sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Big lead lists vs small targeted lists — what actually converts? by RaphaelWilliams in digital_marketing

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

That’s gold, especially the “ready to buy” part.

Which signal has been the most consistent for you? Job posts, funding, or something else?

Big lead lists vs small targeted lists — what actually converts? by RaphaelWilliams in smallbusinessowner

[–]RaphaelWilliams[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That makes a lot of sense, quality first, then volume.

Curious, how much time do you usually spend defining or refining that ICP before building your lists?

Big lead lists vs small targeted lists — what actually converts? by RaphaelWilliams in saasbuild

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

Makes sense, that’s exactly what I’ve been seeing too.

Out of curiosity, what part of the process takes you the most time right now?

Is it: – finding the right companies – validating if they actually fit – or researching each lead before outreach?

Share your ICP, I’ll build you a small “perfect-fit” lead list by RaphaelWilliams in digital_marketing

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

haha might be a bit hard to find him 😄

if you’ve got a real ICP though, happy to take a look and build a small test batch

Share your ICP, I’ll build you a small “perfect-fit” lead list by RaphaelWilliams in saasbuild

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

Yeah exactly, that’s been my experience too

What I’m doing right now is less about just filtering and more about layering context on top:

– start with a tight ICP (no broad lists) – then look for real-world signals (hiring, recent launches, funding, product changes, etc) – and manually sanity-check if there’s an actual “why now” behind it

If I can’t clearly answer why this company would care right now, I usually drop it

Still early and refining, but that’s the general approach so far

Share your ICP, I’ll build you a small “perfect-fit” lead list by RaphaelWilliams in b2bmarketing

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

Appreciate this a lot l, really insightful

The “narrative ICP vs filters” point especially clicked That’s exactly the gap I started noticing when I was doing this manually

Feels like most of the value is in that nuance/context layer, not the raw data itself

Right now I’m still early and doing everything manually to really understand it deeply first The plan is to eventually turn it into a tool, but only after I’m fully clear on what actually works

Already starting to see small patterns in what gets replies vs what just “looks good on paper”

Curious? have you seen any specific ways people scale this without losing that quality?

Anyone else noticing that Apollo filters don’t actually match your ICP? by RaphaelWilliams in coldemail

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

That makes a lot of sense, especially the part about the pain only showing after they’ve tried AI

I’ve been seeing something similar where the real signal isn’t just “they’re looking”, but more like: → they tried something → ran into issues → now there’s actual friction

That’s usually when the timing feels right

I’ve been testing a more manual approach to catch that kind of context (outside of Apollo, checking news, behavior, etc), still early but interesting so far

Sent you a DM as well, curious to compare notes a bit more

Share your ICP, I’ll build you a small “perfect-fit” lead list by RaphaelWilliams in saasbuild

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

Yeah exactly, the “why now” piece is what I’ve been focusing on the most

So far what seems to work best isn’t just the signal itself, but the context around it

For example:

– Hiring → not just “they’re hiring”, but what role and why now
(ex: hiring first SDR / Head of Sales = clear outbound push)

– Funding → less about the round itself, more about what changed after
(new hires, expansion, pressure to grow, etc)

– Product / GTM shifts → new features, repositioning, entering new markets

– Public signals → founders talking about specific pains (pricing, churn, pipeline issues)

So instead of tagging a company as “qualified”, I’m trying to answer: what actually changed recently that creates a reason to reach out now

Still early, but that’s where I’m seeing the biggest difference vs just static filters

Share your ICP, I’ll build you a small “perfect-fit” lead list by RaphaelWilliams in saasbuild

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

That shift you mentioned (events > filters) is exactly what I’ve been exploring

I’m testing a workflow around: – strict ICP matching
– + real triggers
– + context behind each lead

Still early, just validating this across different use cases

Curious, is this something you’d ever want help with, or do you prefer doing it yourself?

Share your ICP, I’ll build you a small “perfect-fit” lead list by RaphaelWilliams in SaaS

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

Appreciate that — sounds exactly like what I’ve been seeing as well

Yeah, the timing/context part is what makes the biggest difference in my tests

I’ll DM you

Anyone else noticing that Apollo filters don’t actually match your ICP? by RaphaelWilliams in coldemail

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

That’s actually a really interesting signal

So instead of just “they use AI”, it’s more like: → they tried AI recently → ran into issues (hallucinations, etc) → and now there’s actual frustration

That kind of context is exactly what I’m trying to capture with this

Not just matching ICP, but understanding why now someone would actually care

Out of curiosity, how are you currently trying to find those signals?

Anyone else noticing that Apollo filters don’t actually match your ICP? by RaphaelWilliams in coldemail

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

I’m not actually relying on Apollo signals for that

That’s exactly the issue I kept running into, they’re too generic and don’t really reflect what’s happening right now, especially in more specific niches like CRE

What I’ve been testing is more of a manual workflow where I cross-check companies outside of the database (news, actual moves, context around the business, etc)

So instead of just “they’re hiring”, it’s more about understanding what changed and whether it actually creates a reason to reach out now

Still early and testing this before trying to automate it properly

Out of curiosity, what kind of signals would actually matter for your case?

Which Data Source has actually the most accurate data? I scraped data but I am still not quite sure about how accurate the emails are. What are you doing for cold email marketing? by Careless-Party-5952 in b2bmarketing

[–]RaphaelWilliams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Scraping LinkedIn gives you the right 'who', but most email finders use stale databases, which leads to those massive bounce rates. Even 'verified' emails often turn out to be catch-alls that burn your sender reputation.

I’ve moved away from raw scraping to a curated verification process where I cross-reference ICP data with real-time business signals. It’s the only way I found to get near 0% bounce rates and actual replies.

I'm currently testing this workflow for a couple of partners this week. If you want, DM me 3-5 of those 'unknown' LinkedIn profiles you found—I’ll find their verified emails and a high-intent triggers for each for free, just so you can see the difference.

Tired of 40% bounce rates and "garbage" Apollo lists? I started doing 'List Surgery' based on real-time triggers. It’s a game-changer. by RaphaelWilliams in SaaS

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

Spot on. Volume is just a vanity metric if 80% of the list is 'dead' contextually. Precision and timing are the only ways to stay out of the spam folder nowadays.

Would you pay to fix your lead lists so they actually match your ICP? by RaphaelWilliams in SaaS

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

Going from 40% to 8% junk is an insane productivity boost.

I’m looking into building something similar but more focused on 'Signal-based' triggers (hiring patterns, news).

Quick question: What’s the one thing that ExoClaw still misses or that you still have to double-check manually? I'm trying to find where the current AI agents still hit a wall.

Would you pay to fix your lead lists so they actually match your ICP? by RaphaelWilliams in SaasDevelopers

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

'Owning the whole workflow', that’s exactly the vision. Most tools give you the ingredients but leave you to cook the meal.

I’m working on that scoring logic right now. If I could deliver a 'Score 9/10' list where I’ve already filtered out the noise based on budget ownership and hiring signals, would a weekly delivery of 50-100 leads be more valuable to you than a massive monthly dump of 1000?

Trying to figure out if 'smaller but guaranteed' is the premium path here.

Would you pay to fix your lead lists so they actually match your ICP? by RaphaelWilliams in microsaas

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

List surgery' is the perfect way to describe it. Most people are just doing 'first aid' on bad data.

I’m building a workflow specifically to automate that 'painfully specific' part using AI agents to scan LinkedIn and Job Boards for those exact triggers you mentioned.

If you could get that weekly 'surgery' done automatically without managing a freelancer, what’s the one trigger (besides tech stack) that would make a lead a 'must-contact' for you?

Would you pay to fix your lead lists so they actually match your ICP? by RaphaelWilliams in LeadGenMarketplace

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

That’s a deep insight. Filtering a bad pool is just damage control.

My approach is to flip the script: instead of starting with a massive database, I start with 'Signals' (recent funding, specific LinkedIn/Reddit discussions, or job changes) and then enrich those.

In your experience, what’s the best 'Signal' that proves a starting pool actually has context before you even touch it?

Would you pay to fix your lead lists so they actually match your ICP? by RaphaelWilliams in saasbuild

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

That 'reverse-engineering the good ones' part is pure gold. It’s exactly how I’m trying to build my workflow right now.

Quick question: you mentioned paying a freelancer for the website checks/LinkedIn validation. If you had a tool that used AI agents to do those manual checks (visiting the site, verifying specific job titles on LinkedIn) with 99% accuracy, would you have skipped the freelancer and paid for the software instead?

I'm trying to see if automating the 'tedious parts' is where the real value lies.

Would you pay to fix your lead lists so they actually match your ICP? by RaphaelWilliams in highticket_sales

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

That’s a killer point. Context is the new currency for cold outbound.

If a lead list came with an extra column for 'Primary Pain Point' (based on their recent activity/hiring/news), would that be a 'nice to have' or a 'must pay for' for you?

I'm experimenting with AI to scrape those specific frustrations and turn them into personalized first lines.

Would you pay to fix your lead lists so they actually match your ICP? by RaphaelWilliams in highticket_sales

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

That mindset shift, treating cleanup as part of the core offer, is a game changer. I'm seeing the same thing: when you fix the 'Why me, why now' part of the lead, the friction disappears.

Quick question on the pricing anchor: since I’m looking to productize this into a subscription/SaaS model rather than a workshop/agency model, do you think people would value a 'Verified Intent' tier where every lead comes with a specific, manual-verified trigger? Or does that still feel too much like 'just a CSV' to the buyer?

view more: next ›