"Intro replies need to be timely. If you’re the one being introduced, it’s your job to reply, and now. If the person you’re being introduced to replies first, you’ve lost the game."
So true. Don't half ass it. If you are being introduced to someone then most likely their time is valuable. Why would they bother with you if you don't show them you value them?
What I find most interesting is that this reached the frontpage. I've never actually had people (a) not respond to intros quickly, or (b) not been appreciative.
I actually wrote this because I've given several intros in the last month where the person I introduced never replied. Then I get an email from the person I introduced them to a few days later saying "What's up with that?".
If it's laziness on the part of the person being introduced, then it's pretty bad and you should stop doing favors for that person. However, I've had situations where the person being introduced simply didn't realize the ball was in their court. A quick message to that person should do the trick; "Hope this helps! You should follow-up with John as soon as you can."
It is not always a problem, but it definitely occurs more often than I'd like. I don't want to look like a fool if I am trying to help someone out with an intro to one of my connections and they leave them high and dry. It depreciates my "stamp of approval" with intros for people and tends to put you one the wrong side of the recommendation pool.
It does happen, and not even from people with malice. Smart people, who haven't done a lot of this before, sometimes assume it isn't a big deal. It is, and they learn that, but it takes time. On occasion, I've been the person they 'learned on' and it sucks.
I've been introduced to a few people recently (because someone asked the person who knows me about me) and I haven't replied. Why am I obligated to do so?
It seems obvious to those who've been doing it all along, but everyone has to learn "common knowledge" at some point. I learned from seeing how other people do it (when I was being intro'd), but this would have been helpful at that time.
Also, I've found that people outside the startup/tech world are less likely to know about this protocol. For example, introducing a graphic designer to a business person never goes as smoothly for me as introducing one techie to another.
Too much of intro etiquette is about personal taste, and there have been dozens of posts on this subject. Ultimately, I just with the author had led with the conclusion, which I believe is the most important part:
"Overall, just be timely, use proper grammar, and don’t abuse the intro supplier’s generosity and you’ll be head and shoulders above the majority."
One thing missing here: Ask the "target" person before lobbing an introduction into their inbox.
Intros aren't always welcome - the target could be busy, traveling or have a conflict of interest. They may not be in a position to give that person time, however helpful they would like to be. When the supplier assumes the introduction is okay, they can put both sides of the intro in a tough spot.
I disagree with this in 9/10 cases. If you're so busy you can't take 15 minutes to chat with someone who comes from outside your network, you're doing something wrong. Get over yourself, take the intro and try to be classy about it.
The 1/10 case would be intros to people who are either in a position where they likely receive dozens of emails from folks they don't know every day (e.g., VCs) or folks with enough name recognition to be in that same spot (e.g., famous people you might know).
You might jeopardize your relationship with the person in that case, but for most of your friends and pretty much anyone reading this comment, you're better off being open instead of self-important.
This perspective asks too much of everyone. If I want to make an intro to you, it's because I think it's helpful. It's the opposite of disrespect.
To then place the additional burden on me of checking in with you first is, in my mind, just cocky. Not my job to know your schedule, and how about respecting the fact that I'm trying to help?
People who insist on pre-introductions are vastly overestimating how much others should be thinking about them or "respecting their time," which is actually no one else's business. Responsible adults can handle the additional burden of someone trying to help.
I don't think people have a huge issue with blind introductions when it's clear that the intention is to help them. I suspect most of the issue is when the benefit to them is unclear / dubious / highly theoretical - when the benefit is more clearly going to the introducer or the person to whom you're being introduced.
OK, so I'll add some context, you tell me what you think. I have almost 20 years experience in 2 very niche fields (consumer electronics and TV technologies). As a result, I've built up a lot of domain expertise and a lot of industry contacts. Again - no judgement here on whether I'm good or not, just stating some facts.
I frequently get emails from people introducing me to "Bob" who is starting a hardware startup and really wants to learn how to bring a gadget to market. For me, this is fun - I love to talk about this stuff. I've mentored/nurtured/consulted for dozens of these startups, and continue to do so to this day.
BUT - I'm also running a startup and have a family at home. Which means I have much, much less time available than I used to. So every "Fun" activity I choose to take takes away from either my work time or my personal time. This is fine - as long as I can manage it. Which I do. Until requests show up uninvited. Which now puts, as I've said, a burden in my lap.
I can choose to either (A) reply and take on the intro, (B) reply and decline (as politely as I possibly can), or (C) ignore it. So I never do (C), as I feel it's rude, but I can guarantee you that every time I do (B) I create a negative perception about myself.
I don't like being put in a position where I have to tell other people - who genuinely could use my help - that I am too busy for them. But what else am I supposed to do?
