<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=1248981033026412&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
One To One Consent Required In

 

From The Beginning - What Is Happening With Lead Generation And The FCC?

The FCC's recent actions to close the "lead generation loophole" significantly impact the lead generation industry, emphasizing the importance of dynamic consent. They are trying to help consumers combat robocalls and spam texts mainly through stricter consent requirements. For everyone, it means ensuring that one-to-one consent is obtained for each seller,  which is a significant shift from previous practices. You can learn more about the specifics of the ruling here

Download Our FCC One-To-One Consent Whitepaper!

What Is Dynamic Consent?

Dynamic consent is the way forward, considering how you need one-to-one consent when contacting leads. What is dynamic consent? "Dynamic consent is the ability to return potential service providers to the consumer, allowing them to select who gets their information." Dynamic consent even allows you to keep using ping post in your strategy, read more about that here

0b1be331e5a8c287cf19bdb101da450b

What Solutions Do You Have For Complying With This Ruling?

boberdoo has 4 different solutions that you can customize to your lead flow:

Click-through traffic - easiest
Dynamic consent widget - easy
Form Builder with dynamic consent - more customized
Ping Post with APIs - most custom option

Read more about what each do here

 

Request A Demo

What Does This Mean For The Lead Generation Industry?

The FCC's new regulations significantly affect the lead generation industry, emphasizing strict compliance with one-to-one consent for calls and texts. This change requires leads to proactively select which sellers they wish to be contacted by, eliminating automatic matching and the use of broad lists. To assist you in aligning with these guidelines, here's a guide of 8 steps for transitioning your company to a post-FCC industry. Dynamic consent aligns with these regulations by each lead explicitly agreeing to be contacted by specific companies, thus maintaining compliance while also enhancing lead quality. This approach is crucial for businesses to adapt to the evolving legal landscape and consumer expectations in lead generation. See here for a more detailed breakdown of the FCC ruling. 

Unsure if you're ready for the changes? Here's our checklist for both buyers and sellers to get you up to speed. 

Why Is The FCC Pushing To "Close The Lead Generation Loophole"?

This may seem like a harsh ruling for the industry, and it is, but bad actors in the industry are the reason this is happening. No one likes receiving over 300 calls in two days; yes, that happened to us or getting spam texts. Unfortunately, the companies following the rules have to deal with this, but ultimately, it helps with the overall quality of leads in the long run and helps give trust back to the consumers when forms are filled out, and phone calls are made. 

Webinars

PROMO1_FCC17

We joined ActiveProspect on their one-to-one consent webinar series, and provided a checklist for lead buyers and sellers that you can watch here. View and download our one-to-one checklist for lead buyers and sellers here

We also have a detailed walkthrough for the different options you can do with one-to-one consent, especially when working with resellers or brokers. 

We hosted a webinar discussing the common questions we've gotten about the FCC, Dynamic Consent, One to One Consent and everything else around those subjects, you can check out the recording here. Also if you would like to join our webinars in the future, you can sign up here

 

FAQs

How are calls affected for one-to-one consent?
In the context of inbound calls, when dialing a number, they are not subject to the one-to-one consent requirement for submitting data leads. This is similar to click opportunities, where the user initiates an action and goes to a website to monetize that click. However, you will need to get that explicit consent for outbound calls. 
Is SMS dead in this world for the lead generator?
When it comes to sending outbound texts to consumers in bulk, dynamic consent is necessary. Specifically, one-to-one consent is required for this type of communication. The opt-in process, which involves TCPA language, becomes crucial in obtaining consent. It's recommended to have appropriate language for TCPA compliance on the page, and we suggest consulting with in-house legal teams or attorneys to ensure compliance.
How can 3rd party software like TrustedForm or Journaya be utilized for Dynamic Consent?

To integrate third-party software such as Jornaya or TrustedForm, you can leverage the boberdoo Form Builder. The Form Builder supports APIs for various functionalities to incorporate third-party scripts. As a lead generator, you can add the TrustedForm or the Jornaya script to your landing pages where leads are generated. These scripts capture information upon lead submission, generating a unique ID that is then included with the other lead fields. This serves a dual purpose. Firstly, the captured information can be used to either reject or proceed with the lead processing, for instance, relating to the originating domain or age for example. Secondly, the account owner can claim the certificate, providing evidence or proof that the consent was captured.

Do they have to check the box, or can it automatically be checked upon the page load if we sell the leads exclusively?
If you exclusively sell leads, there's an option for automatic consent without a checkbox. The boberdoo Form Builder provides a feature called "Consent Exclusive Match." This option, either returned in the API response or integrated into the logic of the Form Builder, allows for a single select consent flow. In this scenario, individual companies are not explicitly listed; instead, magic strings can be used to dynamically display the company name, website, and phone number in the TCPA terms. This streamlines the consent process, eliminating the need for a separate checkbox for each company and ensuring a more efficient user experience. The Form Builder dynamically adjusts based on whether it's an exclusive or non-exclusive match, providing flexibility for lead generators in both scenarios.
As a lead buyer (now called Seller by FCC), how can a company ensure leads are explicitly consented to by the consumer?
Firstly, anticipate changes in relationships between lead buyers and sellers, where having a direct relationship with any reseller or lead generator becomes crucial. From a technical perspective, services like Jornaya and Trusted Form may be necessary to verify that your company name is appropriately displayed for dynamic consent. In the context of boberdoo, clients have been using external services for similar purposes. During the ping or post-process, calls to third parties can be made to verify information, allowing for the continuation of lead processing or bidding only when your company information is displayed.
How do you handle responses from other resellers?

