Outbound usually gets planned around who to contact and what to say, with timing treated as a scheduling detail that gets sorted out later. Based on the numbers Iāve gone through and the performance of the campaigns that prioritize signals over cold messaging, Iād say that order is backwards and timing should be the number one priority.
Across roughly 70,000 campaigns I've been able to look at (as the Director of Marketing & Sales, I have access to all Expandiās data, including the campaigns our clients run, their performances, etc.), the campaigns that are build around reacting to something a person did outperformed cold list-based outreach by a wide margin. Messaging people you are already connected with has an average reply rate of 16.86%. Contacting people who attended the same LinkedIn event lands at 14.21%, and reaching out to someone shortly after they viewed your profile comes in at 13.4%. Cold campaigns, on the other hand, tend to sit somewhere in the 5 to 9% range.
Even if we take out the 16.86% reply rate when reaching out to people youāre already connected with (considering youāll have to connect at some point anyway, regardless of whether the campaign is cold or signal-based), the reply rates are:
- 14.21% with the people who attended the same LI event
- 13.4% with the people who viewed your profile
vs
The difference is 4.4% to 9.21%, thatās approximately double the performance of cold outreach campaigns, which means that even the āsimplestā singal-based outreach campaigns get 2x the replies of cold ones. And this only goes higher as you set up more steps and filters - for example, reaching out to people who reacted to a certain topic your product/service covers; targeting people who show interest in a product/service like yours through a comment or reaction, etc. With the right optimization and precise targeting, signal-based outreach can outperform cold outreach 3-4x, and this is just the baseline. Add well-performing copy on top of that, and a well-designed follow-up sequence, and youāll have a goldmine campaign.
The signals worth building around are:
- Someone views your profile, especially more than once in a short window
- Someone engages with a post, yours or a competitor's, on a topic close to what you sell
- Someone attends an event in your space, which is a public list of people who set aside an hour for the subject
- Someone visits your company page without filling in anything
- Someone changes jobs into a role that owns the problem you solve
The main reason timer-based sequences underperform against this is that a timer cannot tell the difference between a person who is not interested at all, a person who is not interested at the moment, and a person who is not interested this month. 2 out of 3 here could be interested at some point in the future, and the best way to know that is by tracking their signals.
The only limitation is volume. Signal-based campaigns do not scale to fill a pipeline if youāre looking to sell a lot. The number of people who visit your profile or turn up to an event in a given week is small, and you do not control it. Anyone claiming they fully replaced cold outreach entirely with signal-based is either selling large-ticket deals that depend on quality>quantity, or just has a very wide pipeline build with dozens of active accounts, all pulling in new leads through signals. But this is extremely hard to build because it requires consistent activity on all accounts, and can be demanding to the point that the ROI isn't there.
The realistic version is that signals become the highest-converting slice of a mix that still contains cold outreach, and they are worth building first because that slice is cheap to serve and usually sitting untouched. Plus, it continues generating leads because, once you build a consistent presence and converting activity, new prospects will inevitably come. So think of it as a long-term investment as well, that also has some serious short-term benefits.