Quick answer
The "287% more replies" (or "23 to 31% more replies") figure widely cited for multichannel B2B outbound traces back to Omnisend's own 2020 report on ecommerce marketing automation, which measured purchase rate across email, SMS, and push notifications, not reply rate across email, LinkedIn, and phone. Omnisend's own current page restates the same underlying research at 494%, not 287%, and the B2B outbound blogs repeating either number don't disclose any of this. Multichannel outbound probably does outperform single-channel for B2B teams, on its own real evidence, but not because of this number.
The claim I'm checking
I'm Hlib Storchak. I build outbound systems for B2B founders and sales teams, and I've booked 2000+ meetings for B2B clients running email and LinkedIn side by side. A number keeps showing up in that world of content: multichannel sequences, coordinating email, LinkedIn, and phone, supposedly produce 287% more replies than single-channel outreach. A softer version puts it at 23 to 31%. Both get repeated as settled fact across outbound blogs, and neither ever comes with a link straight to the underlying study. That's exactly the kind of specific-sounding number I don't repeat to a client until I've followed it to where it actually comes from, so that's what this article does.
Where the 287% number shows up
Search "multichannel outbound reply rate" or "multichannel outreach statistics" and the 287% figure appears across a long list of B2B-focused sales and GTM content sites, almost always folded in next to genuinely B2B-specific numbers as if they came from the same place. It shows up attributed, depending on which page you land on, to no source at all, to "TOPO research," or to a named 2026 outbound playbook, three different attributions for what is presented as the same number. None of the B2B outbound pages I checked link straight through to a primary study. That inconsistency alone is a signal worth pausing on before repeating any version of it to a client or a boss.
Tracing it back to its root
Following the citation chain rather than the search snippets: Landbase's own outreach-statistics roundup, a page aimed squarely at B2B GTM readers, states plainly that "campaigns using three or more channels earned a 287% higher purchase rate compared to single-channel strategies," and credits that specific line to Omnisend, an ecommerce email and SMS marketing platform, not a B2B sales research firm. Fetching Omnisend's own 2020 report directly (Marketing Automation Statistics 2020) confirms the figure is real and is theirs: "287% Higher purchase rate when using 3 or more channels" appears as a standalone headline stat. So the number itself is not fabricated. It is, however, six years old, and it was never about the thing it's now being cited to support.
What the root study actually measured
Omnisend's own 2020 page discloses no channel breakdown, no sample size, and no methodology detail for the 287% line itself, but the surrounding stats on the same page make the domain unmistakable: the adjacent figure on that report is "omnichannel campaigns that involve SMS are 47.7% more likely to end in conversion." This is a report about ecommerce marketing automation, email, SMS, and push notifications selling products to consumers, measuring purchase rate. It has nothing to do with LinkedIn, phone calls, cold email to a business buyer, or a reply rate of any kind. A B2B outbound blog citing this number for "multichannel outreach" has swapped in a different channel mix and a different population without saying so.
The mismatch in one line. "3+ channels beats 1 channel" is doing all the work in this stat's popularity. The actual channels (SMS and push, not LinkedIn and phone) and the actual metric (a consumer completing a purchase, not a B2B buyer replying to a message) never survive the trip into an outbound blog post.
The number also drifted along the way
It gets messier. Omnisend's own current statistics page (Omnichannel Statistics: Key Ecommerce Data) restates what reads as the same underlying research, a 135,000-campaign, 610-million-message analysis across email, SMS, and push, but the number attached to it is 494% higher order rate, not 287% higher purchase rate. Order rate and purchase rate aren't necessarily the same metric, and I can't confirm from the outside whether this is an updated dataset, a redefined metric, or simply an inconsistency between two of Omnisend's own pages. Either way, the "287%" number every outbound blog quotes isn't even the number Omnisend itself currently leads with for what appears to be the same body of research.
