Tim Carden

Thoughtleader

The future of B2B belongs to companies that master systematic outbound.

We partner with high-ticket B2B companies to build predictable lead generation engines through cold email and LinkedIn outreach - data-driven campaigns that target the right people with personalized messaging that books meetings.

What makes us different:

1. Technology: Clay for enrichment, HeyReach for LinkedIn automation, multi-domain email infrastructure
2. Personalization: AI-powered message variations that avoid spam filters and pattern detection
3. Deliverability: Domain warming strategies and technical optimization for maximum inbox placement
4. Results: Every campaign tied to booked meetings and pipeline, not opens or clicks

We've engineered a system that identifies your ideal customers, reaches them with personalized messaging, and books qualified meetings predictably.

Our clients include:

• High-ticket B2B companies ($10K+ ACV)
• SaaS companies needing consistent pipeline
• Agencies and service providers selling premium offerings
• 7, 8, and 9-figure businesses ready to scale outbound

Interested?

Book a call with our team (link in featured section)

Co-Founder

Hey, I'm Tim, Co-Founder at Thoughtleader, and we solve the #1 problem killing B2B growth: empty sales pipelines.

We help high-ticket B2B companies flood their calendars with qualified meetings using systematic cold email and LinkedIn outreach - data-driven campaigns that target decision-makers and book meetings on autopilot.

We can help you if:

• You're a B2B founder/CEO who needs predictable pipeline NOW... We'll deliver qualified meetings within 2-4 weeks using proven outbound systems

• You're scaling a 7-9 figure business and tired of inconsistent lead flow... Our cold email + LinkedIn campaigns run 24/7, filling your calendar while you sleep

• You sell high-ticket solutions ($10K+ ACV) and need buyers with real authority and active need... We target the right people with personalized messaging that gets responses

Our approach:

• Clay for data enrichment and hyper-personalization
• HeyReach for LinkedIn automation at scale
• Multi-domain cold email infrastructure for maximum deliverability
• AI-powered message variations to avoid spam filters
• Systematic qualification to ensure meeting quality

We've cracked the code on B2B outbound that actually drives revenue. Predictable meetings, qualified prospects, scalable systems.

If you:

• Sell high-ticket B2B solutions (>$10k contracts)
• Need qualified meetings, not vanity metrics
• Are ready for predictable, scalable lead generation

Let's talk.

Book a call 👉 https://thoughtleader.typeform.com/workwithus?utm_source=linkedin

Or DM me directly and I'll show you exactly how we're getting these results.

I've been building lists wrong for months. 

I just discovered Clay's native People Finder pulls from 100+ data providers and applies its own data cleaning on top. No single source dependency.

Here's what just changed for me:

I exported 12,000 prospects in under 60 seconds. No Sales Navigator export dance. No HeyReach workarounds. No downloading CSVs and re-uploading them.

The old way:
• Build list in Sales Nav
• Export through HeyReach  
• Download → clean → upload to Clay
• Then start enrichment

The new way:
• Clay People Finder → same filters → instant export
• Done

You get all the standard filters (job titles, company size, industry, location) but without the bottleneck of manual list building.

The real unlock:

50,000+ prospects in seconds. But more importantly, you can segment intelligently from the start.

Example: "Financial services CEOs, US, 200+ employees" as one campaign. Then measure what's actually working without list-building friction.

With 40 domains and 200 inboxes warmed, the constraint isn't infrastructure anymore. It's how fast you can test ICPs and messaging angles.

If you're using Clay and still manually building lists elsewhere first, you're adding unnecessary steps. The People Finder has been sitting there the whole time.

Co-Founder @ Thoughtleader. Filling calendars with qualified meetings for high-ticket B2B companies through cold email + LinkedIn outreach + cold calling

Reply rate is a vanity metric. Most agencies obsess over it.
They celebrate going from 2% to 5%. Meanwhile, their total pipeline collapses.
Here's the trap:

THE VANITY METRIC

Agency A: 2% reply rate on 10,000 emails = 200 replies
Agency B: 8% reply rate on 1,000 emails = 80 replies

Agency B has a "better" reply rate.
Agency A has 2.5x more conversations.

Guess which one grows faster?

WHY AGENCIES FALL FOR THIS

High reply rates feel impressive.
They look good in case studies.
They're easy to screenshot and share.

But they don't pay the bills.

