Lead Marketplace System and Method with Ratings System

- Reply! Inc.

A lead marketplace system and method are provided. The lead marketplace system and method provides an auction for leads.

Skip to: Description  ·  Claims  · Patent History  ·  Patent History
Description
PRIORITY CLAIM/RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims priority under 35 USC 119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Serial Numbers 60/958,884 filed on Jul. 9, 2007 and entitled “System for Implementing an Open Auction Marketplace for Opt-in Consumer Leads, and 61/021,292 filed on Jan. 15, 2008 and entitled “Lead Marketplace System and Method”, both of which are incorporated herein by reference.

This application is also related to U.S. patent application Ser. Nos. ______ filed on and entitled “Lead Marketplace System and Method with Lead Auctions” and ______ filed on and entitled “Lead Marketplace System and Method with Ping Campaigns”.

FIELD

The system and method relate to a lead marketplace system and method that may be used for various different types of leads.

BACKGROUND

One of the many uses of the Internet is to connect customers who are contemplating a transaction with one or more service providers who want to compete for their business. A Lead consists of contact information and other information about a transaction that a customer is interested in, collected from a customer who has requested information about a possible transaction or has asked to be put in touch with a Service Provider. Leads are fungible products that are sold to one or more Service Providers (“Lead Buyers”). Leads are not purchase requests per se, rather they consist of the information necessary for a Service Provider to contact a customer in an effort to acquire the customer's business.

Today, it is difficult to efficiently price and distribute Leads as there is a great amount of variability amongst Lead Buyers in the value they place on a Lead based on local market factors, characteristics of the customer, time of month, and their current ability to service the business. In one market for Leads, there may be 100,000 Lead Buyers spread across the country. If a company that captures, or “Generates” Leads sets prices for the Leads, either on a per-Lead basis or through a subscription, this pricing will not reflect the value of each individual Lead to the buyer. The impact of this disparity between price and value to the buyer results in two things: 1) Leads that are overpriced that do not sell; and 2) Leads that are underpriced that sell at less than the optimal price. So, Lead Generators are faced with a situation where they generate no revenue from overpriced Leads while not generating as much money as they could from underpriced Leads.

Thus, it is desirable to provide a lead marketplace system and method that overcomes these problems of conventional systems and it is to this end that the system and method are directed.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a computer system Web-based implementation of a lead marketplace system;

FIG. 2 illustrates an example of a Lead Buyer campaign creation workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1;

FIG. 3 illustrates an example of a Lead Seller campaign creation workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1;

FIG. 4 illustrates an example of a lead upload workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1;

FIG. 5 illustrates an example of a lead auction workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1;

FIG. 6 illustrates an example of an auction workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1;

FIG. 7 illustrates an example of auction logic in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1;

FIG. 8 illustrates an example of an auctioneer process system function flow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1;

FIG. 9 illustrates an example of a lead rating workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1;

FIG. 10 illustrates an example of a buyer information workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1;

FIG. 11 illustrates an example of a seller information workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1;

FIG. 12 illustrates an example of a buying campaign management workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1; and

FIG. 13 illustrates an example of a selling campaign management workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1.

 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF ONE OR MORE EMBODIMENTS

The system and method are particularly applicable to a Web-based lead marketplace system and method and it is in this context that the system and method will be described. It will be appreciated, however, that the system and method has greater utility since it may be implemented in different manners, may be based on different architectures and is not limited to the particular types of leads described below. In particular, the lead marketplace system and method may be used to buy and sell various types of leads including leads for goods purchases or leads for services.

FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a computer system Web-based implementation of a lead marketplace (LMP) system 20. The lead marketplace system brings Lead Buyers (Lead Buyers) 22 and Lead Sellers (Lead Sellers) 24 together in a way that efficiently prices Leads so that they sell at the market-efficient price while minimizing the Lead Seller's operating costs. The Leads may include any type of leads including, but not limited to, consumer leads and business to business leads. The Lead Buyer and Lead Seller may be coupled to the LMP system over a link 26, such as the Internet or any other communications or computer network whether wired or wireless, to a LMP user interface unit 28, such as a server computer in one embodiment, that executes computer code to generate and provide the user interfaces to the Lead Buyer 22 and Lead Seller 22 who each access the LMP system 20 using a computing device that executes a browser application that displays Web pages to the Lead Buyer and the Lead Seller. Each computing device may be a processing unit based device with sufficient processing power, memory and connectivity to interact with the LMP system as described below wherein each computing device may be, for example, a personal computer, a laptop computer, a smart telephone, a terminal, a mobile phone, a wireless email device, etc.

A Lead is a set of information about a customer who may purchase a product or service wherein the Lead can be generated in various different manners. For example, a Lead (including consumer lead which is contact and transaction information that might lead to the acquisition of a customer for a product or service) may be a person who is looking for a plumber in the Reno, Nevada area to perform a particular task, a person looking for a mortgage of $500,000 with a 520 credit rating and living in Livermore, or a person who wants to purchase a new Mazda RX-8 in the Boston area who is willing to spend $X. Each of these is a different type of Lead and the LMP system can be used with any type of Lead.

A Lead Buyer is an entity (individual, corporation, etc) who is willing to pay a certain price for a quantity of a particular type of Lead for a particular good or service. Examples of Lead Buyers are a mortgage broker who is willing to pay for Leads for people looking for mortgages in a certain geographic area or a plumber who is willing to pay for Leads to people nationally who need to have their houses re-piped. Each Lead Buyer may have one or more buyer campaigns wherein each buyer campaign provides the parameters of the Leads desired (such as the types of the Leads, the number of Leads, time period for the Leads, the budget for the Leads over the time period, geographic area, etc.) that are of interest to the Lead Buyer. A Lead Seller is an entity (individual, corporation, etc.) who wants to sell a particular type of Lead for a particular good or service, such as a company that runs a mortgage advice Website and collects mortgage leads. Each Lead Seller may have one or more seller campaigns wherein each seller campaign provides a means of grouping and tracking particular Leads over time for the purpose of attributing Leads to the appropriate Lead Seller and tracking the quality of the Leads sold.