The other figures riding along with it
The citation chain gets more tangled once you look at what sits next to the 287% figure. Salesmotion's own 2026 cold-outreach playbook, one of the pages that gets credited elsewhere as the source of "287% more replies," doesn't actually contain that number at all when you fetch it directly. It states something different: "omnichannel campaigns combining LinkedIn, email, and phone yield 40% higher engagement and 31% lower cost-per-lead compared to single-channel approaches," attributed to "Landbase's multi-channel outreach research." But Landbase's own page doesn't originate that 40%/31% figure either, it separately credits its multichannel numbers to Omnisend, Expandi, and a tool called Closely. Two B2B-focused sites are each citing the other as the source of a number neither one actually produced.
The one figure in the chain that does hold up, on its own terms
To be fair to Landbase's page, not everything on it is a misapplied ecommerce stat. It also cites Expandi directly for "LinkedIn direct messages generate 10.3% response rates, exactly double the 5.1% average for cold email outreach," a same-channel-family comparison that's at least measuring B2B outreach response behavior. I haven't independently re-verified that specific 10.3%/5.1% split against Expandi's own current page the way I have for the figures I've already used elsewhere on this blog (Expandi's 2026 benchmark puts LinkedIn acceptance at 28.5% and post-connect reply at 10.4%, a different metric pairing than "response rate," which is itself a small reminder that even real vendor numbers get restated inconsistently across pages). What it is not, on its face, is a multichannel-versus-single-channel comparison at all. It's LinkedIn against email, one channel each. Citing it as evidence that combining channels beats using one is a second, smaller mismatch riding inside the same statistics roundup.
The trace, side by side
| Stop in the chain | What it actually says | Channels / population | Disclosed methodology? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Omnisend, 2020 report | 287% higher purchase rate, 3+ channels vs 1 | Email, SMS, push; ecommerce consumers | No breakdown given, but the figure is genuinely theirs |
| Omnisend, current page | 494% higher order rate, same underlying research | Email, SMS, push; ecommerce consumers | 135,000 campaigns, 610M messages disclosed, methodology not detailed |
| Landbase (B2B GTM blog) | Repeats Omnisend's 287% as a "multi-channel outreach" stat | Presented as B2B outreach; actually the ecommerce study above | No, just a hyperlink to Omnisend |
| Salesmotion (B2B sales blog) | 40% higher engagement, 31% lower cost-per-lead | Presented as email/LinkedIn/phone; credited to Landbase | No, and Landbase doesn't originate this figure either |
| Various B2B outbound blogs | "287% more replies" or "TOPO research" | Presented as cold email/LinkedIn/phone reply rate | No link to any primary source found |
What a real, disclosed B2B benchmark looks like instead
I've used both of these directly in other articles on this blog, and they look nothing like the chain above. Instantly's 2026 Cold Email Benchmark Report discloses a 3.43% platform-average reply rate with a named methodology and dataset. Expandi's 2026 LinkedIn outreach benchmark discloses 28.5% average connection acceptance and 10.4% post-connect reply rate across more than 13 million connection requests, with the sample size stated on the page. Neither one claims a specific "multichannel lift" percentage over the other, because that isn't what either study measured. That's the actual difference between a citable number and a laundered one: not whether it sounds impressive, but whether you can trace it to a named dataset that measured the thing it's being used to prove.
Does multichannel outbound still actually work
Probably yes, just not because of this stat. The real case for running email, LinkedIn, and phone together doesn't need an imported ecommerce number to stand up: different buyers default to different surfaces, a prospect who has already seen your name in an inbox and a profile picture treats a follow-up call as warmer than a cold one, and a channel a prospect ignores still gives you a second and third shot instead of one. I've made that case in more depth in a separate article on single-channel versus multichannel outbound, built on the channel mechanics themselves rather than a borrowed percentage. The honest position is that multichannel outbound has a real, defensible logic behind it, and this specific number isn't part of that evidence.
