In general, the ability to return leads is a safe guard put in place by lead sellers, or demanded by lead buyers, that allows for a certain level of leeway when paying for “leads”.

The acceptable reasons for a lead to be returned are fairly specific and generally boils down to the definition of a “lead”. Quickly, what is a lead? For some reason this definition is not completely clear to most. While it would seem a very simple question. When you throw in the topic of returns or the payment for qualified leads, it gets a little blurred. A lead is a person that has indicated interest in a product or service by requesting to be contacted through a inquiry form online or via a number of other sources.

We then layer on the confirmation of valid contact information.  The information needs to be accurate and correct so that the business receiving the lead can actually contact the prospect. Without over defining the completely obvious, many buyers and sellers have agreed that the prospect not only needs to have accurate contact information, but they also need to confirm being interested in the service or product and having filled out the form when the seller claims they filled out the form.

More recently, many buyers have implemented lead scoring methods that have increased the number of rejects and returns of leads. I guess before I go any further we also have to take note of the difference between rejects and returns. Again, without mulling over the obvious, rejects are typically leads that are rejected at the server level, before a lead ever reaches a CSR, for validation reasons. A return is when the lead actually goes to the CSR and is then returned. Okay, the obvious is clearly stated now. Lets get to the point.

Recently some buyers have taken the stand that leads will not be paid for reasons that have nothing to do with what in the past has been defined as valid. Claiming a lead does not meet a “score” or is no longer interested for a host of reasons, in my opinion, does not constitute a credit. What it does constitute is a calculated lead management process. Creating this lead management process is a obviously a lot more risky to a buyer then simply using their buying power to force lead sellers to accept the returns. Heck, what is scary is that these “returned” leads may still continue through a lead nurturing process regardless of any credit. We would like to hope that is not the case, but it is definitely questionable.

The problem here is not a high return rate, per se, but rather the lack of properly working the leads. The easiest way to improve conversion numbers is to return leads. It is that simple. Just return the questionable leads. If a person says they are Not Interested, for whatever reason, just return the lead. Instead of working the lead, redistributing it to an email campaign or even a different CSR, or one last contact attempt, just return the lead and only pay for leads that are more likely to close.

We already know the appropriate process in this situation is to correctly work the leads. Another option is to lower your CPL and pay the right price for the leads. A price change gives the sellers the foresight and the ability to adjust marketing budgets so that it will be inline with revenue. The approach is more proactive and manageable. Simply returning leads 30 days after marketing dollars have been spent, is an action furthest away from partnering with a lead generator.

If you are returning more then 20% of your leads, there is a problem either with the quality of the source or your returning leads for extraneous reasons. An average return rate for most verticals is 10%. If it is lower or higher across different verticals, I wouldn’t be surprised, but like I said anything above 20% is a problem.

So, are buyers properly working leads, returning leads that simply are not valid or using it as a scapegoat and simple solution to increase revenues?

.

.

.