The LMP system 20 may further comprise an LMP lead unit 30, such as one or more server computers that execute computer code in one implementation, that accepts and stores new Leads, an LMP auction manager 36, such as one or more server computers that execute computer code in one implementation, that perform the auctioning process of the LMP system as described below in more detail. The LMP system may communicate with a seller lead unit 32, such as one or more server computers that execute computer code in one implementation, that interfaces with and stores third party Leads to be sold, a third party validation unit 34, such as one or more server computers that execute computer code in one implementation, that validates third party Leads, and a third party buyer ping unit 38, such as one or more server computers that execute computer code in one implementation, that implements a ping campaign as is described below in more detail. The LMP system 20 may further comprise a consumer rating unit 40, such as one or more server computers that execute computer code in one implementation, that provide a rating process of the LMP system as described in more detail below.

The LMP system 20 may further include one or more storage units, such as database tables in one implementation of the system that store data and are accessed by the various units of the system as described above. The system 20 may thus comprise a seller lead database 50 that stores third party seller Leads and interacts with the lead unit 30, a seller campaign table 52 that stores a plurality of Lead Seller campaigns for a plurality of Lead Sellers in the LMP system as described below and a seller account table 54 that stores account information about each seller in the LMP system. In one embodiment, the seller account table may include an Object ID field, Identification Fields, a Login field, a Password field, and Payment Information fields and the seller campaign table may include an Object ID field, a Seller ID field, a User Defined Name field, a Collection Method field and a Quality Rating field. The Lead Seller campaigns enable the Lead Sellers to track the performance of different variations of Leads generated using different methods.

The LMP system may further comprise a buyer campaign table 56 that stores a plurality of Lead Buyer campaigns for a plurality of Lead Buyers in the LMP system as described below and a lead type table 58 that stores the different types of Leads (such as mortgages, plumbers, autos, etc.) and the characteristics, or filters, for the different types of Leads (such as mortgage amount, property type and house location for the mortgage leads or house location and type of plumbing work for a plumbers leads, or automobile make and model for automobile leads). In one embodiment, the lead type table may include an Object ID field, a Name field, a Sharing Allowed field, and XML Schema (Field 1, Field 2, Field3 . . . ) fields, and the buyer campaign table may include an Object ID field, a Buyer ID field, a User Defined Name field, a Lead Type field, Location Fields, a Max Age field, a Min Quality field, Type-Specific Filter Fields, Bid Amount field and Sharing Level field(s), an Activity Status field, a Bid Type field, a Ping Type field and a Ping URL field.

The LMP system 20 may further include a Lead table 60 that interfaces with the LMP lead unit 30 and the LMP auction manager 36 and stores information about each Lead in the LMP system and a validating ratings table 62 that interfaces with the LMP lead unit 30 and stores information about the validating ratings of the Leads. In one embodiment, the Lead table may include an Object ID field, a Ping ID field, a Seller Campaign ID field, an Auction Thread ID field, a Lead Type field, Lead Contact Information fields, a Generated Timestamp field, an Actual Payout field and a Sold Timestamp field. The LMP system 20 may further comprise one or more lead auction threads 64 wherein a lead auction thread is created for each Lead as described below in more detail. The LMP system 20 may further comprise a buyer account table 66 that interfaces with the LMP auction manager 36 and stores information about each of the Lead Buyers in the LMP system and a lead leg sold table 68 that interfaces with the LMP auction manager 36 and stores information about the Leads that are sold in the LMP system to each individual Lead Buyer. In one embodiment, the buyer account table may include an Object ID field, Identification Fields, a Login field, a Password field and Billing Information fields, and the lead leg sold table may include an Object ID field, a Lead ID field, a Buyer Campaign ID field, a Lead Type field, Lead Contact Information fields, a Generated Timestamp field, a Price Paid field and a Bought Timestamp field.

In addition to the tables shown in FIG. 1, the LMP system 20 further may include a number of other tables including a lead ping table, a lead post table, a buyer campaign ping table, a budget table and a bid table. The lead ping table stores information about a ping (a conditional bid for a particular type of Lead that fits certain parameters) and may include an Object ID field, a Seller Campaign ID field, a Lead Type field, a Last Name field, a Phone Suffix field, a Zip Code field, Type-Specific Field Values fields, a Generated Timestamp field and a Minimum Payout field. The lead post table that stores information about a Lead that has been posted for sale by a Lead Seller and may include an Object ID field, a Ping ID field, a Seller Campaign ID field, a Lead Type field, Consumer Contact Information fields, XML Type-Specific Field Values, a Generated Timestamp field and a Posted Timestamp field. The buyer campaign ping table stores information about one or more ping campaigns (described below) for one or more Lead Buyers and may include an Object ID field, a Buyer Campaign ID field, a Lead Type field, a Last Name field, a Phone Suffix field, a Zip Code field, Type-Specific Field Values fields and a Generated Timestamp field. The budget table stores information about a budget for either a buyer campaign or a Lead Buyer account and may include an Object ID field, a Level field, a Level ID field, a Dollar Amount field, a Number of Leads field and a Timeframe field. The budget may specify the maximum number of Leads and/or the maximum amount of money to spend on Leads during one or more time periods and the budget may be associated with a particular buying campaign or with a particular Lead Buyer account. Because the balances of these budgets will change over time as the Budget timeframes expire or Lead Buyers modify the budget settings, the active auction approach enables these changes to be reflected in the auction outcome, potentially increasing the price paid for a Lead.