Whereas when my colleague asks if I'm up for an intro, and I can say no to someone who I already have a relationship with, and will understand me, is fine to me.
Maybe you think the above is wrong, but I don't...
> If you're so busy you can't take 15 minutes to chat with someone who comes from outside your network, you're doing something wrong
I'm not busy, I just don't want to. I don't want to hear about your startup. I don't want to hear about how great of an opportunity working for it is. I want to read a book, go running, or hang out with my friends.
This is a tough one. The challenge with doing this is it greatly increases the work involved, and increases the chance that something gets dropped.
I try to balance it by including everyone on the first note if I can satisfy one of the criterias:
- It would be plausible for them to know each other, and they are of similar status.
- One of them is in the job of taking these intros. (Recruiters, etc)
- I'm 95% sure that they'll hit it off immediately.
This is, far and away, the cleanest and most useful summary of what I believe to be perfect intro etiquette I've ever seen. If everyone did this, the startup world (at least) would be a much better place.
This is missing a HUGE aspect of intro etiquette - DOUBLE OPT-IN, almost all the time (and if you aren't sure, then it's ALL the time). If you want your contacts to be worth something, be respectful of them.
Here's my "workflow"
1. Intro request comes from Bob who wants to meet Jim
2. I review Bob's email, make sure it's short and to the point, and includes WHY it's a request. If I don't think it hits the money, send feedback and recommend edits to Bob. Wait for acceptable email - which must be its own, NEW & clean email. [edited for clarity: i inform Bob that I will send him whatever he writes to Jim, thus allowing him to position himself/his need/the opportunity in his own words]
3. I forward Bob's entire good email to Jim, which includes MY take on the matter (I think Bob's a great guy, or I am not familiar with Bob's company, but we've worked together before and he's worth meeting, or whatever).
4. If, AND ONLY IF, I get a reply from Jim agreeing to the intro, do I continue forward. But if Jim says he doesn't want the intro, I politely decline back to Bob.
Personally, I hate it when someone dumps an intro in my lap - it just isn't courteous or respectful in my opinion.
i agree, that if there was a single person to provide feedback to, i would. but compare that with a fairly consistent stream of "hey, help this person out" emails, and I think you'd come to the same eventual conclusion...
curious - how many different people have sent you favor requests?
I get about 10 intros a week. 80% come from the top 2 people, David Crow at OMERS and Zak Homuth from Upverter (a YC company). I consistently meet amazing people. There were a couple people that used to intro me, but I've asked them to stop politely.
maybe i'm missing something here - are you the one looking to meet people, or are you already full-time working? if its the former, then of course you want all the intro's you can take! let's agree that if you are out looking to meet people, then you most certainly want every intro possible - but my take on it is if you want the most effective intro's, they are double opt-in...
This is one of two common intro styles I've seen: "pessimistic" introducing instead of "optimistic." I've found the former to be more prevalent among technical types and the latter among salesy types. I suspect it's related to the standard quality vs. quantity trade off.
i wouldn't call it "pessimistic" at all. i think of it as respectful or not, that's it. someone who thinks i have all the time in the world to help everyone else, no matter my job or personal requirements, is simply not thinking about my time. i love helping others out, but i don't think it's right to burden another person with your favor (yes, i said burden - even if i want to help someone, it's still a burden as it has impact on my schedule, typically negative - doesn't mean i don't want to do it, but it should still be considered that way...
I think "pessimistic / optimistic" was meant in the computing sense, rather than the colloquial. But I completely agree that double opt-in is the way to go - if the person you're asking feels burdened by the double opt-in, they can just tell you to do a direct intro in the future.
I understand how you perceive it as a burden, but optimistic introducers tend to see them as opportunities instead.
I'm not saying you're wrong or that one is better than the other (presumably it depends on context). I'm just exploring the different styles to understand them better.
Edit: I do disagree with your framing of respectful vs. disrespectful in the general case. With engineers specifically, it is probably true, though, and a good rule of thumb to apply.
So it's respectful to forward someone's entire email verbatim without their permission, to talk about said person behind his back, and to spread a simple email introduction over four time-consuming emails instead of two? But it's NOT respectful to just, like, quickly and painlessly introduce the people and assume if it's unwanted it will be ignored like all unwanted email?
I'm not saying your technique is definitely WRONG, but I am saying you shouldn't assume it's superior.
when did i "judge others"? seriously? before this becomes some weird ad hominem thing, let's leave it with: go do your intros however you'd like, and good luck in life, i really don't care that much about this yet still feel i'm entitled to my opinion, thanks.
