SALESCRM AI

← THE HUNT BOARD·LEAD RESPONSE·5 MIN

The five-minute rule: what lead-response research says about speed

MIT/Oldroyd found calling a lead within five minutes gives ~100x the contact odds of waiting thirty; HBR found first-hour responders 7x likelier to qualify. B2B-wide studies, honestly labelled — and what a first-touch policy changes for a forwarding desk.

ANSWER

The research is blunt. The MIT/Oldroyd lead-response study found that calling a web lead within 5 minutes gives roughly 100× the odds of making contact versus waiting 30 minutes — and 21× the odds of qualifying the lead. Harvard Business Review’s 2011 audit found firms responding within an hour were 7× more likely to qualify the lead than those an hour slower. These are B2B-wide studies, not forwarding-specific — but the direction is unambiguous, and it makes response speed a policy decision. Most forwarders don’t have a policy.

What did the studies actually measure?

The Oldroyd study (MIT-affiliated research on web-generated leads) measured how contact and qualification odds decay with response time: at five minutes, contact odds are about 100× what they are at thirty; qualification odds about 21×. HBR’s 2011 follow-up audited real companies’ response behaviour and found the first-hour responders 7× likelier to qualify the lead than those who waited even one hour more. The decay isn’t linear — it’s a cliff, and the cliff edge is minutes wide.

Do these numbers transfer to freight forwarding?

Honest answer: nobody has replicated them on forwarding RFQs, and we won’t pretend otherwise — treat the multipliers as B2B-wide evidence, not forwarding gospel. But the mechanism transfers cleanly. An RFQ is a shipper with cargo to move, usually pricing several forwarders at once; the first substantive response frames the conversation every later one is compared against. And the industry’s baseline is dismal — Freightos’ mystery shopper found 60% of quote requests were never quoted at all (see the follow-up post). Against that field, speed isn’t an edge. It’s a category difference.

STATS WE REFUSE TO CITE

You’ve seen “80% of sales take five follow-ups” and “78% of buyers choose the first responder.” We don’t use either: the first has an attribution that has never been verified, the second has weak provenance. If a number can’t survive sourcing, it doesn’t go on the board.

What does “first touch within N days” change as a policy?

Everything, because it converts intention into a state. The Focus Engine’s cadence policy includes a first-touch window — set by you, in days — and every lead that enters the pipeline starts that clock. An inbound RFQ email becomes a lead automatically, owner assigned, before any human reads it; from that second it sits in the queue as never contacted, and the board surfaces it until someone makes the touch. No score, no mystery — a rule you wrote, enforced in public.

What should the window actually be?

Yours to set — that’s the point of a rule-based engine. The research argues for treating inbound RFQs in minutes and working cold-list accounts in days; what matters is that the number is written down, visible, and enforced by the queue rather than by memory. See the first-touch clock running on how it works, put your own response times into the calculator, or start from the complete guide.

salescrm-ai · hunt board

From reading to hunting.

Everything on this page runs live on a working board — queue, cadence, quotes, wallet share. Bring your pipeline and watch Monday morning rank itself.

Book the working session