Chris Marrano recently shared something that caught my attention: he wrote, "We added $25K/month without changing the offer, the leads, or the team." And the part that really lands is what came next: "On paper, everything already looked great... The dashboards were green. The pipeline was not."

That contrast is painfully familiar. Many teams are surrounded by "good" metrics (open rates, click rates, deliverability) while revenue feels stuck in mud. Chris Marrano pointed out the uncomfortable truth: it was not a lead quality problem. It was a speed problem.

"Email is great for context. Terrible for urgency." - Chris Marrano

In this post, I want to expand on Chris's idea and make it actionable: why speed is often the hidden bottleneck in sales, why email alone cannot carry urgency, and how to split channels (SMS for urgency, email for context) without creating chaos or annoying prospects.

The silent revenue killer: slow motion follow-up

Chris described the pattern perfectly: deals stall, and leads that felt hot on Monday are cold by Thursday. When that happens, teams often default to one explanation: "These leads are bad." So they ask marketing for more volume, better targeting, or a new offer.

But if your leads respond when you catch them quickly, and disappear when you wait, the issue is not quality. It is latency.

Speed matters because interest decays. Even when someone fills out a form with genuine intent, they are also:

multitasking
comparing alternatives
getting pulled back into daily life
receiving follow-ups from competitors

When your process relies on a rep remembering the next touch, you are betting revenue on human memory, inbox timing, and the buyer's attention staying constant. That is a bad bet.

Why "green dashboards" can hide a broken pipeline

Chris noted that open rates, click rates, and delivery rates looked great, yet the pipeline did not move. That is a clue that you are measuring the wrong layer.

Email performance metrics are not revenue velocity metrics. You can have:

strong deliverability but weak response time
decent opens but low intent-to-conversation conversion
good click rates but stalled decision-making

What you actually need to measure is time-to-next-action:

time from lead created to first reply attempt
time from first attempt to first two-way conversation
time between touches in the first 48 hours
time from conversation started to booked call

If those times drift upward, the pipeline can look busy while revenue stays flat.

Email vs SMS: context and urgency are different jobs

Chris Marrano's fix was simple and practical: stop asking one channel to do two conflicting jobs.

He split the work:

Time-sensitive follow-ups go to SMS
Detail and context stay in email

That split matters because each channel has a different "attention contract."

Email is built for depth

Email is where you can include:

longer explanations
case studies
pricing context
comparisons
onboarding steps
attachments and links

It is asynchronous. People expect to get to it later. That is why it is "great for context" as Chris said.

SMS is built for immediacy

SMS is short, interruptive, and hard to ignore (when used responsibly). It is ideal for:

confirming a question
nudging for a quick yes/no
rescuing a stalled thread
prompting a simple next step ("Can you do 2 pm or 4 pm?")

It is "terrible" for long context, but excellent for urgency.

The real unlock: automation beats intention

One of the most important lines in Chris's post was not about SMS itself. It was about removing the dependence on memory:

"Fully automated instead of relying on someone to remember the next touch"

This is where most teams lose money. They have a follow-up "strategy" but not a follow-up system.

A strategy is: "We should follow up faster."

A system is: if lead does X, then send Y message in Z minutes, and if no response, escalate to the next touch automatically.

Automation turns best intentions into default behavior.

A simple, high-velocity follow-up sequence (SMS + email)

To make Chris Marrano's approach concrete, here is a practical framework you can adapt. The goal is not to spam. The goal is to compress the time between expressed interest and real conversation.

Day 0 (within 1-5 minutes): SMS for the fastest handshake

SMS: "Hey [First Name], this is [Rep] at [Company]. Saw your request for [thing]. Quick question: are you trying to solve this for yourself or a team?"

Why it works: it is easy to answer, and it starts a two-way thread.

Day 0 (within 5-15 minutes): Email for context

Email: "Here is what happens next" plus 3-5 bullets explaining process, outcomes, and a scheduling link.

Why it works: the buyer gets clarity without feeling pressured to read a long SMS.

Day 1: SMS nudge if no reply

SMS: "Wanted to make sure I do not miss you, [First Name]. Still looking at [goal]?"

Day 1: Email with proof

Email: short case study, a before-and-after, or a FAQ that answers common objections.

Day 2: SMS with a binary choice

SMS: "Should I close your request, or do you want to pick this up later this week?"

This is a respectful pattern interrupt. It often triggers a quick "Later this week" reply, which reopens momentum.

Important: always tailor frequency to your sales cycle, your market, and consent rules.

Guardrails: how to use SMS without burning trust

If you adopt Chris's channel split, do it with guardrails so urgency does not become annoyance.

Make sure your forms, checkouts, or scheduling pages clearly capture opt-in where required. Keep records. If you are unsure, get legal guidance for your region and industry.

2) Keep SMS genuinely short

If a message needs paragraphs, it is an email.

3) Write like a human, not a campaign

SMS that looks like a marketing blast gets ignored. Use:

the rep's name
a clear reference to the request
one question at a time

4) Set office-hour expectations

If you have global leads, time zones matter. A "fast" follow-up at 2 am is not helpful.

5) Respect the stop signal

Always honor "STOP" and similar opt-out requests immediately.

What actually changed in Chris Marrano's result

Chris reported a clear operational impact:

"Conversations that used to take 3-4 days started closing in 24-48 hours. Same leads. Same offer. Same team. Just faster execution."

That is the heart of sales velocity: compressing cycle time without increasing spend.

When cycle time shrinks, you often get a compounding effect:

fewer leads go stale
reps waste less time re-reading old threads
forecasting improves because stages move predictably
more deals close while urgency is naturally high

And that is how you can add meaningful monthly revenue (Chris cited +$25K/month) without changing the offer, lead sources, or headcount.

A quick way to diagnose if you have a speed problem

If you are wondering whether this applies to your business, ask these questions:

Do you respond to new inbound leads in under 5 minutes during business hours?
Do leads regularly "ghost" after showing initial interest?
Do reps say they are "waiting on replies" more than they are having live conversations?
Are your email metrics good but meetings booked are flat?

If you answered yes to two or more, it is worth testing Chris Marrano's channel split.

The takeaway: stop blaming leads when the process is slow

Chris Marrano made a point about sales automation that really resonated: most stalled pipelines are not a demand problem. They are an execution speed problem.

Use email for what it does best: context, proof, and detail.

Use SMS for what it does best: urgency, quick questions, and fast next steps.

Then automate the sequence so the process runs the same way every time, even when your team is busy.

This blog post expands on a viral LinkedIn post by Chris Marrano, Scaling 7 & 8 Figure DTC Brands Profitably | Building AI-enhanced systems | Founder@BlueWaterMarketing | Founder@ADIQ.AI. View the original LinkedIn post →