Ask an intake team about a new lead source in week one and you will get an opinion shaped by the last three difficult calls. That impression is worth hearing, but it is not an evaluation. A structured review answers a narrower question: is this source delivering what was agreed, and what does it cost to convert.
Agree on the standard first
Evaluation is impossible without a documented specification: which criteria the leads must meet, what contact verification is applied, and how quickly delivery occurs. If those were never written down, the review will turn into a debate about expectations rather than performance.
Metrics worth tracking by source
- Valid contact rate. The share of records with a working number that belongs to the claimant.
- Reach rate. Leads reached at least once, given your defined cadence.
- Criteria match rate. The share of delivered leads that actually met the agreed criteria.
- Consultation rate and retention rate. Movement through the intake stages.
- Replacement rate. The share claimed as invalid, and whether it is trending.
- Cost per retained case. The outcome measure everything else explains.
Separate source problems from process problems
A low retention rate can come from poorly targeted leads or from slow, inconsistent follow-up. The way to tell them apart is to look at the earlier stages. If the valid contact rate and criteria match rate are strong but leads are not being reached, the issue is on your side of the handoff. If a large share of records fail the agreed criteria outright, it is not.
Give the test enough time and volume
A week of low volume will produce a number that says almost nothing. The test period needs enough leads to be meaningful and enough elapsed time for the typical decision cycle to complete, since cases signed in the first days are unrepresentative. Setting the review date at the start prevents the evaluation from being called early on the basis of a bad Tuesday.
Compare like with like
Exclusive and shared leads, different practice areas, and different markets have different baselines. Comparing a new exclusive workers’ compensation campaign to a legacy shared personal injury source will produce a conclusion about neither.
Close the loop with the provider
Providers cannot correct targeting they cannot see. Sharing outcome data, even at a summary level, gives a campaign the feedback it needs to improve. A provider who does not want that data, or who has no mechanism to act on it, is not managing a campaign so much as filling an order.
To review how we define and report on quality, see our lead programs.