80 meetings delivered in five months, January to May 2026.
An Australian project management software company. The client asked not to be named, so there is no logo and no quote on this page. Everything else is exactly what happened.
Campaign ran January to May 2026. Phone only, no email or LinkedIn.
Growth that stopped at the edge of the founders' network.
The company was growing on inbound and word of mouth inside a small professional community. Good-fit customers arrived, slowly and unpredictably, and the flow stopped where the founders' own network did.
Two earlier attempts at outbound had failed. A founder calling between product work lasted six weeks. An email-only sequence pulled replies, but from firms too small to pay. Both pointed at the same conclusion: this market answers the phone, and nobody internally had time to be on it every day.
Exactly what the campaign was.
- ChannelsPhone only
- List source and sizeApollo, 1,150 firms
- Volume380 to 420 dials per week
- CadenceFive touches over 12 working days, then a 30 day rest before requeue
- SegmentArchitecture, engineering and surveying practices, 5 to 80 staff
- ReportingWeekly, with every disposition logged the day it happened
The numbers, with denominators.
- 1,236New leads contacted
- 778Connects63% of leads
- 590Conversations with a decision maker76% of connects
- 80Meetings delivered14% of conversations
- 64Meetings attended80% show rate
Meetings were delivered in four batches of 20. The first batch took two months. The three after it each closed out in under a fortnight.
Twenty new customers, on the client's own numbers.
The 64 attended meetings produced 20 new customers, a close rate of 31 per cent. At an average first-year contract value of $16,000, that is $320,000 in new annual recurring revenue.
Close rate and contract value are the client's figures, not ours. We book and confirm the meetings; what happens in them is their sales process.
What we would change.
The first batch took two months and it should have taken three weeks. The opening script was built on how the product describes itself rather than on what a practice manager actually complains about, and the list was drawn on discipline and headcount, which is the obvious way to define a market of design practices and the wrong one. Most early connects were conversations with firms that had no live reason to change anything.
The fix came out of the disposition logs, not out of strategy. Firms already running a particular competing workflow tool converted at several times the rate of everyone else, because they had the problem in front of them and a stack that made the comparison easy. Once the list was rebuilt around that signal and the opening line was rewritten around it, the pace changed and held. Every batch after that closed inside a fortnight.
We would run it the same way again with one difference: spend the first fortnight proving the segment across a few hundred dials before scaling volume. Those two months in the first batch cost the client more than any script problem did.
Tell us what you sell and we will tell you straight.
Send the details and you get a reply within one business day: your ICP, your average contract value and your close rate, then a plain answer on whether we would take the campaign.