inside sales multimedia study

8/2/2019 Inside Sales Multimedia Study

1/16

multi-media response study

InsideSales.com Research and Analytics Division

presented by david elkingtoninsidesales.comand james oldroyd, phdskk graduate school of business

insidesales.com | leadresponsemanagement.org

2010 insidesales.com, inc

march 2010

Inside Sales .com


2/16

LeadResponseManagement .Org page 2



Inside Sales .com

overview

In follow up to the 2007 InsideSales.com Lead Response Management Study presented at the 4th annual Marketing SherpasSummit, this study employs analysis on a much more extensive data set and isolates key variables giving new insight into re-sponse time effectiveness in B2B and B2C lead quali cation. Working from a sample pool of over 1 million observations repre-senting 38 remote sales companies this study reaf rms the conclusions of the previous study that response time is vital in leadresponse management. It also explores effectiveness in response times associated with combination of multiple media methodsbetween telephone and email contact. The study analyzes data by isolating B2B and B2C data points in survival probability overlong- and short-term response life cycles, assessing the rates between the lead interest event, contact, and quali cation. At amore granular level this study compares a set of four speci c industry verticals to determine response time versus lead quali ca-tion effectiveness. Summarized below are some o the signifcant fndings o the study:

1. In B2B contacts a very early response is exponentially more effective.

2. Analyzing B2C leads within the rst 16 minutes after interest event, 90% of total quali cations resulted from the combina-tion of phone then follow up email. Conversely, combining email then phone was extremely ineffective.

3. Tech industry verticals showed a sharp drop off in response effectiveness within 20 minutes of the interest event.

4. The effectiveness of contacts made at 5 minutes after interest event was 7.8 times more likely to qualify than at 30 min-utes, with a continued sharp drop-off in effectiveness over time.

5. Qualifying leads was 32 times more successful when contacting 1 hour after interest event versus 24 hours.

6. Backing off 2 to 10 hours after a call before emailing was more effective than emailing within the rst hour and backing off for 13 hours from calling after an email was 2.76 times more effective than calling immediately.


3/16




Inside Sales .com

background

insidesales.comlead response management study - oct. 2007This study draws from the lead response data of 24 B2C and 14 B2B remote sales compa-nies. Over a 12 month period these companies generated 1,060,913 B2C and 126,695 B2Bobservations, totaling N = 1,187,608. Each company utilized varying contact approaches andmethodologies in de ning the key metrics of created, contacted, and qualifed, so the datafrom each was normalized in order to treat the full set of observations as an aggregate. Theanalysis in this study is based on the Cox semi-parametric proportional hazards model andthe Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator where survival over time indicates the likelihoodof an event occurring (e.g. a quali cation). For hazard ratios the resulting B2B and B2C barcharts are superimposed to make direct visual comparisons. In the Kaplan-Meier plots thetheoretical probability begins with 100% at zero seconds, then drops off, and varies overtime onwards. In each analysis the number of observations ( N ) is noted, though the num-ber varies between sets because in each case there were some observations that were notapplicable and were consequently excluded. This data set represents a snapshot in time of behavior, but it helps identify signi cant trends that can help in modeling future responsemanagement strategies.

This study focused on one question:

What is the time interval or B2B and B2C companies tocontact new leads or optimal qualifcation rates?

?

?


4/16




Inside Sales .com

details

1. created to contacted analysisThe analysis of B2B and B2C multimedia response time effectiveness tracked phoneand email as the rst contact after the lead creation.

phoneBoth B2B and B2C contacts showed an extremely rapid drop off, allowing only 1minute before dropping to 28% for B2C and 16% for B2B. After that rapid drop, bothsimilarly declined and leveled off within a few minutes. B2B dropped off at a slightly

gentler rate, allowing for a little extra time. B2C allowed practically no delay before theleads began growing cold.

To standardize the meaning of the results, the following de nitions and terms were used:

STUDY TERMS & DEFINITIONSFOUR DATA POINTS IN THE LEAD LIFE CYCLE DATA DEFINITIONS

LEAD CREATED TIMEthe date and time that aweb-form was filled out and submitted by a lead.

FIRST DIAL ATTEMPT TIMEthe rst date andtime that a sales or lead quali cation representativeattempts to call or dial a web lead.