What I tell clients who bring me this stat
This exact number has come up more than once when a client forwards me a vendor's outbound guide before a planning call. What I tell them is the same thing I'd tell you: the conclusion, multichannel beats single-channel, is probably directionally right, but this particular number isn't why. The mistake I see most often isn't a client acting on a bad number, it's a client repeating a bad number to their own board or investors as if it were a verified fact, which is a much worse place to get caught out than a quiet internal planning doc. I'd rather hand over the real, disclosed benchmarks above and a clear description of what they do and don't prove than a punchier number I can't stand behind if someone asks where it came from.
A source-tracing checklist before you repeat a channel-lift number
1. Follow the citation at least two hops, not one. A B2B blog citing another B2B blog is not a primary source, it's a second aggregator.
2. Check who actually ran the study. An ecommerce platform, a marketing automation vendor, and a B2B outbound tool are not interchangeable sources for a claim about cold email and LinkedIn.
3. Check the channels named in the original study, not the channels named in the post quoting it. SMS and push are not LinkedIn and phone.
4. Check the metric, not just the percentage. Purchase rate, order rate, engagement, cost-per-lead, and reply rate are five different things that get flattened into one number in a roundup post.
5. Check the source's own current page against the version being quoted. A vendor can update or reword its own numbers, the way Omnisend's own live page now shows 494%, and outdated copies keep circulating anyway.
Key takeaways
- The "287% more replies" multichannel stat traces to Omnisend's 2020 ecommerce marketing report, which measured purchase rate across email, SMS, and push, not reply rate across email, LinkedIn, and phone.
- Omnisend's own current page restates the same underlying research at 494%, not 287%, meaning the widely quoted number doesn't even match its own source anymore.
- Two B2B-focused sites in the citation chain (Landbase and Salesmotion) each attribute their multichannel numbers to the other, and neither originates the figure it's credited with.
- Real, disclosed B2B benchmarks exist for both channels separately (Instantly's 3.43% cold email reply rate, Expandi's 28.5% LinkedIn acceptance and 10.4% reply rate), and neither claims a specific multichannel lift percentage.
- The case for multichannel outbound stands on its own channel mechanics, not on this borrowed number.
My take
I don't think anyone set out to fabricate this one. It reads more like an old, real ecommerce stat that was punchy enough to survive being repurposed for a completely different industry, then got restated by a second site that half-remembered where it came from, then a third site that cited the second one instead of checking further back. That's a more common failure mode on this topic than outright invention, and it's exactly why the checklist above is worth the extra five minutes before a number this specific goes into a deck or a client email.
FAQ
Is the "287% more replies" multichannel outbound stat real?
The number itself is real, it's from Omnisend's 2020 ecommerce marketing report. It measures purchase rate across email, SMS, and push notifications for consumer marketing, not reply rate across email, LinkedIn, and phone for B2B outbound, which is what it's being cited to prove.
Where does the "23 to 31% more replies" version come from?
The 31% figure traces to Salesmotion's own cold-outreach playbook, which states a "31% lower cost-per-lead," a different metric than reply rate, and credits it to Landbase's research. Landbase's own page doesn't originate that number either, it attributes its multichannel statistics separately to Omnisend, Expandi, and Closely.
Does this mean multichannel outbound doesn't actually work better than single-channel?
No. The mechanics for multichannel outperforming single-channel in B2B outbound hold up on their own logic, different buyers default to different surfaces, and a channel a prospect ignores still leaves another shot. This article is about one specific, misattributed number, not about whether multichannel outbound works.
What's a real, disclosed benchmark I can cite instead?
Instantly's 2026 Cold Email Benchmark Report (3.43% average reply rate) and Expandi's 2026 LinkedIn outreach benchmark (28.5% average acceptance, 10.4% post-connect reply, across 13M+ requests) are both named, disclosed studies. Neither claims a specific multichannel lift number, since neither study measured that.
How do I check a stat like this myself before repeating it?
Follow the citation at least two hops back instead of trusting the first blog that quotes it, confirm who actually ran the study, check whether the channels and the metric in the original study match what's being claimed, and check the source's own current page in case the number has since changed.