A little over a year ago I was contacted by a gentleman named Bill Swift, who passionately pitched me on a new lead exchange that would could change the industry. Unlike the other exchange, this one would give buyers the opportunity to choose the lead provider they wanted to buy from. It would be completely transparent he said and you would be able to set your minimum and maximum bids for the best possible price. Mr. Swift also promised that historical data on the sellers would be available to the buyers for analysis. The promised data included performance data, return rates and lead duplicate data. The ability to make educated purchases at an optimal price, seemed perfect to me. Simply put, I was sold on the concept.
Now, a little over a year much of these promises have yet to be filled. Although this may be the case I have a new found hope for the exchange. I know some of you may be shocked to hear that on this blog. I will admit to being very critical of Root Markets and I will continue to be critical and opinionated, no need to worry, however a few day’s ago I had the pleasure of speaking to the gentleman that first sold me on the exchange, Bill Swift. A month ago Bill Swift moved into a new position at the Root Exchange. Bill, formally the Managing Director of Sales had been promoted to the Managing Director of the Root Exchange. In this new position he will oversee the strategy, sales and operations for the exchange.
When I heard the news I said “Thank God… Finally a change and a positive one at that”.
Last week I was able to catch up with Bill for a phone conversation and discuss what he had planned for the exchange. Many of the things he first mentioned to me a year ago came up in the conversation. Bill mentioned that one of his first objectives was to increase the quality of leads that are being sold through the exchange and eliminate many of the poorer performing lead providers. The second was to open their line of communication with the buyers on the exchange and begin to release performance data, return rates and duplicate data. I was also able to discuss with Bill the synergy or lack there of between the newly acquired LeadROI and the Root Exchange. From the discussion I really felt as though this was a major priorities on his list. He mentioned that the integration has been in the works for some time and was a very important objective for them to obtain. Once the integration is complete LeadROI users will be able to efficiently buy and return leads through the platform. The differnce in this conversation and the one a year ago is that Bill is now in a position to back up what he says.
The Root Exchange has an uphill battle, but with Bill Swift managing the direction of the exchange, the future is looking much brighter. Swift, formally of LendingTree and Goapply is a buyer advocate and knows what buyers want and aims to give it to us. The one concern that I have is the level of support that Root Markets plans to give him. I would hope that they listen to Bill and really try to make the exchange what it was pitched to me a year ago.
A few weeks ago I wrote a post on Root Markets RMI Lender Search ad and how horrible it was.
Well here is a little update. They have scratched the creative and gone with a basic banner, which was good idea. 
Here is also the RMI form that you may have heard about. It give the consumer the choice of how many banks are going to call them. Unlike the Root Exchange only banks and direct lenders are allowed to participate in the RMI Lender Search program.
I actually like the idea of giving the consumer the option to choose how many and which banks will call them. What do you think? What do you think about the new role of Bill Swift? Do you think he will be able to make a difference?
Good luck Bill, I am rooting for you!
.
.
.




“Swift is a buyer advocate…”
As an exchange, Root can’t favor lead buyers or sellers. It needs to be the umpire in the game, making sure buyers get the quality leads they want while insuring sellers get paid fairly.
I would be really interested to see how the economics of their RMI program for their publishers. My main question are what happens to a seller’s payout or the buyer’s lead price when a consumer chooses only one or two lenders. Typically the economics are only favorable when a lead is multi-sold or prices are high.
Lee,
I agree with you, they can’t favor one or the other, but they can present and market the exchange differently to each group. I am sure to some extent you do the same at LeadPoint.
I too am curious how they would handle the situation of a consumer only choosing one bank. The consumer would be dictating price.
Lee
I 100% agree with your statement and we do not favor one side more than the other. I think you would agree that there needs to be a little more “umpiring” on the seller side to protect the buyer given some of the practices that have went on in the past.
As far as how our lender choice model works it is somewhat proprietary information at this point but as you can probably figure out there are two roads we could take 1) Monetize the inquiry less when the consumer chooses less than 4 lenders or 2) Have a sliding price scale dependent on how many other lenders receive the inquiry.
Hope this answers the question.
Bill
I have been reading LeadCritic’s blog for some time and really enjoy your perspective and editorial honesty in this constantly changing (and improving) market. I think this is a very good concept on behalf of Root Exchange and Bill Swift’s vision to improve the experience for the consumer, however, I think some other factors need to be addressed not only for the advantage of the consumer choosing how many lenders contact them, but also for the tremendously challenging responsibilities of Media Directors such as myself, like the degree of sensitivity of questions on the app (social security # among others) which should also drive the cost lenders are willing to pay, especially if there are fewer lenders chosen to be contacted. Nonetheless, it is ideas like this that I am hoping will get our market back to stability and in good standings with the consumer.