B2B conference outreach case study

How Shivaami Booked 25 Meetings Around AI4 in ~30 Days

A three-day booth became a month-long demand campaign built around fast data, human-reviewed outreach, reply handling, booking follow-up and day-of coordination.

The booth was 3 days. The campaign was ~30. Shivaami started with a target of 10 meetings. The campaign tracker recorded 25 meetings booked.
25 meetings booked Original target: 10
85 positive replies Across tracked event outreach groups
18 tracked booth visits 12 scheduled + 6 additional warm prospects
2.5× meeting target Booked, not claimed as completed

25 meetings were booked. We tracked 18 prospect booth visits. Booked and attended are treated as different metrics.

12 of 25booked meetings used the AI4 app as the source
17 of 71structured positive leads carried an AI4 app source tag

The event app was a working outreach channel, not just a place to check the agenda.

Source: Shivaami campaign tracker, 1 July to 7 August 2026. “Booked” means a meeting entered in the campaign aggregate. It does not mean every meeting happened.

The audience quality

Who replied?

Based on 71 positive responders with structured role, company-size and geography data.

63%Director+

45 of 71 held Director, VP, Head or C-suite roles.

66%1,000+ employees

47 of 71 worked at companies with at least 1,000 employees.

United States69%
North America77%

49 were US-based. 55 were in North America.

One anonymized journey

What one successful conversation looked like

A generic booth invitation was not enough. The conversation became more specific when the message gave the prospect a concrete reason to engage.

  1. 1Cold messageEvent context and a relevant enterprise AI angle.
  2. 2ROI ChallengeA concrete booth activity replaced a vague “let’s connect.”
  3. 3Value reframeCould the pilot stay useful after integration, governance and adoption costs?
  4. 4Positive replyA simple “Yes” moved the record into reply handling.
  5. 5Calendar conversionThe team asked permission to send a tentative placeholder.

LinkedIn outreach snapshot

How LinkedIn created one major stream of replies

The campaign needed more than one good message. Each stage created the next piece of work, while the AI4 app ran as a separate outreach and booking lane.

The snapshot combines LinkedIn campaign-level milestones. It is directional rather than a person-by-person cohort funnel. AI4 app outreach, InMail and email are reported separately.

Channel performance

The event context worked. Email barely moved.

Channel Attempts / leads Accepted / sent Replies Positive Key rate
Speakers 885 286 53 40 32.3% accepted
18.5% response
Attendees 1,023 221 38 30 21.6% accepted
17.2% response
AI4 accounts (LinkedIn) 1,242 264 21 15 21.3% accepted
8.0% response
InMail 114 69 sent 1 0 1.4% response
AI4 event app ~3,000

Connection requests and messages sent in the app, based on the campaign team’s operating estimate.

Positive-lead attribution 24%

17 of 71 structured positive leads were tagged to an AI4 app source in column N.

Booked-meeting source 48%

12 of 25 booked meetings used the AI4 app as the source. The other 13 used a calendar link.

The 17 app-attributed positive leads are part of the 71-record structured responder dataset. They should not be added to the 85 campaign-level positive-reply aggregate.

How the app lane worked

Browser-assisted, human-sent

For prospects who had not replied on LinkedIn or email, the team reused the same researched angle in the AI4 app. Clay produced the personalized message asset. A Codex-built browser helper loaded the selected draft into the app, then a dedicated account operator checked the recipient, context and copy before manually sending it.

The workflow is supported by private Clay output, AI4 app compose views, reply threads and meeting records. Raw operating screenshots remain private because they contain prospect and account data.

  1. 01
    Personalize in ClayBuild the prospect-specific angle and channel-ready draft.
  2. 02
    Select the no-reply laneUse the app after no useful LinkedIn or email response.
  3. 03
    Prefill with CodexLoad the approved draft into the browser compose field.
  4. 04
    Human review and sendVerify the person, context and message before clicking send.
  5. 05
    Track the outcomeLog replies, qualification, bookings and booth coordination.
01

Event context created timing

People knew why the message arrived now and where the conversation could happen.

02

LinkedIn made identity visible

The sender, event and prospect context sat in one familiar place. Replying took less effort.

03

The offer became specific

The ROI Challenge and iced-tea conversation gave the prospect a small, concrete reason to stop.

The email result stays in this case study for a reason: 4,103 emails produced two replies. Opens were healthy. Conversation was missing. The team monitored sender and channel performance, then shifted effort toward the channels producing real responses.

The offer

The Agentic AI ROI Challenge

Prospects could bring an AI use case or choose one from a prepared list. The booth team would estimate its ROI, add it to a leaderboard and discuss whether it had a credible path to production.

  • Small enough to understand in one message
  • Relevant to an AI-heavy event
  • Useful even before a sales conversation
  • Easy to continue at the booth
Value reframe
“The harder question is whether a pilot will remain economically useful after integration, governance and adoption costs.”

Day-of operations

Before, during and after had different jobs

Before

Create planned conversations

Build the list, personalize, qualify replies, chase booking and send reminders.

During

Turn intent into arrival

Confirm location, coordinate handoffs, watch timing and track who reached the booth.

After

Follow up by outcome

Separate attended, missed, warm walk-in and still-interested prospects before follow-up.

12scheduled prospects visited
6additional warm prospects visited

Attendance tracking mattered because a booked meeting and a completed booth conversation are different outcomes.

