A site about the arithmetic,
written by the person who sells the execution

Who writes this

One person. I founded Outbound Pros in 2024, based in Latvia, running managed outbound for B2B companies across the UK, the US and the larger EU markets. The campaigns that produce the numbers on this site are ones my team runs, which is both the reason the numbers are worth anything and the reason you should know who is publishing them.

I did not set out to be interested in go to market arithmetic. I set out to work out why clients and I kept disagreeing about whether a campaign had worked.

The pattern took a long time to see, because nobody in it was lying. A campaign would produce a positive reply ratio in the thirties or forties, which is a genuinely good result, and the client would be flat about it, because the model in their head divided by something else entirely. Or the reverse would happen: a sequence sitting at 0.6% positive on sends, which by our own thresholds is worth keeping and scaling, would get read as a failure, because 0.6% sounds like a rounding error to anyone who has spent a fortnight reading agency websites. Two people, two different fractions, one meeting, and neither party ever said out loud what they were dividing by.

Then I started seeing the more expensive version of the same problem, which happens before anyone sends anything. A founder sets a revenue target, backs into a pipeline number, backs into a meeting number, and never once checks whether the send volume implied at the bottom exists inside their addressable market, or whether their team can physically produce it. That plan cannot work, and the arithmetic proving it takes about twenty minutes. It gets discovered in month four instead, with a quarter of budget gone and the team now convinced that outbound does not work for them.

This site is that twenty minutes, written down.

Why this is a separate property and not a page on the parent site

Three reasons, and the third one is uncomfortable enough that I would rather write it myself than have someone else notice it.

The audiences are not the same people

Somebody deciding whether to fund inbound or outbound next quarter is not the same reader as somebody trying to fix a DKIM record at nine in the evening. The first has not decided whether to hire anybody. The second decided months ago and is now executing. Put both on one site and every page is slightly wrong for whoever landed on it.

An agency site cannot credibly publish the argument against its own service

I wanted somewhere to publish the correction

The method, in the order it has to run

Five numbers computed from revenue backwards to activity, a capacity check at the end, and a set of thresholds agreed before launch. It is deliberately boring. The sophistication is not where the value sits. Refusing to skip a step is, because every error compounds downwards and the two steps most often skipped are the last two.

1. Deals needed. Revenue target divided by your own segmented closed won average, not a blended company average that mixes a pilot with an enterprise renewal.
2. Opportunities and pipeline needed. Deals divided by your opportunity to close win rate, then a coverage ratio derived from the inverse of that win rate and adjusted for slippage. If you do not know your win rate you do not have a model, you have a wish, and that is a real and common answer that changes what you should do next.
3. Meetings needed. Opportunities divided by your meeting to opportunity rate, then divided again by your show rate. Where calendar discipline is broken, booked meetings die at roughly a 50% show rate, which quietly doubles every activity number below this line.
4. Activity needed per channel, then the ceiling check. Meetings divided by the positive rate for each channel, converted into sends, requests or calls, then compared against real sending capacity and against the number of qualified companies that exist to send to. Exceed either and the plan has stopped being aggressive and started being impossible.
5. Gates, written down before the first send. Under 0.5% positive on sends is a kill. 0.5% to 1% is worth iterating on. 1% and above earns more volume. 2% and above is where you pour. Applied per sequence, per segment, after warm up, over a window agreed in advance.

The timing matters as much as the thresholds. Onboarding runs around 21 days and domain warm up takes 4 to 6 weeks before volume is real, so a review window set at thirty days measures the ramp rather than the campaign. Set it past warm up, or do not start. This is also where the category loses people: monthly churn in managed outbound runs in the 3 to 5% range, and a share of that is buyers cancelling during a ramp they were told about and did not price into their own model.

Four rules every number here passes

These are written down because this is the one property in the group whose entire subject is how numbers get constructed. The sibling sites state their version in a sentence and defer here, which is deliberate. One methodology essay across four domains is a methodology. Four of them is a template.

• Every rate names its denominator, with no exceptions, including in headlines and meta descriptions. If a figure cannot be published alongside what it divides by, its sample and its period, it does not get published.
• Numbers come from the fleet, including the failures. Vendor benchmarks and agency case studies describe campaigns that worked, so they are survivors by construction. One figure here is derived rather than measured, the fleet baseline positive rate near 0.05% of sends, and it carries that label at every appearance because it is the input the calculator leans on hardest.
• Nothing is invented. Where a number would be useful and we do not hold it, the page says so in the sentence where the number would have gone. One week on our largest account ran 44,649 emails and produced 377 replies, a 0.84% reply rate. How many of those replies were positive is not in the record we can cite, so no positive figure for that week appears anywhere on this site, including in places where it would flatter us.
• Every page names the reading at which the honest answer becomes do not fund this. Coverage maths misleads at long cycle lengths. Cost per meeting misleads without the ramp. Channel selection misleads when the market size was reverse engineered from an existing customer list. Those caveats sit inside the page that needs them, not in a disclaimer at the bottom.

What this site deliberately does not cover

Who owns AllboundPros

Read it as a credential rather than a disclaimer. It means the conversion rates published here come from campaigns running this month, not from a survey of what people remember. It means the kill thresholds are ones we act on with our own clients, at the point where killing a sequence costs us revenue and an awkward call. It means that when a page here says outbound is wrong at a given deal size, it was written by somebody who loses a sale by writing it. An independent consultant with no execution arm would have better optics and worse data. I would rather have the data and tell you exactly where it came from.

How to get in touch