Do voice messages actually work for LinkedIn outreach?
I received a LinkedIn outreach voice message this week, and I found it so interesting that I listened to the full message. It got me thinking if this style of LinkedIn outreach could actually work, especially nowadays where some marketers would just send you a generic AI-generated outreach message.
Maybe there are ways to improve this approach. The voice message I got did fall flat in the end, but I think it was because it lacked personalization. With a bit more attention to who they were messaging, the pitch would have worked better because it would have felt more authentic.
I do appreciate how they started with a short message before sending the voice script, though they didn’t wait until I engaged before sending it. I think voice message would work well for follow-ups on clients who already replied or showed interest, and again, would make the whole interaction much more human.
I’m curious what you guys think? I want to try doing voice messages as well in the outreach for my own company, and would like more tips/experiences about voice messages.
__
PS: If you need high-intent leads interested in what you have to offer, have a look at IbexAI.
Depends less on the format and more on whether the first 5 seconds prove you actually looked at them. A voice note that opens with "Hey [name], saw you just [specific thing]" beats text; a generic "Hi, hope you're well, I help companies like yours" voice note is worse than text — now they have to sit through the fluff. The channel is a multiplier on relevance, not a substitute for it. Sharp targeting + voice can lift replies; spray-and-pray just annoys people slower.
Thank you for sharing. If you're interested in smart rings, feel free to discuss with me.
I think voice messages can work, but only after there’s already a little context.
As a first cold touch, it can feel like extra effort for the receiver because they have to stop and listen. But as a follow-up after someone replied, commented, or showed interest, it probably feels much more personal.
The main thing is still personalization. A voice message that says something specific about my work would stand out. A generic pitch in audio form would probably feel worse than a short written message.
For early SaaS outreach, I’d probably start with a simple written message, then use voice only when there’s a real reason to make the interaction more human.
I've sent 50+ LinkedIn outreach messages in the last 6 weeks selling a B2B SaaS product. Here's what actually worked vs what didn't — no voice messages yet, but the data is clear:
Cold DMs with no research: 0% reply rate. One prospect literally told me 'research before DMing.'
Commenting on their posts FIRST, then connecting: 40% acceptance rate, and they already recognize my name.
Best result: I commented on someone's post about agency pain points. She replied, connected with ME, and proposed a partnership call — all from a single comment, not a DM.
Voice messages could work as the follow-up layer after they've already seen your name through comments. Cold voice message to a stranger = probably ignored. Voice message to someone who already engaged with your comment = feels personal
@matt agree on follow-ups. cold voice notes get skipped in my experience — feels like a monologue you didn't ask for. once someone replies once, voice makes the thread feel human. tried both, warm-only worked.
Your instinct on follow-ups is right: a cold voice note is a pattern interrupt, but it raises the personalization bar because a generic script read aloud is more obviously fake than a generic text. I get a lot of these on LinkedIn and the only ones that ever earned a reply were under 30 seconds, referenced something I posted that week, and made one specific ask. Voice after a reply builds trust, voice before a reply usually spends it.
I work with voice all day (I run phone AI agents for small businesses) and the pattern is consistent: voice raises the intimacy bar. A generic pitch in text is ignorable; the same pitch in voice feels worse, because it's fake-personal. So voice punishes lazy outreach and rewards real personalization. Practical rule that maps to what you noticed: earn the voice note (post-engagement, like TomasG said) and say something specific to THEM in the first 5 seconds, or don't send it.
I think it's sincere to be fair because it gets real personal. I would definitely have a better opinion than some LinkedIn spam bot telling me about their garbage link-building services.
I haven't tried voice messages yet , but I think they'd work much better after someone has already engaged. A personalized 30-second voice note probably stands out a lot more than another AI - generated photograph in the inbox.
Good breakdown. In my experience running outbound at volume, voice messages work best exactly where you said — post-engagement follow-ups, not cold opens. The personalization gap you noticed is usually a data problem, not a format problem: most tools pull generic signals instead of something specific to the prospect's business. That's usually the fix, not the medium.
Following up on this — noticed IbexAI has n8n integration coming soon. Could be an interesting pairing: you handle finding high-intent leads, I build the automation that qualifies/routes/follows up once they're in the pipeline. Worth comparing notes if you're exploring integration partners.
I think voice messages can work, but only when they feel earned.
If someone sends me a voice note as the first real touch, I’d probably assume it’s just another outreach trick. But if they first send a short message that shows they actually looked at what I do, then a voice note could feel more natural. The risky part is that voice makes a bad pitch feel even more personal, which can backfire.
I’d probably test it as a follow-up, not as the first message.
This comment was deleted 2 months ago