THE REAL PROBLEM

To get higher reply rates, agencies:

• Narrow their ICP to tiny segments
• Build complex signal-based workflows
• Spend weeks on personalization
• Send to 500 prospects instead of 5,000

They trade volume for percentage points.

WHAT ACTUALLY MATTERS

Total qualified replies.
Not reply rate percentage.

• 200 replies at 2% beats 80 replies at 8%
• More replies = more meetings
• More meetings = more revenue

The math is simple.

THE BOTTOM LINE

If you're optimizing for reply rate, you're optimizing for LinkedIn screenshots.

If you're optimizing for total replies, you're optimizing for revenue.

One looks good.
One pays your team.

Choose wisely.

Are you chasing percentages or pipeline?

Co-Founder @ RevenueFlow. Filling calendars with qualified meetings for high-ticket B2B companies through cold email + LinkedIn outreach + cold calling

Most cold emails fail because they ask for too much, too soon.
Here's what actually works in cold outbound:


1. Benefits over features. Always.

No one cares about your "free strategy session to identify hidden growth bottlenecks."

They care about the actual outcome.

• Cut costs by 30%?
• Increase revenue by 50%?
• Grow EBITDA by 40%?

That's what matters.

Stop selling the process. Start selling the result.


2. Never ask for the meeting in email #1.

Time is people's most valuable resource.

They don't want to give 30 minutes to some random person who cold emailed them 10 minutes ago.

But they will respond to:

1. "Interested?"
2. "Mind if I send over more info?"
3. "Want to hear more?"

• Get the response first.
• Build the conversation second.
• Ask for the call third.

This one change has a very big impact on response rates.


3. Make it specific.

Generic claims get ignored.

Specific outcomes get responses.

The best cold emails don't feel like sales pitches.

They feel like the start of a conversation worth having.

Are you asking for too much in your first email?

No alternative text description for this image

Drug dealers understand conversion psychology better than most B2B marketers.

Here's the method they use that will do more for your response rates than anything else:

Most B2B outreach fails because you're asking prospects to trust claims they can't verify.

But when you let them *experience* your service for free, everything changes.

Try-before-you-buy lead magnets are the most powerful conversion mechanism you can use. Here's why:

1. Zero trust barrier

When someone gets to try your service firsthand (even for a limited scope) they're not taking your word for it anymore. They're making a decision based on their own experience.

This is why SaaS companies obsess over free trials. Why car dealerships insist on test drives. Why drug dealers give free samples.

No amount of selling conveys as much information as 10 minutes of actually using the product.

2. Massive reply rate increase

You're giving substantial value upfront. Not a PDF. Not a "framework." Actual delivery of what you sell.

We ran hiring campaigns that hit 10% positive reply rates. Why? Because we were literally offering people jobs (something they genuinely wanted).

The lesson: if your offer is legitimately valuable, response rates skyrocket.

3. Self-qualifying mechanism

If prospects don't convert after trying your service, your offer probably isn't good enough (and they shouldn't have bought anyway).

But if your service actually delivers? Conversion rates on qualified trials can hit 25-33%.

Example math:

• $300 cost to deliver trial
• 1 in 4 converts
• $1,200 CAC
• $50K+ ACV

That's a no-brainer.

Why most companies don't do this:

It costs time and money to deliver, especially when you don't know if they'll convert.

But if you have high ACV deals, you can afford to invest in acquisition. The ROI on one closed deal more than pays for the trials that didn't convert.

The reality:

Your lead magnet is more important than your copy, your personalization, and your "signals" combined.

I'd estimate 60-70% of campaign planning time should go into designing the best possible lead magnet.

Two things matter more: infrastructure (if your emails hit spam, nothing else matters) and the right list (you can't sell ice to an Eskimo). But once you have those, the lead magnet trumps everything else.

If you're doing high-ticket B2B and not offering some form of try-before-you-buy, you're leaving money on the table.

What's stopping most people isn't capability (it's willingness to invest in acquisition).

Your cold emails are too long.

I just spent 20 minutes editing a single cold email down from 6 sentences to 4. Reply rate will probably jump 20-30%.

Most people write cold emails like they're drafting formal business correspondence. They're not.

Cold emails need to be ruthlessly concise. Every extra word is friction.