In custom delivery, similar to standard, and based on the individual specs the partner provides.

 

If we ping a network buyer, and the network returns an end buyer name (which is different from the name of the network), will the ping reply to our website be able to show the end buyer's name (and not the network's name)?

You need to display the end seller's name. For example, if the network returns " Company A " as their end buyer in a non-exclusive scenario, it will be displayed accordingly. The documentation or logging in the lead system will show that network one was the buyer who purchased the lead on behalf of or sold it to "Company A." boberdoo partners will have new labels related to one-to-one consent and seller resellers, aiding in organization and labeling for transactions.

What happens if I have five companies I could potentially display on this form?

The system decides who gets selected based on sorting logic if you want to display up to five sellers but have more than five potential sellers. Sorting can be based on factors such as best price, best-expected revenue per display, or weighted logic for priority distribution. Learn more about each here

How does boberdoo determine what company(ies) are returned to display to the consumer?

The dynamic consent processing logic moves upfront, where distribution logic occurs before consumers are presented with leads. Behind the scenes, there are three main processing logics:

What about post rejects?

Post reject second chance enhances the one-to-one consent lead distribution system by intelligently presenting additional matching options to consumers when initial selections fail to post successfully. This maximizes potential matches while maintaining consumer choice and respecting system configuration limits.

If the Seller owns the domain they are on, does there need to be a check box at all? For Insurance: Can the Seller listed be a Carrier, and can the lead be sold to any Agent within the carrier? Or does it need to list an Agent's Name / Number?

Regarding insurance leads, it's not explicitly specified whether the Seller listed can be a carrier, and the lead can be sold to any agent within the carrier. While the regulations may not expressly outline the details, including the company name and potentially the specific agent within the carrier is advisable to ensure clarity and compliance. For instance, listing "Allstate" or "Allstate Holdings" may suffice. However, in franchises like "Keller Williams Real Estate," it might be necessary to list the individual franchise for accurate identification. Companies should communicate with each partner exactly what information should be returned to consumers.

Dynamic consent is forcing consumers to check extra boxes. How can conversion rates be preserved?

The effectiveness of what you can do varies significantly across different industries. However, having additional options does present an opportunity to enhance revenue. By optimizing lead forms to highlight the advantages of choosing multiple companies or sellers, businesses can increase the value they derive from each lead. When consumers are presented with options that closely match their needs, they're more likely to select multiple partners, increasing the average revenue per lead. This scenario mainly benefits lead generators who can effectively communicate these benefits.

The importance of testing cannot be overstated in this context. Some clients have reported poor results, experiencing significant drop-offs when consumers are faced with these additional choices. However, other clients have found success, applying the 80-20 rule where a majority select the first option, but a significant minority opts for multiple partners, leading to increased matching and potentially higher conversion rates.

There's a lot of talk about "cutting out the middleman." What does that mean if you're the middleman in a lead transaction?

Resellers still provide significant value to the industry. For lead generators, they provide access to aggregated demand through one consistent API. For lead buyers, resellers provide access to supply that they would not otherwise be available. Resellers also help to weed out bad publishers.

The essence of this challenge lies in the inevitable drive toward efficiency within any marketplace, which often leads to a reevaluation of intermediary functions. For resellers, the path forward involves strategically emphasizing adding value to the transaction process. This can be achieved by understanding lead origins and the intricate relationships that define the lead generation ecosystem.

Historically, lead sources have engaged with many sub-identities or publishers. While resellers have played a key role in optimizing lead flow, there's been a hesitancy to communicate optimizations back to the lead generators. However, as market dynamics evolve, the importance of such communication is becoming increasingly apparent. By managing the nuances of account management, refunds, and day-to-day operations, resellers offer substantial benefits to lead buyers, particularly the smaller ones who might otherwise be overwhelmed by the complexities of direct dealings.

The value proposition of a reseller extends beyond mere transaction facilitation; it encompasses the management of relationships with lead generators, thereby acting as a bridge between the generation and the consumption of leads. While currently vital, this role faces the risk of becoming redundant over time as direct partnerships between lead generators and buyers become more common. The challenge for resellers is continuously evolving to offer services that justify their position in the lead transaction process.

If 3 sellers are shown to the consumer but we match to just 1, does that satisfy 1:1 consent rules?

