The data for this tier shows a tension. For product managers in particular, getting too technical too early kills engagement. They want you to speak to priorities and outcomes before you get into the how. Engineering managers are more receptive to technical specificity, but still want it anchored to a workflow they recognize.
The tone should balance professional and direct. Remember that an email's first impression is 8x more likely to happen on mobile — so structure matters. Short paragraphs. Easy to scan. One idea per section.
What to do
Focus on a specific workflow or technical challenge they're managing right now. Show you understand the tradeoffs they face (speed vs. security, coverage vs. complexity, features vs. infrastructure). Be direct about what you solve and how. Keep the CTA specific — tied to a problem you can address, with a clear next step.
What not to do
Don't talk about company-wide transformation. Don't overwhelm with multiple value props. Don't write walls of text. For product managers: don't lead with technical specs. For engineering managers: don't use jargon you can't explain if asked. And don't use vague CTAs — "thoughts?" is not a next step.
Example: You're an SDR at LaunchDarkly, emailing a DevOps Manager
Let’s use the same freemium example from above, but let’s apply it to engineering at a lower level.
Chris,
How’s the team managing roll outs with the new freemium tier vs. enterprise?
Enterprise is going to want stability. Freemium requires quick iteration. If you could quickly flag features for those tiers would that be easier?
Devs tend to tell us they have internal tools for this. But, using a tool like LaunchDarkly could put this on autopilot by acting as a wrapper for each release.
Why it works:
The Opener: Opening with a question about an observable truth breaks typical patterns of just calling out an observation directly.
The Problem: The challenge is keeping enterprise customers happy. This means the pressure to ship fast can’t hurt them.
The Solution: Direct about what LaunchDarkly does with technical specificity. But, framed around the likeliness that they have built internal tools for this.
The CTA: Just asks to see if a solution could be helpful.
Formatting: Short paragraphs, easy to scan on mobile. The progression from observation → problem → ask → solution is clean and quick. (67 words)
Selling to Individual Contributors (Engineers, Analysts, Security Specialists)
Titles you're targeting: Software Engineer, Security Engineer, DevOps Engineer, SRE, Cloud Engineer, Product Analyst, Security Analyst, IT Specialist, Infrastructure Engineer, Application Security Engineer
What the data says about ICs: Individual contributors reply at 5.3% — higher than directors, VPs, and managers. A-level emails push that to 8.0%, a 49% lift. ICs are one of the most responsive groups in the dataset.
What this means for technical ICs specifically: ICs care about tools that make their work better. Period. Not org strategy, not executive priorities, the thing they're hands-on with every day. If they manage cloud infrastructure, talk about cloud infrastructure. If they run security scans, talk about security scanning.
The tone should be the most casual and direct across the seniority ladder. Brevity, clarity, and relevance are what drive replies. Salesy tones and vague positioning are what kill them.
Important caveat: technical ICs often don't have buying authority. But they have massive influence. An engineer who says "we should look at this" to their manager carries more weight than a cold email to that same manager. Your goal is to start a technical conversation, not close a deal.
What to do
Keep it short. Really short. Reference something specific about their technical environment or workflow. Ask a question about how they're handling something today. Don't pitch — discover. Let your email signature and their curiosity do the selling.
What not to do
Don't talk about ROI or business outcomes (that's not how ICs think). Don't write long emails. Don't use marketing language. And don't be salesy, they can’t buy. Technical ICs don’t have time to manage this and will delete your email mid-sentence if it reads like a pitch.
You're an SDR at LaunchDarkly, emailing a Senior Software Engineer
You noticed they recently merged a PR on GitHub that included a homegrown feature toggle implementation.
Sam,
Saw the PR on the feature toggle setup. Looks like you're building it in-house.
Are you wrapping all releases in flags today or just the risky ones? Curious how you're handling the cleanup on stale flags.
Asking bc that's usually where homegrown setups start to get painful at scale.
Why it works:
Length: 47 words. Direct, technical, and 1:1.
Personalization: Referencing a specific GitHub PR is about as personalized as you can get with an engineer. It signals: I actually looked at your work, not your LinkedIn.
Tone: "Curious," "asking bc" — informal, peer-level. No corporate language. No pitch. The abbreviation "bc" makes it feel like a Slack message.
The CTA: Two genuine technical questions ("all releases or just risky ones?" and "how are you handling stale flag cleanup?") that invite a conversation between practitioners. It says "I know you're not the budget holder" without being condescending. The problem (homegrown pain at scale) and solution (LaunchDarkly) are implied — and would be reinforced by the email signature.
The throughline
Technical buyers are the hardest group to write cold emails to — not because they don't reply, but because the standard playbook for "good email" doesn't work the same way.
For most departments, writing a polished, well-structured email reliably produces more replies. For engineering and product, authenticity matters more than polish. If your email sounds like it was written by someone who actually understands the work, you'll get a reply. If it sounds like it was written by someone who Googled some keywords, you won't — no matter how well-formatted it is.
But what changes across the seniority ladder is the scope of the technical context you bring.
For a CTO or VP, it's about a company-level technical shift — a migration, a scaling challenge, a security posture change.
For a director, it's about the specific technical domain they own — their infrastructure, their product area, their security architecture.
For a manager, it's about the workflow tradeoffs they're navigating every week.
For an IC, it's about the tool, the repo, the config they're staring at today.
The tone stays direct throughout. But the depth and specificity shift. And proof needs to be technical, not just impressive — named customers matter less than relevant architectures, concrete metrics, and evidence that you understand the constraints they're operating under.
89% of emails landing in engineering and product inboxes don't earn an A grade. But for this group, earning that A isn't about polishing your writing. It's about proving you belong in the conversation.
That's how you earn a reply from someone who builds things for a living.
If you want to see the full benchmarking data across all departments, seniority levels, and industries, the Cold Email Benchmark Report is live.
And if you want to write emails like these — with real-time coaching adapted to your buyer — see what Lavender can do for you.
