SDR Jeremy · 60 cold-dialed leads (44 of 104 self-booked, excluded) · counted per unique person, voicemail excluded, stops at booked.
Median speed to lead for the 46 leads: 17hrs.
Median speed to lead for 18 in-hours leads: 3hrs.
Median speed to lead for 28 out-of-hours leads: 21hrs.
12-3p returns more pickups than its share of dials. Shift more volume here, and ease off 3-6p.
Wed returns more pickups than its share of dials. Shift more volume here, and ease off Tue.
67% never reach a human, the biggest leak. Past that: 19% stall at the opener, 62% of conversations don't book.
Auto-fire the dial after the ~7-min self-book hold, then always work the freshest lead first.
Front-load 12-3p, where pickups per dial run highest, then weight the week toward Wed. Same effort, more humans reached.
These are old enough to have been worked but got zero or far fewer dials than the leads that came in with them. Dial them now, you have the capacity.
Median speed to lead for the 12 leads: 22hrs.
Median speed to lead for 4 in-hours leads: 1hrs.
Median speed to lead for 8 out-of-hours leads: 40hrs.
12-3p returns more pickups than its share of dials. Shift more volume here, and ease off 9a-12p.
Mon returns more pickups than its share of dials. Shift more volume here, and ease off Fri.
67% never reach a human, the biggest leak. Past that: 50% stall at the opener, 50% of conversations don't book.
Auto-fire the dial after the ~7-min self-book hold, then always work the freshest lead first.
Front-load 12-3p, where pickups per dial run highest, then weight the week toward Mon. Same effort, more humans reached.
No new leads were generated in this period.
No in-hours leads were generated in this period.
No out-of-hours leads were generated in this period.
Too few pickups this period to judge the best hour reliably.
Too few pickups this period to judge the best day reliably.
No new leads entered this period.
Front-load 12-3p, where pickups per dial run highest, then weight the week toward Fri. Same effort, more humans reached.
No new leads were generated in this period.
No in-hours leads were generated in this period.
No out-of-hours leads were generated in this period.
No humans were reached in this period.
No humans were reached in this period.
No new leads entered this period.
No new leads this period and everyone reachable was worked. Nothing to change on the dialing side.
No new leads were generated in this period.
No in-hours leads were generated in this period.
No out-of-hours leads were generated in this period.
No humans were reached in this period.
No humans were reached in this period.
No new leads entered this period.
No new leads this period and everyone reachable was worked. Nothing to change on the dialing side.
Median speed to lead for the 58 leads: 18hrs.
Median speed to lead for 22 in-hours leads: 2hrs.
Median speed to lead for 36 out-of-hours leads: 22hrs.
12-3p returns more pickups than its share of dials. Shift more volume here, and ease off 3-6p.
Call volume is well matched to where pickups happen. Wed is strongest at 3.2%.
67% never reach a human, the biggest leak. Past that: 25% stall at the opener, 60% of conversations don't book.
Auto-fire the dial after the ~7-min self-book hold, then always work the freshest lead first.
Front-load 12-3p, where pickups per dial run highest, then weight the week toward Wed. Same effort, more humans reached.
These are old enough to have been worked but got zero or far fewer dials than the leads that came in with them. Dial them now, you have the capacity.
All 60 leads were delivered Jun 26 to Jul 5 (10 days, through Wk 2); none arrived after. Later weeks re-worked the same backlog, which is why speed-to-lead stops after Wk 2 and reaches dry up while dials don't: by Wk 5, 1 dials produced 0 new humans. The open question is why lead delivery stopped after 10 days.
60 cold-dialed leads down to booked appointments. Every rung is a unique person, so multi-dial leads can't skew it.
Only 33% of leads ever reach a human, but 40% of real conversations book. The leak is reach, not closing.
How long a non-self-booked lead waits before Jeremy's first dial. The target: hold ~7 minutes so they can self-book undisturbed, then call by minute 10. In hours means the lead arrived when it could actually have been worked: inside the 8am to 9pm legal calling window in the lead's own timezone, on a weekday. Out of hours is everything else, so it covers both a 2am arrival and a Saturday one.
The median lead waits 18 hrs for its first dial, about 105× slower than the 10-minute target. n = 58.
The median in-hours lead waits 2 hrs for its first dial, about 13× slower than the 10-minute target. n = 22.
The median out-of-hours lead waits 22 hrs for its first dial, about 131× slower than the 10-minute target. n = 36.
Pickup rate per window (pickups ÷ dials), so busy hours can't masquerade as good ones. Counts pickup calls, not unique people, so a lead reached in two windows shows in both (these total 36 pickups across the 20 people reached).
The 12-3pm window reaches a live human on 6.8% of dials, about 2.6× better than any other hour, yet it is under-dialed.
For unreached leads, how the pickup rate per dial decays with depth, and how the total dialing effort is actually spread.
Cap unreached leads at 12. 28 leads were dialed 13+ times and never answered once: 549 calls (44% of all dialing) placed past attempt 12, straight into a dead line.
