I don’t know about you but I have been fixated on the fact that their are a number of different lead exchanges in the market. First, I guess the proper terminology would be marketplaces, because there is not real exchange of leads. Either way I have always questioned the viability of the competitive landscape for lead marketplaces. Is there room for more then two?
During my most recent conversation with Reply.com I threw that exact question at their CEO, Payem Zamani. He mentioned that he could foresee the different exchanges partnering together to fulfill possible weaknesses. This was also the sentiment of the Lead Exchange session at LeadsCon a few months ago. This first small step towards self prophecy took place last week when Reply announced their partnership with The Detroit Trading Company to bring on Auto Loan leads to their platform.
“We are thrilled to be rolling out a new lead category only a couple of months after our launch. We bring maximum liquidity to every category that we enter by employing our own state-of-the-art lead generation solutions, and through partnerships with other marketplaces. Together, we dramatically expand the reach of the Reply! marketplace and immediately tap into the broadest set of buyers and sellers. We are delighted that Detroit Trading Company (www.detroittrading.com), the largest lead exchange for auto finance, is involved. Now, dealers and enterprise buyers, as well as lead sellers, can profit from a highly-efficient market for auto loan leads,” said Payam Zamani,
This is a good move to diversify the Reply marketplace, especially when the mortgage vertical doesn’t prove to see the light of day any time soon. While LeadPoint looks to edit their model and decrease overhead and the Root Exchange, who rumored to have laid off half of their staff, hangs by string and rumors of other exchanges coming to market are getting louder, I begin to ask myself again, Is their room for more then one marketplace? And which is going to end on top? Will any of them?
.
.
.
There are dozens of search engines (many small), dozens of banner ad networks (many small), dozens of cpc contextual ad netwoks (many small), dozens of lead aggregators, dozens of stock trading networks (most small), dozens of commodity trading networks (most small), etc.
Why wouldn’t there be a dozen lead marketplaces, most of which remain small and niche (certain verticals, etc)?
It is easy for a lead generator and lead buyer to wok with several marketplaces. I don’t see any fundamental dynamic that would result in 1-2.
My 2 cents
[Reply]
Last week Root Exchange laid off half over half of their staff. Word on the street that they are looking to fire sale. Have not heard how LeadPoint is doing but we all have heard rumblings of their struggles.
Based on the success or lack there of of these companies, I couldn’t see how anyone could be bullish on exchanges/marketplaces unless the model drastically changes.
[Reply]
Good point Melvin. I think an argument can be made that many of those networks will not be around very long either. Look at the short tail and look what Yahoo is going to be doing. Soon they will be joining forces with Google to show Google based ads on the Yahoo network.
At some point many of the long tail networks will join forces or disappear. I agree there is room for niche networks, I just question how long they will be around for and of course they are only as good as their niche.
[Reply]
I think there will likely be several exchanges because this doesn’t seem like a classic winner-takes-all platform play. I say this because:
1. There is little to no cost to buying on multiple exchanges
2. Costs of entry aren’t super-high. Although LP and Reply! are well-funded there are exchanges out there like ManyUp who seem to have a lot less funding.
3. Each exchange offers something a little different… so there is a point for buyers and sellers to use multiple exchanges.
I’d be surprised if any of the exchanges started out or got funding thinking that there would be little competition or that only one or two models would prevail in the end.
It will be fascinating to see what happens.
[Reply]
I would hope that any company entering any market would expect there to be competition, however I know each company expects to be the best and eliminate the competition.
My concern is that when there is heavy competition, and I am not convinced there is “heavy” competition, there needs to be differentiating factors that will set each company apart from each other. Whether it be price, quality, features, etc, and at this point I am not convinced that there is one marketplace that stands out from the other. Just an opinion.
If I need auto insurance leads and one marketplace is meeting my volume, price and quality needs, other then strictly for diversity, what other reason would I have to use another marketplace.