The bid table may store the bids from the plurality of Lead Buyers associated with the LMP system and may include an Object ID field, an Auction Thread ID field, a Campaign ID field, an Amount field, a Max Sharing field and Filters Matched fields.

The LMP system shown in FIG. 1 depicts Internet companies that collect, or “Generate” a wide variety of Leads to sell them to one or more Lead Buyers in an auction format. This auction format ensures that a volume of Leads from multiple Lead Sellers is priced and sold efficiently to maximize yield to the Lead Seller while giving control of the Lead purchase to the Lead Buyer. The system uses a unique method to match Leads with Lead Buyers, enabling the Lead Buyer to specify the location, type, characteristics, and quality of Leads they would like to purchase either through a standing order called a “Buying Campaign” or in real-time through a “Live Bidding” user interface. Thus, for a particular Lead sold through the LMP, both buying campaigns (pre-set by one or more Lead Buyers) as well as the live bidding (by the same Lead Buyers with the buying campaigns or other Lead Buyers) may occur so that each Lead is priced and sold efficiently. Thus, rather than simply selling the Lead based on information that is stored in the system, the LMP creates an Active Auction process that runs for a defined period of time and allows other means of participating in the auction. Like many auction-based systems the LMP determines to which Buyer to sell the Lead based on which Buyer or combination of Buyers that offers the highest price.

Each buying campaign is set up by a Lead Buyer (where each Lead Buyer can have one or more buying campaigns) and allows the Lead Buyer of that buying campaign to specify certain parameters that are used to identify Leads that are of interest to the particular Lead Buyer as well as selecting the method for entering the Lead Buyer's bid into each lead auction. For example, the buying campaign enables the Lead Buyer to: 1) specify the price and budgets for buying Leads in a “Fixed Buying Campaign”; and/or 2) provide instructions for the LMP system to make a server-to-server request for a price the Lead Buyer is willing to pay for each Lead that enters the system in a “Ping Buying Campaign”. This Ping Buying Campaign is useful since many Lead Buyers will have systems through which they will resell the Lead to another Buyer. Thus, the Ping Buying Campaign allows the Lead Buyer, through their servers, to receive a notification that a Lead matches the ping buying campaign parameters, to check for demand for the Lead in their system prior to committing to a price to pay to acquire the Lead, and then to provide a bid for the Lead in response to the notification.

The LMP system 20 enables the simultaneous pricing of a Lead to different numbers buyers who will “share” the Lead, and then the LMP system sells the lead to the group of buyers who generate the highest revenue for a Lead. The LMP associates a bid with each campaign, and each bid specifies a dollar amount and maximum number of other buyers to share the Lead with (the “Sharing Field”). There can be a plurality of bids associated with one buyer campaign, each with a different sharing level. To allow the sharing, Lead Buyers do not need to do anything other than specify how much they are willing to pay for a maximum level of sharing, and the system groups these bids together. The sharing fields above allow the LMP system to support multiple levels of sharing and multiple bids from a single Lead Buyer. For example, one embodiment of the invention might have a user interface that enables a Lead Buyer to create a buyer campaign that specifies a bid of $20 if there is no sharing, $17 if the Lead can be shared with one other buyer, $14 if the Lead can be shared with two other buyers, etc so that the LMP system can be set up to allow a Lead Buyer to enter different bid amounts for Leads to be shared amongst a maximum of 1, 3, 5, 6, or 10 Lead Buyers. The LMP system user interface dictates what values can be entered for sharing by an individual Lead Buyer, but the backend system will clear Leads to the group of Lead Buyers that generate the highest return based on any sharing value bid that is in the system. Depending on how the Lead Type is set up in the system (e.g., the amount of sharing that is allowed for the particular lead type, such as sharing with a maximum of two buyers for automobile leads or sharing with a maximum of 4 buyers with mortgages), the user interface controls what can be entered by the Lead Buyer. At any time, the LMP system provides complete flexibility in the number of buyers that can be grouped together and compared to determine the highest value group of buyers. In other words, the LMP system will process whatever sharing level has been saved in the system (theoretically every single sharing increment up to thousands is supported), supporting any user interface design for controlling the Lead Buyer input of bids for sharing levels.

Since many Lead Sellers have systems used to manage the Leads that they generate, the LMP system supports multiple methods for entering Leads into the system for Sale. As shown in FIG. 1, Lead Sellers can set up their HTML Web forms to be submitted to the LMP directly by the customer. In addition, Lead Sellers that collect Leads and save them on their own systems that can send the Leads to the LMP system in a server-to-server exchange called a Server Post. The LMP system also makes it easier for Lead Sellers to Post Leads to the system by allowing them to map the fields in their tables to the fields in the LMP system for each Lead Type. By so doing, the LMP system eliminates the need for the Lead Seller to make significant modifications to their data structures in order to sell their Leads.

Since Lead Sellers may have established relationships with multiple partners that buy Leads, the LMP allows Lead Sellers to make a server-to-server request for a payout quote prior to selling the Lead through the LMP. This type of price quote request is called a “Ping”, and it contains enough information about the Lead to enable the LMP to run an Active Auction on the Lead, without including enough information to enable the LMP to actually sell the Lead. If the Lead Seller system determined that the payout amount is acceptable, the system can then complete a Server Post of the Lead.

