What's up, it's Zayd.

When people talk about the cost of spray-and-pray outbound, they talk about deliverability. Spam rates. Bounce rates. The dreaded "Your emails are landing in the Promotions Tab" notices. And sure, being sifted away sucks, but the drama is totally unproportional. That's like saying the cost of smoking is that your clothes smell weird. Technically true, but…I feel like we’re missing something here?

Before Valley, I ran two appointment-setting agencies with teams spread across the world. I've seen every warm-up trick, every inbox rotation, every domain farm and sub-domain contortion there is. I paid my dues at the outbound circus. And the thing I can tell you with complete certainty is this: the week your sends go to spam isn't the problem. What that week does to the next two years of your company is.

Most founders treat outbound volume like a dial they can turn up and down, but I think it’s more like a one-way door (or like those spikes that pop up in parking garages, you know what I mean).

Today I want to walk through the four taxes you're actually paying when you "just send a little more."

Forwarded this email? Get Enabled in your inbox each week.

My favorite finds of the week

Email providers don't forget. Google doesn't forget. Outlook doesn't forget. Once your domain has been flagged enough times, you don't get "untagged" next quarter because you cleaned up your list.

What founders miss is that the damage isn't linear. You can spend 18 months building domain health, blow it in two weeks of bad sends, and spend another 18 months trying to dig back out (if you can at all).

I've watched companies abandon their primary domain entirely after a couple of aggressive quarters because it was genuinely cheaper to buy a new domain, warm it up from scratch, and rebuild their sender reputation from zero than to rehabilitate the one they had.

Think about that for a sec. The "cost" of those 10K sends was a full rebrand of their outbound infrastructure.

This is the one almost nobody models.

If you send a bad outbound email to 10,000 people in your ICP, somewhere between 2 and 5 percent of them will open it, feel something mildly negative, and move on. That sounds fine…?

Unfortunately, not really.

You just seeded 200 to 500 people in your exact target market with the impression that your company is a company that spams. They'll mention it in Slack groups. They'll screenshot it. When your name comes up in a vendor review meeting nine months from now, one of those 200 people will go "oh yeah, those guys hit me with one of those…" and the conversation moves on.

So sure, maybe you didn't lose a sale in the moment, but you did PRE-lose future sales you didn't know you had.

The B2B world is small. A founder's network is maybe 500 people. A CMO's network is maybe 1,000. You hit their inbox badly once, you're done with them and everyone they talk to about this kind of purchase for the rest of your company's life.

This is the big one.

At some point, every company that wants to grow up needs to run a premium, consultative, low-volume motion. You want to sell to enterprise. You want to land the logo everyone else wants. You want to be the brand prospects reference when they talk about "good outbound."

You cannot do that motion from a company that's known for spray-and-pray. It is functionally impossible. The reputation you build in your first 18 months calcifies. If you train the market to think of you as "the cheap automated email shop," no amount of rebranding makes buyers think of you as "the trusted partner."

There are plenty of public examples of companies that got categorized early in a volume-first bucket and have been fighting to escape it ever since. Outbound sends are ultimately a brand positioning choice. Every message you send is a vote for who your company is in the market.

This one is the quietest and, honestly, maybe the most expensive.

Good AEs talk to each other. Great ones talk to each other a lot. If your company develops a reputation as a spam shop, the top 10% of sales talent — the people who could actually build the motion you want — will not join you. They'll take the same base and commission at a competitor who looks like they give a damn about how their outbound lands.

You will still be able to hire. You will hire from the 50-75th percentile of the talent pool. Which is fine, until you realize that your product is being sold, demoed, and represented to every prospect you've ever emailed by a team that was selected from a filtered pool because the top filter excluded you.

The math of this one is brutal. A great AE closes at roughly 2-3x the rate of a mediocre AE on the same book. So your "cost" of being a spam shop is a permanent cap on your close rate, because the people who could have unlocked it chose somewhere else.

Examples of the best performing LinkedIn outreach messages:

I'm not going to pretend this newsletter is unbiased. Valley exists because I believe small-batch, hyper-personalized outbound is the only way to build a brand you'd actually want to have in five years. Our customers send fewer messages than their competitors, not more, and they book more meetings doing it.

But set the product pitch aside. The argument I want to leave you with is simpler:

Every outbound send is a small, permanent bet on your company's long-term positioning. The real cost is everything downstream from the campaign itself. It’s the domain you can't recover, the buyers you've already lost, the motion you can't run, and the team you can't hire.

If you zoom out and model it honestly, the unit economics of spray-and-pray actively work against you, compounding, for years.

Volume feels like the path of least resistance. It's almost always the most expensive path you can take.