How-to
The Forwardable Brief: What to Give Your Connector So They Can Introduce You
Connectors agree to make introductions every day. Most of them never follow through, not because they are unreliable, but because the requester handed them a task instead of a tool. The forwardable brief is the document that changes this: a pre-written, instantly-sendable introduction the connector can forward with a single decision.
Most failed introductions share the same cause. The connector said yes. The requester said thank you. Then a week passed, and nothing happened. Not because the connector is unreliable, but because the requester left them with a task that requires drafting, and drafting is what gets deprioritised when the calendar fills up.
The ask "Would you be willing to introduce me to Sarah?" is a commitment to a future action that has not started yet. It lives in the connector’s mental queue, competing with everything else they have to do. The ask "Here is a short paragraph you can forward to Sarah if it sounds right to you" is something the connector can act on in thirty seconds. Those two situations produce different outcomes with the same connector and the same relationship.
The document that makes the second ask possible is called a forwardable brief. It is not a pitch deck. It is not a long email. It is a short, carefully written paragraph (or, for higher-stakes introductions, a two-page summary) that the connector can send verbatim or with minor additions. Writing it well is a learnable skill, and the conversion rate difference between connectors who have one and connectors who do not is significant enough that it is worth treating as a standard part of every introduction request.
Two formats for two situations
A forwardable brief comes in two formats, and choosing the right one depends on the stakes of the introduction and the strength of the connector’s relationship with the recipient.
The forwardable blurb is the default. It is eighty to one hundred and twenty words, covers the three elements described below, and is designed to be forwarded by email or copied into a LinkedIn message with a single decision from the connector. It works whenever the connector knows the recipient personally (a former colleague, a client, a classmate) and the introduction is to set up a first conversation.
The forwardable one-pager is for higher-stakes situations: an introduction to an investor, a senior executive, or a key business partner where the connector is staking some of their professional reputation on the quality of what they send. It includes everything in the blurb plus a specific proof point (a customer name or metric), a section on why the timing is relevant now, and contact information. It travels as a link, not an attachment, to a short web page or PDF that the connector can share alongside their personal note.
For most introductions, the blurb is enough. The one-pager is an escalation for situations where the connector is doing more than making an introduction: they are effectively making a recommendation.
The three elements of a strong blurb
A forwardable blurb has three elements. All three must be present; any one of them missing makes the blurb harder to forward and less likely to produce a response.
1. Who you are (one sentence)
Name, company, and what the company does, framed around the outcome it delivers, not the category it belongs to. "I run [Company], which helps mid-market SaaS teams shorten their sales cycles using warm introductions" is more useful than "I run [Company], a B2B sales enablement platform." The connector needs to know what to tell the recipient in one breath if they reach out to check before forwarding. The recipient needs to know instantly whether this is relevant to them. Both tests are passed by a concrete outcome sentence; neither is passed by a product-category label.
2. Why this specific person should care (tied to their world)
This is the element most blurbs get wrong. Generic value propositions ("we help companies grow revenue" or "our product saves time") do not give the recipient a reason to respond. The connector cannot vouch for a claim they cannot evaluate, and the recipient does not know what the claim means for them specifically. The fix is a prospect-specific hook: something in their company, role, recent hire, announcement, or stated priority that makes the relevance concrete. "I saw that [Company] just expanded their UK team and cold outreach in a new market is one of the hardest problems in that phase" is not a pitch; it is a reason. It tells the recipient that the person reaching out did actual research, and it tells the connector exactly why this introduction makes sense for both sides.
3. A low-friction ask (not a demo)
The ask in a forwardable blurb should be the smallest reasonable next step. A thirty-minute call to exchange perspectives is lower friction than a forty-five-minute product demo. A specific question ("I’d love to hear how you’re currently handling X") is lower friction than a general introduction to the company. The lower the friction, the more often the recipient says yes, and saying yes to a small step is what creates the relationship that eventually produces the outcome you want. Demo requests in a first message are high friction because they require the recipient to commit to two things simultaneously: that they want to take the call, and that they have a problem your product solves. Most recipients prefer to decide those things in sequence.
A worked example: "I run LetsBridge, which helps B2B sales teams replace cold outreach with warm introductions by matching them with trusted connectors who have genuine relationships at the accounts they are trying to reach. I noticed that [Company] recently expanded into the UK market, and getting access to the right decision-makers in a new geography is one of the hardest parts of that phase. Would [Prospect] be open to a brief call to exchange perspectives on how teams are solving this?" Three elements, one hundred and nine words, specific enough to evaluate, light enough to forward.
The ten-second readiness test
Before sending any forwardable brief to a connector, apply one test: read it aloud once and ask whether the connector could forward it verbatim, right now, without changing a single word.
