Telemarketing Leads-A new system that I just tried !

[MIBizInsurance]

As stated I understand the setup fee yet that still does not change the fact that they don't have any rep what so ever.

We all need to start somewhere but hell any one can come here and post a well written thread and ask for money. If they stand behind these leads- SELL (not free) batch's to a # agents here with out the setup fee and prove it.

After that charge the setup fee.

When ever you have a new biz there are marketing cost. Chalk up 2-3 set up fees
($300, not a biggie) to start up. Trust me that $300 they eat in start up/marketing cost will come back to them in spades. Or as James mentioned incorporate the cost into the lead and offer a certain # at a discounted cost to get feed back going.

Thats not a personal attack on the poster just a simple observation.

Hell, I wish all new companies the best but also a bit jaded.

 

[CHUMPS FROM OXFORD]

djs-I originally thought Gary was the one who posted about the free leads. I guess I missed it.

Back to the $89...Guess what? Normally, start-up costs are NOT borne by the initial investors of a company. The owner eats them (or issues stock, if it is public company). As I have said, if the system works, Gary will do extremely well and recover his costs very quickly. But if it doesn't...he has to eat the cost, not the initial few agents who are trying out the system.

There is a risk that the leads system will not work. If that occurs, then I would eat the costs of the leads I purchased. But not that AND $89. Which I think is what MIB is saying, and I obviously agree.

 

[James]

djs-I originally thought Gary was the one who posted about the free leads. I guess I missed it.

Back to the $89...Guess what? Normally, start-up costs are NOT borne by the initial investors of a company. The owner eats them (or issues stock, if it is public company). As I have said, if the system works, Gary will do extremely well and recover his costs very quickly. But if it doesn't...he has to eat the cost, not the initial few agents who are trying out the system.

There is a risk that the leads system will not work. If that occurs, then I would eat the costs of the leads I purchased. But not that AND $89. Which I think is what MIB is saying, and I obviously agree.

Normally the word "Free" is not in my lexicon, I think I was the one that brought up the idea of increasing the price of the lead? Instead of 10 dollars charge $12.50, and have 40 the minimum buy in. This way you don't charge a set up fee but you get it as in 40 times $2.50, well you get it back plus much more! $12.50 or even $15.00 is a great price for exclusive business leads.

One can always drop the cost by 10% after a client buys XX amount, buy XXX amount then the price drops another 10% or whatever is the true cost the seller is wanting to get over time. My concern is that at these prices one will have a hard time in making enough profits to make it work not to mention being able to keep up quality of the Lead.

 

[Frank Stastny]

djs-I originally thought Gary was the one who posted about the free leads. I guess I missed it.

Back to the $89...Guess what? Normally, start-up costs are NOT borne by the initial investors of a company. The owner eats them (or issues stock, if it is public company). As I have said, if the system works, Gary will do extremely well and recover his costs very quickly. But if it doesn't...he has to eat the cost, not the initial few agents who are trying out the system.

There is a risk that the leads system will not work. If that occurs, then I would eat the costs of the leads I purchased. But not that AND $89. Which I think is what MIB is saying, and I obviously agree.

I would feel the same about the setup fee if it were $29. He is asking each agent to commit to a cost of $339.

Hey guys, these are telemarketed leads done by someone who is not an insurance agent and who will not have to contact the prospect again. By someone who is getting paid to get people to say "yes". Does anyone really think that there is some kind of secret system that has never been tried before that are going to make these leads like little pieces of gold?

I have been on this board for a while now and the one thing I have seen is that agents are gullible. They will piss away money on something they think will make selling easy rather than "suck it up" and work to sell insurance. Some of those same agents won't spend money to have a toll-free number. That is not an exaggeration.

Where do you think he gets his "leads" from? He has people call a list. Where do you think he gets his lists from? The same place you can get them, from a company that sells lists.

Why do agents think that someone else can do a better job of telemarketing their produce than the agents who sells it for a living? How many NO's that the telemarketer gets do you think would be a YES if the agent was talking to them?

His minimum cost is $1000 per month, $12,000 per year. I can make a lot of calls for $12,000 per year.

I may be missing something but I have tried just about every thing to make this job easier including hiring telemarketers and no one has ever gotten more appointments from a list than I can.

 

[James]

I would take the opposite view point of the above poster. I would say that 12 grand a year isn't enough, that amount can not secure you leads overtime! In fact, I would think if we double that figure or the lead cost is around $20 or 24 grand a year would be much better!

First thing I would look at is the time cost of developing ones own leads, if cold calling how many hours equal 1 appointment? If you are doing this yourself simply figure out how much it cost you in time? Personally I just assume to do it myself, yet many can not or rather not cold call or walk and for some reason can not build a COI type of plan. For these agents this is the only game in town, buying leads. At 12 grand a year that is a steal, but we all know the old saying "If its too good to be true". I think that 10 dollars a lead is not enough to assure quality over time. Everytime I think about starting a similiar type of business the numbers suggest $20 plus per lead to keep it profitable and running consistently.

