Most intent data is a guess with a score: what intent data for B2B sales really is
Most "intent data" is a guess dressed up as a signal. Real intent is someone typing the problem into a search bar this week.
On July 15 a CRM founder, a former enterprise seller who had been a guest on my show five days earlier, showed me his lead engine. He ran a preview while we talked: people searching for "podcast marketing" and "podcast appearance," C-level, at companies with $5M or more in revenue.
"It came back with 20, almost 30,000 people that have done those searches in the last five days."
What is intent data for B2B sales? In its useful form, it's evidence that a specific person is actively researching the problem you solve, right now. In its common form, it's a score a database infers from job titles, company size and profile changes. The first tells you who's looking. The second tells you who might, someday.
Search behavior versus inferred intent scores
He drew the line himself, and he didn't soften it:
"Apollo and clay and all those guys will tell you they have intent data. But it's not this."
His explanation: the data comes from Google and Facebook cookie IDs, bought from third-party enrichment companies, and it reflects literal search behavior. The "intent scores" inside the big list tools are mostly inferred from LinkedIn-style profile data. One is a person doing something. The other is a model guessing that a person like this might.
I'd frame it even more simply. Inferred intent tells you someone fits your profile. Search intent tells you someone has your problem today. You need both, but they are not the same thing, and paying a premium for the first while thinking you're getting the second is how founders burn a quarter.
A post I saved in late April argued for stacking five or more intent signals before reaching out to anyone. I like the instinct: one signal is noise, several pointing the same way is a pattern. Search behavior is the strongest single signal I've seen, because it's the one the buyer created on purpose.
Why broker leads are already worn out
When he was on my show on July 10, he described the other side of the market. Competitors buy leads from brokers at $50 to $100 each, and the same lead gets sold to three to five vendors at once.
Think about that from the buyer's side. They fill in one form, and by Thursday four companies are calling them with nearly the same pitch. The lead was hot for a day. By the time you dial, it's a crowd.
His pitch for search intent was timing: surface the person earlier, before they've raised their hand on a lead-gen form, while they're still researching. That's when a useful message lands as help instead of noise.
The problem nobody talks about: speed
He was candid about his own challenge. His CRM customers weren't equipped to act on the leads fast enough. They had no BDR infrastructure, no sending system, nobody to turn a list of 30,000 searchers into conversations while the searches were still fresh.
That's the real lesson about intent data. Its value decays by the day. A list of people who searched for your problem this week is gold this week and gravel next month. If you buy intent data without a machine that can reach those people within days, you're buying a report.
That's also why the conversation turned into a partnership. He has the signal. We have the engine that turns a list into booked calls. We agreed a referral model on that call: 20 percent of closed revenue for the life of the customer.
He said something on my show that fits here. The biggest enemy of sales productivity, in his view, is pre-call procrastination: researching a prospect for an hour instead of picking up the phone. Intent data can make that worse if you let it. Another dashboard, another signal to study. The point of the signal is to act sooner, not to research longer.
What intent changes in the email
When you know someone searched for your problem, you can be more direct. You don't need a long warm-up or a clever hook to earn the right to mention it. The email can get to the point faster, and shorten the cycle.
What you shouldn't do is tell them you know. Nobody wants an email that says "I saw you searched for podcast marketing." That's creepy, and it's also the fastest way to make a prospect wonder what else you know. Use the signal to choose who to email and what to lead with. Never quote it back.
What it doesn't change
Intent tells you when. It doesn't give anyone a reason to talk to you. You still need an offer worth replying to.
For us that's still the invitation. A CEO who is researching podcast marketing and gets an invite to be a guest on a show is getting the thing they were looking for, delivered by someone who'll show them how it works from the inside. A line came up on that call that I keep coming back to: it's like the fiduciary duty for CEOs to talk about their business. Intent finds the CEOs ready to hear that. The invitation is what makes them say yes.
My rough numbers from our own work, shared on the same call: cold email alone converts at something like half a percent, and podcast-led outreach at around five. Intent should improve both. It won't close the gap between them.
If you want to see how the list gets built before the invitation goes out, see how the list gets built.
Frequently asked questions
What is intent data in B2B sales?
Evidence that a specific person is actively researching the problem you solve. The strongest form is recent search behavior; the weaker, more common form is a score inferred from job title, company size and profile data.
Is Apollo or Clay intent data accurate?
It is useful for fit, but a founder who sells search-based intent data told me those scores are mostly inferred from profile data rather than literal search behavior. Treat them as a profile signal, not proof someone is buying.
Should I email people differently when I know their intent?
You can be more direct and get to the point faster. Never quote the signal back to them; use it to choose who to contact and what to lead with.