If the answer is no, the reason is almost always one of three things. The brief assumes context the recipient does not have (it refers to a conversation, a product feature, or a relationship that the recipient has no way of knowing about). It contains language that sounds like the requester wrote it for themselves rather than for the recipient (jargon, superlatives, or claims the connector cannot personally verify). Or it asks the recipient to do something significant (attend a demo, review a proposal) before they have decided they are interested.
A brief that passes the test is one the connector can put their name on without editing. That is the bar. Anything that requires the connector to become an editor is, in practice, an introduction that will not happen.
When to escalate to a one-pager
Three situations warrant a fuller brief rather than a short blurb. In each case, the connector is being asked to do more than pass a message: they are being asked to make a recommendation, which requires them to have enough material to form and express a view.
When the connector is one degree removed from the recipient
A forwardable blurb assumes the connector knows the recipient well enough to make a personal recommendation. When the connector knows someone who knows the recipient (a friend of a colleague, rather than a direct colleague), a fuller brief is useful because the middleman needs enough context to decide whether making the introduction is worth their social capital. A one-pager that covers what you do, who you have helped (two or three named examples or a relevant case study), and a specific ask gives the intermediary the material they need to make a judgment. A two-sentence blurb gives them nothing to evaluate.
When the introduction is to an investor or senior decision-maker
Investors and senior executives are asked for introductions constantly, and the people who introduce them to founders or vendors are often evaluated in part on the quality of what they forward. A connector who introduces a founder using a two-sentence blurb is asking the investor to do research before deciding whether to respond. A connector who forwards a brief that includes the company’s traction, a specific investor thesis fit, and a three-sentence explanation of why this is relevant now is making a recommendation that the investor can act on immediately. The one-pager reduces the work for everyone and increases the probability that the investor responds. That reflects well on the connector, which makes them more likely to make the introduction in the first place.
When the deal is high-value and the connector is staking their reputation
Some introductions carry more social weight than others. A connector who introduces a vendor to their most important client, or a founder to a board member they respect, is staking some of their professional reputation on the quality of what they send. In these situations, the connector will almost always want to add a personal note before forwarding, but the one-pager gives them a foundation to build on. It signals that you take the introduction seriously, that you have thought carefully about why it is relevant to the recipient, and that the connector will not be embarrassed by what arrives in the other person’s inbox.
In each of these situations, the one-pager is not just helpful for the recipient. It is helpful for the connector, because it reduces the amount of personal judgment they have to apply before forwarding. The blurb is what you trust someone to send when they know you. The one-pager is what you give someone when the stakes mean they need to know what they are vouching for.
Five mistakes that prevent introductions from happening
Most forwardable briefs that fail do so for predictable reasons. Five patterns account for the majority of introductions that were agreed to and never made.
1. Leaving the writing to the connector
The most common failure is asking for an introduction without providing anything to forward. "Would you be willing to introduce me to Sarah?" is not a request the connector can act on in thirty seconds. It is a task that requires them to sit down, find Sarah’s contact details, draft an explanation of who you are and why Sarah should meet you, and send it. Most connectors who intend to do this do not do it, not because they forgot and not because they do not want to help, but because the task enters their mental to-do list, where it competes with everything else, and never rises to the top. Providing a forwardable blurb changes the task from "draft and send an introduction" to "read this, decide if it sounds right, and hit send." Those are fundamentally different cognitive burdens.
2. Making it too long
A forwardable blurb longer than one hundred and fifty words will not get forwarded verbatim. The connector reads it, thinks "I need to cut this down," and does not. The recipient, if it does arrive long, scans the first two sentences and stops. The discipline required to write a short, effective blurb is real: it is easier to write long than to write short, and the instinct is to include more context to prevent misunderstanding. The correct instinct is the opposite: include less context, and trust the subsequent conversation to fill the gaps. The blurb’s job is to produce a reply, not to explain the product.
3. No specific proof point
A blurb that says "we help companies like yours increase revenue" is not making a claim the connector can endorse or the recipient can evaluate. A blurb that says "we helped [Company] reduce their average sales cycle by six weeks by replacing cold outreach with warm introductions" is giving the connector something to vouch for and the recipient a specific outcome to consider. Even a single concrete result (a customer name, a metric, a recognisable company) transforms the blurb from a generic pitch into evidence. Most recipients do not respond to what you could do; they respond to what you have already done for someone they can recognise.
4. Attaching a deck instead of linking
A PDF or PowerPoint attachment creates two problems. The first is that many email systems, and nearly all mobile email clients, do not show attachment previews inline, which means the recipient sees an email with an attachment and has to make an active decision to open it before they have decided whether they are interested. The second is that attachments do not survive all forwards unchanged: some email servers strip them, some display them as separate items that break the flow of the forwarded message, and some connectors copy-paste the text of the email into a new message, in which case the attachment does not travel at all. A link to a two-page PDF, a short web page, or a Notion document solves all of these problems: it travels intact in every format, can be updated after the send, and works on any device.