Of course I would try it to try it, but after the introductory period, what is going to keep me on multiple exchanges? I think the only answer is volume. If all the volume was going through one exchange it would make my life much easier. Ultimately I think that would be the goal of each exchange, gain the most market share.
We shall see…it will be interesting to see what happens.
[Reply]
I think some things that are being said about lead exchanges is pretty much on the money, however Leadpile was not mentioned in the mix of innovative lead exchanges to keep an eye on.
We keep our marketplace diversified with different verticals and innovative technology. Simply being a “lead exchange” is not enough to remain competitive, and we realize that. We are constantly trying to roll out new things for our publishers and advertisers to utilize. One perfect example is our micro click ads that are now available for our publishers to host on their websites. These are small one page sites that will be opened in a new window, still giving you the control over your site and adding an incredible monetization opportunity for your content. You can also use these for your exit traffic as a pop under/pop up. Providing a vast array of options, allows us to appeal to all types of publishers and advertisers.
[Reply]
Mari,
I haven’t heard good things about the quality of leads that come through LeadPile, that is the problem.
[Reply]
Unfortunately, with a marketplace/exchange there is a constant flow of NEW publishers and advertisers. This means a potential for lead quality that is not to par. However, we have a quality control department that is always doing quality control on the leads, and will not hesitate to shut down any publisher for poor quality leads. However, that is why we promote publishers to use the forms, banners, TEXT links, and micro click ads so quality does not become an issue. Our top publishers in our marketplace are using our forms.
[Reply]
We’ve been in business since 2001 and some of our verticals (as cash advance, auto financing) have been doing amazing for our buyers, which are still doing business with us for years. I think our numbers can be a proof for that – $2,692.40 EPM on Payday; $2,133.68 on Auto Financing.
We also had verticals that were starting up and it’s true that not all the leads coming into our system were the best leads a buyer could get. One thing that I believe was overlooked, is the price buyers were paying for Exclusive leads, such as Debt Settlement (with a 20k minimum of unsecured debt). The leads that are sold on an exclusive basis into our Exchange are providing to the buyers a real time “Redirect Page” (confirmation page) with the Buyer’s Company Information + they have the ability to filter by ZIP, State, Are Code, Debt Amount, Income, Months Employed, and many other filters depending on the lead type they are interested in.
Leadpile has produced it’s own leads for years, mostly using PPC. The Buyers that understood that a higher quality lead is more expensive, and that hundreds of leads delivered per day doesn’t happen overnight, are the buyers that are with us for a long time.
If you are talking about coreg leads, it’s going to be totally a different story, and we all know that some buyers are expecting gold from a $.50 a lead.
[Reply]
Root Exchange is the best lead exchange and held the #1 spot on Lead Marketwatch. How can a provider that was once #1 be hurting now? I thought Lead Marketwatch was the beacon of accuracy in this business. What is happening to this world if we can’t even trust Kaleidico’s widgets? The apocalypse is near.
[Reply]
The major issue with the exchange model is volume. The idea is phenomenal, but by design it is a high volume, low margin model. The exchanges pay out the lion’s share of the lead profits to the affiliates that generate the leads and count on high volumes of leads passing through the exchange to compensate for the lower margins.
So the problem the exchanges are facing is that, none have really made any significant impact in any markets other than mortgage, and we all know the mortgage lead market has shrunk by at least 50% in the last 3 years, so due to a lack of significant quality volume the exchange model hasn’t gotten the traction needed to be as viable of a model as it could be. In my opinion more competition is not a good thing for the exchanges because there aren’t enough quality affiliates, as confirmed by Leadpile’s rationalization of selling co-reg leads on their exchange, to feed the exchanges that exist today.
[Reply]
I have a question for all lead consumers. Would you buy leads where the borrower was essentially the “aggregator” if there was quality control to make sure that your LOs don’t waste their time with junk. Ie. what if a lead exchange said to consumers, “get paid to talk to Loan Officers about refinancing your mortgage” but filtered out the BS. Would you buy that lead ? Its a sort of “incentive-space” lead. What would you pay for this kind of lead provided that the riff-raff could be filtered out ?
