The line between "well-researched" and "how do they know that" in outbound.
Referencing a role change, a funding round, or something they wrote publicly about their work signals you did your homework.
Mentioning their kid's school, a vacation photo, or their neighborhood crosses from "researched" into "why do you know that" instantly.
Proving you scraped something obscure to get their attention reads as a trick, not a compliment — it costs trust before the pitch even starts.
The distinction that actually matters isn't public versus private data — it's whether the person put that information out in a professional context, expecting it to inform exactly this kind of conversation. A LinkedIn post about a new initiative is an invitation to reference it. A geotagged personal photo, technically public, is not. The test we use: would referencing this make them feel understood, or would it make them check their privacy settings?
Funding announcements, new hires in a relevant role, product launches or job postings all indicate a real, timely reason to reach out.
Speaking to the actual responsibilities of their job title, rather than a generic pitch, is personalization that doesn't require any personal data at all.
A LinkedIn post, podcast appearance or article they authored is fair game — they published it to be referenced and discussed.
Reply rate data across the campaigns we've run consistently favors emails that are obviously relevant to the recipient's role over emails that are impressively specific about the recipient as a person. Automated research that scales across thousands of contacts should be built around company and role signals — the kind of personalization that reads as respect for someone's time, not as a demonstration of how much data you could find.
“The best-performing cold emails we've built never mention anything the prospect didn't already put on their own LinkedIn. That's the whole rule.”