What would it mean to your lead-generation strategy if you knew that more than two-thirds of the people downloading your white papers and ebooks were lying on those carefully crafted landing pages?
How would conversations about lead generation between your Sales and Marketing teams be different if you knew that, more often than not, you don’t have a prospect’s correct phone number?
Last month Touch Point City posted on Poll Daddy an extremely brief, highly unscientific survey which basically posed this question: “How Much Do We Lie on Landing Pages?” Although survey responses were few (only 26), the findings are still worth a close look by marketing and sales leaders.
It turns out that when we’re asked to exchange our contact information in return for downloading something we find of interest, we lie quite a lot. Perhaps as much as 69 percent of the time.
1. How often do you provide intentionally inaccurate name and contact information when completing a content download registration form?
Always 4%
More often than not 15%
About half the time 4%
Sometimes 46%
Never 31%
When we mislead on landing pages, more than half the time it’s our phone numbers we’re faking. And 20 percent of the time it’s our e-mail addresses.
2. If you sometimes provide intentionally inaccurate information on a download registration form, which of the following are you MOST likely to fake?
Phone number 56%
Email address 20%
Job title 16%
Name 4%
Mailing address 4%
Company name 0%
Why do we shade the truth? Perhaps not surprisingly, it’s to avoid follow-up sales calls and marketing contacts.
3. If you sometimes provide intentionally inaccurate name and contact information, why?
Avoid follow-up sales calls or marketing contacts 72%
Protect my personal data privacy 16%
Chalk it up to the prankster in me 0%
Other (3):
- “I do not give false information because I only fill in my information to companies I trust.”
- “I don’t do this but if I did, it would be to avoid follow-up phone calls, primarily.”
- “Avoid being inundated with what’s potentially junk mail afterward.”
The Big Lie of Lead Generation
Again, as surveys go, this admittedly was no Gallup or Roper. Still, let’s concede for a moment that more than two dozen people (adults, presumably) did take the survey and provided honest answers about their propensity to become liars on landing pages.
If their responses are close to what a real, professionally executed survey might find, then what are we to make of this apparent Pinocchio Principle when it comes to leads born of landing pages? I think the clear takeaway is this:
A lead isn’t a lead until someone is engaged enough to be honest with you.
How will you know when they’re being totally honest? You probably won’t. At least not until one of your sales reps actually gets them one the phone, connects with them via e-mail or shakes their hand across a desk. Or maybe not even until they call or e-mail you to say they’d like to have a conversation about your product or service.
For decades, marketing and sales teams have argued about whether someone who visits a trade show booth should be considered a lead. Marketing would often say yes. Sales would often say no, not even close.
Now, that same argument is playing out online. Some marketers are tempted to say that someone who’s registered for a newsletter, or downloaded a white paper, is a lead. Sales is likely to argue that those are mere inquiries. To be true leads, Sales would say, those initial contacts need to be nurtured. Qualified. Scored. To the point where those individuals are more demonstrably interested in the company’s product or service, and thus potentially more ready to buy.
If this is an argument playing out inside your organization, the survey says Sales is right. A landing page registration is not necessarily a lead. An e-newsletter subscription is not necessarily a lead. A discernible pattern of engagement over time (e.g., multiple downloads, an e-newsletter sign-up, a webinar attendance, multiple visits to your website) could well be a lead.
It’s our challenge as marketers to elicit those patterns of engagement from customers and potential customers. And the great thing is, we ‘ve never been more clear about how to do it (relevant, compelling content). We’ve never had more tools and channels by which to do it. And we’ve never been better equipped to measure that it’s truly happening.
So if you’re in the middle of a lead-generation program, or about to embark on one, here’s a suggestion: Assume that people are mostly going to lie on your landing pages. And then go about your business with the mindset that you’re going to earn their honesty. Over time. By offering great information, interactions and experiences. In other words, great content.
The lead numbers might no pile up quite as quickly. But, honestly, they’ll be solid leads when they do.
_____
Where do things stand with lead generation in your organization? Are you still treating trade show visits and newsletter subscriptions as leads? Have you found your way to a more sophisticated lead scoring system and process? Or do you think this whole way of thinking about leads is due for some serious reinvention? Would welcome your thoughts and feedback.
