Originally published on atomisc.com.
If you have read anything about lead response time, you have met these numbers. Respond in five minutes and you are 21 times more likely to qualify a lead. 78% of buyers buy from whoever answers first. Companies take 42 hours on average to reply.
They get repeated constantly, usually with a single attribution attached to all of them, usually to Harvard Business Review. That attribution is wrong, and the reason it matters is not pedantry: the two studies measured different things, and once you separate them the picture is sharper and more useful than the merged version.
The correction
The 21x and 100x multipliers come from the MIT and InsideSales.com Lead Response Management study, built on 2004 to 2007 data. The 42 hour average and the 23% never responded finding come from a separate 2011 Harvard Business Review article. Different datasets, different methods, different questions. They are routinely presented as one statistic.
The 78% figure is worse than misattributed. We could not trace it to any primary source at all. More on that below.
Study one: MIT and InsideSales, the 21x number
Conducted with Dr James B. Oldroyd, then at MIT's Sloan School of Management, this analysed three years of data, 2004 to 2007, from six companies that generate and respond to web-sourced leads. It covered more than 15,000 leads and over 100,000 call attempts.
The question was narrow and mechanical: what day, what time, and how long after a lead arrives should you call, to maximise contact and qualification.
Two findings became the famous ones. Comparing a call placed at five minutes against one placed at thirty:
- The odds of making contact fall by about 100 times.
- The odds of qualifying the lead fall by about 21 times.
Between them, they are the basis of most lead response time advice today.
What that actually means
Three things get lost every time this is quoted.
It is a comparison of five minutes against thirty minutes, not five minutes against "later". The cliff is inside the first half hour, which is far more aggressive than most people realise when they see the number.
It measures phone calls. This was a study of outbound calling against web leads. It is not a finding about email, SMS or chat, and applying it to them is an extrapolation.
"Qualified" means the contact progressed to a real sales conversation, not that it closed. These are top-of-funnel odds.
Study two: Harvard Business Review, 2011
The Short Life of Online Sales Leads did something different. Rather than mining one set of companies' own data, the researchers audited 2,241 US companies by submitting a test lead to each and timing the reply.
| Response time | Share of companies |
|---|---|
| Within 1 hour | 37% |
| 1 to 24 hours | 16% |
| More than 24 hours | 24% |
| Never responded at all | 23% |
Among companies that did respond within thirty days, the average was 42 hours.
On outcomes, firms making contact within an hour were nearly 7 times more likely to qualify the lead than those waiting even one hour longer, and more than 60 times more likely than those waiting 24 hours or more.
The finding that gets ignored
Everyone quotes the 42 hours. Almost nobody quotes the 23%.
Nearly a quarter of audited companies never replied at all to a legitimate inbound enquiry. Not slowly. Never. That is not a speed problem, it is a coverage problem, and it is a different thing to fix. Shaving your average response time does nothing about the enquiries that fall through entirely.
The third number, which is not a study at all
Then there is the one you see most often of the three: 78% of buyers purchase from the company that responds first.
We went looking for it. Every citation we could find leads to another blog post, which leads to another blog post. The attribution most commonly attached is a "Lead Connect survey" with no published report, no sample size and no methodology anywhere in the public record.
We are not saying it is false. We are saying that after tracing it we cannot tell you who measured it, when, on how many companies, or what "buy from" meant. Neither, as far as we can establish, can anyone else repeating it.
Why this matters to you
If a vendor's case for buying rests on a number whose origin nobody can produce, that tells you something about how carefully the rest of their claims were checked. The strongest argument for responding fast does not need it: the MIT and HBR findings are real, published, and quite strong enough on their own.
A more recent, and more brutal, benchmark
If 2011 feels too old to plan against, there is a later audit. In 2014 InsideSales ran a secret-shopper study across 9,538 companies, submitting enquiries and timing the first phone response.
| Measure | Result |
|---|---|
| Median first phone response | 3 hours 8 minutes |
| Average first phone response | 61 hours |
Look at the gap between those two. A median of three hours and an average of sixty-one is not a rounding difference, it is a long tail of enquiries that waited days. This is exactly why the average is the wrong number to manage by, and it is the single most useful thing in any of this research.
What has changed since, and what has not
All three datasets are old. It is fair to ask what still applies to lead response time today.
The mechanism holds. The reason speed works is that a buyer filling in a form is in a window of active intent, and the window closes as they move on or contact a competitor. That is buyer behaviour, not a feature of 2007 technology.
The window is shorter now, not longer. Instant replies are ordinary across consumer services, so the tolerance that existed in 2011 has gone.
The channel mix has changed completely. Both studies assumed a form followed by a phone call. Today the same enquiry might arrive by web chat, WhatsApp, SMS, a marketplace or a form, and answering fast on the wrong channel is not answering fast.
The distribution is probably worse than it looks. Averages hide the shape. An organisation averaging four hours is usually not replying in four hours consistently: it is replying in ten minutes during office hours and twelve hours overnight. The overnight leads are the ones being lost, and the average conceals exactly that.
How to benchmark your own
Before buying anything, measure. It takes an afternoon and it is usually uncomfortable.
- Submit your own forms. Every one, including the ones nobody remembers owning. Use an address nobody recognises. Time the reply.
- Do it at 9pm on a Saturday. In-hours response time is the easy half. The number that matters is what happens when nobody is at a desk.
- Measure the median and the 95th percentile, not the average. One rapid reply and one three-day reply average to something that describes neither.
- Count the silences. What share of enquiries in the last 90 days received no reply at all? Per the HBR audit, expect this to be higher than you think.
- Check every channel separately. Email, chat, SMS, WhatsApp, marketplace, phone. One of them is almost always far worse than the rest.
If the honest answer is that out-of-hours enquiries wait until morning, you already know the size of the problem, and it is bigger than the average suggested.
Sources
- Oldroyd, J. B., Elkington, D., et al., Lead Response Management Study, MIT Sloan and InsideSales.com. Three years of data, 2004 to 2007, six companies, 15,000+ leads, 100,000+ call attempts. Source of the 21x and 100x figures.
- Oldroyd, J. B., McElheran, K., Elkington, D., The Short Life of Online Sales Leads, Harvard Business Review, March 2011. Audit of 2,241 US companies. Source of the 42 hour average and the 23% non-response figure.
- InsideSales.com secret-shopper audit, 2014. 9,538 companies. Source of the 3 hour 8 minute median and 61 hour average first phone response.
- The "78% buy from the first responder" figure: no primary source located. Commonly attributed to a "Lead Connect survey" for which no report, sample size or methodology appears in the public record. Included here as an example, not as evidence.
Cited from the original research rather than from secondary summaries, which is how these got merged in the first place. If you find a primary source for the 78% figure, send it and this page will be corrected.
Atomisc builds and runs HubSpot for growing sales teams, with published prices. More on CRM data and lead response at atomisc.com/blog.
Top comments (0)