[Reply]
I would quit my job and become a full time lead and get paid under your model Booty. I would submit a bunch of fake names and phone numbers that I get from TossableDigits.com. I would have no more than a 3 min conversation with each lender and get paid to talk to them. You’re brilliant BootyJuice. The unemployment rate is going way down thanks to you.
[Reply]
LOL!
[Reply]
The conversation has gone agro for sure. Wow.
I appreciate all view points and tangents; I even understand some comments and the motives behind them. Think 360 and others trying to break into the space.
My only question is? How do you control the volume and quality when you as a buyer cannot see the transparency?
How do you adhere to best practices taught and evangelized across the industry and on this blog? Can you monetize a source efficiently when the source does not tell you where leads come from?
Can you monetize leads when you are getting a blend of sources and cannot through analytics ascertain generation methods, contact rates by source, CPFL, etc.?
I think the transparency issue has been around longer than most of the commentators posting comments, that is not a big issue but experience and history says pay attention to the metrics, channel sources and generation methods. This blog was based on the premis of understanding the key points of leads, leads leads.
Marsha (assume ROI) is commenting on widgets and gadgets, others comment on quality or volume. There is a fundamental need for exchanges but with the three basic issues pointed out above and in previous posts how do you solve the… 1.) Transparency, 2.) Quality, 3.) Volume issues?
How does it benefit the market to have more exchanges?
[Reply]
Cooz I think you are missing the point (in spite of my silly name there really is one). The point is that currently, aggregator model spends $$$ on advertising and collects $$$ for leads – buying imps and clicks and selling leads. Your 3-minute call would be with this new “aggregator” who is telling the borrower, in a nutshell, “instead of me splitting the revenue with whoever I’m buying clicks and imps from, you and me split the revenue and my job is to make sure you are serious.” In other words, there still is a role for the real aggregator, in terms of, as a I put it earlier “filtering out the riff raff.” You have basically proposed the money making scheme of the riff raff, and I’ve said explicitly that lets suppose I can filter you out. Think DoublePositive. Ultimately, as a borrower, when you talk to an LO as a result of a form fill, you have actually just paid numerous middle men in the process — probably a search engine or portal, an aggregator or “lead gen” company, and maybe others. As far as the notion of transparency and quality, both can be fully attended to. Its as if your local bank said, “come on down and talk to us. at some point in the discussion, just for taking your time, when we decide you’re serious we’ll hand you a $20 bill.” And let me tell you, banks actually do this — I recall numerous bank promotions over the last couple of years where you could get $50 for opening a savings account.
[Reply]
Booty,
I like the concept, but it is economical.
You are also affecting the intent of the consumer no matter how much you think you can filter the calls, by paying them for their interest.
How would you generate these calls? I am guessing it would be no different then any other lead gen method. I guess you are only talking about filtering leads, so on top of the lead gen cost you are also going to fork a fee to the consumer to listen to the lead buyer.
Could be wrong, wouldn’t be the first, but I don’t think this current variation of the idea is worth proceeding with.
[Reply]
Critic,
ok now we have at least a valid understanding of the idea and a real set of issues with it. Presumably it is easier to generate the calls when you are offering a cash incentive, but I fully accept the intent issue you mention. How about this for ascertaining intent : verifying that the person on the phone is the holder of a mortgage, and that that mortgage is an ARM due to reset within a fixed period (eg 90 days) ? If these were the necessary prequalifications to collect on the cash incentive, it would seem that the intent is at least as good as someone clicking on the dancing LMB banner, don’t you think ?
[Reply]
Bootyjuice,
If I am a consumer I want a) a good deal b) to deal with someone I trust. Being paid to speak to an agent achieves neither, so I’d say the intent would be different from responding to a banner ad.
I think your suggestion is a really bad idea.
