Making fragmented buyer data executable.
Purchase evidence, dealer research, contact enrichment, email verification, account-specific messaging, and CRM follow-up were connected into one operating system.
US dealer and store leads
Importer entities researched
Structured dealer queue
First account-specific batch
The research universe was large; the executable pool was not.
- 01
Importers, established dealers, and end buyers require different channels, evidence, and messages.
- 02
One company can contain multiple entities, contacts, and inboxes. Without company-level ownership, teams either duplicate outreach or lose the next step.
- 03
Without purchase evidence, website facts, and email verification, AI-assisted personalization becomes little more than a company-name swap.
Connect data, reachability, and follow-up through four gates.
Research path- 01
Build two evidence lanes
Licensed trade data formed a 903-entity importer universe, while public dealer research produced more than 1,500 US channel leads.
- 02
Segment, score, and assign
Importers, established dealers, and end buyers received separate plays, with company deduplication, S/A/B/C scoring, one owner, and a dated next step.
- 03
Enrich and verify contacts
Decision-makers came first, functional buying roles second, and public inboxes only as fallback. Every address required verification before sending.
- 04
Research each account
Purchase context, a verified company fact, and the contact role shaped D0/D3/D7/D14. One CTA and a human review gate came before CRM execution.
Two research lanes converged only at the execution layer.
Trend and structureThe first two bars are parallel research lanes, not one funnel. “30+” is a rounded public scope. Counts describe research and execution readiness, not sends, replies, or sales.
Redacted execution-queue sample
This view shows decision fields only. Every company, contact, inbox, telephone number, and shipment detail has been withheld.
| Account | Reason to enter | Contact readiness | Message angle | Next step |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMPORTER A | Recent purchase evidence | Decision-maker + valid email | Buying and replenishment | First D0–D14 batch |
| DEALER B | Multi-location channel | Functional role + valid email | Stock and working capital | S-tier dealer queue |
| DEALER C | Operating store verified | Verified public inbox | Parts and after-sales | Small-batch test |
The advantage came from one extra quality step at every stage.
- 01
Closed, continuously updated trade evidence determined whom the team could discover. AI accelerated research and drafting; it did not create the underlying purchase facts.
- 02
Contact volume was not reachability: after 75 public inboxes were checked, 51 were valid, 17 risky, and 7 invalid.
- 03
One owner, one primary contact, one CTA, and one dated next step per account made duplicate prevention and weekly review operational.
The deliverable was a repeatable buyer-development operating system.
Evidence and privacy noteThis case shows redacted research scale, method, and execution readiness. All company, contact, email, phone, shipment, and source-file details are withheld. Counts do not represent replies, inquiries, meetings, or sales.
- 01
Importer universe with purchase evidence
- 02
Dealer/store universe with S/A/B/C scoring
- 03
Company deduplication, ownership, and CRM fields
- 04
Relevant roles, available telephone data, and verified emails
- 05
D0/D3/D7/D14 account-specific sequences
- 06
Pre-send QA, daily operating ledger, and weekly review metrics
Have a lead list but no defensible priority?
Share the product, target market, historical customers, or competitor context. I will first confirm what evidence can be verified, then scope the path from screening to account-specific outreach.