Different Lead Sellers use different techniques in generating Leads. As a result, the ease with which the resulting Lead can be turned into a customer varies from one Lead Seller to another. The measure of the ease with which a Lead can be converted to a customer is referred to as the “Quality” of the Lead. Differences in Quality affect the value of the Lead to the Lead Buyer. The LMP uses a unique combination of measures to establish a Quality Rating for each Lead entered into the system. The LMP has the ability to consider various factors to calculate a real-time Quality Rating for each Lead in the LMP such as: 1) the historical validation rate of the Seller Campaign that generated the Lead; 2) the historical validation reasons of Leads in the Seller Campaign that generated the Lead; 3) the reason for validation of the specific Lead being rated; 4) ratings submitted by Lead Buyers who previously purchased Leads from the Seller Campaign that generated the Lead; and (5) ratings submitted by Customers who provided the information to create Leads from the Seller Campaign that generated the Lead; and (6) a lead score or rating provided for the Lead based on an analysis of the specific information provided in the Lead and the application of demographic and behavioral models to that information. Rather than tie these Quality Ratings to the Lead Seller account directly, the LMP uses the Selling Campaign system object to enable one Lead Seller to deliver Leads of varying quality. Further details of the rating system and method is described below. Once a Lead is sold, the LMP creates “Lead Leg” records in the lead leg table for each of the Lead Buyers. These Lead Leg records are associated with the Lead, which is associated with the Selling Campaign, which is associated with the Seller Account. The Lead Buyer accesses his or her own Lead Leg in the LMP, and the Buyer Rating, entered by the Lead Buyer through the LMP Buyer user interface, is stored in the Lead Leg record. Now, the Lead Buyer campaign creation and Lead Seller campaign creation are described in more detail.

FIG. 2 illustrates an example of a Lead Buyer campaign creation workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1, and FIG. 3 illustrates an example of a Lead Seller campaign creation workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1. As shown in these figures, a Lead Buyer or Lead Seller can, using the link 26, access the LMP user interface unit 28 and create a new lead buying campaign that is stored in the buyer campaign table 56, the buyer campaign bid table 56 a and the buyer campaign budget table 56b, or create a new lead selling campaign that is stored in the seller campaign table 52, respectively. In one embodiment, the Lead Buyer or Lead Seller can access the LMP system using a typical Web browser application by entering the appropriate user identified and password. The LMP system presents the Lead Buyer with a series of pages that enable the Lead Buyer to specify (as shown in FIG. 2) the type of Lead to purchase, the location of the Lead, the characteristics of the Lead, the bidding method (fixed versus Ping), the bids (including the max sharing number and/or bid amount) and the Budgets in dollar amount and number of Leads for different timeframes. The LMP system presents the Lead Seller with a series of pages that enable them to specify the method they are using to capture Leads and associate the data with a seller account ID, a campaign ID as shown in FIG. 3.

Based on the Lead Type selected when creating a Buying Campaign, the Lead Buyer will be presented with the relevant lead characteristics that are associated with that type of Leads. For example, if the Lead Buyer is purchasing Plumbing Service Leads, he or she might be asked to specify the type of job requested and whether it is for emergency service. If the Lead Buyer is purchasing Mortgage Service Leads, he or she might be asked to specify the loan amount and type of home among other mortgage-related criteria. The LMP has a Lead Type Table that stores the appropriate data schema and selection values for each type of Lead.

FIG. 4 illustrates an example of a lead upload workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1. There are two main methods used by Lead Generators to enter, or “Post”, Leads into the LMP system including: 1) direct posting in the LMP system and 2) delivering Leads from the third party leads database. In the direct posting method, a customer on a computing device can access the an HTML Web page that collects the appropriate Lead information and performs an HTTP Post directly to the LMP (the LMP lead unit 30). The Lead Generators can create the form themselves or make a request to the LMP system to serve a Lead collection form to the customer for them. Alternatively, the Lead Generator can collect the Lead information themselves (using their own third party seller Web server 70 which is accessed by the customer over the link), and then the Lead Generator can store the information in their own database system. Once they have stored the Lead, the Lead Generator can use one of several methods to Post the Lead to the LMP system through a server-to-server connection, for example, through an HTTP POST or a Web Service. Prior to posting the Lead to the LMP system, the Lead Generator has the option to send a pricing request for the Lead called a “Ping” wherein the lead generator sends a limited amount of information about the Lead to the LMP to determine the payout they will receive for the Lead. Then, based on the response from the LMP, the Lead Generator can decide whether or not to Post the Lead to the LMP for sale.

FIG. 5 illustrates an example of a lead auction workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1. In addition, FIG. 6 illustrates an example of an auction workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1, FIG. 7 illustrates an example of auction logic in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 8 illustrates an example of an auctioneer system function flow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1.

The LMP system has an “Auctioneer” process that creates an auction process (“Auction Thread”) for each individual Lead Ping (a proposal to post a Lead if there is sufficient demand) or Post (a Lead for sale) received from a valid Seller Campaign. This Auction Thread 64 receives bids from the “Bid Manager”, “Budget Manager”, or “Campaign Manager” processes and identifies the set of Lead Buyers who will purchase the Lead, calculates the amount of money to be paid to the Lead Seller, and creates Lead Leg Sold records for each Lead Buyer. The Auction Thread is an individual process within the LMP Auction Manager subsystem that runs for a defined amount of time, which may be different for each Lead, accepting all bids for the Lead during the timeframe.

Rather than simply doing a database query of the Buyer Campaigns to determine the highest bidder or group of bidders and awarding the Lead based on the database query results, the LMP Auction first queries the Buyer Campaigns that match the characteristics of the Lead to get their bids for each level of sharing. There is a separate “Sharing Bid Thread” created for each level of sharing that has a bid in the system. Each of these individual Sharing Bid Threads manages the initial and subsequent bidding activity for the level of sharing for the Auction Thread.

