What Happened to Bars Is Now Happening to Your Inbox

When I lived in New York in the early 2010s, there was a stretch where certain bars in the East Village became basically unusable.

Groups of guys were systematically approaching every woman in the place. Whether she was with a group of her girlfriends, a group of guy and girl friends, and sometimes even with just one other guy.

In the era before dating apps, the culture had more tolerance for people starting random conversations in bars, even if they'd indicated no particular interest in speaking to strangers.

However, this was on another level. These young men--and usually they were *very* young--were going one by one, from woman to woman, having usually very brief conversations, until they burnt the place down and either got discouraged or moved on to the next bar.

This seems odd because it was so obviously ineffective. Unless you're in a very large club, generally you can see if people are behaving strangely. As a woman, or really any person, if you see a guy striking out with 10 groups of women before approaching you, you're unlikely to be receptive.

So, really, especially in those days before people had lost all IRL social skills, it was a clearly losing strategy, and one that defied all common sense.

However, there was a whole industry teaching them to do it. Books, bootcamps, YouTube channels.

As the industry grew in the early 2010s, people became increasingly guarded while going out. No on particularly wants to get spammed. It's unpleasant, either faking your way through the conversation or rejecting the person.

Over time, these places got reputations, and people started avoiding these bars entirely. They became basically tourist haunts. This actually gave some reinforcement to the men running this spam approach to meeting women, because tourists are generally more receptive to talking to strangers.

However, I don't think the increased tourist presence materially changed the outcome for the guys using this approach. But they kept grinding, because technically it still worked if you define "worked" as "occasionally getting a number after 40 rejections."

I think about this every time I open LinkedIn.

Volume Works. That's Not the Point.

As an up-and-coming digital marketer in the early 2010s, I eventually got some of these companies as clients. In the era just before #MeToo, it was a massive growth industry. I wasn't yet very established, the post-GFC economy was still weak, and I couldn't afford to be picky. So I understand a bit the content they were pushing.  

Here's what the pickup bootcamps taught: rejection is a numbers game. Approach everyone. Don't read the room.  Personalization is inefficiency, because you'll just start second-guessing yourself. If she brushes you off, it's because you haven't done enough approaches yet. Move to the next one.

And as far as I could tell, it occasionally produced results. Not good results. Not efficient results. But results. If you approach enough people with enough persistence, somebody will eventually be receptive. The math technically checks out. It's the same as cold-calling.

The problem was everything else. The bars became hostile. Women developed defensive strategies, like going out in groups, avoiding certain venues, signaling unavailability before anyone even approached. The guys who were actually interesting to talk to got lumped in with the guys running routines, and the whole environment got worse for everyone. It worked for some people, but it was miserable, and it made normal human interaction harder for people who weren't doing anything wrong.

This is exactly where B2B cold outreach is right now. Apollo sequences, automated LinkedIn messages, AI-spun prospecting emails...they all produce results if you define results loosely enough. Send 10,000 emails and somebody will book a call. The math technically checks out.

But your prospect's inbox has 15 automated sequences before lunch. Your LinkedIn connection requests look identical to the 30 others they got this week. The "personalization" is a merge field pulling their company name into a sentence that clearly wasn't written for them.

The channel still converts at some rate, but the rate keeps dropping, the effort keeps increasing, and your prospects are developing the same defensive postures those women in East Village bars developed a decade ago: ignore everything, trust nothing, assume bad intent.

The cultural backlash is already here. Prospects openly mock bad cold emails on LinkedIn. Spam filters get more aggressive every quarter. Auto-decline on connection requests is the default.

Volume still works in the same way those approach sequences still worked: technically, joylessly, and with diminishing returns that make the whole exercise feel like a treadmill you can't step off.

Where Volume Actually Broke

Cold outreach volume is a treadmill. SEO content volume is a cliff.

For years, the playbook for B2B content marketing was: publish more.

