ATL/BTL Messaging

ATL/BTL Messaging

When to activate

• Drafting cold outreach to a new account and you don't know the champion's seniority level yet
• You have an executive response and need to move to their direct reports for implementation buy-in
• Converting an ATL rejection or silence into a BTL multi-touch sequence
• Building tiered account sequences where ATL is the first touch, BTL is the follow-up
• You need to write the same value proposition at two different altitudes (e.g., CFO vs. Finance Manager)

When NOT to use

• Existing warm relationships — use their known communication style instead
• Passive prospects who've gone silent — this is not a re-engagement framework; use nurture cadence
• Mid-market flat hierarchies where C-suite and ICs are functionally equivalent
• When you already have a champion deeply embedded — move straight to BTL at that point
• Customer success or renewal messaging — those follow different psychology

---

Instructions

The Core Principle

ATL messaging is outcome + authority. BTL messaging is process + proof. Same problem, two different buyers.

Decision logic: Always try ATL first on cold accounts. If no response after 2 touches (separated by 5–7 days), shift to BTL. If you land an ATL champion, immediately map and pitch their directs BTL.

---

ATL Framework (C-Suite, VP, SVP)

Buyer psychology: Executives own the business outcome. They think in fiscal quarters and board-level metrics. They care about risk, competitive positioning, and reputation.

Message structure (under 60 words):

1. Opening: State the business problem as their problem, not your solution space

   • Format: "We've seen [Industry] companies lose [specific metric] when [competitive threat/market shift]"
   • Example: "We're seeing finance teams miss closing deadlines by 3–5 days due to manual reconciliation workflows"
   • Never open with "We built," "We help," or "Our platform"

2. Impact: One specific metric that matters to their board

   • Format: "[Metric] typically runs [current state] at companies like yours. The gap vs. [competitor/benchmark] is [X]%"
   • Example: "Your closest competitors are cutting month-end close from 7 days to 4. That's $2M+ in working capital freed up"
   • Avoid "improvement," "optimization," or "savings" — use concrete financial or operational language

3. CTA: Disarm with smallness

   • "Worth 15 minutes to map this to your specific situation?"
   • "Would you be open to a brief conversation with [Peer role] from [Comparable company]?"
   • "Could you point me to the right person to discuss this?"
   • Never: "Schedule a demo," "Have a conversation," "Learn more"

Subject line formula (ATL email):

• [Company name], [Outcome], [Timeframe]: [Metric outcome]
• Example: Goldman Sachs, Month-End Close, Q3 2026: 3-day acceleration
• Avoid: "Introducing," "New," "Quick question," product names

Tone markers:

• Peer-to-peer (assume competence)
• No hedging ("we think," "might," "could")
• No deference ("we'd love to," "we hope you'll")
• Specificity over warmth (data > relationship building)

---

BTL Framework (Managers, Team Leads, Individual Contributors)

Buyer psychology: Non-executives execute the work. They care about daily friction, skill gaps, and how much easier their life becomes. They're skeptical of hype but respond to specific workflow wins.

Message structure (80–120 words):

1. Opening: Name the specific task they do repetitively

   • Format: "If you're [specific workflow], you're probably [specific pain]"
   • Example: "If you're reconciling AR aging reports every month-end, you're probably spending 4–6 hours cross-referencing exceptions in Salesforce and your ERP"
   • Detail matters here — if they don't see themselves, the message is dead

2. Concrete change: How the workflow changes (not why it works)

   • Format: "Instead of [current steps], you'd [new steps]. That frees up [time] for [higher-value work]"
   • Example: "Instead of pulling Salesforce exports → opening CSV → sorting by AR bucket → cross-referencing against the ledger, you'd click one button and review only true exceptions. ~2 hours saved per cycle"
   • Include integrations by name (Salesforce, NetSuite, Postgres, etc.) if they're part of the pitch

3. Proof: Specific use case from a comparable team (not a testimonial)

   • Format: "Your peers at [Company, same role/size] went from [metric] to [metric] in [timeframe]"
   • Example: "The finance ops team at Stripe handles 3x the account volume but closes reconciliation 1 day faster because they automated the exception matching layer"
   • Real companies, real teams, real numbers

4. CTA: Offer to show, not to talk

   • "Happy to show you exactly how [specific workflow] would work for your team"
   • "I can put together a 15-minute walkthrough of how this plugs into your month-end routine"
   • "Could share a screen recording of how this works with your specific use case"
   • Never: "Have a chat," "See if this is right for you," "Discuss options"

Subject line formula (BTL email):

• [Their title/team], [specific workflow], [time saved]
• Example: Finance Ops, AR reconciliation, save 3–4 hours per close
• Avoid: "Quick question," "For your team," generic benefit language

Tone markers:

