|
|
Post by JoY on Sept 3, 2006 16:06:08 GMT 1
I don't have a single appointment in my diary....  I made a ficticious call this morning to book a call in my main postcode, CV34, and the appointment went to another advisor. I've just phoned again to ask Central Leads how the calls get allocated, and was told it was ramdom, BUT, there are SIX advisors covering postcode CV34!!!! I sincerely hope no more advisors are being recruited round my way! I may as well pack up now! This is the first week of "forced" diary slots too! Just a couple would be nice.  |
|
|
|
Post by grumperbear on Sept 3, 2006 17:08:46 GMT 1
Some of my postcodes have at least 6 agents working on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by hereticus on Sept 3, 2006 17:23:28 GMT 1
I made a ficticious call this morning to book a call in my main postcode, CV34, and the appointment went to another advisor. I've just phoned again to ask Central Leads how the calls get allocated, and was told it was ramdom, BUT, there are SIX advisors covering postcode CV34!!!! Joy, have you tried booking an appointment posing as one of your regular customers ? Amongst other things we were promised that a new system was in place to ensure that repeat customers were always referred to the same advisor. It might be interesting to put this to the test. |
|
|
|
Post by blinder on Sept 3, 2006 17:29:24 GMT 1
I was told that apps were booked in rotation. For instance you have agents a, b and c . A gets first app, b gets second and so on.
|
|
|
|
Post by hereticus on Sept 3, 2006 17:58:35 GMT 1
I was told that apps were booked in rotation. For instance you have agents a, b and c . A gets first app, b gets second and so on. Sounds simple, but would you run a business like that ? Far too simplistic to work. Suppose that advisor 'A' has ten years experience, high conversion rate, high lead effect, good availability, and makes few mistakes / creates few problems, whilst advisor 'B' has a poor coversion rate, constant mismeasures, and has a reputation for not showing up for appointments and for being rude to customers - who would you favour when allocating leads ? Hillarys have always kept the criteria for lead allocation very closely guarded, but I can't believe that its as simple as taking turns. |
|
|
|
Post by grumperbear on Sept 3, 2006 18:53:02 GMT 1
Upset your fsm (or ask him to do something that he should already be doing), watch your leads disappear.
|
|
dolly
Full Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by dolly on Sept 3, 2006 19:13:40 GMT 1
[/quote]
Joy, have you tried booking an appointment posing as one of your regular customers ? Amongst other things we were promised that a new system was in place to ensure that repeat customers were always referred to the same advisor. It might be interesting to put this to the test.[/quote]
My experience from what previous customers have told me is that requesting via Hillarys another appt with me they have often been told no. One was told i had finished! I was only on my hols for a week!
Usually they find my number after or other advisors who i am friendly with pass on messages.
|
|
|
|
Post by desmorse on Sept 3, 2006 19:30:21 GMT 1
I was told that apps were booked in rotation. For instance you have agents a, b and c . A gets first app, b gets second and so on. Sounds simple, but would you run a business like that ? Far too simplistic to work. Suppose that advisor 'A' has ten years experience, high conversion rate, high lead effect, good availability, and makes few mistakes / creates few problems, whilst advisor 'B' has a poor coversion rate, constant mismeasures, and has a reputation for not showing up for appointments and for being rude to customers - who would you favour when allocating leads ? Hillarys have always kept the criteria for lead allocation very closely guarded, but I can't believe that its as simple as taking turns. FSMs can set priority for any particular advisor they wish. Typically, when a new advisor starts, they'll be given priority over everyone - regardless of time served, lead conversion/effect or anything else. It's done to kick start their agency, and get them up and running. Problem is, the effect on other advisors, especially when lead levels are low, and the priority isn't always taken off. I have a local guy who's been with us probably around 9 months now and is still on priority, as that's how Tony Boyd left us. Mike, I believe you've got the same FSM as me, Ray McLaughlin. I had 1 meeting with him during his training, and I believe Russel is meeting with him next week. Have to say I took a liking to him (and he's probably reading this) and if he achieves most of what he says he's out to achieve, we'll do very well under him. He says he has a different brief to other FSMs, but I'll let him explain that to you. He does seem to be a "namer and shamer" and I think we'll be seeing league tables for various KPIs. David Kent used to do the same when he ran Hants as an AOE. It was quite interesting to see the different figures achieved by different advisors in the same postcodes. Did you see the total sales figures for Hampshire in his recent email? 70% more than Oxfordshire and Berkshire combined.See, us Hampshire & IOW people are just the best ;D ;D ;D |
|
dolly
Full Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by dolly on Sept 3, 2006 19:35:01 GMT 1
Earlier in the year they had been trying to recruit in my area. To be fair to the FSM's they do try and weed out the potential timewasters even if that leaves them with nothing.