A short call means opposite things in the two populations. Every cold dial under five minutes here failed. Both self-booked calls under five minutes booked, on one beat each. Only real conversations are scored against the eight step script.
Brush-offs and instant wins are excluded from every adherence figure below, and both stay visible in the ledger.
Both the raw and the conversation-adjusted rate are shown. Showing either alone would flatter or damn the setter.
| Opener | Body | Close | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-booked (17) | 85% | 87% | 76% |
| Cold dial (12) | 79% | 83% | 54% |
| Self-booked | Cold | |
|---|---|---|
| s1 Introduction | 16 of 17 | 12 of 12 |
| s2 Not a sales call | 13 of 17 | 7 of 12 |
| s3 Motivation and empathy | 14 of 17 | 8 of 12 |
| s4 Discovery and the gap | 17 of 17 | 12 of 12 |
| s5 RIA scale questions | 13 of 17 | 10 of 12 |
| s6 Curiosity confirmation | 15 of 17 | 10 of 12 |
| s7 Zoom expectations | 13 of 17 | 7 of 12 |
| s8 Commitment and close | 13 of 17 | 6 of 12 |
Of the cold conversations, 5 did not run s2, and every one of them ran long enough that it could have. The brush-off exclusion has already removed the calls where there was no opportunity.
These figures move together. The direction of causation is not established: a receptive prospect both tolerates more script and books. Measured across real conversations, neither the opener nor the body separates a booked call from a lost one.
| Phase | Calls | Booked | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| s1 | 12 | 2 | 17% |
| s2 | 1 | 1 | 1 of 1 |
| s3 | 3 | 1 | 1 of 3 |
| s4 | 16 | 11 | 69% |
| s6 | 1 | 1 | 1 of 1 |
| s7 | 2 | 2 | 2 of 2 |
| s8 | 1 | 1 | 1 of 1 |
This block overlaps the brush-off block above and is not an independent result: most calls whose first objection lands in the opener are brush-offs. It earns its place as the earliest available signal that a call is becoming one. These figures move together. The direction of causation is not established: a receptive prospect both tolerates more script and books.
| Cluster | Calls | Booked | Rate | Script |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prospect is busy, driving, or needs to call back | 6 | 0 | 0% | scripted |
| Skeptical of claims, worried about scams or unrealistic | 6 | 2 | 33% | no scripted answer |
| Still educating themselves, not ready to decide | 4 | 1 | 1 of 4 | scripted |
| Concerns about access to money, liquidity, or flexibility | 2 | 0 | 0 of 2 | no scripted answer |
| Concerns about trust, control, or being taken advantage of | 3 | 1 | 1 of 3 | no scripted answer |
| Technical issues with video or platform | 3 | 2 | 2 of 3 | scripted |
| Previous negative experience with annuities or advisors | 3 | 2 | 2 of 3 | no scripted answer |
| Scheduling issues or limited availability | 6 | 4 | 67% | no scripted answer |
| Already working with another advisor or has competing | 4 | 3 | 3 of 4 | no scripted answer |
| Questions about annuity features, mechanics, or terms | 9 | 6 | 67% | no scripted answer |
| Confused about the process, what to expect, or what was | 3 | 3 | 3 of 3 | no scripted answer |
| Needs more information or clarification before proceeding | 8 | 6 | 75% | no scripted answer |
This is a different fix from an objection the script has no answer for, and goes to the script rather than the setter. The arrival counts are tallied across every objection raised in these calls, not only that cluster's own, so read them as a sign of timing pressure on the call, not a count of one objection type landing late.
Rates are suppressed below 5 calls and shown as counts. The cluster table is ranked by how far below the corpus average the calls raising each cluster booked: read the order as a starting point for where to look, not a measured result. These figures move together. The direction of causation is not established: a receptive prospect both tolerates more script and books.
These are the calls worth working. A call that ended without an ask is not a booking forgone: whether an ask would have converted it is unknown.
Of the 17 calls that did not book, 12 ended the same way: the prospect deflected, and no specific time was proposed. 10 of those 12 never proposed a time at any point in the call, and 9 were cold dials.
8 of them happened inside a real conversation and 4 inside a brush-off. On a call that ended inside a minute an accepted deferral is barely distinguishable from never getting a conversation at all, so the 8 are the pile worth working.
5 of the 12 carry a quotable line in the prospect's own words. The rest were cited on the setter's side of the exchange.
The script answers this objection at step 1, Introduction, and not again. On these calls it arrived after that point 12 times against 4 at it. Whether moving the answer later, or repeating it, changes anything is untested, but it is the change this points at.
These are counted outcomes, not a measured effect. Each of these calls ended without a specific time being proposed. Whether asking changes anything here is untested.
2 passages withheld for making a causal claim.
Speakers were separated by machine, not by a person. On quoted lines of nine words or more, an independent second system agrees on who was speaking about 95% of the time; shorter lines were not measured this way. Every quoted line is consistent with the role it is attributed to. Short interjections, like a quick yes or a name, are the least reliable of what is quoted here. No human has verified a transcript.