TARGUSinfo Interactive Insights

Regardless of the terms used – status, disposition, outcome, state– every lead should have at least two data points associated with it.  One regarding validity and one regarding outcome. 

In my last post “Clear as Mud: Transparency is Tricky,” I posed a few questions for lead buyers and sellers to think about regarding their business practices.  I’d like to touch on the last two buyer questions regarding lead dispositions.

It is my experience that the line between the status and disposition of a lead is often blurred into one hybrid lead outcome.  While one lead outcome may seem more manageable, the lack of precision in defining the true state of a lead makes refining and optimizing lead processes much more difficult.

Let us take for instance the outcome “invalid lead – not interested.”  Contacting a consumer who is “not interested” does not mean the lead is “invalid.”   The status of the lead is valid – which I define as a contactable phone – but the lead was not workable because the disposition is “not interested.”

As I see it, status and disposition are not synonymous and should not be mixed.  These two data points should be independent and based on different factors.  The status of a lead should be based on the criteria defining validity.  The disposition should be based on the outcome of the lead – i.e. the action taken with the lead – thus only end users will have this data point.

For instance, let us define –

Status has the following values:

• Valid – contactable phone number
• Unknown – inconclusive contact (no answer, fax)
• Invalid – non-contactable phone number (invalid, blank, disconnected)

Disposition has the following values based on the listed outcomes:

Equally as important as maintaining these two data points for each lead, is the definition and standardization of their assignment. 

Whether your classifications are as basic as the ones I’ve described above or more intricate, it is imperative that you clearly define and document the criteria governing each outcome to ensure accuracy and consistency.  This is increasingly important when incorporating a human element – such as a call center agent.

When utilizing a call center, it is often helpful to provide your call center agents with a table in similar fashion to the one displayed above.  A standardized set of outcomes mapped to dispositions creates accurate uniformity, which leads to higher precision.

Retaining information on both validity and outcome allows more granular analysis of lead performance and in turn more accurate decision making.

If you are the end user of a lead, then you have the capacity to attain both pieces of information.  If you are the lead seller, you will only have data points regarding lead validity based on your parameters, unless you have developed transparency in your partnership.  Either way, you’ve got a place to start.

Stay tuned to find out what’s next…

Andi

@Ask_Andi

You don’t need me or any other marketer to tell you that the Hispanic population growth is real. 

Kelly McDonald, the guest keynote at today’s Professional Marketing Association (PIMA) Midyear Meeting in Leesburg, VA, made it clear that marketers need to start thinking about it RIGHT NOW.

Why now?  According to McDonald, the upcoming US Census will unveil that there are 50 million Hispanics living in America.  That number is particularly impressive when she detailed that 50 million means:

1) US Latino population would be the third largest Hispanic country in the world

2) US Latino population is larger than the entire country of Canada

Has your organization felt this wave of opportunity or panic (depending on your situation)?  Do you know how many of your online leads are Hispanic?  How do you know your online ads are reaching Hispanics?

Regardless of your situation, the need to identify, verify and score customers is real time is universal–regardless of industry.  At TARGUSinfo we see firsthand the power of being able to work with clients to help identify targeted audience groups to customize their messaging at every interaction.

Hispanics are online. Hispanics are among the fastest growing purchasers of goods and services today.  Hispanics are here to stay.

It’s a great event so far, and I look forward to learning more about the challenges facing the insurance market and how interactive marketers can help.
Rufus

@RufusManning

In my last post, I said what we’re all thinking–Trust Comes with Transparency. 

Now what?

You’re now engaged in a partnership and you’ve reached a comfortable level of trust with your partner.   Is it time to take the next step and be more transparent?

If you wish to begin the transparent knowledge exchange,  taking the first step is sometimes easier said than done.

Not to worry, below is a checklist of the most helpful–if not the most rudimentary, questions to answer .

For the seller:

• Steps in your lead generation and distribution process?
• Sources and do you differentiate them?
• Data points collected?
• Pre-scrub practices?
• Clearly defined screening parameters?
• Detailed scrub practices?
• Verification practices?
• Return policies?

For the Buyer:

• Steps in the lead evaluation waterfall?
• Sources and do you differentiate them?
• Pre-scrub practices?
• Clearly defined screening parameters?
• Detailed scrub practices?
• Verification practices?
• How do you assign disposition to your leads?
• Are those dispositions standard and clearly defined?

Next step – what and how much are you willing to share?

Start thinking and stay tuned…

Andi

@Ask_Andi

Having a standard definition sets the bar for understanding. 

Transparency raises the bar for trust and innovation. 

Recently, on my post “Whose burden is it anyway?” a reader commented that “making contact is the first step of the sales process, not the last step of lead generation.”

