This page is for partners who already know the CEO on LinkedIn: a former client, a peer from an operators' group, a founder you advised. If you need someone else to reach the CEO, the LinkedIn message asking for an introduction to a CEO covers that route; if you are connecting two people in one thread, see how to introduce two people on LinkedIn.
LinkedInPublic signals start it; private messages carry it
A CEO's post often contains the reason to talk: a company anniversary, a system migration, an acquisition, a founder stepping back. The temptation is to answer in the comments with the idea. Don't, for three reasons.
- The records are the company's business. A public comment that mentions the company's archive tells the CEO's network something the CEO did not choose to share.
- Your partner role is not public by default. The Channel Partner Agreement says neither party may publicly identify the other as a partner, or disclose non-public deal details, without written authorization. A tag, a "happy to connect you with SourceX" comment or a promotional post needs SourceX's written agreement first. If you do get it, the FTC's endorsement guidance treats a paid business relationship as a material connection to disclose clearly, and its staff call a disclosure placed in the comments easily avoidable, so the disclosure goes in the post itself.
- The platform's own rules. LinkedIn's Professional Community Policies do not allow untargeted, irrelevant, obviously unwanted, inappropriately commercial or promotional, or gratuitously repetitive messages, and bar using connection invitations to send promotional messages to people you do not know. A permission question to a CEO you know, about facts they published, is targeted. The same message sent to forty CEOs is not.
The reason for writing comes from what the CEO chose to share
The example on this page is Illustrative. The CEO of a 130-person civil engineering consultancy, whom you advised two years ago, posts about the firm's twentieth anniversary and mentions that two decades of project files are moving off an old document management system this winter.
That post gives you four facts the CEO made public: the record type (project files), the span (twenty years), the system (a document management system being retired) and a dated event (the migration this winter). Use only those, plus anything the CEO has told you directly. A company page's employee count is not the program's test either: SourceX counts full-time employees at peak with contractors excluded, and only the company can confirm that number.
The private permission conversation flow
Six turns. Each one leaves the CEO an exit, and each one produces something you keep.
| Turn | Where | What you send (Illustrative) | The exit left open | What you keep |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. React | Public comment | "Twenty years is a real milestone. Congratulations to the whole team." | Nothing to decline: there is no ask | Nothing |
| 2. Ask once | Private message | "Saw the anniversary post and the note about moving the project archive. Separate from the post: I know a company that licenses business records like those for AI training. Would you want to hear about it? A no is completely fine." | "A no is completely fine" | The date sent |
| 3. Explain, if asked | Private message | Two sentences on what SourceX does, one saying fit is decided in its review, one disclosure line | "If it's not for you, say so and I'll drop it" | The CEO's reply, word for word |
| 4. Check who decides | Private message | If a COO or IT lead answered: "Happy to brief you. Does your CEO want the conversation? I'll wait to hear from them." | Anyone can stop it here | Who said yes, and when |
| 5. Move to email | Private message | "Could I send you and SourceX a two-line email introduction? Which address should I use?" | They can decline to give one | The CEO's email address |
| 6. Introduce and record | Email, then the partner portal | A short introduction copying the CEO, submitted through the portal the same day | They can still decline the call | Company, domain, method and timestamps |
Turn 2 is the only unprompted message. If it gets no answer, the thread is over. A second private nudge is the "gratuitously repetitive" message the platform's policy describes, and it turns a permission question into pressure.
Turn 3 happens only on request. Explain in the CEO's terms, then disclose once: SourceX would pay you a referral reward, never out of the company's payment, if a license completed. Disclosing a reward naturally gives five wordings.
Turn 5 exists for the record. The agreement requires an introduction to be recorded in writing, through an authenticated portal submission, a tracked verified application, an email or a mutually acknowledged introduction log, and an oral introduction must be confirmed in writing. Email gives you a dated, ordinary record the CEO and SourceX both hold, and it moves any details out of a social inbox. If the CEO wants something to pass to colleagues first, send the forwardable introduction email rather than a long direct message.
The same facts, two openings (Illustrative)
Before: a connection request to the CEO's operations director, whom you have never met.