Nick
[Reply]
There is major flaw with any incentive based “lead generation” tactic that is looking simply for a intent.
As you mentioned previously, banks will give out cash for signing up for a checking account, credit cards will give out hats, etc, but what they have done is get your information and actually sign you up. They know completely that a percentage will never actually use the account but the percentage that will use the account will make the incentive based campaign worth the cost.
Giving people money with any level of questioning and with no real level of commitment will not lead to fruitful results.
If this were to work at all they would need to show more intent and that would include possibly filling out a full 1003 or what ever is applicable to the vertical being marketed too.
even then you are looking at a lead that would cost a high premium and the lead could still be gaming the system to make a buck.
Still not convinced. Too many variables.
[Reply]
oh and Yes, I think dancing LMB banners would generate a better lead.
[Reply]
Ok well there you have it… question answered. Thanks for your input Critic, Nick, and Cooz.
[Reply]
Brian Bowman here, Chief Marketing Officer @ Reply.com. There are tons of great comments from this post. I encourage readers to check out why Reply.com decided to build a lead marketplace (http://blog.reply.com/?p=4).
Before I jump into a more formal response, please understand that Google is almost totally opaque on their margins and based on the multiple companies that we purchase SEM for – quality score and CPCs vary widely based on account history and relevancy. I believe Google is operating on a healthy margin.
On the buying side, I agree in principle that transparency is important. But that is because there isn’t an eBay-style rating system where you can confidently chose quality for a seller, set your filters and be confident in your close rates. We believe we have solved that. In fact, every lead provider / generator has some good / high quality leads but isn’t taking the time to identify them because they can charge more for them today.
Stepping back for a moment and focusing on a macro premise – LEAD GEN 1.0 is dying and is highly fragmented into numerous vertical categories and companies. This fragmentation makes it expensive and complicated to profitably transact leads.
Pricing is generally static and does not respond to changing market conditions in an efficient manner, and quality is not communicated effectively, delivered consistently or reflected in the price paid for leads. Most importantly unlike solutions provided in the CPC market by Google and Yahoo, the lead generation offerings lack controls over volume, price, quality and ROI. This lack of ability to segment lead buys negatively impacts the size of the budgets businesses are willing to commit to lead generation opportunities
For most companies, a majority of leads are either purchased through lead providers or generated internally. However, both methods provide limited controls and cause companies to engage in tactics that are not beneficial to the entire lead generation value chain. Internal lead generation requires a significant investment in the right talent and infrastructure. Companies often find it difficult to optimize their advertising spend to acquire the right mix of quality, amount, price, and ROI of leads. The results are often a large number of unmonetized and under-monetized leads, requiring a network of retail and wholesale buyers to help offset acquisition costs.
Companies that purchase leads through lead providers often find it difficult to get to their desired ROI, and frequently switch between providers in search of that ever-elusive “profitable cost per sale.” Additionally, quality is not communicated effectively, delivered consistently, or reflected in price paid for leads, and there is limited incentive to improve quality. Stated differently, controls over volume, price, and quality are missing.
Lead Generation 2.0 will be transacted in an exchange / marketplace where market-driven pricing and dynamic distribution of leads are possible. Using a lead exchange/marketplace, service-based businesses can easily access multiple sources of targeted consumer leads, purchase only the leads they want with easy-to-use filters, purchase the right quality, and set the price they will pay per lead. On the seller side, the lead generators and publishers increase the size of the network they access, tap into a highly liquid marketplace that maximizes yield per lead, and more efficiently liquidate undersold and unsold inventory of leads.
Publisher networks can now flourish by offering lead generation tools. An approach similar to Google’s AdSense, will allow businesses a way to increase their eCPM / revenue per page. The opportunity for growth of Lead Generation 2.0 is massive. We believe as lead generation becomes efficient, dollars will shift from CPC and classified advertising to cost-per-lead acquisition.
Check out http://blog.reply.com for more information.
