When this topic matters
Many people have distorted ideas about cold calling — from movies, from LinkedIn, or from bad experiences. These myths prevent effective use of the phone as a tool.
If you are building an SDR team or calling yourself, you need to distinguish reality from fiction.
What happens in practice
Myth 1: "Cold calling is dead." Reality: In B2B, the phone still works. Data shows that multi-channel approach with phone has higher response rate than purely digital.
Myth 2: "You need a perfect script." Reality: You need a framework and ability to adapt. Rigid scripts sound unnatural.
Myth 3: "Call as much as possible." Reality: Quality of relevance beats quantity. 30 prepared calls beat 100 random ones.
Why myths persist
Myths persist because most people have bad experience — as caller and called. But bad experience is not proof that phone does not work. It is proof that most use it poorly.
Second reason is comfort: email or LinkedIn automation is less confrontational. But also less effective for complex B2B.
How to think about it
Cold calling works when: 1) You know who you call and why (ICP). 2) You have relevant opening. 3) You can listen and adapt. 4) You have a system for follow-up.
It does not work when: 1) You call randomly. 2) You read script like a robot. 3) You do not give space to the other side. 4) You give up after first "no".
What you gain and what you lose
Cold calling is faster than email for getting a response — immediate interaction instead of waiting days. But it requires higher investment in preparation and training.
It is also more emotionally demanding. Phone rejection is more direct than an ignored email. Therefore it requires a more resilient mindset.
When to call, when not
Call: Into segments where personal contact is norm. To decision-makers, not assistants. When you have specific relevance (trigger event, referral).
Do not call: Into segments with high aversion (some tech founders). Without preparation. Without clear next step.
Cold calling is not dead, but requires a different approach than in 2000. Relevance, preparation, and adaptability beat volume and rigid scripts.