Outreach Performance Summary
Talent Beats Tools
Usage vs Cost
LinkedIn seats are expensive because they bundle features we do not use. Industry-wide, teams only use 30–60% of their HR tech. I am not paying for unused capacity, I am paying for actual output. My stack runs at roughly $6K per year with 80–90% utilization. A single LinkedIn Recruiter seat can cost more than that by itself.
Performance vs Assumptions
InMail does not outperform my outreach. My campaigns already hit InMail-level reply performance, sometimes above it. I am not losing performance by avoiding more seats. In practice, personalized outreach is more predictable and more scalable than InMail.
ROI and Control
LinkedIn’s model is fixed-cost and high overhead. My model is variable, low-cost, and built on tools that deliver measurable ROI. Instead of buying more seats, I invest in workflows, data, and craft, because that is where performance comes from.
Why My Lean Model Outperforms Enterprise Spend
Most companies invest in seats, job slots, Career Page upgrades, and InMail bundles, driving annual LinkedIn spend into the $500K–$1M plus range. Recruiters typically use only 30–60% of the features they pay for across their HR tech stack. My entire stack is about $6K per year, with 80–90% real usage and daily ROI. Email outreach metrics already match or exceed InMail-level performance without paying LinkedIn premiums. Better outcomes come from precision targeting, smart OSINT workflows, and personalized outreach, not more licenses.