Here are the principles for writing cold emails that actually get replies:

1. Make every word earn its place

• Replace "complimentary" with "free"
• Replace "conversation" with "chat"  
• Replace "Would you be interested in a complementary strategy session where I share..." with "Interested in a free strategy session? I'll share..."
• Cut phrases like "with a combined value of" and just bracket the number: ($500M)

2. Credibility needs multiple proof points

One case study is okay. Three is better.

• Instead of: "I've worked with Company A (sold for $200M)"
• Write: "I've helped exit Company A ($200M), Company B (acquired by Industry Leader), and Company C ($1B)"

Pack more proof into fewer words.

3. Add urgency to your CTA

• "Worth a quick chat to see if this could help?" is fine
• "Worth a quick chat this week to see if this could help?" is better

Most prospects who want to take a call want to do it soon. Make it easy for them.

4. Avoid jargon and long-winded phrases

• Bad: "As they navigated critical growth inflection points"
• Good: "Same playbook I used with [specific clients]"

Clear beats clever.

5. Only use 2-message sequences

Not 3. Not 4. Two messages maximum.

Why? Deliverability. More follow-ups increase spam risk, which kills your inbox.

• Most replies come from message 1
• Some from message 2
• Almost none from 3+

LinkedIn is different because deliverability isn't a concern there. For email, stick to 2.

6. Edit AI outputs relentlessly

Claude and ChatGPT give you a starting point, not a finished product.

• Go back and forth with the AI
• Make it tighter
• Make it punchier
• Remove the bloat

The same principles that make good content apply to cold emails: concise, clear, conversational.

7. Put 80% of effort into message 1

Your first email does the heavy lifting. That's where reply rates are won or lost.

The follow-up matters, but it's secondary. Get message 1 perfect first.

Most people spend equal time on all their messages. That's a mistake. Front-load your effort where it actually matters.

The difference between a 0.5% and 3% reply rate often comes down to removing 10-15 unnecessary words and tightening your proof points.

Cold email is a game of inches. Cut ruthlessly.

I spent months building sophisticated cold email campaigns with fancy Clay tables and AI personalization. Then I saw which email actually got a reply.

It was the shortest, simplest one.

• No personalization beyond first name
• No research bullets
• No "I saw you posted about X" openers

Just a clear offer and an easy yes.

Here's what I learned about cold email that most people get backwards:

We assume more effort equals better results.

• So we build elaborate Clay workflows
• We scrape LinkedIn for personalization tokens
• We write paragraph-long intros proving we did our homework

But here's the problem with that approach:

Every extra sentence is mental tax on your prospect.

• They're not impressed by your research
• They're exhausted by having to process it

The emails that perform best follow a simple pattern:

• Get to the point in under 50 words
• Make the offer crystal clear
• Remove every word that doesn't directly serve the close
• Make it brain-dead easy to say yes

Think about the last cold email you replied to.

I bet it wasn't the one with three personalization bullets and a story about how you're both dog lovers.

It was probably the one that said exactly what they wanted in 2 sentences and gave you a reason to care.

Volume with decent reply rates beats perfect targeting with high reply rates.

Because while you're spending 10 minutes personalizing one email, someone else sent 50 that were "good enough."

And good enough with a clear offer will always outperform perfect with a confusing one.

The best cold email infrastructure isn't the fanciest Clay table.

It's the discipline to delete every unnecessary word.

Are you optimizing for effort or results?

Most B2B companies are optimizing for the wrong metric.

They're obsessing over reply rates when they should be obsessing over reply volume.

Here's the math that proves it:

10% reply rate on 500 prospects = 50 replies
2% reply rate on 10,000 prospects = 200 replies

You just 4x'd your pipeline by accepting a "worse" reply rate.

But here's what really happens when you chase high reply rates:

You spend weeks connecting Clay to Apollo to ZoomInfo to find prospects with hyper-specific signals.

You build some complex GTM motion that only works for 500 people in your ICP.

You run out of those prospects in 2 weeks.

Then you're back to square one, hunting for new signals, connecting new tools, building new workflows.

Meanwhile, the company with the 2% reply rate just sent their 50th batch of emails and has 1,000 conversations in their pipeline.

The real constraint isn't reply rate optimization.

It's offer quality and list size.

Most companies would rather spend 40 hours building a signal-based targeting system than 4 hours crafting an offer so good that even a cold prospect stops and pays attention.

They're engineering solutions to avoid doing the hard work of making something people actually want.

The infrastructure and the list matter more than the copy.

The offer matters more than the targeting.

