English
Interaction Classification: Contacted vs. Non-Contacted
Effective lead generation relies on systematic categorization and cultivation of contacts. Distinguishing between individuals you have met (“Mets”) and those you have not (“Haven’t Mets”) provides a framework for tailored engagement strategies.
Individuals are embedded in social networkโs exhibiting varying degrees of connectedness (Granovetter, 1973). “Mets” represent existing nodes within your network, while “Haven’t Mets” are potential new nodes. Network Density (ฮด) = 2E / [N(N-1)], where E = number of actual connections, N = total number of nodes in the network. Higher ฮด indicates a more closely knit network. Weak ties (connections to “Haven’t Mets”) often provide access to novel information and opportunities (Granovetter, 1973). Cultivating these ties expands reach and diversifies lead sources. Mere-exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968): Repeated exposure to a stimulus (e.g., your brand) increases liking and trust. “Mets” have higher familiarity, requiring relationship maintenance. “Haven’t Mets” require initial trust-building. Contacts progress through stages: Awareness โ Interest โ Decision โ Action. Category influences conversion rate (probability of progressing through the funnel). Conversion Rate (CR) = (Number of Conversions / Total Number of Contacts) * 100%. CR will differ significantly between “Mets” and “Haven’t Mets”. Approximately 80% of results come from 20% of efforts. Strategic focus on high-potential “Mets” (e.g., referrals) yields disproportionate returns.
| Feature | “Mets” | “Haven’t Mets” |
|---|---|---|
| Relationship | Established | Non-existent |
| Trust Level | Higher (potentially) | Lower |
| Lead Source | Repeat business, referrals | New market penetration |
| Marketing Focus | Relationship nurturing, valueโ reinforcement | Awareness building, initial contact |
| Communication Style | Personalized, direct | Broad, informative |
| Conversion Rate | Higher (potentially) | Lower |
| Data Requirement | Detailed contact information, history | Basic demographics, targeting criteria |
| CRM Application | Prioritization, automation for follow-up | Segmentation, lead scoring for prioritization |
Segmenting “Haven’t Mets”: Age, income, location, family size (Demographic); Values, lifestyle, interests (Psychographic); Online activity, purchase history (if available) (Behavioral); Specific neighborhoods or regions (Geographic). Market Segmentation Index (MSI) = (Market Size * Market Growth Rate * Competitive Intensity) / Risk Factor. Prioritize segments with high MSI.
Segmenting “Mets”: Network Group (Initial acquaintances, potential future clients); Allied Resources (Real estate-related professionals e.g. mortgage brokers, contractors); Advocates (Past clients likely to refer business); Core Advocates (Influential individuals who consistently generate referrals). Relationship Strength Metric (RSM): Subjective scoring system based on frequency of interaction, quality of interaction, and referral history. Higher RSM indicates stronger relationship.
“Haven’t Mets” Lead Generation Strategies: Mass marketing (advertising, social media campaigns); Targeted advertising (online ads, direct mail); Community events, open houses. “Mets” Lead Generation Strategies: Personalized email campaigns; Phone calls, personal visits; Referral programs; Client appreciation events.
A/B Testing: Compare different marketing messages or strategies on subsets of “Haven’t Mets” to determine optimal approaches. Statistical Significance (p-value): p < 0.05 indicates statistically significant difference between groups. Cohort Analysis: Track the long-term performance of leads generated from different “Haven’t Met” segments. Referral Source Tracking: Identify which “Met” categories generate the most valuable referrals.
CRM: Categorize contacts; Automate follow-up sequences; Track interactions and lead status; Generate reports on lead source effectiveness.
Ethical Considerations: Obtain explicit consent before adding individuals to your database; Adhere to relevant data privacy regulations (e.g., GDPR, CCPA); Avoid spamming or intrusive marketing tactics.
Regularly review and refine contact categorization strategies. Adapt marketing approaches based on data analysis and performance metrics. Prioritize relationship building with “Mets” to maximize referral potential.
References: Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1-27.
Chapter Summary
Contact categorization in real estate leadโ generation distinguishes between “Mets” (contacts with prior interaction) and “Haven’t Mets” (contacts with no prior interaction). Dividing contacts allows for efficient allocation of marketing resources. “Haven’t Mets” require broader prospecting, while “Mets” benefit from focused strategies. The categorization models a pipeline; “Haven’t Mets” represent the initial potential leads, and marketing aims to convert them into “Mets.” The “Met” category is further subdivided based on relationshipโ strength (Network, Allied Resources, Advocates, Core Advocates). Movement signifies increasing trust. “Mets” allow for personalized marketing campaigns, increasing engagement compared to generic marketing for “Haven’t Mets.”
different marketingโ strategies are more effective depending on contact status; “Haven’t Mets” respond to prospecting, “Mets” require relationship nurturing. Referral business correlates with relationship depth within “Met.” Categorizing contacts based on interaction history optimizes marketing ROI.
This necessitates distinct communication protocols, personalized follow-up for “Mets,” and emphasizes tracking relationship development within “Met” as a KPI. It enables data-driven decision-making and necessitates robust systems for contact input and categorization.
