Using SaaS buying signals without pretending to know the buyer

Choose signals connected to your use case

Start with changes that could reasonably affect the workflow your product supports. A business opening additional locations may need to review coordination between sites. A new service line may introduce a different reporting process. The connection should be understandable without several speculative steps. If the signal is only loosely related to your product, it may be interesting company news but a weak basis for an outreach segment.

Check the source and its timing

Prefer an original company announcement, a current job listing or another attributable source. Record the publication date and the date you checked it. A role advertised months ago may already be filled, while an expansion announcement may refer to work that is complete. Research quality matters because the opening message rests on that observation. Where a fact cannot be verified, avoid presenting it as current information.

Write the observation separately from the hypothesis

Keep two fields in your research notes. One records what the company has actually published; the other explains why it might make your use case relevant. For example, “announced a second service centre” is an observation. “May be reviewing cross-site enquiry routing” is a hypothesis. Maintaining that separation helps a writer avoid turning a reasonable question into an unfounded assertion about the prospect’s internal problems.

Make the message easy to correct

Illustrative wording: “I saw your announcement about the new service centre. When teams add a location, enquiry ownership can need a rethink. Is that something your operations team is reviewing?” Use only an observation you have checked. The question gives the prospect room to say the issue is handled or irrelevant. That answer is useful evidence and should update the segment, rather than trigger an argument for the product.

Measure the quality of signal-based conversations

Compare the actual discussions created by different signals. Are you reaching the process owner? Does the event lead to a relevant need, or simply to polite replies? Stop using signals that repeatedly produce weak fit. Do not confuse a highly personalised opening with a sound audience strategy. The research should improve relevance and accuracy, not become a decorative sentence attached to the same pitch for every company.

Create an evidence standard before research begins

Decide which sources your team will use, what must be recorded and when information should be checked again. A link to an original company announcement provides a clearer research trail than a copied sentence with no source. Include the date of the observation and a brief explanation of its relevance. If a researcher cannot explain the connection to your product’s use case, the signal may not belong in the campaign.

Keep weak or ambiguous records in a research queue rather than approving them automatically. For example, a company may advertise a role connected to the workflow but provide little context about responsibilities. That may justify further investigation, not a claim that it is buying software. Clear evidence standards make personalisation more accurate and reduce the pressure to invent a compelling opening sentence for every contact.

Use a simple observation–question structure

A practical message can connect an observed fact to a relevant question without asserting an internal problem. State the observation briefly, explain why the topic could be relevant and invite the recipient to confirm whether it is a priority. Keep the connection proportionate. A public announcement about a new location does not support a detailed diagnosis of the company’s operating model.

Compare two versions during copy review. One might say, “Your expansion means your current process will fail.” Another might ask whether expansion has prompted a review of that process. The second leaves room for the team to explain that it already has an appropriate system. That answer is not a campaign failure. It is useful information about fit and helps the seller avoid an argument built on a premise that was never established.

Coordinate signals at company level

Several signals may refer to the same organisation: a hiring announcement, a new office and a product launch. Do not automatically treat each as a separate opportunity or start unrelated sequences to several people. Review the account context and choose the most relevant reason for contact. Keep a record of which message was sent and whether someone is already discussing the topic with your team.

This coordination matters when the buyer refers you internally. A colleague should not receive a generic introduction after being named in an active conversation. Update the account record and pause conflicting outreach where appropriate. Signal-based research is more useful when it supports a coherent account view, rather than creating multiple disconnected records that make the company appear to be several different prospects.

Remove signals that do not improve fit

Review the conversations produced by each signal category. Look beyond response counts to the roles reached, the needs described and the requirements raised. A news item may make a message easy to personalise while attracting little genuine interest in your use case. Another less visible observation may consistently lead to better discovery questions. Record these differences before deciding to scale the research process.

Keep the review open to negative evidence. If prospects repeatedly explain that a change has no connection to the problem you address, revise or stop using the signal. Do not keep it because the opening sentence sounds impressive. The purpose is relevance, not the appearance of research. A good signal improves the quality of the conversation while preserving the difference between what your team knows and what it still needs to ask.