The core issue revolves around the potential underutilization of consumer interest. Suppose a consumer expresses a preference for multiple sellers. In that case, an opportunity exists to capitalize on this by facilitating transactions with each selected seller, thereby maximizing revenue. This approach aligns with the principle of leveraging consumer intent. It introduces a dynamic aspect to lead distribution, shifting the focus towards optimizing revenue opportunities through strategic seller selection.

Furthermore, this scenario prompts a reevaluation of existing lead distribution mechanisms, especially in cases of post-rejection by buyers. The efficiency of allocating space to sellers with a high rejection rate is scrutinized, as it could potentially limit revenue generation. The argument leans towards prioritizing sellers demonstrating a higher acceptance rate for leads, even if their bid might be lower, as this could result in a more consistent revenue stream.

The challenge lies in processing logic that respects the one-to-one consent framework and optimizes revenue by intelligently managing lead allocations. This requires a delicate balance between adhering to consent rules and maximizing the economic potential of each lead, urging lead generators and sellers to revisit and refine their operational strategies in light of these considerations.

Is there a way to escape rebuilding all of the live forms?

The short answer is yes, there is a workaround that doesn't necessitate rebuilding all live forms from scratch, but this solution comes with its considerations.

With boberdoo form builder, You can create specific forms to only display the "final step" for the consumer, allowing you to maintain your current flow and add on the one-to-one consent at the end.

What solutions address the consumers who are just going to take the companies displayed and google them? Can a solution prevent giving the buyer free advertising?

The concern is valid: when consumers are presented with company names, they might bypass the lead generation system by directly searching for these companies on Google. Integrating multiple monetization opportunities within the response is the solution to mitigate this and ensure the lead generation effort remains monetizable.

One effective solution is the utilization of trackable communication methods. For instance, providing a trackable phone number through platforms like boberdoo allows the lead generator to direct consumer interactions (calls or texts) effectively. This method not only simplifies the process for consumers, potentially increasing engagement rates but also makes each interaction monetizable, regardless of whether it results in direct lead conversion.

Additionally, leveraging web-based interactions offers another layer of monetization. By including links to the company's website or a specific landing page within the response and making the act of clicking these links a billable event, lead generators can capture value from the initial research phase of the consumer journey. This approach encourages the consumer to use the provided links for research, which can be more convenient than conducting a separate Google search and allows the lead generator to benefit financially from these actions.

Implementing these strategies allows for the monetization of both direct interactions and preliminary research activities by consumers, effectively turning potential free advertising scenarios into revenue-generating opportunities. This aligns with the goal of maximizing the value of each lead and enhances the overall efficiency of the lead generation process.

What if there are no matches on the "ping"? Are the days of reprocessing the lead over?

When a lead cannot be matched with one-to-one consent partners in real-time, the question arises: what next steps can be taken to comply with consent requirements and ensure the lead is not wasted?

The reprocessing of leads, especially in the context of non-one-to-one consent partners, requires a nuanced approach. Initially, when a lead is submitted and fails to match specified sellers, or if a buyer rejects the lead post-submission, the lead generator is at a crossroads. One strategy involves redirecting the consumer to a confirmation page equipped with a widget to display a new set of potential partners, inviting the consumer to grant consent once again.

On the other hand, the introduction of dynamic consent options in the boberdoo Form Builder represents a significant evolution in handling unmatched leads. With the upcoming release of new form builder capabilities, lead generators will have the flexibility to define specific actions for leads that find no matches during the ping process. This includes the possibility of directing these unmatched leads towards "click only" buyers, effectively creating an opportunity to monetize leads that would otherwise remain unprocessed.

The system will offer settings to manage exclusive versus non-exclusive matches, enabling lead generators to tailor the consumer's experience based on the type of consent and match sought. This could involve embedding the information of an exclusive match within the TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act) text or presenting multiple partners to the consumer for selection.

By leveraging these new tools and options, lead generators can take on the challenges of unmatched pings with greater flexibility and effectiveness, ensuring that the opportunities for reprocessing leads remain effective and compliant with consent frameworks.

How do you think one-to-one consent affects call aggregators who buy and sell consumer calls?

A significant portion of calls handled by aggregators originates from outbound efforts by call centers. These outbound calls are designed to initiate consumer engagement, which, when successful, results in an inbound call that can then be routed or sold through the aggregator's network.

Understanding the source and nature of these calls is important to pay attention to, especially those coordinating with multiple call centers. It's not just about routing calls but also the quality and compliance of these interactions. This requires a deep dive into the origins of the calls and a comprehensive vetting process for any new vendors or call centers entering the system.

The emphasis here is on transparency and accountability, as aggregators must prove that the consumer experience through these call flows adheres to regulatory standards and ethical practices. Establishing a vetting process enables aggregators to document and understand the consumer journey to check that the calls they buy and sell are generated in a manner that respects consumer rights and preferences. This approach safeguards the aggregator's operations from potential compliance issues. It will also enhance the quality and reliability of the service they offer buyers and sellers within the call aggregation ecosystem.

Learn More About Using Dynamic Consent For Your Business