- 4,872
I agree that 65% is a low bar. And if an agent is not doing better than that he doesn't need to worry about his renewals anyway because his chargebacks are going to eat those all up. I wouldn't see that is a problem.
but I have a question for you Greg. You've mentioned several times that if you are financing an agent's direct mail leads he doesn't deserve to start at 120%. But is that his choice? Does he have the option to pay for his own direct mail leads when he takes them and have 120% commission levels starting out? If it's the agents choice I see those has great options. But if he doesn't have the option of taking the higher commission and paying for his own leads upfront then it seems like your program would only attract financially struggling agents who want to be in debt for their leads. That doesn't seem wise to me for the agent or the up line.
Yes an agent has that choice.
I'd rather have an agent at 120 that prepaid for their own leads (only $375 per 1000 with us) and had immediate charge backs. My exposure to agent debt is reduced quite a bit using that model. Where else can agent get 120 and only pay $375 per 1000 dropped? If you offer an agent 120 how much does your agent pay for their drops.....$450? $475? Mine only pay $375. Thank you Sr Life! Anyone reading this is welcome to call me for a confidential phone interview.
I also use the financing model, because as you know, most new agents don't have the funds or the confidence to prepay for their own drops or the cash flow or mental strength to handle immediate charge backs. This block of agents are locked out by most recruiters so I try to make it so they can get in the game too.
Last edited: