A few months ago, I was catching up with Rebecca.

Rebecca had already built a diagnostics platform with early clinical validation, a strong scientific advisory board, and a clear regulatory path.

She'd done her homework on investors, built an initial target list of 100 funds that seemed like strong fits, and started her outreach.

After 1-2 weeks of outreach, she gathered her response rate:

Two replies, both polite passes.

When she showed me what she'd been sending, I understood why.

The emails weren't bad, per se. They were professional, the science was explained clearly, and the deck was solid. But as I read through them, I noticed a pattern.

The messages were just generic. Not in an obvious, sloppy way, but in subtle ways that added up.

There was no reference to what the fund had actually invested in, no mention of why she thought the firm partners would be a good fit.. nothing that signaled “I'm reaching out to you specifically because of X”

It read like the same blurb sent to 40 different funds - because, well, it was.

There was also no momentum. No mention of how much of the round was committed. No timeline for the close. No recent milestone or traction update.

There was no reason for an investor to think “Crap, I need to look at this now before I miss it”

The opportunity felt evergreen - like it would always be there, patiently waiting.

And her follow-ups?

“Just wanted to bump this to the top of your inbox”

“Checking in to see if you had a chance to review”

There was no new information, no update, and no value added. Just... another ask.

Here's the thing: none of this was a glaring mistake. Any one of these issues on its own might not sink your chances of getting a proper response.

But together? They compound.

Each one makes it slightly easier for an investor to deprioritize your email, move on to the next thing, and never circle back.

The irony is that Rebecca was offering something valuable.

She was sharing a strong company with investors whose literal job is to find deals like hers.

But the way she framed the outreach didn't convey that. It felt like she was asking for permission rather than offering an opportunity.

Now, allow me to go off-script a bit.

I get it: If you're reading this, you likely have years, if not decades, of advanced training and education behind you.

You might be thinking: I'm not here to do LinkedIn marketing or tweak messages for response rates. I'm a scientist, not a salesperson.

And I'd be the first one to agree with you.

But here's the reality: whether in biotech or not, in 2026, we all live in an attention economy.

We live in a world that’s in permanent information overload.

Every day, as “civilians”, we're inundated with texts, DMs, news updates, to-do lists, calendar invites, work demands, family, personal lives... the list never ends.

And for professional VCs? Multiply that a hundredfold.

They're fielding constant inbound from new companies, putting out fires at portfolio companies, managing LP relationships, sitting on boards, attending conferences, reviewing decks, taking partner meetings - honestly, I don't know how they do it.

So, this isn't about the latest email marketing hack. It's not about being “salesy.”

It's about showing up for your science in a way that can cut through the noise - and in a way that your science truly deserves.

And in truth, if you’re like Rebecca, you’re not alone. These are exactly the kinds of patterns I see when I audit how founders reach out to investors.

Today, I want to make sure you can spot these mistakes in your own outreach - and have a clear way to fix them.

But before we get into the specific mistakes, I want to share a mental model that changed how I think about investor relationships - and outreach in particular.