Most advice about cold outreach messages is either too vague ("be genuine!") or too rigid (a script to copy verbatim). Here's a line-by-line look at what each part of a good message is actually accomplishing, so you can adapt it rather than just copy it.
Line 1: The opener
What it should do: identify you and establish relevance in the same breath.
"Hi Priya — I'm interested in the Senior PM role on your growth team."
Not: "Hi, hope you're doing well!" — this wastes the first line, which is the one line guaranteed to get read.
Line 2: The connection
What it should do: give a specific, real reason this role and this person, not a generic reason any role at any company would satisfy.
"I've spent the last four years building onboarding flows, and the part of your JD about reducing activation drop-off is close to exactly what I've been doing."
Not: "I think I'd be a great fit for this role" — a claim with no supporting detail is just an assertion, and assertions don't change anyone's mind.
Line 3: The ask
What it should do: be small, specific, and easy to say yes to.
"Would you be open to a quick chat, or could you point me to the right person on the team?"
Notice this offers two acceptable outcomes, not one. That matters — a message with only one possible useful response ("please refer me") gets ignored more often than one with a lower-effort alternative built in.
Line 4: The close
What it should do: lower the pressure, not raise it.
"No worries either way — appreciate your time."
Not: "Looking forward to hearing back soon!" — this reads as expecting a response, which subtly increases the social cost of not replying, which paradoxically makes people less likely to reply at all.
What changes for a peer vs. a recruiter
The structure holds for both, but the emphasis shifts. With a recruiter, line 2 should connect to what the role needs. With a peer, line 2 should connect to what their actual day-to-day experience might be — peers respond better to "what's it actually like" framing than to a straight pitch, because you're not asking them to evaluate you, you're asking them to share their perspective, which is a much easier thing to do.
Why this structure works better than a longer, more "personalized" message
A four-line message that's genuinely specific beats a twelve-line message that's technically more detailed but reads as effort spent convincing rather than effort spent connecting. Brevity isn't a compromise here — it's respecting that you're asking a stranger for a small favor, and a message that's proportionate to that ask lands better than one that isn't.