Leads, data and signals
Competitor engagers as intent signals: who to reach and how
By Viktorio Shopov, co-founder of Sellinger. Reviewed by Asen Levov. Published . Last updated . 8 minute read.
A competitor engager is a person who likes or comments on a competitor's LinkedIn post. It shows interest in the category, not in you, so reach out about the problem, never about the competitor. Choose commenters over likers, buyers over fans and recent over old, and write a message that mentions the topic they engaged with. Never claim you saw them looking at a rival.
Intent signals are the closest thing outbound has to a warm lead. A person who engaged with a post last week has told the world something about what they care about, which a cold list never does. Competitor posts are one of the richest places to look, because everyone who comments on a rival's post about your category is thinking about your category. This guide explains who in that crowd is worth contacting and how to write to them without being creepy.
Why do competitor posts work as a signal?
Three reasons.
- Topic fit. A post by a rival is about your category. Engagement means the person was thinking about it, which a job title cannot tell you.
- Recency. Engagement is dated. A comment from this week beats a title from last year.
- A visible hook. A comment contains words you can respond to.
Our own outbound shows the pattern. Since September 2025 our agents have prospected mostly among people who engaged with sales automation content. In October 2025, intent signal lists replied at 55% and booked four times as often as untagged lists, and replies held at about 40% all year. Read the case study for the whole picture, including the part that faded: meetings per person messaged drifted below 1% from June 2026. A signal is a better start, not a guarantee.
What kinds of engager are there?
| Engager | Strength | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Commenter with a view or question | High | Reply to what they said |
| Commenter who agrees ("great post") | Low to medium | Add to a list; write only if the profile fits |
| Liker | Low | Use for list building, not a direct message |
| Sharer | Medium | Treat like a commenter if the share has a note |
| Follower of the rival's page | Low | Too broad on its own |
| Employee, partner or fan account | None | Exclude |
Rank by the effort the person put in. A paragraph that starts "we tried this and the problem was pricing" is a gift. A thumbs up is a mood.
Who among them is worth reaching?
Filter in this order.
- Role. Are they a buyer, an influencer of a buyer or a user? Decision makers first.
- Company fit. Does the company match your ideal customer profile? Our ICP template gives ten questions to answer.
- Not a competitor or an agency. Exclude rivals and their staff, resellers and anyone who would not buy.
- Recency. Last 30 days. A signal older than that is a story.
- Not already a customer or in conversation. Check your CRM first.
What is left is a short list of people who match, who engaged lately and who say something you can use.
How do you set it up?
Sellinger has 26 ready made intent signal templates in 8 categories, included with every bundle. One category is Competitors: competitors' social activity and who engages with it. Open Intent Signals, choose a template from the library, add what to watch (a LinkedIn profile or page, keywords or roles), and choose the segment where new leads should land. Matching people appear in a feed and as hot leads, and can be created as leads automatically if you switch that on. The steps are in the help page for intent signals.
Two settings deserve care. Choose the segment so competitors' staff land in a separate bucket you do not message. And attach the leads to a campaign with approval on, so you read the first messages.
What should the message say?
Write about the topic, not about the surveillance. Compare:
- Creepy: "I saw you liked a post by [Competitor]. Want to switch?"
- Honest: "Your comment on pricing for [topic] stood out. We see the same issue with teams your size. How are you handling it today?"
- Honest, with a question: "You raised the point about reporting. Is that the main gap, or is it something else?"
The second and third answer what the person said. They do not name the rival and they do not pretend a relationship. Gong, in its work on executive email, notes that executives decide quickly whether to read, so the first line must be about their world. A line about their own words is.
Keep the first message short, with one question and no link. Our post on observation openers explains why a specific observation outperforms a generic question.
What should you avoid?
- Naming the competitor. It reads as tracking and it exposes you to claims you must support. Competitor statements need a source and a date.
- Attacking the rival. The person may like them.
- Pretending you know them. "Great to see you again" to a stranger breaks trust.
- Messaging every liker. Volume without selection turns a signal into spam.
- Copying the comment back verbatim. Paraphrase it.
Is this within the rules?
Two layers.
LinkedIn. LinkedIn's help page on prohibited software says third party tools that automate activity violate its User Agreement, and members who use them risk restrictions. No tool can guarantee LinkedIn will not restrict an account, so pace sends, keep volume modest and read the terms. Our post on LinkedIn terms of service and automation goes through the wording.
Data protection. If personal data about people in the EU reaches you from a source other than the person, GDPR Article 14 says you must inform them, at the latest within a month, among other duties. Keep a record of where each lead came from and be ready to say so. Nothing here is legal advice.
What does a follow up look like?
Most engagers will not reply to the first message. A follow up should add something, not remind. If your first message asked how they handle reporting, the second might share one concrete thing you have seen work, in two sentences, and ask whether it matches their case. The third, if you send one, can ask who owns the topic. Stop after that. A person who engaged with a rival's post and ignored you three times has told you something.
For pacing on LinkedIn, Sellinger's defaults are 20 invitations a day, varied by a few, and 150 a week, with a quiet window of 01:00 to 08:00 account time. Those are defaults in code and can be changed per account. Keep a signal campaign inside them. A small, steady stream of well chosen people beats a burst, and it protects the account.
How do you measure whether it works?
Track four numbers separately for signal sourced leads and for untagged ones:
| Measure | Why |
|---|---|
| Replies that say something | Whether the hook worked |
| Positive replies | Whether the topic matched a need |
| Meetings booked | Whether it led anywhere |
| Opt outs and complaints | Whether you crossed a line |
If signal leads do not beat your normal list, the signal is not adding value and you should narrow it, not push harder.
A checklist
- [ ] I watch posts on my category, not just rivals' page names.
- [ ] I rank commenters above likers.
- [ ] Competitors, partners and my own customers are excluded.
- [ ] The message answers what they said and never names the rival.
- [ ] Approval is on for the first 20 messages.
- [ ] I record where each lead came from.
Common questions
What is a competitor engager?
Are commenters better than likers?
Is it allowed to contact competitor engagers?
Should the message mention the competitor?
What if the engager works for a competitor?
How Sellinger helps
Read how it works on See Sellinger intent signals, or see a real campaign in Read the Sellinger case study.
