The result
| Variant | Reply rate | Meeting rate |
|---|---|---|
| No colleague referenced | 27.0% | 3.5% |
| Named a shared colleague | 35.1% | 5.1% |
Sample
2025, ten weeks, 7,340 prospects, split at random inside each account. Mixed personas and company sizes.
Why it works
A shared name changes the category of the message. It stops being outbound and becomes a slightly awkward introduction, and people answer awkward introductions because ignoring one has a social cost that ignoring a stranger does not.
Function matters more than seniority. A shared connection in the prospect’s own discipline carries weight because their judgement is relevant. A shared connection in an unrelated department is just a coincidence, and reads like one.
The reason meetings moved as much as replies here, which is not true of every test, is that the referral survives into the conversation. The person arrives at the call with a reason to give you the benefit of the doubt.
How to apply it
Use the shared connection filter, but check the connection is real before you use the name. A name you cannot back up is worse than no name.
Say how you know them, in four words. Worked with Mark at X is enough. Anything longer sounds like you are building a case.
If the connection is strong, ask for the introduction instead of using the name cold. That converts better than either variant in this test, though we have not measured it at a scale worth publishing.
What this test does not tell you
Mixed personas and sizes, ten weeks. We did not test using a name without permission against using one with it, and there is a real reputational cost to getting that wrong that the numbers do not capture. The finding that same-function connections work better is from campaign observation rather than a separate randomised arm.
Method
One variable at a time. A test alters a single element; if two things change we learn nothing. Prospects were split at random inside each client account, holding industry, geography, seniority and company size constant on both sides. No test was called below 2,000 prospects per arm, because outbound is noisy at low volume. Reply rate is reported as the leading indicator and meeting rate as the decision, because several variants lifted replies and produced no extra meetings at all, and those were not rolled out.
This test is one of fifteen in a dataset covering 389,890 prospects and 15,018 meetings across 41 client programmes and 17 clients, run between 2018 and 2026. The full set is on the 2026 outbound benchmarks page.
Cite this page as: Prospectio.ai, Test 9: naming a shared colleague or connection, B2B Outbound Benchmarks 2026.