The Auction Thread, through its Sharing Bid Threads allows Lead Buyers or Buyer Campaigns to place bids into the Auction Thread, where they are processed by the appropriate Sharing Bid thread and the Auction Thread. As changes to the Auction Thread occur, the Auction Thread sends out notifications to all Campaigns that are participating in the auction, letting them know the current status of the auction and allowing them to submit new bids.

The benefit of this approach is that in addition to including bids from Campaigns that qualify at the moment the Lead enters the LMP, the Auction Thread can accept qualifying bids that come into the system after the Lead has entered the LMP. For example, if a Buyer Campaign had a budget limit that had been exceeded when a Lead initially entered the LMP, but the Buyer increased the budget before the Auction Process ended, the Budget Manager within the LMP would be able to submit the bid to the Auction Thread. As another example, if a Lead Buyer added a new Buying Campaign or modifies an existing Buying Campaign so that it matches the characteristics of Leads with active Auction Threads, the Campaign Manager would apply the bids from these Campaigns to those active Auction Threads rather than waiting until a new Lead entered the system to apply the Campaign bid to a Lead.

In addition, this method of running the auction allows for “Ping Buying Campaigns”, where the Lead Buyer's bid is set through a server-to-server process. This method also allows for live bidding by Buyers for individual Leads with active Auction Threads. This active method of managing the auction of a Lead gives the system the flexibility to take advantage of the entire window of time over which a Lead can be sold to increase the number of bids that can be applied.

The system can be set up to use a different model from the Threaded “Listener” model described herein. The LMP system encompasses any system that creates a process that runs for a duration of time and can use a combination of 1.) Queries from static “Purchase Order” or “Bidding” objects that specify Lead characteristics, prices offered and budgets; 2.) Changes to the Purchase Order or Bidding objects that change their participation status in currently active auctions; 3.) Changes to the budget position of the buyer's account; 4.) server-to-server requests for a bid on a specific Lead; or 5.) Live bids entered into the system by Buyers as shown in FIG. 6.

FIG. 7 illustrates the auction logic when implemented in software using one or more objects and database tables. The auction logic may include an auctioneer object 100 for each auction thread and a bidder object 102 wherein the auctioneer object tracks the bidder threads for the particular auction thread and the bids offered by those bidders and can perform the functions of attaching (adding) a new bidder thread, detaching (removing) a bidder or changing the auction parameters or arguments. Each bidder thread object is associated with each bid level in existence in an auction and can perform the functions of update (when information about a bid at that level is updated), GetCampaigns to find qualifying seller campaigns that might have valid bids that might apply to the bidder thread, CalcPrice to calculate the aggregate price to be offered by the bidder thread for a particular auction, LogResults to store the results for the current auction for the bidder thread and PlaceBid to place a bid into the auction thread. The auction logic may also include an auction thread 104, a bidder thread 106 and a campaign agent 108. The auction thread item may be an object associated with a particular Lead that performs the functions of attach, detach or onchange and, when the auction is completed/closed, the auction thread item determines the winning bid(s), returns the results (or no coverage), returns the Buyer campaign identifier(s) and release budgets that were not associated with the winning bids. The bidder thread item 106 is associated with a particular auction thread item and can perform updates and place bids for a particular amount. The system function flow of a typical auction is shown in FIG. 8.

FIG. 9 illustrates an example of a lead rating workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1. The LMP system runs a Lead Rating subsystem to track the quality of Leads that are Posted under each Selling Campaign. There is a current rating, associated with each Selling Campaign (“Campaign Rating”), that contributes to or, in some cases, determines the Quality Rating for a specific Lead that is Pinged or Posted as part of the Selling Campaign. The Campaign Rating serves as an initial rating that can be enhanced based on an analysis of the specific information provided in the Lead to generate the actual Quality Rating. The Quality Rating value is calculated as shown in FIG. 9. As shown in FIG. 9, the Quality Rating value may be generated based on any of one or more factors as described in more detail below. In the example shown in FIG. 9, the Quality Rating value is determined based on third party validation rules, Lead Buyer ratings and consumer ratings. The LMP Lead Rating subsystem performs an algorithm to calculate the Campaign Rating, which is the weighted average rating of Leads that have been sold associated with each Selling Campaign. The Campaign Rating is sent through the Auctioneer Thread to the Auction Thread when a Lead is auctioned, enabling the LMP to allow Buyers to specify the minimum quality rating of Leads they would like to buy. Once the Lead has been acquired on behalf of a Lead Buyer, the LMP may evaluate the specific information included in the Lead for the purposes of enhancing the Quality Rating before distribution to the Lead Buyer.

FIG. 10 illustrates an example of a buyer information workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 11 illustrates an example of a seller information workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1. These diagrams show the workflow for a buyer to enter information into the LMP system and the workflow for the seller to enter information into the LMP system, respectively.

FIG. 12 illustrates an example of a buying campaign management workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1 and FIG. 13 illustrates an example of a selling campaign management workflow implemented in the lead marketplace system shown in FIG. 1.