I support this statement, nevertheless, I think we can all agree that a lead must be contactable else the first step in the sales process cannot be taken.  That said, I think that in the traditional lead generation industry, we are working towards having the onus to determine whether or not the lead is valid/contactable fall with the lead generators.  This leaves the lead buyers, those ultimately working the leads, with the responsibility of managing and contacting valid leads.

That is unless the sales terms were established stating that a lead generator will provide not only valid, but “qualified” leads – where “qualified” meets a predetermined set of conditions.  This changes the game of who bears what burden.  In this case, the generator assumes the responsibility of evaluating consumer intent, and I’d bet is charging a premium for those leads.

Today, there exist strong markets for both “valid” and “qualified” lead generation and exchange.  It is important to know in which market you wish to engage and clearly define the rules by which you intend to play.

This is ostensibly a simple concept, yet we still have much of the ‘he said’ ‘she said’ mentality between lead generators and buyers.  I believe that clear definition and transparency are the first steps to harmony in bearing the burden and continuing to move the market toward optimization.

Here’s what I’d recommend:  First step, define all business terms.  Are the leads exchanged expected to be evaluated on a contactability basis – i.e. valid versus invalid – or an intent basis – i.e. qualified versus unqualified?   What are the conditions governing a valid or a qualified lead?  What are the return policies?

Next step, be transparent in your partnerships.  As our friend Mike at LeadCritic.com points out in a March discussion “Lead Generation: Transparency and Love”, many fully developed partnerships continue to lack the trust and in turn the transparency which could directly help optimize business for both parties involved.

Trust, the fundamental building block of any personal or professional relationship, hinges on both parties being open and honest – transparent – about their actions and intentions.  One problem is that trust must generally be earned, leaving both parties skeptical of opening OZ’s curtain too widely or too quickly in a fledgling relationship.

It is scary to unveil processes and decision making strategies to parties who are undecidedly friend or foe.  But a business partnership can never achieve greatness while lacking an integral piece of the foundation – trust. 

So if you have chosen to engage in a partnership, trust is a necessary risk taken to foster the relationship.

I think the risk will be worth the reward in the end.  What do you think?

Andi

@Ask_Andi

A question posed in a recent LeadCritic.com post titled  “Scapegoat or Actually a Valid Return?“ is an ongoing contention between buyers and sellers.

Are buyers returning leads to sellers that are truly invalid?  The bigger question is – what are the parameters of a valid versus an invalid lead?

I agree with the author’s observation that lead return policies continue to be abused.  In my opinion, a valid lead is one that is contactable – i.e. can be reached by phone, direct mail or email depending on the desired contact channel.

Technically, isn’t every live person you reach on the other end of the telephone a contact and therefore a potential lead for your business?  I do not feel that a consumer’s lack of interest or the inability of a sales person to close a consumer warrants a buyer return for credit.

Truth is, many of the leads generated online are just noise and not viable leads – no matter who generates it, who sells it, who buys it.  So ultimately, who’s burden is it to bear?

I surmise that the starting point for both lead buyers and seller must be with contactability.  The rest should work itself out.

Andi

@Ask_Andi

Make your plans for Vegas today, because  we are thrilled to announce that Greg Stuart, former CEO, IAB, and Emily Riley, principal analyst and research director, Forrester Research Inc., will be this year’s keynote speakers at the annual Interactive Insights Summit, October 13-14 at the Wynn Las Vegas, NV.

Formerly known as the Online Lead Quality Summit, the Interactive Insights Summit will host a unique blend of leaders from national advertisers, lead generators, lead exchanges, interactive agencies, ad networks and ad exchanges from around the digital world.  

Check out pictures from our 2009 Summit here.

“Last year, more than 350 senior marketing and advertising executives took part in our most successful summit yet,” said Joy Nemitz, senior vice president, market development, TARGUSinfo. 

“The new name reflects the evolving conversation that is taking place in the digital world, as will agenda topics that range from best practices in analytics and scoring to the importance of lead quality, and will also include case studies involving third party data in online display advertising.”

The Interactive Insights Summit bridges the lead generation industry to preeminent digital marketing and advertising trends.  In addition to hearing from industry experts, strategically planned and executed networking events will offer valuable face time with potential partners to help drive your business.

“The industry is increasingly moving from buying mere impressions towards buying focused audiences,” said Eshwar Belani, vice president products and business development, Rocket Fuel Inc.  “Data is playing a very influential role in this transition and TARGUSinfo does an excellent job bringing together industry thought leaders to discuss the latest trends and identify opportunities for the future.”

Stay tuned for the full agenda and more details at the end of July.

Rufus

@RufusManning

I’m routinely asked to specify the difference between terminology that the online lead generation industry uses.  For instance, one that repeatedly comes up is the difference between lead validation and lead verification.

