Email drip writing
Sequences that respond to what happened
Each email written against the recipient's actual behaviour since the last one — not a branch tree someone drew in a flowchart eighteen months ago.
The problem
Drip campaigns are written once and never adapt
Someone maps a five-email sequence with three branches. It goes live. Then the product changes, the objections change, and the sequence keeps sending email three to everyone who opened email two — regardless of whether they opened it and immediately booked a demo, or opened it and went to a competitor's pricing page.
Branch logic can't capture behaviour it wasn't designed around. And nobody rewrites a live sequence, because the last person who understood the branches left.
What it does
Written per recipient, per send
A drip sequence is usually a fixed set of emails with the name swapped in. Writing each send against what the last one actually produced is what makes it a conversation.
Behavioural triggers
What they did after the last email — clicked, replied, visited, went quiet — shapes what the next one says, not merely whether it sends.
Reply memory
If they replied with a question, the next email answers it. Replies stop being a dead end that drops them out of the sequence.
Reference to specifics
Emails cite the thing the person actually engaged with, in their own terms. That's what distinguishes a reply from a delete.
Tone consistency
Learned from your published sequences, so generated emails sound like your team wrote them.
FAQ
Does this replace our email platform?
No. It generates the content; your ESP still sends.