Optimizing Lead Sourcing for Analytics SaaS: Feedback Needed

Goutham R. · 2025-12-26T09:47:11.610Z

Hi GTM-ers! I’m currently figuring out few lead-sourcing approaches for an analytics / BI SaaS product and wanted to get some feedback.🙏 Approach 1: Social "Pain" Monitoring - Scan X & LinkedIn posts from the last 30 days expressing frustration with current BI tools they use. (like Tableau, PowerBI, etc.). Identify the author and outreach. Approach 2: Targeting early-stage/newly funded companies (10–200 employees) in data-heavy industries like Fintech, E-commerce etc. Approach 3: Identifying companies currently hiring for "Data Analysts", "Sales Ops" etc. If we had to pick one or a combination to start with, which has the highest conversion potential? Or are there any other potential approaches that I’m missing?

Optimizing Lead Sourcing for Analytics SaaS: Feedback Needed | RevGenius

4 comments

· Sorted by Oldest

Jessie T.
·
·
Good framing. One pattern I keep seeing. Approach 1 feels high intent, but volume and timing are deceptive. People complain after pain, not always when they have budget or mandate. Great for learning language, weaker for conversion. Approach 2 only converts when paired with a clear trigger. Funding alone rarely creates urgency unless there is execution pressure behind it. Approach 3 is usually the strongest early signal. Hiring is a proxy for internal acknowledgment that something is broken or about to be. If I had to start lean, I would anchor on 3, use 1 to sharpen messaging, and treat 2 as a filter not a driver.
Goutham R.
·
·
Jessie T. Thanks for the breakdown, Jessie! I’ll explore more into approach 3 (hiring signals) as you suggested, but I’m adding two more approaches to the mix:
1.
TrustRadius Intent: Using 'Clay' to identify companies/accounts specifically researching BI/analytics tools on TrustRadius. Since they are actively checking out review sites, I'm hoping to catch some high-intent buyers there.
2.
LinkedIn Document Ads: Targeting BI/Analytics related LinkedIn groups with a helpful asset (like a comparison guide, case study etc.) to collect leads via lead forms and then do personalized follow-up.
Would love to hear your thoughts! Also two quick question for you: a. For the hiring play (Approach 3), do you find it’s better to outreach to the 'Hiring Manager' now, or wait and pitch the 'New Hire' once they start? b. Would you recommend any other 'GTM lead sourcing tools' that you feel would do wonders if executed correctly?
Jessie T.
·
·
Good additions. A few quick reactions at a pattern level. TrustRadius intent behaves a lot like Approach 1. Strong curiosity, weaker mandate unless it lines up with another trigger like hiring or internal change. The tooling itself is fine, but timing and context matter more than the source. LinkedIn doc ads are useful for learning language and objections, but I’d treat them as a supporting layer rather than a primary driver unless there’s clear execution pressure. On hiring, I’ve seen better results engaging before the new hire starts. That’s when the problem is still owned and felt. After start date, urgency often drops. There are a few other signals and tools I watch, but the main thing is not over rotating on too many motions at once. Hiring remains the cleanest early anchor. Happy to go deeper if you want to unpack this properly sometime.
Lisa H.
·
·
Really good thread. I’ll add one simple lens that’s helped me think about this. It’s often less about which signal is highest intent and more about who actually owns the problem when that signal shows up. That’s why hiring signals tend to work so well. Someone internally has already said, “This is important enough to invest in.” Social pain and review intent are great for learning language, but they often show up after frustration — not always when there’s mandate or budget. One small nuance on the hiring play: I’ve seen better results engaging before the new hire starts. That’s when leadership still owns the pain. Once the role is filled, urgency often softens. If I had to keep it lean: • Hiring = anchor • Social/review intent = message sharpening • Funding/ads = filters or amplifiers Timing + ownership usually beat raw volume. Curious how others here have seen this play out.

Jessie T.
·
·
Good framing. One pattern I keep seeing. Approach 1 feels high intent, but volume and timing are deceptive. People complain after pain, not always when they have budget or mandate. Great for learning language, weaker for conversion. Approach 2 only converts when paired with a clear trigger. Funding alone rarely creates urgency unless there is execution pressure behind it. Approach 3 is usually the strongest early signal. Hiring is a proxy for internal acknowledgment that something is broken or about to be. If I had to start lean, I would anchor on 3, use 1 to sharpen messaging, and treat 2 as a filter not a driver.
Goutham R.
·
·
Jessie T. Thanks for the breakdown, Jessie! I’ll explore more into approach 3 (hiring signals) as you suggested, but I’m adding two more approaches to the mix:
1.
TrustRadius Intent: Using 'Clay' to identify companies/accounts specifically researching BI/analytics tools on TrustRadius. Since they are actively checking out review sites, I'm hoping to catch some high-intent buyers there.
2.
LinkedIn Document Ads: Targeting BI/Analytics related LinkedIn groups with a helpful asset (like a comparison guide, case study etc.) to collect leads via lead forms and then do personalized follow-up.
Would love to hear your thoughts! Also two quick question for you: a. For the hiring play (Approach 3), do you find it’s better to outreach to the 'Hiring Manager' now, or wait and pitch the 'New Hire' once they start? b. Would you recommend any other 'GTM lead sourcing tools' that you feel would do wonders if executed correctly?
Jessie T.
·
·
Good additions. A few quick reactions at a pattern level. TrustRadius intent behaves a lot like Approach 1. Strong curiosity, weaker mandate unless it lines up with another trigger like hiring or internal change. The tooling itself is fine, but timing and context matter more than the source. LinkedIn doc ads are useful for learning language and objections, but I’d treat them as a supporting layer rather than a primary driver unless there’s clear execution pressure. On hiring, I’ve seen better results engaging before the new hire starts. That’s when the problem is still owned and felt. After start date, urgency often drops. There are a few other signals and tools I watch, but the main thing is not over rotating on too many motions at once. Hiring remains the cleanest early anchor. Happy to go deeper if you want to unpack this properly sometime.
Lisa H.
·
·
Really good thread. I’ll add one simple lens that’s helped me think about this. It’s often less about which signal is highest intent and more about who actually owns the problem when that signal shows up. That’s why hiring signals tend to work so well. Someone internally has already said, “This is important enough to invest in.” Social pain and review intent are great for learning language, but they often show up after frustration — not always when there’s mandate or budget. One small nuance on the hiring play: I’ve seen better results engaging before the new hire starts. That’s when leadership still owns the pain. Once the role is filled, urgency often softens. If I had to keep it lean: • Hiring = anchor • Social/review intent = message sharpening • Funding/ads = filters or amplifiers Timing + ownership usually beat raw volume. Curious how others here have seen this play out.