_____
Thanks to Ardath Albee (@ardath421), Achinta Mitra (@Achintamitra), Pam Kozelka (@pamkozelka), Mary Bunnell (@mbbunnell, @ymmlistens), D. Steven White (@dstevenwhite) and Chris Bailey (@baileyworkplay) for sharing our “How Much Do We Lie…” survey with their followers. Voter turnout was light, colleagues, but it certainly wasn’t for lack of your support.

[...] provocative post called The Big Lie of Lead Generation. [...]
[...] provocative post called The Big Lie of Lead Generation. [...]
Quite simply a great point. Now you got me thinking about the validity of managing by measuring… thank you!
I think that this is a great post that deals with one of those “elephants in the room.” The whole point for content marketers is to create content that is worthy of real information. The problem is that too many “old school” marketers capture leads with content and then inundate those leads with junk.
As long as the junk salesmen are out there (and in the majority) people will give out false information.
Appreciate the comment, Dave. One wonders if there’s a tipping point out there on the horizon — or is it even closer than that? — where too much content planned and created with a “junk” mindset turns audiences off to pretty much all content.
Certainly hope not. Ideally, the junk will stay in a fairly confined trunk and solid-to-great educational and entertaining content will continue to shine through an be a win-win for both the publisher and the consumer.
Great post, Vince, and the lesson for marketers is this. Be explicit about what you are asking for, why you are asking for it and what you will do with it.
And you should engage on social media, blogs etc to build trust rather than simply passing the lead to sales.
I’ll blog about this on my Fearless Competitor blog with a link to your article.
Jeff Ogden, the Fearless Competitor
Find New Customers
http://www.findnewcustomers.com
Amen, Jeff. Thanks for visiting Touch Point City and weighing in.
Vince,
Thanks for posting the results. Even though the sample size was sample, the results are quite revealing though not entirely surprising.
My take on this — I don’t think the intent of most people is to lie outright but one that is driven more by self-preservation.
I for one rarely register with my primary work email address. I usually use a Gmail account to protect myself. It would be a nightmare to change my main email if someone else’s system were to be hacked.
Asking for my phone number on the very first pass does bother me. I have received phone calls from marketers within hours of downloading their white paper. This happens with or without asking for phone numbers. They call because they have anonymous visitor tracking software installed and can identify me.
Why does someone need my mailing address to download their eBook? Heck, they have asked for my company name. Google it and find out where in the world I’m located if they must know.
Sorry, didn’t mean for my entire comment to become one big rant but looks like most people in your sample have similar feelings.
I do agree with your conclusion (warning?), “A lead isn’t a lead until someone is engaged enough to be honest with you.”
We marketers have to earn that trust by continuing to nurture contacts with relevant content (relevance from their point of view and not ours) and at some point, a human contact is necessary to really score a qualified lead. If we’ve done our job, that will be an inbound call instead of a cold call.
Thanks for posting this and sharing your insights on the results from your survey.
Marketers might want to take your comment as a focus group of one, Achinta. I would guess your alternate e-mail address strategy, plus providing a switchboard number vs. a direct dial number is phone number is a required field, are two pretty common evasive maneuvers.
[...] The Big Lie of Lead Generation, Vince reveals the results of an admittedly unscientific survey but they still lead to some [...]
There’s are folks testing “Connect with Facebook” instead of getting a traditional email opt-in, which has its pros and cons. Apparently opt-in rates are higher and it’s more likely these are “real” people. With the right FB Connect settings you can capture email addresses in the process if that’s what you need.
Thanks, Steinar. I’m not familiar with Connect with Facebook, so — as I find myself saying quite a lot these days — that’s something I’ll have to learn more about. I work a lot with B-to-B clients, and generally speaking they’re not as active or seeing the same opportunities on Facebook that some B-to-C companies might be. Therefore, they’re probably going to have to “earn” a prospect’s e-mail address by more traditional means. And the point I think the research makes is that you do need to earn that e-mail, rather than rush to declare the first interaction a prospect has with you a “lead.”