Haren says a new data source tripled his reply rates
Same offer, same targeting, same structure, and no numbers attached to the claim.
Taylor Haren says his team found a data source that tripled reply rates with the same copy. In his words the offer, targeting and structure were all unchanged, and the only variable was where the contacts came from. He does not name the source.
He also does not give the volume, the period, or the before and after reply rates. What he gives is a diagnosis for everyone whose campaigns are flat.
What he actually said
The post runs to three lines. The claim, the list of things he held constant, and then the jab at the default list everyone pulls from.
That last line is the part worth sitting with, because it is the only piece of the post that is testable on your own data. If your contacts come out of the same tool as every other sender in your category, the prospect has seen your angle before, and copy work will not fix a list problem.
For people sending
Treat this as one operator's unverified result, not a benchmark. A tripling claim with no denominator is a claim about a direction, not a number you can plan against. There is no way to check it against anything in the post, and no way to know whether the lift came from fresher contacts, different seniority, different companies, or simply a smaller and less hammered audience.
The practical version is cheap to run yourself. Hold copy, offer and sequence fixed, pull the same ICP from a second source, and split the send. That is the only way to isolate data quality from everything else, and it is the experiment Haren describes having run even if he will not show the output.
The outdated decision maker problem is real and separate from the duplication problem. Contact databases carry people who left the role, and a stale title means your trigger line is wrong before the prospect finishes the first sentence. Either failure shows up as the same flat reply rate, and both get blamed on copy.
What Haren is not claiming is also useful. He is not saying his new source is better than every other source, he is not saying it works outside his campaigns, and he is not selling a tool in the post. He is saying the input changed and the output changed by a lot, which is a reason to re-pull your list and nothing more.
If your campaign sucks, you're probably emailing the same 1000 outdated decision makers on Apollo as everyone else.
We found a data source that tripled reply rates with the exact same copy.
Know what is landing before you burn another domain
One email a day. Under three minutes. What the operators found out yesterday.