Thus, a lead marketplace system and method are provided that include a storage system that stores a plurality of Leads wherein each Lead is electronic contact and transactional information that provides someone with an opportunity to sell a good or service to a prospective customer and a Lead Seller unit that stores one or more selling campaigns for one or more Lead Sellers, each selling campaign enabling the association of one or more Leads to be sold in the lead marketplace system and a Lead Buyer unit that stores one or more buying campaigns for one or more Lead Buyers, each buying campaign including one or more parameters specifying the characteristics of Leads to be bought by the Lead Buyer associated with the buying campaign. Each buying campaign has one or more bids associated with the buying campaign wherein each bid specifies the amount offered by the Lead Buyer for a specific level of sharing. The buying campaign also has one or more budgets associated with each buying campaign wherein each budget specifies a maximum dollar amount to spend and/or the maximum number of Leads to purchase in a specified timeframe. The lead marketplace system and method also has an auction manager that performs a time period limited auction for each Lead entered into the system for sale by a Lead Seller to one or more Lead Buyers and the auction manager has a lead auction thread for each Lead that sets a time period for an auction of each Lead associated with the selling campaign, that accepts bids from the one or more Lead Buyers through several means, and that sells Leads associated with the selling campaign to the group of Lead Buyers that generates the greatest amount of money. The lead marketplace system and method also has a budget manager that ensures that individual Lead Buyers or individual buying campaigns do not have their bids applied to lead auctions if so doing would risk exceeding one or more budget rules entered by the Lead Buyer, a campaigns manager that submits bids associated with each buying campaign to each relevant Lead being sold, and a bids manager that submits bids stored in buying campaigns, submitted in association with a buying campaign by a third-party system, or entered directly through a computing device by a Lead buyer.

The lead auction thread of the lead marketplace system and method may also receive bids from one or more buying campaigns and receive live bids from one or more Lead Buyers. The one or more bids associated with each buying campaign may have a sharing parameter that specifies a level of sharing the Leads being sought in the buying campaign, with or without a system limit on the numerical sharing level that can be assigned to the bid. The one or more bids of each buying campaign may also specify a bid price representing the amount of money the Lead Buyer is willing to spend. Alternatively, the bid price can be requested at the time of the auction of an individual Lead through a process termed a “Ping” in which a server-to-server request is sent to a computer device under the Lead Buyer's control, such request including information about the location and type of the Lead, and a response is sent back to the system with a dollar amount the Lead Buyer is willing to bid. The response in the “Ping” may also include the sharing level of the bid returned. The response in the “Ping” also may include multiple bids, each bid with a different sharing level specified. In the lead marketplace system and method, a process in the system receives the “Ping” response and places the bid into the appropriate sharing level thread.

The one or more budgets in the lead marketplace system and method may be associated with each buying campaign or each Lead Buyer account and the budgets include a maximum monetary amount and/or a maximum number of Leads, for the Leads to be bought within a specified timeframe. The selling campaign unit may include a mapping unit that associates fields in a third party Lead into fields in the storage system of the lead marketplace system and method.

In the lead marketplace system and method, the Lead Auction unit creates an individual auction process for each Lead that is submitted to the system with a defined start and stop time during which bids from one or more buyers are evaluated to determine how to sell the Lead. Each individual auction process creates one or more sharing bid threads to accept bids for different levels of sharing, such sharing bid threads to be used to create and update an aggregate bid amount for the particular level of sharing to be compared against the aggregate bid amounts of the other sharing levels in determining how to sell the Lead. The multiple auction processes can enter bids on behalf of a Lead Buyer into one or more active sharing bid threads and the bids are included in a determination of how to sell the Lead. The multiple auction processes are able to enter bids on behalf of a campaign manager that accepts changes to buying campaigns, a budget manager that monitors changes to budgets based on time passing or other buying campaign activity, or a bid manager that accepts live bids from Lead Buyers through a user interface device.

In the lead marketplace system and method, the selling campaigns are assigned a current rating value by the system, such rating value being calculated through a combination of data collected from results of a comparison of Lead information to a customer information database and the rating values assigned to the Lead by the Lead Buyers. The current rating value associated with a selling campaign is inherited by each Lead as it is entered into the system for auction and sale, such rating then being used for the purpose of determining which buying campaigns qualify for bidding on the Lead. The initial rating may be enhanced through the analysis of the information contained in the Lead after the acquisition of the Lead by the LMP.

QUALITY RATING SCORE DETAILS

In one embodiment, the ratings described above may be known as a Quality Rating Score (“QRS”) and reflect the relative quality of a Lead based on the historical performance of the Leads generated from a seller campaign that is the source of the Lead as well as an analysis of the specific information included in the Lead. As described above, in one embodiment, the QRS may include three Quality Factors (“QF”) and is able to accommodate new QF inputs.

In the rating system, each QF may receive a weighting that in aggregate with the other QFs will equal 100. For example, the validation rate would receive a 25 point weight, the validation rules would receive a 25 point weight, and the lead buyer survey would by definition receive a 50 point weight. In that case, the score from the lead buyer survey would account for half of the potential QRS. The number of points assigned to a particular QF is called the Potential Quality Score (“PQS”). In the rating system, the specific weight assigned to each QF is adjustable between 0 and 100 so that, for example, the relative weighting of the QFs can be changed based on the market feedback regarding the usefulness and accuracy of particular QFs.

In one embodiment, the overall QRS will be associated with a 5-star rating system that is displayed to all buyers and sellers of Leads in the LMP system user interface. The relationship between the QRS and the star rating system can be adjustable so that, for example, the relationship between the QRS and the star ratings could be changed at any time. If a new Lead is being presented by a lead seller that does not have any history with the LMP system, the ratings system may assign a default value to the lead rating that may be, for example, four stars that would attach to all Leads generated by the Seller Campaign until appropriate history was established. Now, each quality factor (QF) that is part of the QRS is described in more detail.

QUALTIY FACTORS

The QRS of the ratings system may be made up of one or more quality factors that may include: historical validation rates, historical validation reasons, Lead-specific validation reason, lead buyer surveys, consumer surveys and lead-specific scoring. In one embodiment, as described above, the QRS may be calculated based on the validation rate, the validation reasons and the Lead Buyer surveys.