You don't have to forward anything - you can just shoot a quick email to the person and say "Hey, I was talking to _____, who is trying to _____. I thought you might be a good person for him to talk to because _______. He might also be good to know because _______. Do you mind if I make an introduction?"
true - sometimes i do that - but often i might not get some of the nuance of what person 1 does as well as they would have described. i've found that it's much harder to recover from incorrect perceptions/assumptions than it is to get them right the first time...
again, i care most about the double opt-in part - the rest is just my method. there are many ways to do it right. :)
So it's respectful to [...] talk about said person behind his back
----------
Sure. If you honestly respect them, then your words will portray that respect. If you don't respect them, then you maybe oughtnt to be making the intro in the first place.
I use double opt in if there's only a one-way benefit but this happens rarely, maybe 10% of the intros. Usually, when I'm introing, I try to find mutual benefit and state it clearly in the email.
I find these intros both easier to write (since it's not an expenditure of social capital on my part) and, generally, way more appreciated by both parties.
I love the contrast between the super informal language of the intro and the apparently tremendous potential social cost the intro implies. It's like covering an M-16 with Hello Kitty stickers. Has anyone written a novel of manners for Silicon Valley?
Well, I guess I have some terrible flavor of social anxiety or something, because it often takes me half an hour or more of ugh to compose even a short reply if I'm introduced to someone, so this ends up being a huge boulder in my todo list. I suppose if people take this attitude in response the situation will simply resolve itself.
I used to feel that way sometimes but I ended up fixing it by mechanizing the process to a significant extent (note: I still write each one out completely by hand without any template but I know the main points I want to hit).
Whenever an intro comes in, I divide it into one of a few buckets and immediately send a mostly rote email back quickly:
* Highly interested - schedule a F2F or phone meeting within in the next week, suggest two dates to discuss more ("Wow, that sounds cool, would love to catch up in person to discuss more, are you available X or Y? I'm based in A but willing to travel anywhere around B")
* Kinda interested, being polite - suggest a phone meeting and strongly time box it ("This sounds potentially interesting. I can do a 15 minute call at X before my next appointment)
* Non-commital - Ask for more info, put the onus on the other party. ("Hey, would love to hear more about this, can you forward me X & Y so I can get a better understanding of how I can be helpful?")
* Useless - Polite brushoff ("Hey, I took a look and I don't think I'm the right person to help you with this for X & Y reason. Maybe you could try A & B? Thanks")
I think the key was to not put so much onus on the next step. By the end of the intro, I barely have any info, my main goal is to gather more to make a decision.
2 - "but if someone I intro doesn’t reply before the intro-ee does, they’re going to have a hard time getting another one from me. Ever." I've never heard this before, and am not even sure it's remotely reasonable.
Agreed on #2. My rule of thumb is to respond within 24 hours. If the intro-ee responds quicker, no biggie.
On the flip side, when I'm the intro-ee, I don't really care. I'm almost never the one to reply first, but if someone takes a week to respond, whatever.
54 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 116 ms ] threadSo true. Don't half ass it. If you are being introduced to someone then most likely their time is valuable. Why would they bother with you if you don't show them you value them?
What I find most interesting is that this reached the frontpage. I've never actually had people (a) not respond to intros quickly, or (b) not been appreciative.
Have you guys had issues with this?
Just embarrassing.
Also, I've found that people outside the startup/tech world are less likely to know about this protocol. For example, introducing a graphic designer to a business person never goes as smoothly for me as introducing one techie to another.
"Overall, just be timely, use proper grammar, and don’t abuse the intro supplier’s generosity and you’ll be head and shoulders above the majority."
Intros aren't always welcome - the target could be busy, traveling or have a conflict of interest. They may not be in a position to give that person time, however helpful they would like to be. When the supplier assumes the introduction is okay, they can put both sides of the intro in a tough spot.
The 1/10 case would be intros to people who are either in a position where they likely receive dozens of emails from folks they don't know every day (e.g., VCs) or folks with enough name recognition to be in that same spot (e.g., famous people you might know).
You might jeopardize your relationship with the person in that case, but for most of your friends and pretty much anyone reading this comment, you're better off being open instead of self-important.
To then place the additional burden on me of checking in with you first is, in my mind, just cocky. Not my job to know your schedule, and how about respecting the fact that I'm trying to help?
People who insist on pre-introductions are vastly overestimating how much others should be thinking about them or "respecting their time," which is actually no one else's business. Responsible adults can handle the additional burden of someone trying to help.
I frequently get emails from people introducing me to "Bob" who is starting a hardware startup and really wants to learn how to bring a gadget to market. For me, this is fun - I love to talk about this stuff. I've mentored/nurtured/consulted for dozens of these startups, and continue to do so to this day.
