Introduction
In this webinar session, Ryan Johnson from Verisk Marketing Solutions, Mathew Connelley from The Wisdom Companies, Howard Yeh from Healthcare.com, and Bas Offers from PX discussed how lead sellers should approach these new FCC 1:1 consent rulings and its impact on business metrics and the industry as a whole. They also shared practical solutions and early results from ongoing experiments in their respective fields.
In the last session, we reviewed the current state of FCC compliance and upcoming requirements. Michelle Schuster from Ms. Law provided a detailed analysis of key aspects of 1:1 consent, including when it is required for regulated dialers.
Bas and Ryan presented why PX’s and VMS’ solutions work so well together and the adoption and early results they see across the board. They also highlighted how PX’s Brand Explicit Consent will help businesses capture and integrate 1:1 consent into their lead workflows, and TCPA Guardian by VMS will help validate the consent.
You can watch recordings of all our previous webinars on this link.
This follow-up series aims to provide actionable and practical solutions to meet the FCC deadline on time and share what we are seeing in the market today. These were the key topics we covered:
The key question is whether 1:1 consent truly benefits consumers. To answer this, we must adopt the consumer’s perspective. Consumers value competition, choice, and the ability to compare options for the best price.
However, competition narrows to the highest bidders in the 1:1 consent model, where someone in the ecosystem decides which option to present to the end consumer. This model benefits only large brands, leaving smaller players disadvantaged compared to well-funded companies with bigger marketing budgets. This is not ideal for consumers seeking diverse, competitive options.
From an execution standpoint, two lead flows are most common today to ensure that every lead must have 1:1 consent:
Let’s see how much these flows are effective for better customer choice.
In the first flow, where auto-selection matches the consumer exclusively to one brand, the consumer has no choice. This also disadvantages smaller companies that may have lower budgets or limited coverage. This may also lead to drop-offs in the selection step, resulting in the lead falling to the floor and losing monetization for the lead seller.
In the second flow, where consumers choose from a list of brands, they may not recognize the names or have the information needed to make an informed decision.
Additionally, if we take the example of Medicare industry, large brands always tend to prioritize their own plans, whereas smaller agencies can offer solutions across multiple providers, potentially delivering better outcomes for consumers. This lack of competition leaves consumers at a disadvantage.
This issue extends itself typically to industries with high-ticket, complex, and infrequent purchases, where consumers often need expert guidance. In such cases, some specific lead flows can limit their ability to work with multiple providers to find tailored solutions.
1:1 consent is designed to give consumers greater control over their data and choices. Previously, when a consumer filled out a lead form, their information was often treated like a commodity, passed around without regard for their preferences, leaving them with little control.
Even in the second flow, where consumers choose brands, algorithms often predetermine their choice. For instance, a system might match a consumer to the top 4-5 brands based on criteria like zip code or age, reducing the choice for the consumer. Similar practices occur in other industries, like mortgages, where options are pre-positioned in disclaimers at the end of the form.
As we examine how to match consumers with the best buyers, it's essential to examine the algorithms used in this process. And do these approaches differ across industries?
The challenges during the implementation for lead generators in existing matching algorithms arise when comparing multi-carrier solutions with point solutions. Multi-carrier offerings require fewer questions, enhancing service flexibility. However, when a multi-carrier solution is matched only to a point solution, it limits consumer choice, excluding other options that may offer better value.
The question is deciding when you have enough information to comfortably match a point solution versus a multi-carrier solution. Or do we need to ask for additional data during the lead capture process to match the consumer accurately?
As Matthew from Wisdom Companies suggests, the goal is to provide consumers with the best solution while ensuring a seamless experience. New rules are being implemented for service providers to prevent duplicate leads, rejections, and other inefficiencies. However, providers are now responsible for optimizing their systems for better consumer outcomes.
This was the elephant in the room: if you're a lead generator, what impact will 1:1 consent have on your revenue?
Just to note here, the deadline to implement 1:1 consent for Medicare services was October 1, 2024. So, 1:1 consent has been a significant topic of discussion lately.