The LMP system may allow each of these QFs to be reset by an authorized representative so that certain data may be purged from the history that affects the QRS inappropriately. For example, the validation rate might be exceptionally low as a result of a technical problem that causes the data to be passed incorrectly for period of time, therefore causing the rejection of a high percentage of Leads. The system can thus reset that Validation Rate QF's history to eliminate the influence of that past data.

VALIDATION RATE DETAILS

The validation rate is provided by a third-party lead validation service for the Leads submitted through the Selling Campaign and the validation rate may be determined by the validation percentage reported on all Leads in the selling campaign for the past period of time, such as 90 days. In more detail, each Lead provided by an selling campaign will be validated by a third-party lead validation service immediately after the identification of an appropriate Lead Buyer(s) for a Lead and before distribution of the Lead to the Lead Buyer(s). If the Lead is validated, it will be sent to the buyer. If the Lead is invalidated, it will not be sent to the buyer and instead would be rejected on post (if a ping post relationship) or left unmonetized if a post only relationship. The validation rate will be tracked and reported by selling campaign and presented to sellers of Leads in a format that will allow the seller to check validation rate within date ranges specified by the seller. In addition, the 90-day rolling average validation rate will be presented on the selling campaign dashboard. The validation rate is determined by dividing the number of Leads validated by the third-party lead validation service by the number of Leads on which validation was attempted.

The LMP system may provide an interface that would allow for the validation rate to be tied to a specific score on the 100 point scale. For example, the following scale may be established:

    • <30% validation=10 points
    • 30-50% validation=25 points
    • 50-64% validation=40 points
    • 65-79% validation=65 points
    • >80% validation=100 points

VALIDATION REASONS DETAIL

The validation reasons are provided by a third-party lead validation service for the Leads submitted through the Selling Campaign and this score may be determined by calculating the average score assigned to all Leads in the Selling Campaign for the past period of time, such as 90 days. In more detail, each lead provided by an Selling Campaign will be validated by a third-party lead validation service immediately after identification of an appropriate Lead Buyer(s) for a Lead and before distribution of the Lead to the Lead Buyer(s). If the Lead is validated, it will be validated based on a specific reason. Each reason will be assigned a score based on our analysis of historical close ratio data that is tied back to the reasons. The system may provide an interface that would allow one to define what validation reason ties out to what score on the 100 point scale.

LEAD BUYER SURVEY DETAILS

The Lead Buyer surveys may be submitted by the relevant service providers who purchased the Leads in the LMP. The Lead Buyer survey would measure the relative quality of the leads as perceived by the buyers of the Leads. In more detail, the Lead Buyer surveys may be available to a Lead Buyer in two ways: (1) a “rate this lead” icon/link will be included in every lead delivery email and will link to a web page on the LMP that allows for the completion of the survey, and (2) a “rate this lead” icon will persist on the Lead Buyer's dashboard both where all leads are listed and in the details of a particular lead.

Once a Lead has been rated, the “rate this lead” icon will be replaced by the actual lead score. To the extent possible (but not a critical development requirement at launch), the Lead Buyer should have the capacity to edit the rating for a particular lead as they get more information about that Lead over time.

In one embodiment, the LMP system may require that a selling campaign has a predetermined number, such as thirty, completed surveys before the Lead Buyer survey score will be considered as part of the overall rating. The number of completed surveys can be adjustable.

The Lead Buyer surveys will request that the Lead Buyer score each Lead based on a 5-star rating system (through radio button interface). The survey interface will describe what each star level means in simple language. As an example, the definitions could be the following for a new car purchase lead:

    • 1 Star: The contact information was not correct (disconnected number, fax machine, etc.)
    • 2 Stars: I was able to contact the lead, but they were not interested in talking with me about the purchase of a new car.
    • 3 Stars: I was able to contact the lead and they were open to talking with me with me about the purchase of a new car.
    • 4 Stars: I was able to contact the lead and they were looking to purchase a new car at some point in the future.
    • 5 Stars: I was able to contact the lead and they were looking to purchase a new car in the next 30 days.

The star rating may then be translated into the following scores:

Star Rating Score 1 0 2 10 3 30 4 60 5 100

The total Lead Buyer score will be determined by averaging the results for all Lead Buyer surveys received within the past 90 days. The system will round up to the higher star rating if the average is above the 0.5 of the previous rating level. For example, an average 2.8 star rating would round to the 3 star rating and receive 30 points.

The rating system may enable an authorized personnel to view the ratings information for the selling campaign and for each individual Lead (including each lead leg rating) in the system. Ideally, the admin interface would enable the authorized Reply employee to “turn off” buyers from being included in the rating process. The buyer would still be able to rate Leads, but their ratings would not be used for the rating calculation of the selling campaign.

CONSUMER SURVEY DETAILS

The consumer surveys may be submitted by consumers provided to the LMP through the selling campaign. This survey would measure the accuracy of the contact information and the level of consumer intent. In more detail, the consumer surveys may be sent to a subset of consumers whose contact information is sold through the LMP. This percentage of consumers that receive the survey would depend on the number of Leads provided by an selling campaign. To the extent that an selling campaign has significant lead flow, the system can rely on a sample of the consumers (bases on statistical analysis) that will tell the system how many data points are needed to generate a relevant sample size. In one embodiment, the system may require a predetermined number, such as 10, surveys to be completed before the consumer survey score will be considered as part of the overall rating.

In one embodiment, the consumer surveys may ask the following four questions and elicit a yes or no answer (through radio button interface):

    • 1. Did you complete a form requesting [category] information?
    • 2. Is the contact information below accurate? [Display submitted contact information on the form.]
    • 3. Do you intend to purchase/sell a [category-specific]?
    • 4. When you completed the form, did you want to be contacted by a [type of service provider]?

