Cold emails aren't broken. The experience after the click is.
I kept thinking my cold emails weren't good enough.
So I rewrote them.
Tested different subject lines.
Personalized every first sentence.
Spent more time researching each prospect.
Then I realized I was making a much bigger mistake.
Every person who clicked my email landed on the exact same page.
The email felt personal.
The landing page felt like it was made for everyone.
That disconnect made me wonder if the problem wasn't the email at all.
Maybe the experience after the click matters just as much as the click itself.
That's what led me to start building Greve.io.
The goal isn't to send more cold emails.
It's to make every click feel relevant.
I'm still validating the idea, so I'd love some honest feedback.
When you click a cold email, what makes you stay on the page instead of closing it right away?
It's an interesting idea — making the post-click experience personalized is just as important as the email itself.
One thing I noticed is that some of the generated pages feel very AI-generated. People are becoming quick to recognize "AI slop," and that can hurt trust. More control over the generation process could help. Things like controlling style, limiting gradients/em dashes/generic sections, and specifying what the page should prioritize.
Right now it seems like the user mostly provides the input site and gets an output, but giving users more control over the result could make the pages feel much more authentic.
I agree, and that's something I've been thinking about as well. The goal isn't to generate a page that looks AI-generated, it's to generate one that feels like someone actually built it for that prospect.
I'm already working on giving users much more control over the output, things like tone, layout, sections, and what the page should emphasize. I think AI should do the heavy lifting, but the user should always have the final say.
Nice
Thanks
looked interesting so I tired clicked on the website, it says internal server error.
Hey, website is working try greve.io
yea now its working
Thanks
I believe that is an error from indiehackers itself. Visiting the website regularly works fine.
The disconnect between a personalized email and a generic landing page also shows up further down the funnel. A prospect replies, then the actual follow up sits in a thread for a week because three other things caught fire that day. Same broken promise, just later in the sequence. Fixing the click experience raises reply rates, but if the follow through after the reply is inconsistent, the relevance built into the first message still gets wasted.
That's a really good point. The experience shouldn't stop at the landing page. If someone replies and then waits days for a response, the whole flow falls apart. I'm starting with the click because that's an obvious gap, but I agree the entire journey needs to feel consistent.
Consistency is the harder half of that problem because it does not scale the same way personalization does. A landing page is a one time build. Staying responsive on every single reply is a daily commitment, and it tends to lose to whatever fire shows up that day. Worth thinking through how that gets handled once the click problem is solved, because the same gap just moves further down the funnel and gets harder to see.
I build landing pages for local businesses and this is basically the whole pitch I give clients — doesn't matter how good the ad/email is if the page it lands on doesn't match the promise. curious what "relevant" ends up meaning for you, dynamic content per segment or just better message-match copy?
Running landing pages for local businesses means the promise matching pitch only works if you are also tracking whether each client's page is actually converting once it ships, not just whether it launched on time. That tracking piece is usually the first thing that slips once you are juggling more than a few clients at once, not because it does not matter, but because nobody is watching it in between the calls. FounderFlow is your AI Executive Chief of Staff. It watches your business, identifies what matters, protects your revenue, and tells you exactly what to do next. Built for agency owners running several client accounts at once. We are bringing in the first 30 founding members personally right now, if that gap sounds familiar.
That's exactly what I'm trying to solve. For me, "relevant" means the page changes based on the prospect, not just the email.
The copy, messaging, examples, and even the visuals are generated specifically for that company so the page feels like a continuation of the conversation instead of a generic landing page.
I'm still refining it, but that's the direction I'm building toward.
makes sense that's a much harder problem than what I do (I mostly rely on good copy matching the ad promise, not full dynamic generation). how are you handling the "still feels templated" trap? that's usually where dynamic page generators end up looking worse than a well-written static one
I want to do small scale outreach via email to potential customers. We have an amazing demo for them in the form of a PDF.
I'm worried links lead to mail going to spam - have you found this to be the case? Do you think it'd be worse to include a link or attach a PDF?
That's actually one of the reasons I started building Greve. Instead of attaching a PDF, the email includes a link that opens a personalized page with a rich preview, so it feels more like a web experience than downloading a document. I also like it because I can update the content anytime without sending a new file.
I'm still testing what works best, but so far I prefer that approach over attachments.