- 5,260
Hi Guys:
We have discussed at length on simpler ways to lift final expense lead response rates, chiefly through eliminating references to life insurance on the reply card.
Today I'd like to explore other ways to lift response without changing the lead piece, namely through modification of the mailing list itself.
For you final expense agents marketing to the "final expense" market (50-85, 0-50k HHI), I would wager all of you share similar breakdowns of your final expense clientele:
1) 90% or greater are on a fixed income.
2) Most sales made to single person households aren't earning any less than $650 a month, and sales made to multi-person households aren't earning any less than $1300 a month.
3) Anecdotally, less than 10% of sales are made to either (a) single person households, or (b), multi-person households, making more than $2500 a month.
4) Building on Point 1, virtually all sales are made to people on Medicare.
Based on my personal sales experience above, here are some thoughts I am having:
A) There are close to 60 million people in America between the ages of 50 and 64 -- there are close to 9 million people classified as "Disabled Workers," which I would figure would represent (a) 18-64 year olds, and (b), would overwhelmingly be in the 50-64 age bracket.
Here's my point -- if 90% of my clients aged 50-64 do not work, are disabled, and on Medicare, why should I continue to waste so much marketing dollars on leads going out to a low-opportunity suspect?
B) In one of my favorite counties to work, there are approximately 12,000 50-85 year olds with a household income of $0k-$50k. Putting an income filter of $7k-$30k on 50-85 year olds cuts that number of mailing recipients in half.
My thoughts are - even if I lose a small minority of respondents by focusing the income strata, even with the nearly 50% reduction in names, if I get the same number of "ideal" names to respond anyway, I should close to double my response rate, thus reducing my lead cost by half.
C) If 90% of my customers 50-64 are on disability, and 95%+ are on Medicare, why not just mail people ages 50-64 who receive Medicare benefits, versus wasting marketing capital on low-opportunity names?
Just some out-loud thoughts I wanted to share; with response rates continuing to plummet, it's important to think creatively on how to maximize our marketing dollars so this life insurance niche remains profitable to pursue.
We have discussed at length on simpler ways to lift final expense lead response rates, chiefly through eliminating references to life insurance on the reply card.
Today I'd like to explore other ways to lift response without changing the lead piece, namely through modification of the mailing list itself.
For you final expense agents marketing to the "final expense" market (50-85, 0-50k HHI), I would wager all of you share similar breakdowns of your final expense clientele:
1) 90% or greater are on a fixed income.
2) Most sales made to single person households aren't earning any less than $650 a month, and sales made to multi-person households aren't earning any less than $1300 a month.
3) Anecdotally, less than 10% of sales are made to either (a) single person households, or (b), multi-person households, making more than $2500 a month.
4) Building on Point 1, virtually all sales are made to people on Medicare.
Based on my personal sales experience above, here are some thoughts I am having:
A) There are close to 60 million people in America between the ages of 50 and 64 -- there are close to 9 million people classified as "Disabled Workers," which I would figure would represent (a) 18-64 year olds, and (b), would overwhelmingly be in the 50-64 age bracket.
Here's my point -- if 90% of my clients aged 50-64 do not work, are disabled, and on Medicare, why should I continue to waste so much marketing dollars on leads going out to a low-opportunity suspect?
B) In one of my favorite counties to work, there are approximately 12,000 50-85 year olds with a household income of $0k-$50k. Putting an income filter of $7k-$30k on 50-85 year olds cuts that number of mailing recipients in half.
My thoughts are - even if I lose a small minority of respondents by focusing the income strata, even with the nearly 50% reduction in names, if I get the same number of "ideal" names to respond anyway, I should close to double my response rate, thus reducing my lead cost by half.
C) If 90% of my customers 50-64 are on disability, and 95%+ are on Medicare, why not just mail people ages 50-64 who receive Medicare benefits, versus wasting marketing capital on low-opportunity names?
Just some out-loud thoughts I wanted to share; with response rates continuing to plummet, it's important to think creatively on how to maximize our marketing dollars so this life insurance niche remains profitable to pursue.