Volume with a decent reply rate beats perfect targeting with a great reply rate every single time.

What's keeping you from sending to 10,000 people instead of 500?

We ran a cold email campaign with ZERO personalization.
No custom first lines. No social proof signals. No clever icebreakers.
Got a 10% positive reply rate.

Here's what actually mattered:

THE HIERARCHY OF COLD EMAIL

Most people obsess over the wrong things. They spend hours perfecting their copy while their emails hit spam. Or they build elaborate personalization systems while pitching terrible offers to the wrong people.

Here's the real hierarchy that matters:

1. Infrastructure (most important)
Without proper deliverability, your emails never get seen. Period. Doesn't matter how good anything else is if you're landing in spam. This is table stakes.

2. List Quality (second most important)
You can have the best offer in the world, but if you're selling B2B SaaS to grandmas, you're getting zero sales. Right audience beats perfect messaging every time.

3. Offer (third most important, but THIS is where 80% of your effort should go)
After infrastructure and list are dialed, your offer determines everything. This is where most people drastically underinvest.

Alex Hormozi's Value Equation from "100 Million Dollar Offers" breaks this down perfectly:

Value = (Dream Outcome × Perceived Likelihood of Achievement) / (Time Delay × Effort and Sacrifice)

In cold email terms: your lead magnet IS your offer.

That hiring campaign I mentioned? The offer (a job opportunity) was so strong that personalization became almost irrelevant. The value equation was maxed out.

Most founders do this backwards. They build complex signal-based personalization systems and spend zero time making their offer irresistible. They pitch their product directly instead of leading with something so valuable prospects would feel stupid saying no.

If you don't have infrastructure built to deliver free trials, audits, or consultation calls - build that first. An irresistible, systematized lead magnet will outperform perfect copy with a mediocre offer 10 times out of 10.

Stop trying to write the perfect email. Start building offers people can't refuse.

What's your lead magnet offer, and how does it stack up on Hormozi's Value Equation?

Most cold email experts are wasting 30 minutes per prospect.

They find the perfect signal first. Then build a list of 50 people.

We do the opposite and generated $1.5M in pipeline.

Here's how we personalize 500 prospects in 30 seconds each using Clay:

• Build your list first using Clay People Finder
• Get 500 qualified prospects from your ICP
• Run two automated personalization columns

Column 1 checks for recent podcasts or LinkedIn posts

Column 2 checks for funding rounds or company features

Here's why we split it into two separate columns instead of one:

Each AI prompt can allocate more intelligence to finding its specific signals.

In an ideal world you'd have four columns. One for each signal. But you'd burn way too many API credits.

Two columns is the sweet spot. The AI is focused enough to find quality signals without wasting credits.

If both columns come back empty? We go straight to the offer.

The controversial part? The personalization doesn't need to be relevant to what you sell.

You just need something recent to break the ice and prove you didn't blast 10,000 people.

Examples of what we use:

• Your podcast with Steven Bartlett was awesome.
• Congrats on the Series B.
• Your LinkedIn post on leadership was interesting.

That's it. Then you go into your offer.

We find personalization for 80 to 90 percent of our list this way.

The other 10 to 20 percent? We send the email anyway without personalization.

Most people do it backwards. They spend 30 minutes finding the perfect relevant signal. Then they have 50 people to email instead of 500.

Or they scrape LinkedIn engagers and filter for intent. Burn API credits on junk data. Waste a week for 100 mediocre leads.

Build the list first. Personalize at scale second. Your offer does the heavy lifting anyway.

I reviewed cold email feedback for 90 minutes yesterday.

99% of the emails made the same fatal mistakes.

Here's what kills your reply rates (and how the top 1% avoid it):

The biggest problem I see?

People ask for strategy sessions.

No one cares about your strategy session.

They care about the outcome.

Stop saying "identify hidden growth bottlenecks" - that's meaningless gibberish.

Start saying "increase revenue by 50% in 6 months" - that's a tangible result.

Features vs benefits is the difference between 2% and 15% reply rates.

Here's what actually works:

• Be brutally specific with outcomes - "helped 3 staffing CEOs generate 40% revenue growth" beats "helped clients grow" every time

• Use real numbers and timeframes - vague claims have zero credibility and everyone can smell them

• Lead with the benefit they actually want - not the process of how you'll deliver it

But here's the thing that shocked me most:

The biggest reply rate killer isn't your offer.

