Sabo claims 220 booked calls in two weeks at $18 a meeting

Sabo, posting as @mrcoldemail, says he was testing a new offer, spent around $4K a month, and got 220+ booked calls in two weeks. He puts that at $18 a meeting.

That is the whole claim. The post names no list source, no send volume, no vertical, no inbox count and no tools. What it does say is that the stack is what mattered, and that the argument everyone else is having is beside the point.

Sabo

@MrColdEmail

X

Everyone's still arguing about Google vs Outlook. I just picked the right stack and started printing.

What is missing

Cost per booked call is the easiest number in outbound to quote, because it only requires two inputs the sender controls, spend and meetings booked. Neither one tells you how many people were emailed, how many replied, or whether the meetings were with buyers. A $4K monthly spend divided across an unknown number of inboxes, domains, data credits and contractors can produce almost any cost per meeting figure depending on what is counted as spend and what is counted as a booked call.

The second gap is the denominator. Without a send volume there is nothing to benchmark against. Two hundred and twenty calls off 10,000 emails and 220 calls off 150,000 emails are completely different businesses, and only one of them survives contact with a deliverability problem. Treat this as one operator's self reported result on one offer test until the volume shows up.

The stack line

The quotable part is the dismissal. Sabo frames Google versus Outlook as the wrong fight and credits his provider choice to picking a stack rather than picking a mailbox vendor.

That is an opinion, not a measurement, and there is at least one data point pointing the other way. Adam Rahman put 174,282 sends behind a reply rate gap between Google and Microsoft inboxes, which is the kind of evidence this post does not carry. Sabo's position may still be right for his setup. He has not shown the numbers that would settle it.

The post ends with a call for comments, with "STACK" as the keyword, in exchange for Sabo building the same setup. James Shields replied with "Stack".

For people sending, the useful read is the shape of the claim rather than the claim itself. When a result is published as cost per meeting with no send volume attached, you cannot compare it to your own campaigns, and you cannot tell whether the result came from the infrastructure, the offer or the list. Wait for the volume before you let $18 become a benchmark in your head.