[Reply]
Brian,
I appreciate the comment and wouldn’t expect much less from the marketing manager of any company. Let’s cut through all the fluff though.
No marketplace, exchange or lead generation company can “solve” transparency of quality without true conversion data. Simple 5 star ratings or comments are worth something, possibly, but worth what is the question. They are only based on opinion and not facts and if you are familiar with lead buyers and I know most are, facts and opinions can be quite different at times. However, I guess it is a step in the right direction, no doubt.
Charging more for quality is not a new discussion, obviously, but has been implemented I guess is the question. I believe LeadPoint has implemented this or at least has been discussing implementing this for some time now.
As all Internet marketing leans towards CPA I think lead gen will happily benefit.
Not to make an argument or state a different opinion for all your comments, because I fundamentally agree with most all of them and maybe I being tedious but I question if an exchange/marketplace, 4 years after being developed is lead gen 2.0, maybe 1.1,
There are still major issues with giving certain controls to the buyer and not to the seller. Buyers may be able to stop and start orders, filter to the 9th degree (which they can do in or out of an exchange), set specific price points (can do out of an exchange), but the sellers driving those leads will still generate the same leads no matter what is sold. If a leads aren’t being sold for hours at a time, because buyers are not active at that time or day and specific filters are being requested that minimize the amount of leads sold it is going to throw a major wrench in the spokes of affiliates or publishers. Then you get into the game of setting price floors, which is the beginning of end of an exchange, I would guess.
Overall I think an exchange is an phenomenal model and if implemented correctly can be an industry changer and reply may vary well be on that track. I guess we will have to wait and see. At the same time though, this is not a perfect model and has a number of hurdles that need to be cleared prior to being perfected.
I wish you good luck.
[Reply]
Brian you write :
“On the seller side, the lead generators and publishers increase the size of the network they access, tap into a highly liquid marketplace that maximizes yield per lead, and more efficiently liquidate undersold and unsold inventory of leads.”
The Big Question : how do you let “lead generators and publishers tap into a highly liquid marketplace” and ALSO let buyers set filters as to which sellers they will accept for an order ?
Seems like a classic dichotomy – do sellers get liquidity or do buyers get choice ? If you have some “magical method” of determining quality (ROI), why not shed just a bit of light on your inner workings here on the industry whiteboard ? Marketing drivel ain’t gonna cut it.
[Reply]
On blog.reply.com, I was asked about liquidity and selection of sellers. I thought I would respond here too.
Reply! brings maximum liquidity to every category that we enter by employing our own state-of-the-art lead generation, or through our existing wholesale partnerships & relationships with other marketplaces. Take for example, our relationship with Detroit Trading Company, the largest lead exchange for auto finance. We combined our two networks and increased the opportunities for auto loan sellers to access buyers in both marketplaces.
Unlike DTC we are not transparent, we don’t allow buyers to select which sellers they purchase leads from. We believe every publisher has some great, good and bad leads and have focused on sorting quality.
We communicate quality across multiple verticals, based on a ranking of 1 to 5 stars. The star rating reflects the likelihood of converting a particular seller’s leads into a purchase. We consider a number of factors in generating the star rating, including validation rate of the lead source, quality of the data provided by the seller, and feedback from the buyers of the leads.
Buyers now have the ability to cut out specific types of leads (like a consumer who wants a $100k home in a zip code that requires $350k). Ultimately, the system is built to allow lead buyers to focus on leads that work for their business and cut out leads that do not. We believe that focusing on quality and not the publisher is a more efficient solution.
[Reply]
REPOST WITH ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY
LC:
Congratulations on opening up an important discussion on Lead Exchanges.
This is my second post, and my apologies. I have re-read all the prior posts again, and I believe that some additional commentary may be warranted. Here we go…
For obvious reasons, I found the “The Partnering of an Exchange” post very intriguing.
