Are You Throwing Away Good Leads?
A case study reveals the misconceptions of commonly used lead validation processes and how they may be doing more harm than good. Dave Helmreich Director, Interactive Markets TARGUSinfo
Agenda
Overview Lessons learned and market opportunities Are you throwing away good leads? Lead review process Tactics and Summary
1
ONLINE LEAD QUALITY SUMMIT
A problem in every vertical…
Insurance lead generator
“We are currently checking consumer phone numbers against the zip code to make sure that it is a good phone number. This is our first line of defense in identifying bogus leads…..”
Fortune 100 advertiser
“We aren’t really sure what our third party scrubbing partner is doing – it’s a black box to us. The good news is that we haven’t heard any complaints regarding lead quality”
Online education leader
“Our current provider is rejecting any lead that has an unknown phone number, or incomplete information is submitted in the lead”
2
ONLINE LEAD QUALITY SUMMIT
3
ONLINE LEAD QUALITY SUMMIT
Case Study – Online education provider
Existing process:
Internal lead review checks for missing fields. Approximately 15% of the leads have incomplete data and are rejected without further review Leads were sent daily through a third party provider to check for validity. An additional 20-25% of the leads rejected due to incomplete data coverage, or unknown contact information
Analysis results:
Over 70% of the leads previously rejected through the existing processes in place could be verified and possessed high quality contact information
4
ONLINE LEAD QUALITY SUMMIT
Case Study – Online education provider
Conclusion and opportunity:
The existing lead review process was developed to ensure a minimum of quality and filter the most egregious of leads Although inexpensive at $20,000 annually, it caused more harm than good Resultant increase in revenue approximated $20,000 weekly and $1M annually through optimizing lead review and by contacting and ultimately enrolling previously rejected leads
5
ONLINE LEAD QUALITY SUMMIT
Case Study – Automotive lead generator
Existing process:
Comprehensive, but unwieldy internal QA process built over the past several years High volume manual review in place looking for obviously bad contact information and phone numbers – an imperfect process Internally rejecting approximately 40% of all leads generated
Analysis results:
Nearly 40% of the leads rejected through internal processes were high quality leads 45% of the leads killed through manual review had high quality contact information 75% of the leads killed for phone “validity” had valid phone numbers
6
ONLINE LEAD QUALITY SUMMIT
Case Study – Automotive lead generator
Revenue Opportunity:
Immediately increase the quantity and quality of leads sold to dealer clients Increase percentage of leads monetized as much as 16% without sacrificing quality and the “perception of quality”
• •
16% of the leads scrubbed internally in QA could be sold to dealers This represented an additional $160,000 of revenue per month and $1.92M annually
Operational efficiency:
Automate identification of very high quality leads and invalid leads Utilize manual review or outbound calls for a fraction of the monthly volume
7
ONLINE LEAD QUALITY SUMMIT
Does your lead review process measure up?
Using a third party provider is an important tactic in ensuring quality consumer contact information is submitted online Many solutions are inexpensive and easily implemented – but at what cost? What are the best ways to maximize the efficiency and profitability of your lead review process? Verification can be a major driver of revenue for your business
8
ONLINE LEAD QUALITY SUMMIT
Any additional questions?
9
ONLINE LEAD QUALITY SUMMIT
Contact Information
David Helmreich Director, Interactive Markets davidhelmreich@targusinfo.com 703.272.6296 www.targusinfo.com/verify
10
ONLINE LEAD QUALITY SUMMIT