 

[Guest]

I have been on this board for a while now and the one thing I have seen is that agents are gullible. They will piss away money on something they think will make selling easy rather than "suck it up" and work to sell insurance. Some of those same agents won't spend money to have a toll-free number. That is not an exaggeration.

Interesting observation. I find that a lot of agents (myself included) will piss money away on infrastructure BEFORE they have tried free or very low-cost alternatives.

They might invest in a $25 a month phone service like Ring Central BEFORE they know for sure that it will be worthwhile (Speaking from experience here... I just canceled... no one ever used my toll-free in a year... and I can busy-forward calls to MaxEmail for $24 A YEAR (not month!)).

The same goes for computers, software, phone systems (bluetooth), office equipment, and so on.

I've seen many people go into business (not just insurance) without a real PLAN... beyond the "If I build it, they will come" concept.

Show me an agent with an old rotary phone, and a bunch of 3x5 cards and a solid marketing plan (i.e. something as simple as "I will make 80 dials a day, every day of the week" or "I will only sell life insurance and will do a mailing once a week" etc.) and I'll show you someone who will be successful.

The only place where "success" comes before "work" is the dictionary.

I'm just starting with internet leads to see how they go. I'm not abandoning my own lead generation efforts (most calling from lists as well as B2B.) I don't expect these leads to "work" but if they do, it will be 'gravy' or 'found money.'

As Frank says, everyone (in every business) is looking for the 'easy way' or the 'holy grail' to make money. It's not there. Maybe this new lead generation thing that is being talking about is 'it.' I don't know, but if the past is prologue, I somehow doubt it.

YMMV (Your mileage may vary)

Al
The InsuranceSolutions123.com Agency

 

[somarco]

If you are doing this yourself simply figure out how much it cost you in time?

I can't afford to hire myself as a telemarketer. I charge way too much to do that kind of work and I am very good at it.

A long time ago I found out it is much better to hire someone at $10 - $15 per hour to do the same work I can do for $60 - $80 per hour. If I can earn $60 and pay someone $15 to work the phones I still come out ahead by $45.

 

[James]

I can't afford to hire myself as a telemarketer. I charge way too much to do that kind of work and I am very good at it.

A long time ago I found out it is much better to hire someone at $10 - $15 per hour to do the same work I can do for $60 - $80 per hour. If I can earn $60 and pay someone $15 to work the phones I still come out ahead by $45.

Exactly my point! Even though, if you find good telemarketers that can produce on a regular basis, they will want more money and bonuses! Plus I think that would be very fair attitude on their part. I just don't believe anyone can produce good solid leads at ten dollars a pop, or do it very long with also producing a profit. That would likely explain why many telemarketing companies like to charge by the hour or campaign.

 

[djs]

I can't afford to hire myself as a telemarketer. I charge way too much to do that kind of work and I am very good at it.

A long time ago I found out it is much better to hire someone at $10 - $15 per hour to do the same work I can do for $60 - $80 per hour. If I can earn $60 and pay someone $15 to work the phones I still come out ahead by $45.

This is absolutely the right way to look at it. Telemarketing is basically infrastructure, a source of leads. If I can hire it done effectively for $10 an hour, I can focus on doing things where I earn $100 an hour (selling). Put whatever numbers you want to in that statement, but you'll find an experienced agent does better by having someone else do the telemarketing. Besides, I stink at it!!!!!!

Ideally, I would be doing 4 presentations a day, not much else. The presentations are worth about $200 each to me. If I can pay a telemarketer and I do 4, or I can do my own telemarketing and I do 2, which is better? Simple math.

Now, that said, I've tried telemarketing several times. I do better with internet leads, networking, and other sources, but that is me and my market. Not everyone is the same, and I'd be willing to try telemarketing again, when the time is right.

Dan

 

[TXINSURANCE]

I recently hired a telemarketing company, we have never worked non-user initiated leads before and my results are horrible so far... Some basic observations:

-Not our typical demographic
-Some speak limited English
-Most are uninsured for a reason (health or they are broke)
-Most do not have checking accounts or ability to pay
-Many are very young (under 30) - good luck

The ones that DO ultimately buy (generally very few) end up with cheap plans and the retention is horrible. Remember they saw no value or need for health insurance before our random call - something is clearly wrong.

The only thing I see telemarketing leads for is targeting strictly self employed and driving and doing the sell "belly to belly" - this is not a good model for a call center from what I gather.

FYI we pay $15/lead with 100% return policy and we receive the audio file of each call via email. The biggest issue to put it blunt is the quality of people they are talking with are pretty low on the social economical scale.

Good luck!