A LinkedIn connection request with a note gets one chance to prove it isn’t a pitch, and most notes fail that test in the first five words. Will Aitken’s rule, built from years of being on the receiving end of cold requests, is to skip the note entirely unless there’s already a reason the buyer would recognize. Keenan takes the opposite default: he won’t accept a connection request without one, on the condition that the note is never about the sender. Both rules point to the same underlying test, and most sellers fail it by writing a note that passes neither.
A connection request note helps only when it already has a reason the buyer would recognize, either genuine prior contact or language built entirely around the buyer’s situation instead of the sender’s agenda. Absent either condition, skipping the note outperforms writing one, because an unexplained note reads as a stranger asking for a favor, which is exactly the signal that gets a request declined.
Will’s Position: Let the Profile Talk
Will Aitken’s experience as a buyer shaped a simple default: don’t write a note. In his telling, the only people who attach notes to connection requests are the ones trying to sell something, and the notes themselves tend to repeat the same handful of lines: “I see we swim in the same waters,” or “We have mutual connections!” A note like that confirms the exact suspicion a buyer already has about where the request came from, which makes it worse than sending no note at all.
His alternative is to let the visible parts of a profile do the work a note would otherwise attempt. A headshot, a headline, and a list of mutual connections are all visible to the buyer at the moment they decide whether to accept, before any note gets read. A strong profile carries more information than a generic line ever could, and it carries that information without tipping the buyer into pitch-detection mode.
There’s one exception to Will’s no-note default: prior contact. If a seller and a buyer would have crossed paths or communicated before, a note that references that specific moment establishes familiarity instead of triggering suspicion. Without that specific anchor, there’s no real content for the note to carry, so writing one anyway tends to produce exactly the generic line Will warns against.
Keenan’s Position: A Note, Never About the Sender
Keenan starts from the opposite default. He won’t accept a connection request without a note, unless a buyer’s title makes the mutual benefit obvious on sight, or unless he’s already commented on that buyer’s content. Even in those cases, he still finds a short note more personable than silence.
The condition attached to Keenan’s default is strict, and it’s the part of his argument that matters most. The note cannot be about the sender. Phrases like “I’m building my network” or “I’m looking for like-minded people” put the sender’s agenda in front of a stranger and give that stranger no reason to spend one of a limited number of connections on someone they don’t know. Instead, the note has to give the buyer a reason that benefits the buyer specifically. Keenan’s own examples: “Keenan, I read Gap Selling and I’m excited to read Gap Prospecting, hoping we can connect here.” Or: “Keenan, I saw your video on dealing with objections, and it’s changed the game for me. My sales are up 10%.”
Both examples work for the same reason. They tell the buyer something true and specific about the effect the buyer already had on the sender, rather than asking the buyer to do something for the sender. If a seller can’t find a version of that sentence that’s true, Keenan’s own fallback matches Will’s rule exactly: skip the note.
Why a Self-Focused Note Backfires
The mechanism behind both positions traces to a well-documented finding in persuasion research. Robert Cialdini’s work on the principle of liking, laid out in his Harvard Business Review article on the science of persuasion, found that people comply more readily with requests from people who show genuine interest in them, not from people who simply state what they want. A note built around the sender’s goals asks a stranger to extend a favor with nothing offered in return. A note built around something true about the buyer does the opposite: it hands the buyer a reason the request already benefits them, before they’ve done anything at all.
That’s also why a bland, templated note scores worse than silence. A profile with no note gives the buyer nothing to react to beyond the visible facts of who’s asking. A note that announces a sales agenda, even indirectly, gives the buyer a specific reason for suspicion that a blank request never created.
The Decision, By Scenario
| Scenario | Note or no note | Why |
|---|---|---|
| No prior contact, no obvious mutual benefit from title or role | No note | Will’s default: an unexplained note signals a pitch; the profile has to carry the weight instead |
| Buyer’s title or role makes mutual benefit obvious on sight | Short note naming that benefit | Keenan’s exception: the reason for connecting is already visible and specific, not generic |
| Already commented on or engaged with the buyer’s content | Short note referencing that engagement | The prior contact gives the note something real and specific to point to |
| Only reason available is “growing my network” or similar | No note | Both authors agree: a self-focused reason is worse than no reason at all |
| Sender already has an active, content-heavy LinkedIn presence | No note | Will’s position: a buyer curious about the request can check the profile directly |
Engaging First Changes the Calculation
Two of the conditions that unlock a note in either position depend on the same thing: prior contact between buyer and seller before the request ever gets sent. Will’s exception for a past meeting and Keenan’s exception for prior comments on a buyer’s content are both forms of the same move. Engaging with a buyer’s content before sending a request means the request isn’t the first time the buyer has seen the sender’s name.
Following a buyer, reacting to posts, commenting where there’s something genuine to add, and showing up in the same groups all build that familiarity before a request ever gets sent. Once that familiarity exists, a note like “I enjoyed discussing that topic with you and would love to connect” references something specific and true, which satisfies both authors’ conditions at once. Choosing a connection request over paid InMail in the first place rests on a well-documented reason, and the remaining decision, once that channel is chosen, is what to put in the small text box that comes with it.
Doing this for every name on a hundred-person list isn’t realistic, and neither author claims it is. The payoff is that it differentiates a request from every other generic one landing in the same inbox that week, and that differentiation is the entire point of sending a note in the first place.
What the Disagreement Actually Settles
Framed as a disagreement, this looks like two defensible-but-opposite habits. Framed as a decision, both authors are enforcing the same rule from opposite starting points: a note needs a real, buyer-specific reason to exist, and in the absence of one, no note beats a bad one. This test, worked through in more detail in Gap Prospecting, has less to do with picking a side between Will and Keenan and more to do with checking whether a specific note passes a specific condition before it gets sent.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should a LinkedIn connection request include a personalized note?
Only if the note has a real reason behind it, either genuine prior contact with the buyer or language built around something specific and true about the buyer rather than the sender’s agenda. Without one of those two conditions, sending no note gets a better reception than sending a generic one.
Why does a generic connection note perform worse than sending no note at all?
A generic note, something like “I see we swim in the same waters,” confirms the exact suspicion a buyer already has about requests from strangers: that it’s a pitch. A blank request with no note gives the buyer nothing to react to beyond a profile, while a bad note actively hands the buyer a reason for suspicion that didn’t exist before.
What makes Keenan accept a connection request without a note?
Keenan accepts without a note when a buyer’s title or role makes the mutual benefit obvious on sight, or when he’s already commented on that buyer’s content before the request arrives. Outside those two conditions, he expects a short note, and the note has to center the buyer rather than the sender.
What should a note say if there’s no prior contact with the buyer at all?
If there’s no prior contact and no obvious mutual benefit visible from the buyer’s title or role, the better move is to send no note and let the profile, headshot, headline, and mutual connections carry the request instead. A note invented purely to have something to say tends to read as generic, which both authors treat as worse than silence.
Is it ever acceptable to say “I’d like to grow my network” in a connection note?
No. Both authors treat that phrasing as a disqualifying mistake, because it puts the sender’s goal in front of a stranger without giving that stranger any reason to care. A sender who can’t find a version of the note that’s true and specific to the buyer is better off sending the request with no note attached.
Does commenting on a buyer’s posts before sending a request change whether a note is needed?
Yes. Prior engagement, whether that’s a past meeting or recent comments on the buyer’s content, gives a note something real and specific to reference instead of a generic line. That prior contact is what turns a risky note into a safe one for both authors.
Can a strong LinkedIn profile fully replace a connection request note?
In most cases, yes. A profile with a clear headshot, a specific headline, and visible mutual connections gives a buyer the same information a weak note would try to convey, without the risk of sounding like a pitch. The exception is when there’s a specific, buyer-centered reason to say something a profile can’t show on its own.
0 Comments