BUT - I'm also running a startup and have a family at home. Which means I have much, much less time available than I used to. So every "Fun" activity I choose to take takes away from either my work time or my personal time. This is fine - as long as I can manage it. Which I do. Until requests show up uninvited. Which now puts, as I've said, a burden in my lap.
I can choose to either (A) reply and take on the intro, (B) reply and decline (as politely as I possibly can), or (C) ignore it. So I never do (C), as I feel it's rude, but I can guarantee you that every time I do (B) I create a negative perception about myself.
I don't like being put in a position where I have to tell other people - who genuinely could use my help - that I am too busy for them. But what else am I supposed to do?
Whereas when my colleague asks if I'm up for an intro, and I can say no to someone who I already have a relationship with, and will understand me, is fine to me.
Maybe you think the above is wrong, but I don't...
Looking forward to your reply.
I'm not busy, I just don't want to. I don't want to hear about your startup. I don't want to hear about how great of an opportunity working for it is. I want to read a book, go running, or hang out with my friends.
I try to balance it by including everyone on the first note if I can satisfy one of the criterias: - It would be plausible for them to know each other, and they are of similar status. - One of them is in the job of taking these intros. (Recruiters, etc) - I'm 95% sure that they'll hit it off immediately.
This is, far and away, the cleanest and most useful summary of what I believe to be perfect intro etiquette I've ever seen. If everyone did this, the startup world (at least) would be a much better place.
[EDIT] I do, however, agree with this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7380538
This is missing a HUGE aspect of intro etiquette - DOUBLE OPT-IN, almost all the time (and if you aren't sure, then it's ALL the time). If you want your contacts to be worth something, be respectful of them.
Here's my "workflow"
1. Intro request comes from Bob who wants to meet Jim
2. I review Bob's email, make sure it's short and to the point, and includes WHY it's a request. If I don't think it hits the money, send feedback and recommend edits to Bob. Wait for acceptable email - which must be its own, NEW & clean email. [edited for clarity: i inform Bob that I will send him whatever he writes to Jim, thus allowing him to position himself/his need/the opportunity in his own words]
3. I forward Bob's entire good email to Jim, which includes MY take on the matter (I think Bob's a great guy, or I am not familiar with Bob's company, but we've worked together before and he's worth meeting, or whatever).
4. If, AND ONLY IF, I get a reply from Jim agreeing to the intro, do I continue forward. But if Jim says he doesn't want the intro, I politely decline back to Bob.
Personally, I hate it when someone dumps an intro in my lap - it just isn't courteous or respectful in my opinion.
curious - how many different people have sent you favor requests?
I'm not saying you're wrong or that one is better than the other (presumably it depends on context). I'm just exploring the different styles to understand them better.
Edit: I do disagree with your framing of respectful vs. disrespectful in the general case. With engineers specifically, it is probably true, though, and a good rule of thumb to apply.
I'm not saying your technique is definitely WRONG, but I am saying you shouldn't assume it's superior.
and no, unwanted email coming from someone i value the relationship with carries negativity and tarnishes my relationship.
To each his own, it doesn't get me personally exercised, but I don't think you've got much leg to stand on judging others.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, where did I say otherwise?
again, i care most about the double opt-in part - the rest is just my method. there are many ways to do it right. :)
----------
Sure. If you honestly respect them, then your words will portray that respect. If you don't respect them, then you maybe oughtnt to be making the intro in the first place.
I find these intros both easier to write (since it's not an expenditure of social capital on my part) and, generally, way more appreciated by both parties.
Whenever an intro comes in, I divide it into one of a few buckets and immediately send a mostly rote email back quickly:
* Highly interested - schedule a F2F or phone meeting within in the next week, suggest two dates to discuss more ("Wow, that sounds cool, would love to catch up in person to discuss more, are you available X or Y? I'm based in A but willing to travel anywhere around B")
* Kinda interested, being polite - suggest a phone meeting and strongly time box it ("This sounds potentially interesting. I can do a 15 minute call at X before my next appointment)
* Non-commital - Ask for more info, put the onus on the other party. ("Hey, would love to hear more about this, can you forward me X & Y so I can get a better understanding of how I can be helpful?")
* Useless - Polite brushoff ("Hey, I took a look and I don't think I'm the right person to help you with this for X & Y reason. Maybe you could try A & B? Thanks")
I think the key was to not put so much onus on the next step. By the end of the intro, I barely have any info, my main goal is to gather more to make a decision.
2 - "but if someone I intro doesn’t reply before the intro-ee does, they’re going to have a hard time getting another one from me. Ever." I've never heard this before, and am not even sure it's remotely reasonable.
On the flip side, when I'm the intro-ee, I don't really care. I'm almost never the one to reply first, but if someone takes a week to respond, whatever.