FIRST CONTACT TIMEthe rst date and time thata sales or lead quali cation representative makes asuccessful contact.

FIRST QUALIFICATION TIMEthe date and timethat a lead becomes quali ed

CALL/DIALa call or dial is the physical action of asales or lead generation calling a lead.

CONTACTfor the purposes of this s tudy, a contactis de ned as a call that connects with a live personand lasts a de ned number of seconds. 1

QUALIFYa quali cation is a stage in the leadnurturing process where that lead is willing to enterthe sales processin some cases this means thata lead sets an appointment with a sales representativeto begin the sales process. 2


5/16




Inside Sales .com

There was a rapid drop after the rst hour for both B2B and B2C lead contacts. By thesecond hour the quali cation rate dropped to approximately 12% for B2C and 14% forB2B. B2C quali cations were 8.4 times more likely to occur within the rst hour com-

pared to waiting for the second hour, similar to the rate of 7.4 times for B2B. Waitingfor the 24th hour to call back was 74.4 times less effective than calling in the rst hourfor B2C and 66% less effective for B2B.


6/16




Inside Sales .com

emailOur next question was to see if there is a better time of day to call to get optimal contact andquali cation ratios. we used the same de nition of terms for call (attempt), contact, andqualify.


7/16




Inside Sales .com

11. created to qualified analysis:The analysis of B2B and B2C multimedia response time effectiveness utilized combi-nations of contact methods including:

Email Only

Email then Phone

Phone Only

Phone then Emails

short term ( 16 minutes) b 2b / b 2c comparisonPhone followed by email clearly stood out as most effective for B2B lead quali cationfor short-term observations. Phone was only a distant second, but was still strong forqualifying leads. In B2C observations it seems all methods followed a similar gradualslope down with no clear optimal approach.

b2bThe multimedia approach o con-tacting frst by phone then ollow-ing with an email is signifcantlymore e ective than all other combinations, comprising 90%o total qualifcations. Conversely,emailing frst then ollowing withphone contact loses e ective-ness almost immediately. Phonecontact allows a bit more timein ollowing up and shows morereceptiveness while initial emailcontact is a turn o .

Phone contact allows a bit more time in ollowing up and shows more receptiveness while initial email contact is a turn o .


8/16




Inside Sales .com

b2bThis plot has an almost constantslope suggesting that lead qualifcations are directly proportionalto the response time. Immediateresponse is strongly correlated with results. The e ectivenessdrops to zero at 16 minutes in allcases, so speed is critical.

short term ( 24 hours) b 2b / b 2c comparisonB2B contacts reacted well to phone only, matching up with a phone and email com-bination at about 14 hours, and email alone dropped off sharply within an hour andstayed at the bottom. B2C contacts reacted well to email for the rst 4 hours, thentransitioned to telephone, spanning out to 12 hours before slumping down again.Multimedia combinations yielded relatively poor lead quali cation rates throughoutthe time period.

b2bOnce a lead shows interest thereis a space o approximately 20minutes that is most e ective or qualifcation. Beyond 20 minutesthe probability o quali ying thelead levels o and graduallydegrades to zero within 24 hours,where all contact methods areequally ine ective. A ter the sweetspot o 20 minutes has past ittakes a lot more e ort and anaggressive contact approach topursue qualifcations.


9/16




Inside Sales .com

b2cResponse speed is vital since thee ectiveness drops o rapidly. Itdoes level o at about 1 to 2 hours,but the probability dropped below

50% by that time. Past 2 hoursthe e ectiveness levels o and only gradually declines throughthe day, but dies o entirely by24 hours. This study ran plotsisolating the 5 working days o the week over the same 24 hour span but with only marginal di - erentiation.

Action in the frst 1 to 2 hours can yield over 50%e ectiveness, but a long plateau o under 30% opensup rom 2 to 14 hours.


10/16


11/16


12/16




Inside Sales .com

111. contacted to qualified analysis:The analysis of B2B and B2C multimedia response time effectiveness utilized the

following contact method combinations: Dial then email

Email then dial

1. It was not apparent to draw a real trend from the data. It is clear that emailing toosoon yields a poor quali cation rate. The data was spread out and neither was highlysuccessful, but B2C showed a more favorable reaction to a follow up email after phonecontact.


