Prospect marketing: the version that actually works

Prospect marketing starts with a list you chose on purpose

The definition I use is boring and useful: prospect marketing is marketing aimed at named accounts you have already decided are a fit, rather than marketing aimed at whoever happens to be searching.

That one constraint changes everything downstream. You cannot write "for growing teams" to a list of forty companies, because you know their names, you know roughly how big they are, and you know what they use. Vagueness stops being an option, which is the whole point.

I spent a couple of years doing go-to-market at a data enrichment SaaS and then running growth at a data company, so I have opinions about lists that border on tedious. The short version: a list of 200 companies you can describe individually beats a list of 20,000 you can only describe as a filter.

Lead generation and prospect marketing are doing different jobs

Lead generation gets strangers to raise a hand. Content, ads, a lead magnet, a webinar, whatever pulls people who did not know you existed into a form. You do not pick who arrives. You pick the net.

Prospect marketing goes the other way. You pick the accounts, then you go and earn their attention. Nobody raised a hand. There is no inbound intent to ride on, which is why the bar for relevance is so much higher. Cognism has a decent breakdown of prospecting versus lead generation if you want the sales-side framing of the same split.

Most teams need both, and most teams get into trouble by running the second with the mindset of the first. Lead gen rewards volume because the cost of a wasted impression is basically nothing. Prospect marketing punishes volume, because every irrelevant email you send to a named account is a door you have to knock on twice.

The research is the campaign

I disagree with almost every playbook I have read on this. The sequence is not the work. The list and the research are the work, and the sequence is only the delivery mechanism.

If you know that a company has just hired four SDRs, moved to a new CRM and published a careers page full of enterprise sales roles, the email nearly writes itself and it takes ninety seconds. If you know nothing, you will spend an hour writing something clever that says nothing, and clever-but-generic gets deleted faster than plain-but-specific.

So the honest allocation is something like two thirds research, one third writing. Nobody wants to hear that because research does not scale and it is not fun to put on a dashboard.

What one account actually looks like end to end

Say the account is a fifty-person B2B software company selling into mid-market finance teams. Their VP of Sales has posted twice in the last month about how long their sales cycle has got. Their careers page has two solutions consultant roles open. On their pricing page there is no self-serve option, so every deal goes through a human.

That is four facts, and they took about eight minutes to find. From them I know the pain is probably "our deals stall in the middle, after the demo, when the champion has to sell it internally without us in the room". That is a real, specific problem and it is not the one their homepage talks about.

So the first touch is a two-line email about the after-the-demo gap, naming the solutions consultant hires as the reason I think they are feeling it. No pitch. The second touch, four days later, is a short walkthrough of how one of their own public case studies would land if their champion could forward it with context attached instead of naked. The third is a plain ask.

Three touches, one account, maybe twenty minutes of work in total. Do that for forty accounts and you have a quarter's pipeline motion that no sequence tool can replicate, because the tool does not know what a careers page implies.

Volume is the thing you cut last, not first

The instinct when this stops working is to widen the list. Resist it for one cycle and check the segment and the message first. A tight list of the wrong companies is still the wrong companies, and most "personalisation" I receive is a compliment about my LinkedIn post followed by three paragraphs of product.

Widening the list makes the numbers move for about a fortnight. Then you are back where you started, with a worse domain reputation and a list you no longer understand.

The measurement problem nobody wants to talk about

The bit that genuinely bothers me, and the reason I ended up building what I build, is that prospect marketing goes dark at exactly the moment it gets interesting.

You do the research. You write the good email. They reply, you send the deck or the one-pager or the proposal, and then the trail stops. Did they read it? Did they get past page two? Did they forward it to the person who actually signs? You are guessing, and you are guessing about the most expensive part of the whole motion.

When I was sending decks in growth roles I would fire one off on a Friday afternoon and spend the weekend inventing reasons for the silence. Not a great use of a weekend.

There are tools that close part of that gap. Document tracking will tell you a link was opened and roughly where the attention went, which is a lot better than nothing. LiveDocument, which I build with my co-founder Joe, goes at the next bit: you record a short walkthrough and attach it to the PDF, so what lands is the document plus you explaining it, on one link, with page-level analytics behind it. It is not a CRM, it is not a sequencer, and it will not build your list. It just stops the document arriving without a voice on it.

If you want the wider tooling picture first, I wrote up the interactive sales content tools worth knowing about, and there is a sales prospecting plan post that covers the list-building side properly.

Frequently asked questions