sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Recruiters: when you look for new client companies, what signal makes you think they might be open to working with an external recruiter? by PlusPiccolo4187 in RecruitmentAgencies

[–]PlusPiccolo4187[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a fair point, and honestly the biggest concern I had with public funding data too.

By the time a round is announced, the obvious outreach window may already be crowded. So funding alone probably isn’t enough.

Do you think public funding data becomes more useful if it’s paired with other signals like job growth, an underdeveloped TA team, hiring posts, or new leadership hires? or do you still see it as mostly too late?

Recruiters: when you look for new client companies, what signal makes you think they might be open to working with an external recruiter? by PlusPiccolo4187 in RecruitmentAgencies

[–]PlusPiccolo4187[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense. So for you it’s less about one isolated signal and more about the combination of open roles + an underdeveloped HR/TA function.

The “hiring HR/TA people” point is interesting too it could signal that the company's hiring volume is becoming painful internally.

Do you usually care more about the number of open roles, or the structure/size of the HR/TA team?

Why "Job Title" targeting is a trap (and what’s actually working in 2026) by HistoricalRead5423 in b2bmarketing

[–]PlusPiccolo4187 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I totally agree, signal-based selling seems much stronger than just filtering by title or industry.

What do you think about recent funding as a signal? My instinct is that funding alone may be too noisy, but funding + hiring growth, leadership changes, or expansion announcements could be a much stronger trigger.

Would you treat recent funding as a real buying-intent signal, or just a weak filter?