I’m realizing that my targeting might be broader than it needs to be, and I’m wondering if I’m spending time on the wrong people entirely.
Right now, I’m filtering my lists by: job title (focusing on “VP,” “Director,” etc.), company size (50-500 employees, mostly), and industry vertical (SaaS, tech, fintech). Then I send messages to everyone in that pool.
But here’s the thing—not all “VPs at mid-market SaaS companies” are actually interested in what I’m selling. Some are actively hiring or looking for solutions right now. Others aren’t looking for anything and won’t be for a year. I’m lumping them all together and wondering why my conversion rates are stuck.
I ran a tiny experiment last week. I pulled my last 20 replies (people who actually engaged) and looked at what they had in common beyond just title and company size. And I noticed a pattern: almost all of them had recent activity signals. Either they’d just switched companies, or they’d been hiring (visible through connections), or they’d recently posted about a problem I could solve.
So now I’m thinking: what if “high-intent” isn’t really about who someone is, but about what they’re currently doing?
But how do I scale that kind of filtering without manually researching every single prospect? Are you guys filtering for specific activity signals before you start messaging, or are you just sending to a broadly-defined segment and hoping the message quality carries you through?
You’ve just cracked the secret. High-intent isn’t a demographic—it’s a signal. And the good news is that these signals are completely automatable if you set them up right.
Here’s how I structure it: I pull my raw prospect list, then I filter through a series of automated checks:
- Company changes — who recently switched from a competing platform or team member count jumped 20%+
- Recent posts — who posted about a problem related to what I solve in the last 30 days
- New connections — who added a lot of new connections recently (hiring signal)
- Engagement patterns — who’s actively on LinkedIn (last login in the last 2 days)
Then I feed all of this into a scoring system. High engagement on multiple signals? Send immediately. One signal? Add to a slower nurture sequence. No signals? Don’t message at all.
The tech setup is straightforward—either your outreach platform does this natively, or you use Zapier to pull LinkedIn data into Sheets, run formulas, and feed back to your CRM. Takes a day to set up, saves hours forever.
Pro tip: if you’re using LiSeller or similar tools, check if they have smart lead filtering built in. A lot of people ignore that feature and just use basic filters (title, company size), but the real power is in combining behavioral signals with demographic filters.
You’re absolutely right that activity signals matter, but here’s the copywriting angle: once you’ve filtered for those signals, your message has to acknowledge that signal.
Too many people filter for high-intent prospects (great!) and then send them a generic message (terrible). That’s like finding someone actively shopping and then handing them a catalog from 3 years ago.
So yes, filter for recent job changes, recent posts, hiring signals—all of it. But then your message has to reference whatever signal prompted you to reach out. “Saw you just switched to X role” is infinitely better than “Hi, I work in SaaS.”
That’s how your conversion rates actually jump. High-intent targeting plus high-intent messaging. One without the other is only half the battle.
From a recruiting lens, the best high-intent signals are sometimes invisible to outsiders. Like, I’m not just looking for “VP of Engineering.” I’m looking for “VP of Engineering who just joined a Series B company” or “VP of Engineering whose company just pivoted platforms.”
Because those are moments of change and opportunity. That’s when someone is most likely to be thinking about their next move, even if they’re not overtly job hunting.
So my advice: get specific about what life events or company events make someone high-intent. Then filter for those. It’s much more effective than relying on titles alone.
I literally just had this realization with my team last week. We’ve been blasting everyone with a pulse, and I’m like “what if we actually targeted people instead?”
How much do your conversion rates jump when you go from broad targeting to signal-based filtering? Because if it’s significant, I might restructure how we’re vetting lists before campaign launch.
You’re thinking about this correctly. High-intent isn’t a profile—it’s a moment. And the best part is that these moments are trackable.
When you’re setting up your list in a platform with smart filtering, look for options like: job change tracking, company growth indicators, recent posts/engagement, or industry-specific signals (like “SEC filings showing hiring spike”).
Not every tool has all of these, but the good ones let you combine multiple signals into a single filter. Apply that filter, and suddenly you’re not messaging 10,000 generic VPs—you’re messaging 500 VPs who are actively in a moment of change.
Your conversion rate will absolutely reflect the difference.
This is the core insight that separates 3% reply rates from 8-10% reply rates. High-intent isn’t about demographics. It’s about relevance moment.
The best prospects are those where you’re solving a problem they’re actively thinking about right now. How do you know they’re thinking about it? Behavioral signals. They changed jobs, their company is hiring, they posted about a pain point, their company raised money, their competitor just released something new—something happened that makes your solution relevant today.
When you filter for that before you message, you’re not spray-and-praying. You’re offering something someone actually needs right now. That’s when conversions move meaningfully.