A Lead Review in Practice: What We Would Check First
Illustrative process demonstration. Every business record below is invented. This is not a Rize client, a performance result, a market benchmark or a TreeService.ai test. It shows how to turn records into a cautious next decision.
The owner's question
“Source A sells cheaper leads. Should I move all of my budget there?”
For this example, all requests came in during the same month. Outcomes were checked at the same later cutoff. Each inquiry means one distinct job request. Credits and shared fees have already been included once. No requests remain pending in this simplified example.
The evidence supplied
| Measure | Source A | Source B |
|---|---|---|
| Assigned source cost | $2,400 | $3,200 |
| Distinct inquiries | 40 | 32 |
| Two-way contact made | 30 | 24 |
| Suitable opportunities | 20 | 20 |
| Estimates issued | 16 | 15 |
| Won jobs | 6 | 8 |
| Requests still pending | 0 | 0 |
In this example, suitable opportunities are part of the requests with two-way contact. Estimates are part of those suitable opportunities, and won jobs are part of the issued estimates. These stages are nested here; your own records need the same clear rules.
These are the same hypothetical inputs used in our lead-cost guide. The worksheet guide defines the method. Counts must use the same rules before they can be compared.
What the arithmetic shows
| Check | Source A | Source B |
|---|---|---|
| Cost per inquiry | $2,400 ÷ 40 = $60 | $3,200 ÷ 32 = $100 |
| Cost per won job | $2,400 ÷ 6 = $400 | $3,200 ÷ 8 = $400 |
| Requests without two-way contact | 40 − 30 = 10 | 32 − 24 = 8 |
| Suitable requests without an issued estimate | 20 − 16 = 4 | 20 − 15 = 5 |
Supported finding: Source A has a lower inquiry price. Both have the same source cost per won job. Inquiry price alone does not settle where to move the budget.
Possible causes to inspect: unanswered calls, slow callbacks, poor job fit or a stalled estimator handoff. These totals do not establish any one cause. A request without an estimate is not automatically a lost job.
Still unknown: collected revenue, job costs, cancellation history, crew fit and why individual requests stopped. We cannot name the more profitable source or claim that a receptionist would have recovered the work.
The sample recap
Priority: understand the gap before moving the whole budget. Keep spending within an agreed limit while you check it; this example does not establish either source as a winner.
| Next action | Suggested owner | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| Review the 18 requests without two-way contact. Separate genuine requests, bad details and missing records. | Intake lead | Each request has a known status or an explicit unknown. Genuine open requests have a named next action. |
| Review the nine suitable requests without an issued estimate. | Owner or estimator | Each has a reason, a next action or a clear note that the cause is unknown. |
| Match completed, paid jobs to source cost and direct job cost. | Owner or bookkeeper | Compare matching jobs and dates. Keep unpaid or unknown outcomes separate. |
Fit recommendation: improve the missing records before making a major budget move. If the evidence later shows a gap across marketing and intake, discuss managed help. If it shows one narrow issue, scope that issue first.
This demonstrates a method, not delivery results. It does not show a completed real review, measured client improvement or verified product behavior. A real review uses your records and can reach a different conclusion.
See what your Lead Review includes or review Rize's managed scope.