13/16




Inside Sales .com

Following up an email with a phone contact resulted in much different behaviorfor the two sets. B2B leads started our lower for the rst several hours but showedand upswing in effectiveness centered around the 13th hour. B2B leads reacted best

around the 3rd hour, with a second peak around the 17th hour; they were 8.1 timesmore likely to qualify from an email in the 2nd hour instead of the 1st, and 10.2time more likely in the 3rd instead of the 1st. This is as we would expect: B2B leadsare much more likely to have seen an email within a few hours, whereas B2C leadsrequire holding off longer to allow them suf cient time to read the email.

Allowing enough time or an email to connectwith a B2C lead increasesqualifcations, but B2Bleads dont want to wait.


14/16




Inside Sales .com

conclusion

this study revealed the following:1. Analyzing multimedia lead response effectiveness between created, contacted,

and quali cation time events did reveal statistical signi cance that encouragesfurther study.

2. Just as in the previous Lead Response Management study of 2007, this analy-sis reinforces the signi cance of a timely response to an event of expressing

interest.3. Varying combinations of contact media do show signi cant differentiation,

and targeting B2B or B2C contacts revealed actionable approaches.

4. Sending an email immediately after a phone contact is much less effectivethan delaying the email for 2 to 13 hours.

5. Response time effectiveness in B2B drops off more sharply than in B2C.

about insidesales.comconclusion

analysis categories

The methods for analysis were subdivided into three categories based on their timingin the life cycle of qualifying a lead: created to contacted, which is the time from the

lead created time to making initial contact; created to qualifed, which is the time frommaking initial contact to qualifying the lead; and contacted to qualifed, which is thetime from the lead created time to qualifying the lead. All methods involved plottingsurvival probability charts from sample observations ( N ) and directly comparing B2B and B2C behavior. The study augmented the created to qualifed analysis with hazardregression charts and speci c industry verticals since they provided noteworthy insightinto response management strategy.

1. for the purposes of this study, this time was different for each company s data ranging from 2 minutesto 6 minutes, but corresponding to the defined length of a contact with the lead respondent.2. each company involved in the study had their own way to indicate a qualified lead. the analysis of thedata took this into account.


15/16


16/16



Inside Sales .com

InsideSales.com is a leading provider of B2B power dialer technology and lead man-agement solutions used to increase lead generation, lead conversion, and lead pro-cess visibility. They were the rst company to embed telephony voice technology intosales and marketing automation solutions on the web as an on-demand subscriptionservice. These tools include web form callback, automatic dialers, power dialers, voicebroadcasting, lead nurturing solutions, and integration with online CRMs solutionslike Salesforce.com.

InsideSales.com is a partner on the AppExchange Platform. InsideSales.coms cus-tomers include Dun&Bradstreet, Omniture, HP, and FranklinCovey.

2010 InsideSales.com, Inc. InsideSales.com, PowerDialer for Salesforce.com, ResponsePop,and JabberDog are trademarks of InsideSales.com.

All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All rights reserved. US Patent Pending.

about insidesales.com

SEARCH MARKETINGclick generation

LEAD GENERATIONsite conversion

LEAD MANAGEMENTlead qualification

SALES MANAGEMENTopportunity closing

Pay per Click Search Engine

Optimization Pay per Lead Email Marketing Aliate Marketing Direct Mail Online Advertising Blogging/Podcasting

etc.

Website Analytics Split Testing Multivariant Testing Conversion Design Form Design Content Management Landing Page Design Conversion Analytics

Lead Capture Lead Routing Auto Responders Lead Response Lead Quali cation Response Loop

Reporting Lead Source Tracking Quali cation Analytics

Prospect Management Contact Management Sales Management Quote Management Forecast Management Sales Collateral Mgmt Sales Process Mgmt Cutomer Management

cost/click cost/lead cost/prospect cost/customer

MARKETING SALES

about insidesales.com

WEB: www.insidesales.comEMAIL: [email protected]

INSIDESALES.COMHEADQUARTERS:34 E 1700 South Suite 113Building AProvo, Utah 84606TEL 1.866.342.5370FAX 1.801.853.4089

INDUSTRY: Hosted SoftwarePRODUCTS: PowerDialerfor Salesforce, JabberDog,ResponsePop

inside sales multimedia study

Documents