• Collegial, assumes shared workflow knowledge
• Practical, no marketing language
• Specific tools and integrations named
• Problem-forward (not solution-forward)

---

Switching Logic (Sequence Rules)

Rule 1: Cold Account, Unknown Contact

• Touch 1 (Day 1): ATL outreach to the executive
• Touch 2 (Day 5): ATL follow-up, slightly warmer
• Touch 3 (Day 12): Shift to BTL; email the director/manager equivalent instead
• Touch 4 (Day 19): BTL follow-up

Rule 2: ATL Response (Positive)

• Executive expressed interest or agreed to call
• After call: Immediately ask, "Who on your team owns [workflow]?" (identify the BTL champion)
• Send BTL email 2 days later to that person, referencing the exec: "Following up on my conversation with [Exec] last week"

Rule 3: ATL Response (Negative or Objection)

• If objection is "we already have a solution," shift to BTL with a "gap analysis" angle: "I'm curious how [Manager] has adapted to [specific limitation]?"
• If objection is "not a priority," do NOT persist ATL. Shift to BTL immediately with a lower-friction angle: "Wanted to flag this for your team in case they hit it during [next busy season]"

Rule 4: ATL No Response (Silence)

• After 2 ATL touches with no response, move to BTL cold
• Assume the exec is not the buyer; the operator is

Rule 5: Expansion (You Have an ATL Champion)

• You've landed the exec; they've verbally committed
• Send BTL emails to 2–3 functional leads (not their peers, their direct reports)
• BTL message structure: "Following up on [Exec Name]'s direction, I wanted to walk [Functional Lead] through how this specifically impacts [their workflow]"
• This is your expansion motion — the exec gave air cover; now you convert the executor

---

Common Traps and Fixes

Trap	Why It Fails	Fix
ATL email starts with "We built…"	Executives don't care about your build; they care about their outcome	Start with the outcome: "We've seen finance teams lose $X to late closes"
BTL email has no time estimate	Operators live in time; they need to know the payoff	Always quantify: "saves 3–4 hours per month-end"
Using the same language for ATL and BTL	ATL talks revenue/risk; BTL talks workflow/time	Rewrite completely — different keywords, structure, tone
BTL CTA is "let's chat"	Non-execs are skeptical of demos; they want proof first	Offer a screen share, a walkthrough, a 1-pager showing their specific workflow
Pitching ATL executive the same way you'd pitch BTL	You sound junior and detail-focused	Increase altitude: drop all technical specifics, lead with outcome
Assuming ATL rejection means no deal	Executives route you down; they don't shut you down themselves	After ATL silence, assume you need to reach BTL; don't repeat the ATL angle

---

Prompt Templates

Template 1: ATL Cold Email

Subject: [Company], [Outcome], [Timeframe]: [Metric]

Hi [First Name],

[Competitive threat or market shift in your industry]

We work with [Peer company/industry], and they typically [current state metric]. 
The gap vs. [benchmark or competitor] is [X]%.

Worth 15 minutes to map this to your situation?

[Your name]

Template 2: ATL Follow-Up (5 days later)

Subject: re: [Competitive threat]

Quick follow — wanted to flag that [additional specific metric or use case] 
often surfaces when we dig into [their business challenge].

If it's on your radar, happy to point you to [peer company example or benchmark report].

[Your name]

Template 3: BTL Cold Email

Subject: [Their title/team], [specific workflow], [time saved]

Hi [First Name],

If you're [specific repetitive task], you're probably [specific pain point]. 
A few of your peers at [Comparable company] told us they were spending [time] 
on [specific steps] every [frequency].

We helped them [concrete change: instead of X, now Y]. That freed up about [time] per [frequency].

Happy to show you exactly how that would work for your team — even just 15 minutes could clarify if it's a fit.

[Your name]

Template 4: BTL Follow-Up (7 days later)

Subject: [Their workflow] + [your tool]: [Concrete benefit]

Hi [First Name],

One more data point from [Comparable company]: when they [specific workflow change], 
they went from [metric A] to [metric B] in [timeframe].

Could put together a 3-slide walkthrough of how this would work with your specific [system/process].
Interested?

[Your name]

---

Benchmarks & Research

Cold response rates (typical SaaS B2B):

• ATL cold email (unsourced): 2–5% response
• ATL cold email (sourced, personalized): 8–15% response
• BTL cold email (warm title match): 12–25% response
• BTL cold email (warm pain match): 18–35% response

Time-to-first-meeting:

• ATL path (cold → response → meeting): 14–21 days
• BTL path (cold → response → meeting): 7–12 days
• ATL → BTL expansion (exec introduces direct report): 3–5 days

Conversion rate (cold → deal):

• Pure ATL (no BTL expansion): 1–3% of outbound
• ATL with BTL expansion: 8–15% of outbound
• BTL-only: 3–6% of outbound
• Reason: Executives open doors; operators close deals

---

Example

Scenario: Expense Management SaaS, Cold Outreach to Mid-Market Tech Company (500 employees)

Same value prop, two altitudes:

---

ATL Approach (CFO, VP Finance)

Subject line: TechCorp, finance close cycle, Q3 2026: Save 2 days per month-end

Email:

Hi Sarah,

We're seeing finance teams at mid-market tech companies spend 3–5 days reconciling 
corporate expenses against coding. Your closest competitors have automated that layer 
and freed up 2–3 FTEs' worth of manual work.