Truth be told, there is a significant distinction between the two despite their synonymous use.

Validation determines if individual pieces of input identity information are valid per format or range specifications – i.e. could it exist, not, does it exist.  Verification determines the relationship between the valid input identities – i.e. does that valid ten digit phone belong to John Smith and does he live at 123 Main Street?  Input identities must be evaluated as valid before their linkages can be verified.  Thus, like the square and the rectangle, a verified lead is valid, but a valid lead is not necessarily verified.

At TARGUSinfo, we go a crucial step further than simple validation strategies which are often dated and home-grown.  Our On-Demand Verification solution not only determines if the individual pieces of input information are valid but then identifies the relationship between the input name, address, and phone identities offering you extensive insights.

Currently, TARGUSinfo provides only email validation services.

If you are interested in learning more about TARGUSinfo’s verification services, please email andicook@targusinfo.com.

Andi

@Ask_Andi

With so many important conferences and industry events in the online lead generation industry to attend, it’s difficult to decide which ones to attend.

Fortunately, the Interactive Markets Team at TARGUSinfo is out there with our clients and my aim is to share many of these “From the Road” insights with you.

Last week @Sanaz928 , our resident expert in the higher education market, had the opportunity to interact with a number of our clients in Boston at the  AMA Higher Education Symposium

“Upon the recommendation of trusted colleagues and clients in the higher education market I decided to attend The AMA Higher Education Symposium, this year for the first time,” Sanaz said.

She attended for several days and walked away with some terrific insights, but noted:  “AMA is a long way from becoming a replacement to the Career College Association’s (CCA) annual event, but it did provide an interesting perspective nonetheless. “

Speaking of CCA, we are looking forward to another great agenda for CCA 2010.  Early news is President Bill Clinton will be delivering the keynote in Vegas.  Clinton, Vegas, you have to be kidding me…

Taking inspiration from @GuyKawasaki , who presented at the TARGUSinfo Online Lead Quality Summit in 2008, Sanaz kept a log of her Top 10 memorable moments from @AMAhighered in no particular order.  Given her unique perspective, I think its valuable to share.

 1.      Networking

• There were lots of great networking opportunities in the exhibit hall.  Familiar faces were exhibiting from CUnet, EducationDynamics, enCircle Media, CollegeBound, Plattform and Ward Media and newer faces like ORC Guideline were there as well.

2.      Lunchtime Keynote “Learning from Politics:  What Higher Ed Can Learn from the Obama Campaign”

• What an excellent idea for a captive audience, not to mention @RichMintz had a great keynote speech.

3.      Session Snapshots

• Great idea, let every speaker for that day give a 60 second pitch about their session.  I think we should incorporate that for OLQS or the Scoring Summit?

4.      New Friends

• How nice when someone moves over to give you seat in crowded room?  And then to find out you’re both sitting there Tweeting about the event….thanks @aeltzroth!   Also met some great folks from IPFW (Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne) that shared how they have open enrollment because everyone should be able to attend school when they are ready to enroll.

5.      Twitter

• It was great to see so many people actively tweeting during the conference.  It felt like I was in the sessions I missed by reading the Twitter updates.

6.      Knowledge  “Adult Learners Who Stopped-Out:  How Do We Bring Them Back in the Fold?”

• Great session from Kim Schatzel (University of Michigan Dearborn) and I took about a page of notes.  Maybe this was extremely interesting to me based on the engagements I’ve been involved in recently to help universities and colleges profile their students and understand more about why some students persist and others don’t.  I could write an entire blog post on my thoughts about this….maybe that will be my second blog post.
• The factors that University of Michigan Dearborn considered in their hypothesis included:  age, gender, income, employment status, displaced workers

7.      Perspective and Opportunity

• Working with higher education clients, I deal most closely with the for-profit universities and colleges so it was great to hear what the more traditional not-for-profit schools are doing.  There is a tremendous opportunity for for-profit and traditional schools to learn from each other and see what areas they each excel in so they can provide a better experience for students around the country. 

8.      Hot Girls

• Ok now that I have your attention, good advice from @KarlynM that Facebook ads with hot girls convert better than ads with hot guys, who knew?  Well now you do!

9.      Laughs

• Video of @RichMintz grandmother on YouTube, you can’t help but laugh along and smile:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPJ_PsCcDW4

10.      Location

• Boston was a nice change of pace for a conference; it had been too long since I had a good bowl of chowda!

On a regular and ongoing basis, I look forward to sharing various insights about the online lead generation industry as my team hits the road in 2010. 

Thanks Sanaz for all your insight from the AMA Higher Education Symposium in Boston.

Chris McArdle

@cjmcardle

We all get it.  Quality is King in the online lead generation industry.

From our point of view, quality has several components, but central is the belief that lead contactability and transparency of that data are key.

