Ping Chaining/forward and What It Means to You

[whatyouwantfinally]

Allwebleads recently initiated a change in their rules for distributing leads to re-sellers; re-sellers now must identify the specific agent(s) they are selling each lead to in order to purchase leads from Allweb.

Most agents have probably never heard of "ping forwarding", but it has a lot to do with the number of agents that receive a given lead.

I'll explain it by using Allweb as an example. For clarity, the word "partner" will refer to another lead company, "customer" means an agent buying leads from Allweb. Whenever Allweb gets a lead, they "ping" the lead info out to a large network of "partners". The partners then reply to the ping with their bid, and the lead is sent to the highest bidder (this all happens in about 3 seconds).

When Allweb sells a lead to both a customer and a partner, the partner receives "distribution directives", which is information about what agents Allweb has sold the lead to and how many more agents the partner may sell it to. This is meant to avoid an agent getting the lead from both Allweb and a "partner" and to ensure the lead is not sold more than the maximum times allowable.

This works well in theory, but a new breed of company has emerged; companies that don't generate leads OR sell them to agents. These companies receive pings from Allweb (and others) and forward the ping information to other vendors, hoping to find a taker. If they do, they purchase the lead and forward it on (at a profit), often disregarding the distribution directives from Allweb, and often selling it to multiple vendors. It then becomes impossible for distribution directives to be followed and impossible for Allweb to control who is receiving their leads. If you've ever gotten the same lead from 2 companies, a lead that another agent with your captive company also got or a lead that really does get 10-15 agents calling, this is almost certainly the reason.

Since "ping-forwarding" companies don't sell to agents, they don't have agent information (license numbers, captive company, etc.) to provide Allweb, thus would be shut out. There would still be ways to cheat the system, but it would at least make it difficult to a degree.

This has implications well beyond Allweb, as they are one of the biggest wholesalers of leads also. It would have some effect on darn near every lead aggregator. If they take this move seriously it would be a big step in "cleaning up" the industry overall in terms of lead distribution.

 

[CHUMPS FROM OXFORD]

If AllWebs does this, what are the chances that other lewad companies will do the same? And how can it be verified?

 

[Pangaea]

If AllWebs does this, what are the chances that other lewad companies will do the same? And how can it be verified?

Every major lead company uses a ping tree.

Also, thanks a lot OP for outing my biz plan.

 

[whatyouwantfinally]

If AllWebs does this, what are the chances that other lewad companies will do the same? And how can it be verified?

At the moment, probably very slim. Others will sit back, watch what happens and consider it if it seems to be benefiting Allweb.

In terms of verifying whether or not a vendor is doing it, aside from trying to get someone from the vendor on the phone who is in a position to know and is willing to be honest with you, you have to look for the signs I mentioned. Getting same lead from 2 vendors, other people from same captive company getting the lead, etc.

 

[Pangaea]

At the moment, probably very slim. Others will sit back, watch what happens and consider it if it seems to be benefiting Allweb.

In terms of verifying whether or not a vendor is doing it, aside from trying to get someone from the vendor on the phone who is in a position to know and is willing to be honest with you, you have to look for the signs I mentioned. Getting same lead from 2 vendors, other people from same captive company getting the lead, etc.

I guess I misread Chumps's question... So what are you up to now that's keeping you in the loop?

 

[erikAWL]

I don't often chime in here, but feel I should in this case. A few points to make on this from our (All Web Leads') perspective:

1. This is not a "free" change. This costs us but the lack of accountability in the "undersold" market has become so problematic that we see no other way to fix this. The value of leads gets diluted if the caps are not respected, because the ROI for legitimate customers gets undermined.

2. Most of our legitimate partners have been supportive and are either switched over or are in the process of switching. There is broad support in the insurance space for making the product work better for agents. Note that I said *most* and not *all* partners...

3. This is not the only change we've made. We have been investing heavily in technology to improve quality. We've been using commercial technologies and developing new tools and techniques of our own. Our system is now much smarter than it used to be about lead quality, lead outcomes and how to route leads to ensure success.

4. Which offers a question that we don't have an answer to -- will customers pay more for leads that are demonstrably higher in quality? Every customer we speak to says quality is the most important thing to their business. Will they vote with their wallets? We aim to find out!

--Erik

 

[Bob Klee]

Good reply Erik.

This is something that has been going on in the industry since at least 2007-'08...don't remember exactly when. Started by NetQuote originally if I remember correctly. If one participates in the "ping forwarding" they must disclose the name brand and/or license number of the agent they sell to in order to avoid selling the same lead to the agent. Thus this is nothing new.

What is new is that AWL has a two fold [more than 2 I'm sure] reason for the new rules they are now enforcing if you want to do business with them. [they can make their own rules because of their size] Bottom line is AWL makes more money...not so much that it prevents the bastardizing of the lead IMHO. Full Disclosure: I don't buy or sell leads to AWL for my own reasons.

Erik, re: #4...come see me at the Allstate convention in Vegas next week & we'll give/show you the answer.

 

[bullis33]

Any agent worth their salt would pay more for a higher quality lead...but alas "higher quality leads" have essentially become the bigfoot of the insurance industry....no one is sure they actually exist despite tons of claims to the contrary by lead companies...I hold out hope and do just fine with my ROI as it is on I-leads, but IMO having used AWL and still carrying an account there (don't turn them on much) their lead quality is arguably the worst among the major companies, and it would take A LOT more than the changes they have outlined to fix that...that is my .02

Bob has something cooking that has a chance to work IMO, time will tell if indeed it does...

I don't often chime in here, but feel I should in this case. A few points to make on this from our (All Web Leads') perspective:

1. This is not a "free" change. This costs us but the lack of accountability in the "undersold" market has become so problematic that we see no other way to fix this. The value of leads gets diluted if the caps are not respected, because the ROI for legitimate customers gets undermined.

2. Most of our legitimate partners have been supportive and are either switched over or are in the process of switching. There is broad support in the insurance space for making the product work better for agents. Note that I said *most* and not *all* partners...

3. This is not the only change we've made. We have been investing heavily in technology to improve quality. We've been using commercial technologies and developing new tools and techniques of our own. Our system is now much smarter than it used to be about lead quality, lead outcomes and how to route leads to ensure success.

4. Which offers a question that we don't have an answer to -- will customers pay more for leads that are demonstrably higher in quality? Every customer we speak to says quality is the most important thing to their business. Will they vote with their wallets? We aim to find out!

--Erik

 

[Bob Klee]

Just for fun: track down some insurance incentivized offers on FaceBook & see where they lead to.

It is not easy to track where all ones traffic comes from but if a company listens to its agents, they soon find out...just follow the money trail...

Good hunting