It's your CTA.

Asking for a call in the first email is like proposing on the first date.

Time is people's most valuable resource.

They won't give 30 minutes to a random cold email.

Instead, use lightweight CTAs:

• "Want to hear more?"
• "Can I send over more info?"
• "Interested?"

Then once they respond, ask for the meeting.

This one change can double your positive reply rates.

Are you making people work too hard to engage with your cold emails?

80% of your cold email effort is going to the wrong place.
Most teams obsess over personalization, intent signals, and clever copy.
That's 5% of what actually moves the needle:

We proved this by running a hiring campaign with zero personalization, no intent signals, and a random unsegmented list.

10% positive reply rate.

The difference? The offer was a no-brainer.

Here's the cold email structure that actually works:

First name + optional personalized first line + offer + credibility + CTA

That's it.

Where to spend your time:

80% on the offer. This is where deals are won or lost.

15% on credibility (your best case study or proof point).

5% on everything else.

The golden rule: Make the prospect understand what you're offering in as few words as possible. Short, snappy, clear.

If your offer isn't a no-brainer, no amount of personalization will save you. You can't sell ice to an Eskimo no matter how clever your copy is.

The 3 critical elements (in order):

1. Infrastructure (if your emails hit spam, nothing else matters)
2. The list (right people for what you're selling)
3. The offer (what you're actually pitching)

Everything else is noise.

How to build an offer people feel stupid saying no to:

Alex Hormozi breaks this down in $100M Offers using the Value Equation:

Value = (Dream Outcome × Perceived Likelihood) ÷ (Time Delay × Effort & Sacrifice)

To make your offer irresistible:

• Increase the dream outcome (what they actually want to achieve)
• Increase perceived likelihood (proof it will work for them)
• Decrease time delay (results happen faster)
• Decrease effort and sacrifice (make it easier on them)

This is why done-for-you services command premium prices. You're removing the effort and sacrifice from the equation entirely.

Focus on making your offer impossible to ignore. The rest takes care of itself.

Spintax is killing your deliverability.

Here's a better way to add variety to cold emails that actually works:

Most people use Spintax to create email variations. The problem? It looks robotic, creates awkward phrasing, and spam filters are getting better at detecting it.

There's a better system using Clay that gives you 125 unique email combinations while maintaining complete quality control.

Here's how it works:

Take every component of your cold email (offer line, credibility line, CTA, etc.) and handwrite 5 great versions of each.

That's it. 5 versions per component.

Now you have 125 possible permutations (5 × 5 × 5 if you have 3 components).

Use Clay's random number generator to pick a number 1-5 for each component. Feed those numbers into your AI prompt, and the AI assembles the email using your pre-written lines.

Why handwrite instead of letting AI generate variations?

Quality control. You wrote every single line. You know they're all great. No AI hallucinations. No awkward phrasing. No mediocre copy slipping through.

You're doing maybe 30 minutes of extra work upfront to create these variations, and in return you get 125 completely different emails that all maintain your quality standard.

Why not just ask the AI to pick randomly from your variations?

Because LLMs are terrible at randomness. When we first tried this, the AI chose the same exact offer line 1,500 times in a row. It wasn't random at all.

By controlling the randomness through Clay's number generator, you get true variety.

The result:

Every email is structurally different while sounding natural. Spam filters can't detect patterns because there aren't any. Each prospect gets a unique email, but you know every line is high quality.

Want even more variety? Write 10 versions of each component for 1,000 permutations. Still manageable, still under your control.

This works for any cold email structure. Whatever components you use, just create 5 versions of each and let the system handle the rest.

If you're still using Spintax in 2025, you're making your emails worse and risking deliverability.

Build variety into your system instead.

Most B2B sales reps lose deals in the 48 hours after a prospect replies to their cold email.

Here's the simple system we use to call prospects within minutes of their first reply:

When someone responds to your cold email, you have a tiny window of peak interest.

Install ContactOut Chrome extension on your browser.

The second a prospect replies:

• Click their LinkedIn profile
• Hit the ContactOut button
• Grab their phone number in 2 seconds
• Call them immediately while the email is still warm

When it works, you're the only person who bothered to pick up the phone.

You build rapport in real-time while the conversation is fresh.

Speed wins in outbound.

The fastest person to call a warm lead usually wins the deal.

The one who shows up first closes the business.

The top 1% of cold emailers are dialing numbers the second someone shows interest.