I would like to begin by congratulating the Lead Critic for this blog. As the LeadCritic states in his/her bio, he/she is a former Lead Manager for a large real estate, mortgage and financial service company. It is for this reason that I am sure he/she has heard it all before….But, for those who have not…here is the way it usually goes…
At Leadpile, we have heard it all before. Many time before! At Leadpile, we have been hearing it for six years! Isn’t it interesting that almost everyone says the same thing, every time? So what am I talking about? We hear this…
…“We are the best”, “Our leads are the greatest”, “We rule the world”, “Our leads are better than your leads”, “My leads can beat up your leads”, “Our leads are the Super Duper Leads”, “Your leads are garbage”, “These are the Glengarry Leads“, “Coffee and XYZ Lead Provider’s Leads are for phone closers only!.”
…“And not only that, I have heard that your leads are terrible. How do I know? Well I just spoke to your competition at another leading Lead Exchange/Lead Provider who told me so. So obviously it must be true! Why would they say such a thing? I can’t imagine!”
And now for the comment about leads that I absolutely just love…
“I heard from my Uncle’s Sister’s Brother’s Aunt’s, Half-sister’s Brother’s Loan Officer (who cannot even close his own sister’s loan because another Loan Officer from another Company just outhustled him to get it done!), that the lead he just bought from XYZ Company (or “Leadpile/Leadpoint/Reply/XYZZ Exchange”) was terrible because it was only a 70% LTV, FHA Rate and Term Refinance (and the customer’s current rate was 8.9% with a 27% back end ratio!). In addition, he complained that he did not have enough equity to work with to close the deal. And not only that, he tried a Lead company out by buying one lead. And when he called that lead four hours later, the customer said that he just signed an application 15 minutes ago with a local lender that sent a friendly Loan Officer to their home! Now that is a bad Lead! Let’s give that lead provider a whopping 1.22111 stars for sending a lead to a Loan Officer who waited 4 hours to call it, and then was told by the customer that they signed an application 15 minutes go with a Loan Officer who drove to their home! These leads are pure crap!
“In addition, I heard through the grapevine that my Uncle’s Sister’s Brother’s Aunt’s, Half-sister’s Brother’s Loan Officer knows another guy (who works part-time as a Net Branch Loan Officer out of his bungalow in Malibu) who just closed a loan by calling 10,000 random numbers from the White pages. And he says that the best leads are the leads you get from the phone book!
So let’s tell everyone about the Phone Book Leads so someone can give them a rating of 97.78899655 (or maybe 12.55 stars) so that everyone will run out and get a phone book.
Let’s make sure that all the other Loan Officers in the world know that the phone book leads are the Holy Grail of Leads!”
Now What?
Well, the good people spreading the good news about the good Phone Book leads are actually the good people who own the Phone Book Company! How convenient!
So, spread the word! Who needs leads from any other lead provider besides the phone book?
All you need is a phone book, and to prove it…Just look at our 12.55 star rating!
Note: I have seen some amazing Loan Officers who could actually close more phone book leads than Loan Officers who are busy complaining about real-time leads…but that is another post, and another story completely.
So let’s continue…
Let’s say you are selling cars and I give you ten real time delivered auto leads. You do not close one lead. So what do you do next? You say the leads are garbage, right! Right! Run for the hills…These leads are a joke!! Tell everyone that the Auto Leads I gave you (assuming you are a good closer, with a good lead management system, good supervision, good sales scripting, and a good product to sell) absolutely stink! I will agree with you…for a second.
But wait! I sell the next three leads to another Sales Person, and they close two deals from the next three leads (Too bad sales person #1 did not by thirteen leads instead of 10!)
So now the leads are the greatest thing since sliced bread right? Wrong.
This really means that 2 deals closed from 13 overall leads. What this also means is that the sales person who went zero for ten says the leads are garbage, and the sales person who closed two out of three says the leads are terrific!
But maybe the SuperCloser who closed two out of three leads is not going to tell anyone how good the leads are! I sure as heck would not publicize this very much! Would you? He will probably tell everyone he knows that the leads are crap (just like the first guy) to eliminate as many people as he can from buying the good leads!