What prospects actually said

Real replies from the campaign

Names, exact titles and direct identifiers have been removed. Firmographic captions use employee bands and company context recorded in the campaign tracker.

Redacted AI4 app conversation in which a senior enterprise prospect agrees to find time to meet
VP-level enterprise technology decision-maker · 5,001–10,000 employee U.S. healthcare analytics company
Redacted LinkedIn reply from an enterprise AI engineering prospect planning to visit the booth
Principal-level AI engineering leader · 10,001+ employee publicly listed U.S. aerospace and defense company
Redacted LinkedIn reply from a senior enterprise prospect accepting the ROI Challenge invitation
VP-level decision-maker · 10,001+ employee publicly listed U.S. bank
Redacted LinkedIn reply from a senior AI prospect confirming interest in meeting at AI4
Senior AI and ML decision-maker · 501–1,000 employee sovereign investment manager

These are original platform screenshots with irreversible pixel redactions. No exact name, title, profile link or contact detail is published.

The operating system

The hard part was closing the loop fast enough

Every reply created a decision, an owner and a next action. The campaign stayed useful because the team moved quickly.

  1. 01Build audience
  2. 02Enrich & qualify
  3. 03Personalize & QA
  4. 04Multichannel outreach
  5. 05Book & chase
  6. 06Post-event follow-up
See the full 12-step operating workflow
  1. 01Event data + scrapeSpeakers, attendees, accounts and event-app signals
  2. 02Clay enrichmentCompany, role, size, geography and contact context
  3. 03Priority A / B / SkipFocus effort where fit and access were strongest
  4. 04AI-assisted personalizationDraft a relevant angle from verified evidence
  5. 05Human QACheck truth, tone, privacy and the meeting ask
  6. 06Multi-channel launchLinkedIn, AI4 app and email support
  7. 07Reply identificationFind real interest quickly and monitor channel yield
  8. 08Reply qualificationSeparate curiosity, warm intent and booking readiness
  9. 09Booking chaseTurn “sounds good” into a specific next step
  10. 10Schedule + remindCalendar or event-app slot, then timely reminders
  11. 11Coordinate + trackDay-of handoffs, booth arrival and attendance status
  12. 12Segmented follow-upDifferent follow-up for attended, missed and warm visits

Sender and channel performance were monitored throughout. When one lane produced stronger replies, the team shifted effort toward it.

Methodology and evidence

What existed behind the campaign

This was a live operating system with evidence, decision gates and human owners. The Clay table was one part of that system. It organized event context, research, qualification, drafts and conditional handoffs.

3,745event records in the working table
58configured columns
51columns visible in the audited view
0filters applied to that view

Source: Clay working-table QA export, 12 August 2026. These figures describe the operating table at export time. They do not mean 3,745 people were contacted, enriched or sent a message.

01

Research before qualification

The evidence stage checked identity, current role, location, company scale and meaningful market presence. Its job was to gather facts. A separate stage made the Priority A, Priority B or Skip decision.

02

Different copy for different contexts

Verified evidence fed fit reasoning, template selection and separate drafts for cold email and the AI4 event context. Humans checked the output before outreach.

03

Conditional work, not blanket enrichment

Email discovery and verification ran only when prior conditions were met. This reduced unnecessary processing and kept weak or incomplete rows from moving automatically. Clay documents this pattern as conditional runs.

Claim register

Public claimEvidence usedDefinition or limit
25 meetings bookedCampaign aggregateA meeting entered in the tracker. It is not a completed-meeting count.
85 positive repliesCampaign outreach aggregatePositive replies across the tracked event-outreach groups.
71-person responder profileRow-level firmographic subsetThe denominator for seniority, company-size and geography percentages.
18 tracked booth visitsAttendance tracker12 scheduled prospects plus six additional warm visitors.
17 app-attributed positive leadsInterested Leads, column N24% of the 71-record structured positive-lead subset.
12 app-sourced bookingsMeeting-source aggregate48% of the 25 booked meetings. The other 13 used a calendar link.
~3,000 AI4 app attemptsCampaign-team estimateApproximate connection requests and messages. It is not a reconciled tracker count.
Human-sent app outreachPrivate workflow and message capturesThe browser helper prefilled drafts. A dedicated operator reviewed and manually sent each message.
3,745 working recordsClay QA exportTable size at export time. It is not a send-volume claim.

What we disclose

Campaign definitions, aggregate results, major tools, workflow stages, decision gates, channel performance and limitations.

What remains proprietary

Exact prompts, scoring thresholds, deliverability rules, message-assembly logic and sender-routing logic. These are proprietary operating IP.

What we learned

What we would keep and what we would change

Keep

  • Event context before product explanation
  • One concrete booth offer
  • AI assistance followed by human QA
  • Fast reply ownership and booking follow-up
  • Booked and attended tracked separately

Change

  • Ask for the calendar slot earlier after clear intent
  • Use email mainly as support when LinkedIn is working
  • Separate tentative, confirmed and visited statuses every day
  • Plan more day-of reminders for prospects who say “I’ll stop by”
  • Start the highest-priority accounts first, then expand

Your next conference

Pressure-test the meeting plan before buying more booth traffic.

If you're exhibiting at a B2B conference in the next 6–12 weeks, send us the event name. We'll tell you whether outbound around it is worth doing.

Send BizAmps the event name