Run Game Approaching

Direct or indirect openers: which to use when

6 min read

A direct opener says why you walked over: "Hey, I saw you and wanted to say hi." An indirect opener starts with something else, usually the place or the moment, and lets interest show later: "Is this seat taken?" or "Have you tried the cold brew here?" Both get you into a conversation. They differ in how much you risk up front and how much she knows about your intent.

Coaches disagree about which is better, and the research that exists is thin. So the useful move is to pick by setting and by what you're trying to learn, then test it on yourself.

What each style costs and gives

Direct Indirect
What it sounds like "I thought you looked interesting, so I came to say hi." "Do you know if this place does food?"
Upside Clear intent, nothing to decode, fast to say Low pressure, easy to start, fits any place
Cost A "no" can come quickly; some settings make it feel abrupt She may not know you're interested; you can end up in a friendly chat that goes nowhere
Skill it builds Saying what you mean while nervous Reading a conversation and steering it

Todd Valentine, whose openers feature elsewhere on this blog, teaches both. In one post on openers he says that for a beginner who has practised, a direct opener may be one of the best strategies, and that beginners should get to the point. For an advanced setup, such as a group where he expects some resistance, he describes a more indirect route: getting to know the group first. He also says openers that dictate the conversation show your intent early and can cost "some value" in his terms, and he calls the choice a philosophical decision. A reviewer's summary of his book, The System, ties directness to skill level: more direct for beginners, a middle ground for intermediate students, more indirect and situational for advanced ones. The same reviewer disagrees in part, saying very direct openers can work for advanced students too. That's one coach's framework and one reader's take, not a rule.

What the research can and can't say

Two older studies are worth knowing, with caveats.

In 1986, Chris Kleinke, Frederick Meeker and Richard Staneski had college students rate three kinds of opening lines in the journal Sex Roles: cute or flippant, innocuous, and direct. As summarised in a psychologist's write-up, students generated lines and judged which would most likely succeed. Both men and women preferred innocuous and direct lines to flippant ones, and women disliked flippant lines more than men did. The paper itself sits behind a paywall, so these details come from that summary.

In 2006, Christopher Bale, Rory Morrison and Peter Caryl had 205 undergraduates (142 women, 63 men) read 40 written vignettes in which a man approached a woman and judge whether she would keep talking to him. Openers built on jokes, empty compliments or sexual references scored poorly. Openers that signalled helpfulness, generosity, athleticism, culture or wealth scored well.

Limits are big. Both used students rating hypothetical lines, not real strangers' behaviour, and they're decades old. They also compare line types, not "direct versus situational" as coaches use the words. Still, in both, jokey or flippant openers were rated lower than plain ones.

One more study, from Jeffrey Hall and colleagues, surveyed more than 5,100 dating adults and described five flirting styles: traditional, physical, sincere, playful and polite. People who scored high on polite approached potential partners less often yet tended to report meaningful relationships, while physical flirters often formed relationships quickly and sincere flirters reported close ones. These are self-reports and associations, so they show variety in how people like to be approached, not which opener wins.

Match the style to the setting

Setting Often works Example
Daytime street Direct, short, with a quick exit "Hey, sorry to stop you. You caught my eye and I wanted to say hi. I'm Sam."
Class or workshop Indirect first, direct later "Did you get what he meant by the second example?"
Bar or club Short and loud-friendly, either style "Hey, I'm Sam. We both seem to be waiting forever for a drink."
Gym Indirect, patient, and often nothing at all "Are you using this, or can I work in?"

The table is a rule of thumb, not a finding. Here's the reasoning behind each row.

For more lines in each category, see openers that work and situational approaches.

A two-week test

You don't have to settle the debate. Run an experiment.

Week one: direct. Aim for ten approaches where the setting allows it. Use one plain opener you're comfortable with, say your name early, and keep each set under two minutes.

Week two: indirect. Aim for ten approaches with a situational opener that fits the place. Ask a real question about the environment, then let the conversation develop.

For each set, record Success or Rejected and add a note with the style and what happened: "D, street, 30 seconds, short answer" or "I, cafe, 6 minutes, got her number." Both Success and Rejected count as approaches, and your success rate is successes divided by successes plus rejections.

Ten sets each is a small sample, so don't read the numbers as proof (and a couple of early rejections are a poor reason to believe any of the cold approach myths). Look at the notes too. Which did you do with more ease? In which did people respond warmly? Where did you leave feeling fine even after a no? Those answers matter for something you'll do hundreds of times.

What to do next

  1. Write one direct opener and one indirect opener in your own words. Say each aloud five times.
  2. Choose a week-one setting where either style fits, such as a daytime street or a shop, and settle who you'll approach before you leave so you aren't deciding mid-walk.
  3. Run ten direct approaches over the week. Note the style in each log entry.
  4. Run ten indirect approaches the next week, with the same note.
  5. Compare success rate, ease and the quality of the conversations, and write two sentences on what you noticed.
  6. Pick a default for each setting, and re-test after a month or when the setting changes.

Run Game can hold this test: log each approach as Success or Rejected, put the style in the optional note, and group each outing in a session so you can compare the two weeks side by side.

Sources