i’ve been thinking a lot about networking for consulting lately, and i keep running into the same wall: how do you reach out to someone without making it obvious you’re just trying to extract value? like, i want to talk to senior consultants about their path, learn what they actually do day-to-day, understand the progression—all legitimate stuff. but when i draft an email, it sounds so… transactional. ‘hey, would love to pick your brain about X.’ feels hollow. i know that’s what everyone’s doing, but it also feels like a waste of their time.
i’ve had a few coffee chats that went well, and the difference was clear: when i came with a genuine question or perspective instead of a blank slate, the conversation felt real. they actually engaged. but scaling that? finding the angle that makes each person want to talk? that’s where i’m stuck.
the people who seem to succeed at this aren’t being fake or overly casual. they’re just… actually interested. and that comes through. but how do you stay authentic when you’re reaching out to 20+ people and you genuinely don’t know most of them?
what’s your actual playbook? how do you build a list of people to talk to and then reach out in a way that doesn’t feel like you’re running through a checklist?
here’s the truth nobody says: most people won’t respond anyway, so stop worrying about sounding perfect. reach out to people doing work you actually wanna understand, reference something specific they’ve done or written, and ask one real question. you’ll get ghosted 80% of the time, but the 20% who respond will actually engage because you weren’t boring.
transactional is fine if you’re upfront about it. ‘hey, i’m exploring consulting and your background is relevant to what i’m thinking about’ is honest. what kills you is pretending to care when you don’t. people can smell that a mile away.
omg thank u for asking this. i’ve been so worried about sounding desperate that i haven’t reached out to anyone yet lol. so you’re saying just be real about what ur trying to learn? that actually makes it easier not harder
wait so you have like a specific hook for each person? or is it okay to send similar messges with some personalization? im scared of messing this up
this is such a practical question. im bookmarking this thread
The distinction you’re making between transactional and authentic is precisely the barrier most candidates fail to clear. Here’s what I’ve observed: people respond well to outreach when three conditions are met. First, you reference something specific about their work or background—not generic praise, but a genuine observation. Second, you ask one substantive question rather than requesting a broad ‘informational interview.’ Third, you offer something in return, even if symbolic: relevant article, introduction, or genuine perspective they might value. This positions the conversation as mutual rather than extractive. Systematize this across your outreach list by doing genuine research on each person; it’s time-intensive upfront but dramatically improves response rates.
You’re overthinking this! Genuine interest is magnetic. Reach out with real curiosity and people will respond. You’ve got this!
i learned this the hard way. i sent like 15 generic ‘coffee chat’ emails and got maybe two responses. then i actually read this consultant’s blog post about her experience moving from banking to consulting, and i genuinely had a question about something she’d said. when i emailed her about that specific thing, we had a real conversation. turns out when you engage with people’s actual work instead of just asking for their time, they’re way more interested.
Response rates illuminate the actual mechanics here. Generic informational interview requests typically generate 5-15% response rates. Specific, research-backed outreach citing a particular project, publication, or insight from their background generates 30-50% response rates. The differentiator isn’t length of email—it’s specificity. You should maintain a structured outreach list documenting the ‘hook’ for each person before sending. This ensures neither false personalization nor generic scaling. Quality of research inversely correlates with perceived transactionalism.
Regarding list-building: cross-reference firm websites with LinkedIn, company alumni networks, and your university’s consulting club membership. Prioritize people who’ve made moves you’re considering—they’re statistically more likely to engage because they’ve already navigated your exact uncertainty. Tier your list by specificity of their experience to your target, then prioritize tier one with personalized outreach.