Write blog posts about everything adjacent to your industry. Cover every keyword, even if it has nothing to do with what you actually sell. The theory was that more pages meant more indexed URLs, more traffic, more chances to rank, more authority.

Then Google changed the rules. The helpful content updates specifically penalize sites that publish high volumes of content outside their core expertise.

It's not that the content just doesn't rank. It actively drags down the pages that should.

Your 200 off-topic blog posts about "productivity tips" and "future of remote work" now hurt your ability to rank for the commercial keywords that actually drive revenue.

This is the version of the story where the platform doesn't just create cultural backlash. It creates algorithmic punishment.

If you are in the marketing world, in the last few years you've hear lots of stories of people building up massive content-driven businesses and getting wiped out overnight.

Lars Lofgren built and ran some of the biggest B2B blogs of the 2010-2022 era. He has has talked publicly about what happened to those sites.

Bloated content libraries, hundreds of posts that don't rank for anything, topical discipline replaced by an "X posts per month by Y freelancers" program on autopilot. Google didn't just stop rewarding that approach. It started penalizing it. Lofgren's prescription is to delete 70-90% of the blog and rebuild around tight topical clusters. Edward Sturm breaks down the mechanics with Lofgren here.

Google looked at the content farms the same way those bar owners eventually looked at the approach artists: you're degrading the experience for everyone, and we're going to make it stop.

The companies ranking for competitive B2B keywords in 2026 aren't the ones with the most content. They're the ones with the most relevant content. Deep topical authority on a narrow set of subjects they actually know something about. Fifty pages of genuine expertise outrank 500 pages of keyword-stuffed filler, and the gap is getting wider.

The Calibrated Alternative

Even within the men's dating niche, the smarter operators eventually taught something different. Read the room. Look for signals of openness before engaging. Lead with something contextual that shows you're paying attention to this specific person.

The B2B translation is straightforward: look for intent signals. Engage with companies showing demonstrated need. Send 20 researched messages instead of 2,000 automated ones. Talk to people who are already looking to talk to you.

This is fundamentally what well-run LinkedIn Ads do versus cold outreach at scale.

Instead of blasting every VP of Marketing in your ICP list with the same InMail, you're putting relevant content in front of a targeted account list, with specific companies, specific roles, specific seniority levels. They engage on their terms.

When they convert, they already know who you are and what you do because they've seen your thought leadership, your case studies, your point of view on their problem.

We ran a LinkedIn ABM campaign for a B2B creative studio that generated $414K in pipeline on $21K in spend--a 19x return. Thought leader ads drove 59% of conversions on 30% of the budget. Zero conversions came from gated eBooks or lead magnets. Every one came from direct engagement with the brand.

That's not volume. That's calibration.

And the best version isn't choosing between outreach and advertising. It's running targeted ads to the same account list your sales team is working. When a prospect sees your content three times before your SDR's email lands, that email gets opened at a completely different rate. The outreach stops being cold. The advertising makes every other channel more efficient.

A Necessary Distinction

This isn't anti-outreach.

One of my early marketing clients genuinely specialized in social skills. They mostly worked with men who have social anxiety disorder and autism, teaching conversational skills as an adjunct to therapy and medication.

That's the opposite of spray and pray. It's careful, individualized, and it respects the other person in the interaction.

A well-researched, relevant cold email that references a specific problem at a specific company respects your prospect's time and intelligence. The problem was never reaching out to strangers. The problem is treating every stranger as interchangeable.

Get Off the Treadmill

The volume vendors tell you to send more because sending more is what they sell.

The question isn't whether volume works. It does, the way running on a treadmill works. You're moving, you're sweating, and you're in exactly the same place you started.

The channels aren't dead. They're just hostile to lazy execution.

The companies getting results in 2026 are the ones treating outreach the way a good conversationalist treats a room. By reading signals, leading with relevance, and being worth talking to once they show up.

‍