Experienced agents follow up the leads they trust, so qualify every lead well before you hand it over
A 2013 study in the Journal of Marketing by Sabnis, Chatterjee, Grewal and Lilien found that as sales reps gained experience, the quality of the lead prequalification process counted for more in how much time they gave to marketing leads, and managerial tracking counted for less. My view is that teams and brokerages should put their effort into qualifying leads before routing them.
Key points
- In a 2013 Journal of Marketing study of 461 sales reps at four firms, Sabnis and colleagues found that as reps' experience increased, their follow-up of marketing leads responded less to managerial tracking and lead volume and more to the quality of lead prequalification.
- The same study found that as reps' performance improved, their follow-up responded more to the volume of marketing leads and less to managerial tracking.
- Liv's reading for teams and brokerages: if you want experienced agents to work the leads you send them, put your effort into qualifying each lead well before you hand it over.
As reps gained experience, lead quality counted for more and tracking for less
If you lead a team or run a brokerage, picture a lead you paid for that went to an agent and never got a real follow-up. Sales researchers have a name for that, and in The Sales Lead Black Hole: On Sales Reps' Follow-Up of Marketing Leads, Gaurav Sabnis, Sharmila Chatterjee, Rajdeep Grewal and Gary Lilien describe the black hole as the 70% of leads generated by marketing departments that sales reps don't pursue. They suggest it may come from competing demands on reps' time, since reps also pursue leads they generate themselves.
The authors used a framework built on motivation, opportunity and ability to look at what shapes the proportion of time reps devote to marketing leads. In their model, that share depends on organizational processes for prequalifying leads and for managers tracking follow-up, which they treat as extrinsic motivation. It also depends on how many marketing leads arrive, which they treat as opportunity, and on the rep's experience and performance, which they treat as ability.
They then tested how individual reps respond to those processes, using data from 461 sales reps employed by four firms. They found that as reps' experience increased, their responses to managerial tracking of lead follow-up and to marketing lead volume decreased, and their responses to the quality of the lead prequalification process increased. Performance showed a different pattern for volume: as reps' performance improved, their response to the volume of marketing leads increased, while their response to managerial tracking decreased. The authors conclude that the interplay between individual reps' abilities and the organization's marketing and sales processes explains why reps differ in how they follow up marketing leads.
Why a well-qualified lead earns an experienced agent's time
My reading is that experience teaches a rep where their time pays off. An experienced rep has a pipeline of their own and a sense of which leads tend to go somewhere, so a lead from marketing has to compete with that. A good prequalification process gives them a reason to believe the lead is worth the hour, and the study found reps' response to that quality increased with experience.
The study wasn't about real estate, since the authors studied sales reps at four firms, and applying the findings to agents is my own interpretation. I think the parallel is close, though. A team agent works their sphere and past clients alongside whatever the team routes to them, and those are the self-generated leads competing for their time. Agents I've spoken to have said a portal lead that arrives with little more than a name and a property address is easy to put off when a live deal needs attention.
What this means for how you route and qualify leads
If you lead a team, I'd start by asking what an agent learns about a lead before they decide whether to call. The study points to the quality of the prequalification process, so treat qualification as part of the job of handing a lead over. Before a lead goes to an agent, find out what the person is asking for, their timeline and budget, where they stand on financing or pre-approval, and why they're moving. Put the answers in the handoff so the agent can see them without digging.
If a lead is early and vague, say so in the handoff. My view is that an experienced agent who finds the qualification reliable will trust it next time, and my reading of the study is that reliable qualification is what earns more of an agent's time as they gain experience.
I'd rethink how much you lean on tracking your senior agents. The study found that as reps' experience and performance increased, their response to managerial tracking of lead follow-up decreased. I wouldn't drop reporting altogether, since the study doesn't say tracking has no effect. I'd just stop expecting a follow-up dashboard to move your most experienced agents on its own.
I'd also look at who gets volume. As reps' performance improved, their follow-up responded more to the volume of marketing leads, and as their experience increased, it responded less. My reading is that your strongest performers may take up more leads when more arrive, and your most experienced agents may respond to better qualification. Those can be different people on your team, so look at each agent separately.
If you're a solo agent buying portal leads, the same competing demands apply to you. Qualify each lead before you decide how much time it gets, and follow up a lead that's gone cold with a clear aim once you know more about them.
A lead with its questions answered is easier to act on
Qualifying a lead well takes time right when it arrives, which is often when an agent is busiest. Worthington qualifies new leads from the agent's inbox as they come in. He works out what the person wants, scores timeline, budget, financing, motivation and engagement, and builds a contact record without manual input. Agents can choose which qualifying questions matter for each lead type and mark some as required before handoff. For hotter or more sensitive leads, Worthington hands off to the agent personally and can email a structured summary of what he learned into the CRM's lead-intake inbox.
In my view, the leads that slip away on a busy team are often the ones nobody had a clear reason to prioritize. In this study, reps' response to the quality of prequalification grew with their experience, and I'd take that as a reason to treat qualifying a lead as the first step of following it up.
Common questions
Was this study done with real estate agents?
No. The authors studied 461 sales reps employed by four firms. Applying the findings to real estate teams and brokerages is my own reading, based on the fact that team agents also balance leads they're given against business they generate themselves.
Does tracking agents' follow-up stop working once they're experienced?
The study doesn't say that. It found that as reps' experience increased, their response to managerial tracking of lead follow-up decreased, and the same happened as their performance improved. I'd keep tracking in place and put more of your effort into the quality of the leads you send.
Should newer agents on my team get the leads instead?
The study doesn't compare who should receive leads, so it can't answer that directly. It found experience and performance changed how reps responded to tracking, lead volume and prequalification, which suggests you should look at how each agent responds before deciding where leads go.
What should a lead handoff include?
The study looked at the quality of a firm's prequalification process, and the specifics for real estate are my own suggestion. I'd include what a person said they want, their timeline and budget, their financing or pre-approval status and why they're moving, along with an honest note on how ready they seem.
Worthington draws on research like this to shape a nurturing strategy for each of your clients. Join the waitlist