So what does this mean? It means that the only way to get a more pure, efficient model is a Lead Marketplace with volume.
In essence, the Lead Marketplace makes mince meat of this insanity.
Why? If the leads are working for the buyers, they will continue to buy the leads from the provider, and probably will eventually “up their bid” as more competition for the leads is created.
On the other hand, if the leads are not working, Lead Buyers will stop buying the leads and/or lower their lead bid.
If the leads are not working for the buyers, they can wait on the sidelines.
But what happens when the sideline players see the lead prices going up? It may be a clue that the leads do close, and maybe they need to get themselves back in the game (maybe slowly at first, but that is up to them!)
This is the beauty of the Lead Marketplace or Lead Exchange. It levels the playing field.
Bottom line: Lead Marketplaces work and they are in their still in their infancy.
With ramp-up in volume, Lead Exchange will become even more compelling.
To our fellow pioneers, I salute you.
To new players to the game, we wish you the best of luck. To the Lead Critic, nice post.
Andy Jacob
Founder
LeadPile
[Reply]
The current status of how leads re ranked on Reply is not worth any value.
Running a lead through TargusInfo for validation of data has very little to do with the leads propensity to close, other then its contactability. Lead validation should be the norm, not a way to attach a grade or score.
“We consider a number of factors in generating the star rating, including validation rate of the lead source, quality of the data provided by the seller, and feedback from the buyers of the leads.”
The first two you mention are the same thing. Then throw on an opinion, you get nothing more then a lead that has been validated.
Filtering leads is no premium service.
As I mentioned in the post the current lead exchanges are very very similar if not the exact same and a number of them are struggling for one reason or another. If all are the same and the only way to improve an exchange is to gain more volume, mergers will be inevitable.
[Reply]
LC you hit it on the head. Lead filtering should be a basic. Propensity modeling or lead scoring should be something an exchange could bring to the table. Help your buyers decide what leads to pay more for and which ones to pay less for. As a buyer if I have capacity I would buy both types at the right price. As my capacity went down I would only buy the high propensity leads (at the right price again). A marketplace should be able to bring this transperancy. These integrated value added services (also lead mgt?) Would keep buyers from going direct. That is the problem with root. Their value prop is that its easier to buy through them but the sellers would rather go direct. They are transparent but don’t “give” you anything else to make you want to continue using it. With leadpoint you have zero transperancy and so you can’t work their leads as intelligently.
In the end the exchange that brings the most additionalal value and attracts the best sellers should “win”.
[Reply]
So lets score the leads based on title/funding/LOS integration data and let the consumer decide who has the best leads, who charges the most, who has the leads in the price range they are able to pay. That is a market place. Which company can bring LOS/price points/conversion/All three major title recording centers data to market? This touches on LC’s poll about…would you pay for a market piece that shows buyers which leads fund? Thoughts?
[Reply]
Great. We have a partial solution for Mortgage Leads. Now lets tackle all the other verticals. How does anyone suggest we do that. The best lead providers aren’t the ones that provide leads that necessarily close because they cannot guarantee that. Closing the lead is up to the company selling the product. Price of the product, ability of the salesperson, if the product matches consumer need, and other factors outside the control of the lead provider determine if a lead closes. What the lead provider can deliver is a accurate advertising that drives the right consumer traffic (i.e. non-deceptive ads), consumer with accurate contact information, and timely deliver to the point of sale. After that what happens with the lead is up to the company that buys it.
Should one company’s failure to work the lead in an appropriate manner or consistently follow a best practices influence the price of leads from the lead provider they are buying from?
We need a better system for grading and scoring leads. Something than can be universally applied without ‘Point of Sale’ variables that can unfairly and adversely affect it.
[Reply]
Excellent points Raj, I was speaking primarily of mortgage as you pointed out. POS variables are always going to exist. Would you not use a mean that takes into account the variances already in my case above? BTW, good hearing from you.
[Reply]