They move faster. They have the right tools to do it.

Cold email works best when you have a plan to get prospects on the phone fast.

What's stopping you from calling your warm leads today?

The biggest mistake in cold email isn't what you think. It's not your subject line or your personalization. It's that you're making prospects work too hard. Here's what I mean:

1. Sell Benefits, Not Features

When you say "I'll identify your growth bottlenecks" instead of "I'll help you increase revenue by 40%", you're selling a feature, not a benefit.

Nobody cares about the feature.
They care about the outcome.

Strategy sessions, consultations, audits - these are all features.
The benefit is the actual result they get afterward.

2. Specificity Builds Credibility

"I help companies grow" sounds fake.
"I helped 3 staffing firms achieve 25% revenue growth in 6 months" sounds real.

Generic claims require blind trust.
Specific claims with numbers feel believable.

The more specific you are, the more credible you become.

3. Never Ask for Too Much Too Soon

Asking for a 30-minute call in your first email is asking for their most valuable resource before you've earned it.

Instead, use a light CTA.
"Interested?" or "Want to hear more?"

When they say yes, then you suggest the call.

Same destination, different path, way higher response rates.

The pattern here is simple:

Every time you make a prospect decode what you mean, figure out the benefit themselves, or commit before they're ready, you lose them.

Do the heavy lifting for them.

Sell outcomes, be specific, and don't ask for too much too fast.

What's the biggest mistake you see people making in their outreach?

I just reviewed a cold email that had a 6-figure offer. The prospect had no idea what they were being offered. Here's the problem most people make when writing cold emails (and how to fix it):

The email said: "We just created a custom voice AI demo for your customer service operations."

Sounds technical. Sounds impressive.

But here's the issue: Nobody knows what "voice AI demo" means.

Your prospect shouldn't need a translator to understand your offer.

Here's what we changed:

• Replaced "voice AI demo" with "voice agent to automate your customer service"

• Added the specific benefit right in the offer line

• Made the credibility line flow naturally from the offer

The new version: "I just created a custom voice agent to automate [Company]'s customer service operations. This is the same agent we used to automate a Fortune 500 company's ethics hotline and reduce a major telecom's support calls by 60%."

Same offer.
10x more clear.

The rule: If your prospect needs to Google what you're selling, you've already lost them.

Most people think using industry jargon makes them sound credible.

It doesn't.

It makes you sound like everyone else who's confused about why prospects aren't responding.

Your offer should be so clear that a 12-year-old could explain what you do and why someone should care.

Because if your prospect can't immediately understand the value, they'll just move on to the next email.

Are you making your prospects work too hard to understand what you're offering?

I analyzed every meeting we've booked from cold email this year.

One personalization tactic delivered 600% better results than the rest:

We compared 4 different opener types across thousands of sends.

The results weren't even close.

Here's what actually moves the needle:

Generic company compliments barely outperformed no opener at all.

0.8% meeting rate vs 0.6% with no personalization.

That's an increase, but hardly worth the effort.

LinkedIn posts and articles did better.

1% meeting rate - roughly double the no-opener baseline.

Still not game-changing, but at least it's moving in the right direction.

Then we hit the goldmine.

Mentioning someone's podcast appearance delivered a 6x higher meeting booking rate compared to no opener.

Same offer, same list, same everything - just a different first line.

Why does this work so well?

1. Podcast mentions are rare because the data is hard to scrape (no database exists that lets you filter recent podcast guests by ICP)

2. It signals genuine interest - you spent an hour listening to them speak, not 10 seconds skimming their LinkedIn

I experienced this myself two years ago.

Someone DM'd me on Twitter saying they loved a podcast I'd done.

I respond to almost zero Twitter DMs.

But I responded to that one immediately.

There's something about knowing someone invested time in your content that hits different.

The big lesson here isn't "go mention podcasts."

It's about finding personalization angles that are both rare and meaningful.

Things your competitors can't easily automate.

Things that make prospects feel genuinely seen, not just surface-level research.

We're now hunting for more data points like this - high-effort signals that show real interest, not just surface-level research.

Because when you find them, the ROI is undeniable.

What personalization tactics have actually moved the needle for your campaigns?

Taplio

Tim Carden's Linkedin Analytics

What is Tim talking about?

Who is engaging with Tim

's Best Posts (last 30 days)

Want to drive more opportunities from LinkedIn?