"Congrats on 20 years! AI labs pay top dollar for engineering data and your archive could be worth a fortune. I'm a SourceX partner and can get this moving fast. Grab a slot here: [link]"
It uses an invitation to promote something to a stranger, claims a value nobody has reviewed, puts your reward ahead of the company's reasons and leans on a link. A click on a referral link does not decide credit, and the operations director cannot authorize the conversation anyway.
After: turn 2 from the table, sent privately to the CEO you advised, naming the anniversary, the archive and the migration, asking one question and offering the no in the same breath.
When someone other than the CEO answers
LinkedIn threads drift. Here is what to do when they do.
| What happens | What it means | Your next message |
|---|---|---|
| The COO replies on the CEO's behalf | A sponsor has appeared | Brief them if they ask; wait for the CEO's own yes before introducing |
| The CEO says "talk to our CFO" | The CFO will prepare the case | Work with the CFO on facts; the CEO still authorizes the discussion |
| An assistant asks for "something in writing" | A request to see more | Send the forwardable email; ask nothing else |
| The CEO says "not now, maybe after the migration" | A timing answer | Ask whether they want you to raise it then; note their date |
| The CEO says no | The end of this thread | Thank them; no follow-up, and no change in how you engage with their posts |
The CEO can authorize a licensing discussion and sign for the company. Others can own the records, prepare the case or sponsor it internally, and they are often the most useful people in the thread, but their yes does not stand in for the CEO's. An introduction that reaches SourceX behind the decision maker's back is also, by its screening guidance, usually not a fit.
What to explain when the CEO wants to hear more
Three sentences cover it. SourceX licenses approved business data straight from the companies that created it, for AI training and evaluation. It is the company's counterparty for the agreement, rights review, data preparation, delivery and payout, and the company decides what it offers and on what terms.
The published screen: 50+ full-time employees at peak with contractors excluded, years of documented operating history, records the company has the rights to license and a CEO who authorizes the discussion. Companies in the U.S., Canada and the EU qualify, as do companies in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore, South Africa, Latin America, the UAE and Saudi Arabia when at least 70% of the data is in English. For the engineering consultancy, size and history look plausible; whether client contracts restrict the project files, and whether they match SourceX's current data needs, stays unknown until review. Ask only metadata questions (what, how much, how many years, which system, who administers it), and never request files or logins over LinkedIn or anywhere else.
Your incentive, said plainly once: under the program terms, SourceX pays the partner the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of the compensation it actually pays the company, with no cap in total for that company, separately and never out of the company's payment, and nothing for a lead or a meeting.
From a message thread to a dated record
Credit follows records, not conversations. When the company submits a verified application, SourceX credits the first valid introduction of that new company made inside the 90-day attribution window, and it credits one partner per company, never two. A company that already has an application, relationship or earlier valid introduction with SourceX is reviewed as a duplicate. Each introduction record identifies the company, its domain, the partner, the opportunity, the method and timestamps. You need a signed SourceX Channel Partner Agreement before you submit; if you signed the Channel Partner Non-Circumvention and Non-Disclosure Agreement, as the document was first called, it stays in force as signed.
In practice: the CEO's yes arrives in a private message, you confirm it by email the same day, and you submit through the portal with the email's date. The LinkedIn thread then goes quiet. Making the ask easy to decline covers the wording of turn 2 in more depth, and the LinkedIn reconnection templates for former clients cover how to reopen a relationship that has gone cold.
Next step
Refer a company. No cap on rewards. Default reward on a company's first qualifying transaction: the greater of $50,000 plus 5% and 15% of Actual Supplier Payout, with no cap; further qualifying transactions first agreed within 12 months of the first Closing pay 15%. Eligibility and payment conditions apply, including the USD 100,000 Minimum Transaction, and a signed Schedule A or addendum can differ. A lead, meeting or signature alone does not trigger payment.
If a CEO's own yes is sitting in your LinkedIn inbox, set up your partner account and sign the agreement before turn 6, compare the company with who qualifies, and check the attribution rules in the program terms; more conversation guides are under guides.