Reinventing the phrase "as per our conversation" is worth doing because the phrase itself does more damage than most writers realize. It shows up in follow-up emails, meeting recaps, and project updates dozens of times a day across corporate inboxes. And every time it does, it reads as stiff, slightly passive-aggressive, and about twenty years out of date. The phrase isn't wrong. It's just unnecessary, and you can almost always replace it with something that sounds like a person actually wrote it.
Why "as per our conversation" rubs people the wrong way
The problem starts with "as per." In plain English, "per" already means "according to" or "following." Stacking "as" on top adds nothing except formality that few professional contexts actually need. The result sounds like a legal memo from 2003.
There's also a subtle tone issue. When a writer says "as per our conversation, you agreed to submit the report by Friday," the subtext reads as "I'm documenting this in case you forget or deny it." That may be accurate. It may even be intentional. But it rarely builds goodwill, especially if the person on the receiving end had no intention of backing out. The phrase positions the sender as skeptical before the conversation has even had a chance to play out.
Finally, it's just overused. Phrases that appear in every fourth business email stop carrying meaning. Readers skim past them the same way they skim past please see attached or please advise. If you want your follow-up to land, the opener needs to do actual work.
Better ways to open a follow-up email
The goal of "as per our conversation" is usually to recap what was discussed and signal continuity. You can do both without the stiffness. Here are several alternatives, grouped by situation.
When you're summarizing next steps
Skip the reference entirely and just state what was agreed:
- "Following our call this morning, I'm sending over the revised draft."
- "After Tuesday's meeting, here are the three action items we landed on."
- "We agreed on a Friday deadline. I'm writing to confirm the details."
These phrases do the same job without the legalese. They tell the reader exactly what context to bring to the email and what they're about to read.
When you want to acknowledge the conversation warmly
If the discussion was collaborative or positive, match that tone:
"It was good to connect earlier. As we discussed, I'll send the contract draft by end of week." That single sentence acknowledges the relationship, references the conversation, and states the outcome. No "as per" required.
When you genuinely need to document something for the record
Sometimes the follow-up email really is about creating a paper trail. That's fine. Just be direct about it:
"I wanted to put today's discussion in writing so we both have a clear reference." This says the same thing as "as per our conversation" but without the tone that implies distrust. It frames the documentation as a service to both parties rather than evidence collected against one of them.
Variants of the phrase and how to replace each one
"As per our last conversation" adds "last," which can read as pointed, especially in a tense exchange. Replace it with "When we spoke on [day]" or simply "Earlier this week we discussed." Grounding the reference in a specific time is more useful than "last" and avoids any edge.
"As per our earlier discussion" is slightly softer than "conversation" but still carries the same bureaucratic weight. "Following our discussion on [topic]" is cleaner and keeps the focus on content rather than form.
"As per our phone call" names the channel unnecessarily in most contexts. The recipient knows they spoke to you on the phone. Drop the channel reference and just say "When we spoke" or "After our call."
When "as per our conversation" is actually fine
Not every situation calls for a rewrite. In highly formal legal or regulatory correspondence, the phrasing is expected. Courts, compliance teams, and contract negotiations sometimes use it deliberately because the formality signals that the writer is being precise and intentional. In those contexts, the coldness of the phrase is a feature.
It's also acceptable in internal documents like meeting minutes, where the phrase "as discussed in our conversation with [name] on [date]" provides archival clarity. Minutes are records, not relationship-building tools. Different rules apply.
Outside those two contexts, though, you're almost always better off rewriting. The opening of a business communication sets the tone for everything that follows, and "as per our conversation" sets a tone most writers aren't intending.
A practical rewrite checklist
Before you hit send on any email that contains "as per our conversation," run through three quick questions. First: does the phrase actually tell the reader anything they don't already know? If you both were on the call, they know you had a conversation. Second: does the phrase match the tone of the relationship? If you're writing to a long-standing colleague or a client you genuinely like, the stiffness is a mismatch. Third: could you open with the actual substance instead of the preamble? Most of the time, the answer is yes.
Cut the phrase and lead with what matters. "The timeline we agreed on is X" is tighter, clearer, and friendlier than "As per our conversation, the timeline we agreed on is X." You lose nothing except the padding.
The broader lesson about business writing defaults
Phrases like "as per our conversation" survive in professional writing because they're safe. Nobody gets reprimanded for using them. They feel formal, and formal feels professional. But overused formal phrases often work against the writer's actual goal, which is to be understood, believed, and responded to. Safe language is not the same as effective language.
The writers who communicate best in professional settings are the ones who've learned to notice their own defaults and ask whether each one is actually doing a job. "As per our conversation" is almost never doing a job that a plainer phrase couldn't do better. Replace it once, and you'll find you never reach for it again.