Trust Comes with Transparency
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
EDU leads have never been as plentiful as in this financial market. Quality (qualified) leads verses quantity is becoming more and more important. While understanding most lead generation companies only signed up for supplying verifiable lead information, we all have to recognize we are ultimately measured, judged and priced solely on our lead quality (lead to enrollment percentage.)
And that’s really funny when you try and think of any other industry that expects their customers (prospective students in this case) to sign a legally binding enrollment contract before finding out how they can pay for it? Would WE buy a car without knowing how much the payments will be or make an offer on a house without knowing if you were pre-approved for the loan?
Yes, of course WE all know there’s something out there called financial aid – That’s because WE have all been to college!! Most of our EDU leads and just as importantly their buying committees at home, parents, not so supportive boy/girlfriends etc, don’t know that and are probably telling our leads… “You can’t afford the rent let alone college; we’ll have to sell your baby brother if you really want to go to college”!! Now even If our prospective student is lucky enough to have a rocket scientist in their family, he/she would give up at the mere thought of trying to complete a FAFSA and waiting for the financial aid dept to let them know where the money is coming from.
But now, every lead can get a free estimate of their financial aid eligibility in less than 3 minutes. Call centers can send them the same in less than 1 minute while hot transferring them to the schools just as they are printing off their personalized, diploma looking, super easy to understand Financial aid pre-qualification certificate. If you believe, as we do that the number 1 objection to exploring college enrollment is “I can’t afford it” then go to http://www.fainnovations.com and see how that excuse just flew out the window.
Schools are demanding more and more from their lead suppliers and that’s a good thing because… now we can charge even more money for the same leads, especially now WE know which ones are worth the most… What’s wrong with that?
Michael
Hello Michael!
I would ABSOLUTELY agree that the shift in focus has moved from quantity to quality.
You have defined lead quality as lead to enrollment percentage. Perfect. As long as both entities in a partnership know the set expectations, there should be minimal discord in the lead exchange process.
I imagine that your leads, students armed with financial aid knowledge, convert at a higher rate than others…just a hunch.
So, it sounds like you have established a clearly defined process allowing you to provide high quality (likely to convert) qualified leads to schools AND you’re able to charge more for those leads.
Thus you can make the same (if not more) money on less leads….quality over quantity – which is a move toward optimization. Kudos!