You sent the quote. They said they'd get back to you. That was five weeks ago.
You've probably told yourself they went with someone cheaper. Sometimes that's true. Mostly it isn't — they just didn't do anything at all, because nothing was forcing them to this month.
Here's the part that costs you money. That person is not a dead end. They're a customer with the wrong date on them.
Most of the people who could buy from you cannot buy today. Not because your offer is weak — because of where they sit in their own cycle. Only a slice of your market is in the market in any given month, and the rest are somewhere between "never thought about it" and "probably next year."
So the real question isn't how to get more leads. It's what happens to the ones who aren't ready. Right now, for most businesses, the honest answer is nothing — which means next month's buyers have to be found from scratch, and you pay to find them every single time.
Work out your own number rather than trusting anyone's. How often does a customer of yours genuinely need what you sell? Once every four years? Then roughly a quarter of your market is in play this year, and three-quarters of what you spend reaching them lands on people who can't act. That's not a reason to spend less. It's a reason to build somewhere for them to wait.
Today. Write down, in one sentence, what actually happens to a "not now" lead right now. If the answer is "I follow up when I remember," you've found the leak.
This week. Give them one thing that's useful whether or not they ever buy — a guide, a checklist, a check like the one you just took — and one date you'll be back. Put the date in your calendar, not your head.
This month. Sort your last fifty enquiries into three piles: doesn't know they need us · knows but not now · ready. If you can't do it, that's the finding — you can't route people you can't see.
Where this comes from. Chet Holmes set out the readiness split in his book The Ultimate Sales Machine:1 about 3% buying now, roughly 7% open to it, and the rest somewhere between not thinking about it and not interested. Worth knowing that those are twenty years of his own observation rather than a published study — which is exactly why the calculation above is yours and not his. The rigorous companion is Professor John Dawes of the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute at the University of South Australia, whose report Advertising effectiveness and the 95-5 rule2 derives in-market share from purchase cycle; Dawes says himself that the well-known figure "is not meant to be a precise rule. We're using it as a heuristic to get the idea across." Ryan Deiss's work at DigitalMarketer is where the discipline of naming an observable stage for every prospect comes from. And Dean Jackson's more cheese, less whiskers framing3 — lead with value, don't show the teeth — is a general posture rather than a follow-up rule, but it's the one that matters most inside a sequence: the failure is the email where the tone switches from gift to sales pitch, and the reader feels it immediately.
What the module adds, and where it actually is. The module builds the sequence — what the waiting offer is for your business, what gets sent when, and how to tell a stage from a guess. It isn't built yet. When it is, the price will be on the page and you'll be able to buy just this one. No call, no application.
When you've done the three things, take the check again. It's free and it always will be. The score moving is the only evidence either of us should trust.
References
-
Portfolio, 2007 — the tiers are in chapter four. A later revised edition, updated with Amanda Holmes, inverts the pyramid; that framing is hers rather than Chet's. ↩
-
Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, B2B report, May 2021. Frequently misattributed to the LinkedIn B2B Institute, which sponsored and popularised the work but did not publish it. ↩
-
From his podcast More Cheese Less Whiskers, which grew out of I Love Marketing with Joe Polish. ↩