The cadence property
in the Outbound Pros group

Who runs this

I do. I am Jānis Plūme. I run Outbound Pros, a managed outbound agency based in Latvia, founded in 2024, and everything published here comes out of campaigns I am commercially responsible for.

I did not set out to have opinions about touch spacing. I started the agency to run cold email, because that is what people were asking for, and LinkedIn arrived because clients kept asking whether we could also do LinkedIn. For most of the first year we did what almost everybody does. We ran an email sequence, we ran a LinkedIn sequence, we pointed both at the same list, and we called it multichannel because both channels were switched on.

Three things changed my mind, and they are the reason this site exists rather than a strategic decision about content.

The first was watching a genuinely warm LinkedIn conversation die because our email tool sent a bump the next morning to somebody who had answered us the previous afternoon. Nothing in our stack knew the two channels were talking to the same human. The prospect worked it out immediately, and that is a thing you cannot unsay.

The second was a run of campaigns we killed for the wrong reason. The send logs showed the third touch landing days late for the back half of the list, because we had set daily intake at our sending capacity and forgotten that every prospect who entered on Monday was still consuming send slots on Thursday. We had graded a scheduling failure as a copy failure and rewritten perfectly good emails.

The third was building segment level reporting across the fleet and finding the sequences tagged as a multichannel motion sitting near the top of the table, above segments carrying several times the volume. That was the moment the subject stopped being an operational annoyance and became something worth publishing.

Those three are the whole thesis. Channels compound, almost nobody schedules them so that they can, and the reason is that nobody divides the published template by their own capacity before running it.

Why this is its own site

Because Outbound Pros sells managed outbound and this site sells nothing, and those two jobs conflict on exactly the pages that matter most.

The editorial reason is narrower. The group runs specialist properties and each one owns a distinct question. LinkedIn sending limits and account safety belong to a sibling property, which is the constraint layer everything here plugs into. Rate definitions and pipeline arithmetic belong to another. This one owns the calendar. A cadence recommendation and a daily connection request ceiling maintained in two places will eventually disagree with each other, and the version a reader finds first will be the stale one. One site shallow in four directions helps nobody.

There is also a practical reason. The Sequence Cadence Builder needed a home where it was the point of the page rather than a lead magnet stapled to a service. It has no signup wall and it will not get one.

How the numbers are produced

They come off standing automated reporting on a live client fleet, not off a case study written after the outcome was known. Segment level reports group sequences by motion, audience, geography, persona and vertical, which is what makes it possible to compare a multichannel motion against other motions inside a single baseline instead of against somebody else's blog post. The daily snapshot that produced this site's founding number existed to tell us what to kill, long before anybody thought of publishing it.

The stack is named openly, because a cadence recommendation that quietly depends on a tool capability should say which tool. Salesforge for sending, Clay for enrichment and personalization, Apollo and Leadsforge for sourcing, Warmforge for warm up, and a unified inbox layer that is what makes cross channel reply handling possible at all. We pay for all of them, and none of them pays us.

One rule governs every figure on this site and it is short enough to state once. Nothing here is a controlled experiment. We run an agency, not a laboratory. The honest description of what we publish is a well instrumented observation. Every figure carries the denominator it was measured against, and where a number would have to be guessed the page says plainly that we have not measured it. The site's own headline figure is published next to the fact that its denominator flatters it.

Who owns this, and why that is a credential

That is a credential and not an apology, and here is the argument for reading it that way.

Almost every published claim about multichannel cadence on the open web comes from a software vendor describing a hypothetical campaign, or from an agency case study with one client and no denominator. Both are owned sources. Neither says so. The numbers here come off campaigns that cost real money when they fail, reported by the same monitoring that decides what we scale, which is a strictly better provenance than a vendor blog and a strictly worse one than an independent trial. No neutral party has this data, because a neutral party does not run the campaigns.

So the choice on offer is not between an owned source and an independent one. It is between an owned source that tells you it is owned and one that does not. Disclosure is what makes the data usable: you know whose fleet it is, whose interest is served by it looking good, and how much weight to give it. The obligation that comes back the other way is that I have to publish the parts that do not flatter us, which is why the best single sequence in the fleet, the one that beat our own multichannel segment average, is on the site rather than left for somebody else to find.

What we do not do

No cold calling. Email and LinkedIn first. That is a position rather than a gap, and it shapes every cadence published here. If the phone is central to your motion, the sequencing advice on this site will be incomplete for you and a shop built around calling will design a better sequence than we will.

No pricing numbers, on this site or on the agency side. Scope varies enough between a small single geography test and a fleet of workspaces that a published figure would mislead more people than it helps, so every pricing question goes to a call.

No invented client outcomes. Client names are anonymised by default and appear only after written sign off. Every number traces to a specific dated internal report, and anything I want to say but cannot source is written as an open question rather than as a plausible figure. Several sentences on this site say plainly that we have not measured something. They are deliberate, and they are the most useful sentences here.

No review or rating markup. There are no testimonials on this site, no star ratings and no aggregate rating schema, because manufacturing social proof on a property you own is both unlawful under the rules on consumer reviews and, separately, embarrassing. What you get instead is a signed recommendation with my name attached to it.

Contact