The following insights came out from the discussion:
Another interesting question to consider is: When a consumer selects a specific brand, such as Brand X, does that indicate a higher likelihood of conversion since the choice reflects their preference? When presented with a checkbox option allowing consumers to select one or multiple brands, how does this impact conversion rates and lead quality?
Here are some insights to answer this question:
While it’s too early for concrete conclusions, ongoing experiments are starting to provide valuable insights, and the early signs point to a promising impact on revenue when consumer choices are correctly captured and utilized.
1:1 consent will continue to evolve the user experience for sure. But if the consumer makes no selections, does that mark the end of the funnel? Well, this situation opens up many opportunities for experimentation. For instance, should we ask for secondary consent or delay the match until we gather more information?
One prediction is that the pure brokering model will face significant challenges but still holds value in industries like insurance, where building networks and distribution takes time, trust, and robust platforms. So, to stay relevant, brokers must focus on core competencies, whether excelling at lead generation or strengthening back-end sales and account management.
Brands are expected to move towards buying leads directly from generators or platforms as lead volumes decline under new FCC guidelines. This scarcity will make leads more valuable but harder to secure, impacting call center operations and creating a potential Q1 shockwave. The industry must prepare for a transformative rollout in early 2024, requiring strategic adaptation and readiness to address these challenges.
The new 1:1 consent model presents challenges when a consumer is matched with a brand, but the lead is rejected. Without 1:1 consent, rejected leads cannot be resold or redirected, resulting in inefficiencies. Current estimates indicate that around 25% of leads are rejected.
Let's understand the reasons behind these lead rejections:
To resolve these inefficiencies, a collaborative approach is needed between lead sellers and buyers. Sharing comprehensive data upfront can significantly minimize rejections.
Best practices include sending detailed pings containing sufficient information to enable buyers to make informed decisions upfront. This reduces rejections caused by duplicate leads, existing customers, or other mismatches. By improving data sharing during the ping process, match rates can increase, and inefficiencies can be minimized.
Going forward, it's not just the lead sellers and generators who need to adapt; lead buyers must also improve their systems. For example, after receiving 1:1 consent, lead buyers must manage the consent efficiently, as they are the only ones with that permission. Their processes will have to change accordingly.
The industry must adopt smarter matching strategies by leveraging insights into user history, preferences, and product affinities. Precise and efficient matches are critical in this landscape, where every lead matters. Delays in matching must be avoided, and processes must evolve to eliminate post-rejection inefficiencies.
PX has introduced Brand Explicit Consent solutions and advanced matching capabilities to address these challenges. PX centralizes and optimizes the matching process by allowing partners to share relevant data. This prevents scenarios where consumers select a brand but fail to get matched, resulting in a poor experience.
The adoption of 1:1 consent is reshaping industries like Medicare, education, insurance, mortgage, and home services, with Medicare leading the way due to CMS regulations. Other industries governed by FCC and FTC guidelines under TCPA are at varying stages of implementation.
Key developments include Medicare's real-time compliance, education's established 1:1 matching systems, and insurance's rapid evolution, particularly in the auto and P&C sectors. Mortgage companies are shifting towards branded experiences, while home services and solar companies are gaining momentum.
Here’s a summary of the discussion points:
The key is understanding the spirit of 1:1 consent and the consumer behaviors that made it necessary. Regardless of how it's enforced, it should focus on delivering the value consumers expect.
For lead buyers, the goal should be clear: help the consumer complete their transaction or meet their needs efficiently. Doing this effectively drives value and justifies the existence of the process. Buyers should focus on "bidding to value," which can take many forms, such as enrollment, CPA, LTV, or a long-term revenue stream. Improving efficiency benefits both the consumer and the end fulfillment partner, creating a win-win situation.
As marketers, our role is to help consumers find real solutions. This means stepping up the quality of creatives and setting realistic expectations throughout the funnel. Consumers don’t seek “free money” or stimulus packages—they want genuine solutions. This shift represents an evolution in the industry, requiring everyone to adapt and mature, from lead sellers to buyers.
Engage with us
Need help navigating the FCC changes?
Reach out to us at brandconsent@px.com - we’re here to help!
You can watch the full recording of the webinar here.