Getting Started In Final Expense

[TwiLight]

Twilights way of narrowing the tgt mkt down using several factors will get you a 2-5/1000 return in many areas.

Not correct Petty. It actually increases return rates..... and lowers the cost.

It lowers the pool of whom you mail to.... Got that backwards.

I eliminate the mail to the people that are not buyers.... which in the end, lowers the cost and increases the returns.

The Mail piece is what determines the returns the most.... The direct approach lowers the return (179), the indirect approach (E-64) increases the return and the Middle (RIG/360/United Heritage), gets you in between.

Data Control increases the odds of a better return.

Skipper

 

[Rearden]

Not correct Petty. It actually increases return rates..... and lowers the cost.

It lowers the pool of whom you mail to.... Got that backwards.

I eliminate the mail to the people that are not buyers.... which in the end, lowers the cost and increases the returns.

The Mail piece is what determines the returns the most.... The direct approach lowers the return (179), the indirect approach (E-64) increases the return and the Middle (RIG/360/United Heritage), gets you in between.

Data Control increases the odds of a better return.

Skipper

Any good marketer knows that the LIST is the lynchpin to a successful marketing/lead generation campaign.

If you find that 80% of your premium dollars are (a) African-American and (b), have less than a $30,000 household income, but represent 50% of your 10,000 mailing list, and you get a 1% response from non-African Americans and a 2% response from African Americans, then:

1) Cut out all non-African Americans in your list (reduces your cost by 50%).
2) Reduce your income strata to max out at $30,000 or thereabouts (reduces lead cost a little more).
3) Watch your lead response rate up dramatically and your average lead price reduce considerably.

Marketers that take a "scientific" approach do this stuff all the time.

Note that you haven't even changed a word on your lead piece to get these kind of results.

 

[peteybear]

Ok Mr skipper. Run you e-179 in Tough return states of florida,Texas,Georgia or California and share the data. I've run lead connections in a few states with specific narrow criteria and got 3-5 cards /1000 back.The more specific and direct your mail piece is the less returns you get.

 

[Rearden]

Ok Mr skipper. Run you e-179 in Tough return states of florida,Texas,Georgia or California and share the data. I've run lead connections in a few states with specific narrow criteria and got 3-5 cards /1000 back.The more specific and direct your mail piece is the less returns you get.

Think about all the people you've sold to; is there nothing disproportionate about any people you've sold to -- ethnically, income wise, sociologically (widows, disabled, etc.)?

The Skipper's point is that you find the group within your sales that represents the vast majority and figure out a way to market to them exclusively for improved response rates and reduced costs.

Again, one does not need to change the copy of the lead piece to make these improvements in response and cost.

 

[peteybear]

I'm 100% agreeing as I'd love to be able to mail incomes 20-50k,rural areas age 60-75. The problem would become like Tm leads. You'd have to mail a 500 mail radius to get 30 leads a week. The more parameters you use the smaller the pool of people you have to mail too. Have you tried specific areas with Rgi age 60-83 and 20-60k income?If you have I bet you're in the car 600 miles a day.

 

[WinoBlues]

Love the idea about google maps and viewing the the houses/apartments.. If you do not mind me asking id love to see what your ideal house/ apartment would look like. Haha. What house value do you think is ideal? Would love to hear anyone chip in. thanks. I don't think I have ever gotten into a house. Let alone had someone answer their phone or door in an house like this.....1411 Bernwald Lane, Dayton OH For Sale | Trulia.com. Or this.... 17714 Grovewood Ave , Cleveland

Just curious, are you saying to high income or to low?