I’ve been hearing a lot about targeting “high-intent” prospects, but I’m realizing I don’t actually know what that means in concrete terms. Like, is it just people with certain job titles? People at companies of a certain size? Recent job changers? Activity on LinkedIn?
I started playing with the smart lead filtering, and I noticed I can set a bunch of criteria—job title, company industry, company size, profile keywords, activity level. But when I apply all of these filters, my audience shrinks to like 2% of where I started, and I’m overthinking whether I’m filtering too hard.
Here’s what I’m wrestling with: high-intent to me might be “someone who just switched to a role that typically hires our service,” but to someone else it might be “someone whose company just got funding” or “someone who posted about a problem we solve.”
I’ve been testing different filter combinations to see which one actually correlates to higher reply rates. So far, I’m noticing that recent job changers who work at mid-market companies and have listed relevant keywords in their profile get way better reply rates than broad targeting. But I’m not sure if that’s universal or just luck with my specific niche.
How are you all defining high-intent for your campaigns? Like, what concrete signals are you actually using—are you filtering by title/company/activity, or is there something else I’m missing?
High-intent is psychological. It’s anyone who has a problem they’re actively thinking about. That’s it. So look for recent job changers in roles where your solution fits, people at companies with recent funding or news (they’re in growth mode = problem-solving mode), people who’ve posted about or engaged with content related to that problem. These are people whose mind is already primed. Your hook lands better because they’re already thinking about the thing you’re addressing. Generic targeting is people with the title. High-intent targeting is people with the title and a signal that they’re actively feeling pain.
From a copywriting angle, once you’re targeting high-intent people, your message can be more direct because they’re already thinking about the problem. You don’t need as much setup. The hook works harder because they’re already receptive. That’s why high-intent list = higher reply rates.
Technically, high-intent usually combines multiple signals: recency (joined the platform or changed jobs in the last 90 days), relevance (title + keyword match), and company fit (size, industry, funding status). I set up filters that require at least 2-3 of these signals to be true. So someone needs to be recent AND in the right role, or in the right role AND at a funded company. Not all three necessarily, but enough to suggest actual intent, not random title match. You’re basically scoring prospects by likelihood to care about your value prop.
In LiSeller’s smart filtering, I build segments like: “Recent job changers (0-6 mo) + Sales role + Company raised funding in last 2 years.” That’s a qualified segment. Smaller list, but way more responsive. Then I have a broader segment for nurture. High-intent gets the aggressive sequence; everyone else gets a gentle nurture. This is just data layering, and it works.
In recruiting, high-intent is different. It’s people who are actively looking or recently changed roles. People whose LinkedIn profile has been updated in the last 30 days. People who’ve accepted new jobs or moved companies in the last 90 days. I also look at whether they’ve engaged with technical content or taken a skills test recently—that signals they’re active and thinking. For specialized roles, someone who’s mentioned the specific technology you need in their profile is high-intent. But you have to be specific. General technical skills don’t equal intent.
The key learning: high-intent isn’t about who they are, it’s about whether you have evidence they’re thinking about their career/role. Activity level is the biggest signal.
From an account health angle, tighter filtering is always better anyway. You’re sending fewer messages, which is safer for your account. You’re also sending to more engaged prospects, which means more opens and clicks. That engagement pattern signals to LinkedIn that you’re not a spam bot—you’re a real person having real conversations. So filtering for high-intent isn’t just better for conversions; it’s better for account preservation.
I’d always err on the side of filtering harder rather than looser. If you end up with 2% of your original list but 3x reply rate, that’s a win. You’re not trying to message everyone; you’re trying to message the people most likely to engage.
Here’s what actually works for me: I identify my ideal customer profile first. For us, that’s a Director+ at a SaaS company with 50-200 employees that’s raised Series A in the last 3 years. Then I filter for titles matching that, shrink to that company size range, and layer on recent job changes. I’ll also look for any engagement with our content or our space in the last 90 days. That’s high-intent. The list gets smaller, but the response rate is like 3x better. It’s not luck; it’s qualification. I’m literally only messaging people who are already a fit.
The teams that struggle are always the ones trying to message “everyone in this industry.” That’s not high-intent; that’s spam. High-intent is specific and layered.
Pro tip: test different filter combinations with small sample sizes first. Filter combo A: 100 people, track reply rate. Filter combo B: 100 people, different criteria, track reply rate. After one test round, you’ll know which criteria actually matter for your space.
High-intent is fundamentally about signal timing and relevance. Someone with your ideal title is relevant. Someone who changed jobs in the last 60 days is timing-ready (they have budget, attention, and mandate to solve problems). Someone whose company just raised funding is in growth mode (they’re hiring, spending, solving). Combine these signals and you have high-intent. Generic title matching alone is not high-intent. You need decision readiness + problem relevance + financial capability. When all three are present, you get replies.
The reason big companies with loose targeting get low reply rates is they’re hitting everyone. Smaller companies that tighten their targeting see 2x-3x better response. It’s not about volume; it’s about qualification. High-intent is the intersection of these factors, not any single one.