The gap is usually $200K–$500K in working capital acceleration over a fiscal year.

Worth 15 minutes to map this to TechCorp's close process?

[Your name]

Why this works ATL:

• Opens with competitive threat (not "we built")
• Quantifies financial impact ($200K–$500K, not "save time")
• Uses "working capital acceleration" (board language, not "efficiency")
• CTA is peer-to-peer, assumes competence
• Word count: 47 words

If CFO is silent 2x: Move to BTL.

---

BTL Approach (Finance Manager, Accounts Payable Lead)

Subject line: Finance Ops, expense coding, save 4 hours per month-end

Email:

Hi Marcus,

If you're manually matching corporate card expenses to cost codes every month-end, 
you're probably flagging ~2–3% of transactions that don't auto-match, then spending 
2–4 hours finding the right codes in your coding structure.

Your peers at [Comparable company, 400 people] told us they were doing the same. 
When they switched to rules-based matching (Amex data → your cost structure), 
they went from 85% auto-match to 98% auto-match. Freed up ~4 hours per close.

Happy to show you exactly how it works with your existing Amex setup and Netsuite. 
Could be 15 minutes.

[Your name]

Why this works BTL:

• Opens with their specific task (expense matching, not "finance operations")
• Names the exact pain (finding codes, quantifies time lost)
• Shows proof from a comparable team (not a client success story)
• Includes integrations by name (Amex, NetSuite)
• Concrete before-and-after (85% → 98% auto-match)
• CTA is "show you," not "discuss"
• Word count: 105 words

Expected motion:

• If Marcus responds, he's your BTL champion
• Ask: "Who else on your team codes AP?" → Find the AP clerk (ICs) and send them ultra-specific BTL
• If Marcus is silent, his manager hasn't given air cover; go back ATL to CFO

---

Scenario 2: Data Pipeline Infrastructure, ATL Gets Executive Buy-In

Starting point: You've had a 20-minute call with the VP of Engineering. She said, "This could work. Talk to my data lead about integration complexity."

ATL call outcome:

"Our data infrastructure is fragile. When it breaks, we lose 6–8 hours of 
analytics visibility. My data lead is [Name], [email]. He should probably 
dig into whether this integrates cleanly with our stack."

Next move: Send BTL to the data lead (with ATL context)

Subject line: Data Lead, [Company], analytics pipeline + [Your tool]: integration spec

Email:

Hi [Data Lead Name],

Following up on my conversation with [VP Name] last week. She mentioned your 
data pipeline sometimes goes dark when [specific failure mode], and analytics 
teams have to manually rebuild queries for ~6+ hours.

We've worked with teams at [Comparable company, similar stack] who run 
[Your tool] → Kafka → Snowflake. They went from manual recovery (6–8 hours) 
to automated failover (15 minutes, 99.2% uptime).

I know integrations are the real question. Could walk you through the connector 
spec and how it fits your specific [system names] — 20 minutes, and you'd know 
if it's even worth engineering cycles.

Sound useful?

[Your name]

Why this works as ATL→BTL expansion:

• Opens by referencing the ATL champion (gives credibility)
• Stays technical (names Kafka, Snowflake — this person cares)
• Proof is from a comparable company with a similar stack
• CTA is "walk through the spec" (not a demo, not a chat)
• Addresses the actual gating question (integration complexity)
• Word count: 110 words, appropriate for technical depth

Expected outcome: Data lead either:

1. Says "yes, let's explore" → You've converted BTL champion
2. Says "no, our stack doesn't fit" → You've qualified out (good, saves time)
3. Says "interesting, but let me spec it" → You've moved from "early conversations" to "engineering validation"

All three are wins compared to generic "let's chat" outreach.

---

Key Takeaways from Examples

1. ATL is 40–60 words; BTL is 100–120 words. Executives skim; operators read details.
2. ATL mentions outcome once; BTL mentions workflow 3+ times. Different buyers, different reps.
3. ATL proof is market/competitive benchmarks; BTL proof is "peers with your exact stack." Different trust models.
4. ATL CTA is "worth 15 minutes?"; BTL CTA is "show you" or "spec it." Different comfort levels with time commitment.
5. When ATL succeeds, immediately go BTL to the exec's direct report. That's expansion — do not repeat the ATL pitch.