5. Asking for introductions to multiple people in one email
Sending a connector a list of people you want to meet ("I’d love to connect with Sarah, Mike, and James at that firm") seems efficient. It is not. Each introduction requires the connector to make an individual social calculation: do I know this person well enough to make this introduction? Is the timing right for them? Would they want to meet this person? Bundling three requests into one email forces the connector to evaluate three separate social commitments simultaneously, which is harder than evaluating one. The connector is also more likely to defer until they can think through all three, and deferral is where introductions die. One email, one person, one forwarded blurb: the conversion rate on single-target requests is meaningfully higher than on batched ones.
After the brief: closing the loop
The brief solves the friction problem on the connector’s side. Two things make the rest of the introduction work.
First, if the connector decides not to forward the brief, or forwards it and the recipient does not respond, acknowledge this without pressure. "Completely understand if the timing is not right. Let me know if it ever makes sense" preserves the relationship for the next time. Connectors who feel that one declined introduction request will change how you see them are less likely to say yes next time. Connectors who feel that the occasional no is fine are more likely to make introductions more consistently over time.
Second, when an introduction does happen and produces a conversation, tell the connector how it went. Not a detailed debrief. A one-line update is enough. The feedback closes the social loop that the introduction opened, signals that you take the connector’s effort seriously, and makes the connector more likely to think of you when they encounter someone relevant in the future. The single most reliable way to increase the frequency with which a connector makes introductions on your behalf is to close the loop on the ones they have already made.
FAQ
Forwardable intro brief FAQs
How long should a forwardable blurb be?
Aim for between eighty and one hundred and twenty words. Short enough to read in thirty seconds, long enough to include the three elements: who you are, why this specific person should care, and a clear ask. If you cannot fit all three in one hundred and twenty words, the problem is usually in the middle element: a generic value proposition that you have not yet tied to the recipient’s specific situation. Rewriting the "why they should care" sentence to be specific to that person almost always compresses the blurb more than cutting anything else.
Should I write a separate blurb for each prospect or each connector?
Write a separate blurb for each prospect. The middle element, why this specific person should care, must be tailored to the recipient, not to the connector. Two introductions to different people at the same company, via the same connector, need different blurbs because the two recipients have different roles, different problems, and different reasons why the introduction is relevant to them right now. The opener (who you are) and the close (the ask) can stay largely consistent; only the middle changes.
What if the connector wants to add their own words before forwarding?
That is ideal, not a problem. The forwardable blurb is a floor, not a ceiling. A connector who adds a personal sentence ("I’ve known [Name] for a few years and they do great work" or "I think this could be useful given the conversation we had last month about [X]") is making the introduction stronger. The brief gives them a ready-made body they can prepend to; without it, they are writing from scratch, which is where most introductions stall. Connectors who add a personal note also tend to make the introduction feel more like a recommendation and less like a forwarded pitch.
When should I send the brief: before or after asking the connector?
After they agree in principle to make the introduction, but before they have to do anything. The sequence: ask the connector verbally or in a short message whether they know the person well enough to make an introduction, get a yes or a soft yes, then immediately send the forwardable brief so there is zero gap between their willingness and their ability to act. Sending the brief before the verbal yes can feel presumptuous. Waiting too long after the yes lets the intention fade. The ideal window is the same conversation or the same day.
How do I know if my brief is too salesy?
Apply the test from the connector’s perspective: would they be comfortable putting their name on this and forwarding it to a colleague? Most connectors are reluctant to forward something that reads like marketing copy: it makes them look like they are doing the vendor’s outreach work and risks embarrassing them if the recipient finds it pushy. The tell is language like "best-in-class," "game-changing," or "revolutionary." These are claims the connector cannot verify and the recipient will not believe. Replace them with a specific, verifiable result: what you did, for whom, with what measurable outcome. If a connector would feel comfortable adding "I thought this might be worth a look" before forwarding it, the brief is probably calibrated correctly.
How does LetsBridge handle the forwardable brief?
When you submit an introduction request on LetsBridge, you provide the context that goes into a forwardable brief: who you are, what you are looking for, and why the introduction is relevant. The connector uses that material to decide whether to accept the request and, if they do, to reach out to the recipient. The double opt-in structure means neither party is surprised (the connector has agreed to make the introduction, and the recipient has agreed to be introduced), which makes the actual brief lighter than a cold forwarded message: the relationship work has already been done before the introduction lands.
Make introductions easier for everyone involved
LetsBridge handles the matching and double opt-in structure that makes warm introductions systematic, so connectors know a request is genuine before they agree to forward anything, and recipients know the introduction is relevant before they respond.