Despite this the newest advisor in the area hopefully has his days numbered. He has been booted out of 2 houses for being rude and unreliable not to mention sales appts that he hasnt turned up for. Drags the rest of us down into the mud with him. Not forgetting sorting out his mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by hereticus on Sept 3, 2006 20:09:37 GMT 1
Mike, I believe you've got the same FSM as me, Ray McLaughlin. I had 1 meeting with him during his training, and I believe Russel is meeting with him next week. Have to say I took a liking to him (and he's probably reading this) and if he achieves most of what he says he's out to achieve, we'll do very well under him. He says he has a different brief to other FSMs, but I'll let him explain that to you. He does seem to be a "namer and shamer" and I think we'll be seeing league tables for various KPIs. David Kent used to do the same when he ran Hants as an AOE. It was quite interesting to see the different figures achieved by different advisors in the same postcodes. Did you see the total sales figures for Hampshire in his recent email? 70% more than Oxfordshire and Berkshire combined.See, us Hampshire & IOW people are just the best ;D ;D ;D Des...yes, we are under the same new FSM and, from speaking to him on the phone (hopefully meeting soon) I have every expectation that we will get along fine. Also, a neighboroughing advisor has met him last week and the feedback is positive, so I'm hopeful for the future. However, I am just a little disappointed to learn from an advisor 100 miles away that the size of our local team is to be effectively doubled, without having had the chance to put a viewpoint. If extra advisors also means extra marketing creating more leads so that Oxfordshire can start kicking Hampshire's backside then I'm well and truly up for it, but it would be nice to know the strategy. Perhaps I should just restrain any further reaction until I've heard it from Ray - who knows, maybe its just what's needed. As for the figures you refer to, I did notice the turnover for Hampshire and was surprised, but that could be due to many factors. I'll back the best of our guys against the best of yours any time so if Ray decides to share individual performance figures we can really get some banter going - a little friendly rivalry will be good for us all. |
|
|
|
Post by desmorse on Sept 3, 2006 20:34:52 GMT 1
........... so that Oxfordshire can start kicking Hampshire's backside ............. ;D We weren't THE most successful AOE for nothing  But it's nice to see your positive side coming back - and Ray has already achieved his first objective - positive rivalry between advisors and areas  |
|
|
|
Post by russell on Sept 3, 2006 20:37:02 GMT 1
Mike, I believe you've got the same FSM as me, Ray McLaughlin. I had 1 meeting with him during his training, and I believe Russel is meeting with him next week. Have to say I took a liking to him (and he's probably reading this) and if he achieves most of what he says he's out to achieve, we'll do very well under him. He says he has a different brief to other FSMs, but I'll let him explain that to you. He does seem to be a "namer and shamer" and I think we'll be seeing league tables for various KPIs. David Kent used to do the same when he ran Hants as an AOE. It was quite interesting to see the different figures achieved by different advisors in the same postcodes. Did you see the total sales figures for Hampshire in his recent email? 70% more than Oxfordshire and Berkshire combined.See, us Hampshire & IOW people are just the best ;D ;D ;D Des...yes, we are under the same new FSM and, from speaking to him on the phone (hopefully meeting soon) I have every expectation that we will get along fine. Also, a neighboroughing advisor has met him last week and the feedback is positive, so I'm hopeful for the future. However, I am just a little disappointed to learn from an advisor 100 miles away that the size of our local team is to be effectively doubled, without having had the chance to put a viewpoint. If extra advisors also means extra marketing creating more leads so that Oxfordshire can start kicking Hampshire's backside then I'm well and truly up for it, but it would be nice to know the strategy. Perhaps I should just restrain any further reaction until I've heard it from Ray - who knows, maybe its just what's needed. As for the figures you refer to, I did notice the turnover for Hampshire and was surprised, but that could be due to many factors. I'll back the best of our guys against the best of yours any time so if Ray decides to share individual performance figures we can really get some banter going - a little friendly rivalry will be good for us all. Think you may lose that one too mike individual figures in hampshire are also on average much higher than elsewhere you will see at your next fsm meeting .Thats possibly why most ex hampshire fsms move on to bigger and better things with the exception of boydie he just moved on !!!!!!!1WE ARE THE A TEAM  |
|
|
|
Post by Augustus on Sept 4, 2006 0:19:56 GMT 1
Now the last thing I would want to do is suggest that one area is better than another, but clearly Leicestershire is the best P. |
|
|
|
Post by keenasmustard on Sept 4, 2006 7:39:24 GMT 1
I think what you guys should realize is that it doesn't matter to Hillary's how much you earned or are not earning today.
The old days when the most cost effective/good advisor's mattered are gone.
They are not interested in what your out-goings are they aren't paying them.
In reality they control everything, we control nothing,they can and do anything they want and they know it .I used to think we worked together now its turning into a one way street but with only one pavement and they are on it.
Leads go were they want no matter what your fsm says,post codes don't matter to them only us,and haven't since sam diary /m came in and this won't change.
|
|
|
|
Post by desmorse on Sept 4, 2006 14:22:36 GMT 1
Now the last thing I would want to do is suggest that one area is better than another, but clearly Leicestershire is the best P. Another deluded person. Just for your information, the sales figures for August week 3 were Oxfordshire £73,608  Berkshire £79,868  Hampshire £261,876 ;D Did Leicestershire make it in to 4 figures or 5?  |
|