This morning we announced that Leads360 supports the symbiotic connection between lead quality and transparency.

We’re proud to announce that Leads360 customers—all 4,000+ of them, will have access to our On-Demand Lead Verification services to make the quality of leads they manage on the Leads360 platform even more valuable.

Dan Morefield, president and CEO of Leads360, stated: “By having access to TARGUSinfo’s lead verification service which verifies name, address and phone numbers of inbound leads, our clients can evaluate the quality of leads on-the-fly while using Leads360 to manage their sales process and contact leads with unparalleled speed and efficiency.”

Leads360 has created a stellar lead management system for online lead buyers in the mortgage, insurance and education industries.

“Contactable consumer leads are the heartbeat of our expanding mortgage business,” said Mark Walker, CEO, First Preferred Mortgage Company.  “We have always been happy with Leads360’s lead management platform, but with the addition of the proven lead verification service from TARGUSinfo, we predict our ROI will jump severalfold.”

I’m looking forward to hearing more great testimonials from Leads360 customers.  You can find out more about Leads360 here.
Dave
@DaveWengel

Following up on our earlier post and the article on LeadCritic, companies in lead generation space (buyers & sellers) have been abuzz regarding transparency in lead scoring.  According to Christel Mosby, SVP at Grand Canyon University, “We (GCU) believe transparency plays an invaluable role in the lead generation process.”

What transparency is not, is a risk.  Transparency would not compromise confidential information- I think that point misses the mark.  Neither buyers nor sellers in the industry supporting transparency are suggesting this.

What lead buyers & sellers are suggesting – as they have for years – is that transparency in the lead generation ecosystem will help both sides. 

Mark Garns, COO of Autobytel stated: “We believe there is an opportunity to improve the leads business with leads scoring.  To be successful lead scoring needs to improve the process for everyone: dealers, consumers, and the lead providers.  Transparency into the lead scoring model is an essential element of that. To that end, it is important to work with companies like TARGUSinfo who understand the importance of transparency to assist the entire industry.”

There have been some buyers & sellers in the past who’ve tried to benefit themselves by not being transparent.  This minority view the ecosystem as a zero-sum game, i.e. my gain is the other side’s loss. 

For example, a lead buyer may be tempted to cut its lead buying costs by cutting out the lower performing leads it buys.  However, the lead seller still had to spend just as much to generate the leads.   Without transparency, this hurts the lead seller’s ability to improve performance which ultimately would help the lead buyer.  Additionally, a lead seller might be tempted to not be transparent with its buyers so that it can charge more than a fair price for leads. This could ultimately hurt buyers in the short term and sellers in the long term.

These practices have been the exceptions, and the vast majority of both buyers & sellers do not see the lead generation ecosystem as a zero-sum game, but rather understand that all parties can act as partners to help reach the mutual goal:  Get the most desirable leads, most cost-effectively, and everyone benefits.

One analogy would be the “Nutrition Facts” on the food that we buy – the FDA created a common language of the ingredients of what is in the food, helping both the consumer, as well as the seller of the goods – assuming the seller has nothing to hide and the consumer wants to understand what he or she eats.  The seller would never divulge a ‘secret formula’ (like Coca-Cola) and rarely would divulge the entire recipe, but all in the ecosystem benefit with a common, transparent language about what goes into the food in the package, so that consumers have full understanding of what they are purchasing, and high-quality sellers can promote what makes them high quality – without any obfuscation about the facts.

When it comes to Lead Scoring, we are overwhelmingly hearing the same desire – ‘black box’ (non-transparent) Lead Scoring, which shows solely how likely the lead is to take a certain action, may at first appear beneficial (just as food without “Nutrition Facts” may still taste good, but may not be good for you). 

The reason that both buyers & sellers want more transparency is so that they can learn together and partner on how to find more of the desired leads, in the most cost-effective manner.  These companies are 100% in support of transparency – they are not going for short term gain at the expense of other members of the ecosystem, but rather see the significant benefits of working together as partners to solve the mutual goal:  Finding the most desirable leads in the most cost-effective manner.

Our view – shared by most companies in the lead generation industry- is ignore transparency at your own peril. 

Like Fredrick Goff, CEO of Percipio said this week, “All free markets evolve toward efficiency. Lead scoring will be a driving factor toward efficiency in the lead generation market, but only if the process, means and economics are transparent and understood by market participants.  Full access to the underpinnings of scoring models allows buyers to better manage acquisition costs and suppliers to generate higher quality leads:  A win-win result ”

Those who are still pushing non-transparency (black-box) scoring, or other zero-sum tactics, are missing the point.

For more information on how our 200+ clients are viewing & driving transparency in the Lead Scoring market, drop me a direct message at @DaveWengel.   #NoBlackbox

Dave