The score from the consumer survey will be based on the responses to the above four questions. Assuming a 100 point scale, the lead would receive the following score under the following circumstances:

    • No to all questions. Score=0.
    • Yes, then three No. Score=10.
    • Yes to #1 and #2, but No to #3 and #4. Score=30.
    • Yes to #1, #2, and #3, but No to #4. Score=60.
    • Yes to all four questions. Score=100.

In addition to the survey results, the response rate from consumers will also be considered in determining the final consumer survey score. We will determine a baseline response rate that we expect as the “average” response rate and give a 25% improvement in the score for all selling campaigns that respond at least 25% better than average and 25% reduction in the score for all selling campaigns that respond at least 25% less than average.

LEAD SCORE DETAILS

The lead score may be provided by a third-party lead scoring service for the Leads submitted through the Selling Campaign. The Lead score may be determined by the analysis of the information provided by the Lead and the application of demographic and behavioral modeling to the information provided by the Lead. The lead score may be determined specifically for the Lead or by calculating the average score assigned to all leads in the Selling Campaign for the past 90 days.

WEIGHTING DETAILS

In one embodiment, the rating system may assign a 40% weight to Validation Rate, a 40% weight to Validation Reasons, and a 20% weight to the Lead Buyer Surveys. If there are less than thirty Lead Buyer Surveys for a particular selling campaign, then the Lead Buyer Surveys receive no weight and Validation Rate and Validation Reasons are equally weighted factors (50-50%).

Prior to having any data on validation rates, each selling campaign will start with a 4-Star rating that will be adjusted over time as data is collected. The Validation Rate QF and Validation Reason QF will be triggered once there have been a certain number of valid leads (changeable within the system) from an selling campaign, at which point the calculation described below will determine the applicable QRS for the selling campaign. In one embodiment, the number of valid leads to trigger those two QFs will be 30.

FIVE STAR RATING DETAILS

In one embodiment, the five star rating system may be:

Star Rating QRS 1  0-19 2 20-39 3 40-59 4 60-79 5  80-100

The QRS may be determined in the following way:

1. Determine which QF is applicable based on minimum requirements (i.e. Leads or surveys) being met to trigger the QF.

2. Determine the relative weighting of the applicable QFs based on the QF weighting in place for the system at the time. For example, if the Validation Rate QF and the Validation Reason QF are both applicable, but the Lead Buyer QF is not applicable, then the Validation Rate QF and Validation Reason QF would both get a weight of 50% (since both had a 40% weight if Lead Buyer QF included).

3. Multiply the percentage weight by the total points for each QF to get a Weighted QF Score. For example, if the validation rate was 62%, which translates to a score of 40 points, then the Weighted QF Score would be 20 points (scoring*weight or 40*50%=20 points).

4. Sum the Weighted QF Scores for all applicable QFs, which calculate the QRS.

5. Translate the QRS into a Star Rating based on the scale above.

EXAMPLES OF THE RATINGS

To illustrate the rating system, three example scenarios are provided below. These example scenarios are only examples.

Scenario #1

An selling campaign has the minimum number of valid Leads to trigger the validation rate and validation rule QFs, but not enough to trigger the lead buyer survey QF. Thus, the total QRS will be determined by Validation Rate and Validation Reason, which will be weighted 50-50%. Assume that the Validation Rate is 68% (which translated into a score of 65 points) and the Validation Reason score is 82. The Validation Rate Weighted QF Score is 32.5 (65*50%). The Validation Reason Weighted QF Score is 41 (82*50%). The applicable QRS is 73.5, which translates into a Four Star lead.

Scenario #2

An selling campaign has the minimum number of valid leads to trigger the validation rate and validation rule QFs and the minimum number lead buyer surveys to trigger the lead buyer survey QF. Thus, the 40-40-20% weighting above would apply. Assume that the Validation Rate is 48% (which translated into a score of 25 points), the Validation Reason score is 70, and the Lead Buyer Survey is 3.4 (which for purposes of the system is a 3 Star average). The Validation Rate Weighted QF Score is 10 (25*40%). The Validation Reason Weighted QF Score is 28 (70*40%). The Lead Buyer Survey Weighted QF Score is 6 (30*0.2). The applicable QRS is 44, which translates into a Three Star lead.

Scenario #3

An selling campaign has the minimum number of valid leads to trigger the validation rate and validation rule QFs and the minimum number lead buyer surveys to trigger the lead buyer survey QF. Thus, the 40-40-20% weighting above would apply. Assume that the Validation Rate is 35% (which translated into a score of 25 points), the Validation Reason score is 57, and the Lead Buyer Survey is 2.2 (which for purposes of the system is a 2 Star average). The Validation Rate Weighted QF Score is 10 (25*40%). The Validation Reason Weighted QF Score is 23 (57*40%). The Lead Buyer Survey Weighted QF Score is 2 (10*0.2). The applicable QRS is 35, which translates into a Two Star lead.

While the foregoing has been with reference to a particular embodiment of the invention, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that changes in this embodiment may be made without departing from the principles and spirit of the invention, the scope of which is defined by the appended claims.

Claims

1. A lead marketplace system, comprising:

a storage system that stores a plurality of leads wherein each lead is an electronic contact and transactional information that provides an opportunity to sell a good or service to a prospective customer;
a Lead Seller unit that stores one or more selling campaigns for one or more Lead Sellers, each selling campaign enabling the association of one or more leads to be sold in the lead marketplace system;
a Lead Buyer unit that stores one or more buying campaigns for one or more Lead Buyers, each buying campaign including one or more parameters specifying the characteristics of leads to be bought by the Lead Buyer associated with the buying campaign; and
a rating unit that provides a quality rating for each lead stored in the storage system.

2. The system of claim 1, wherein a new lead in the system associated with a particular selling campaign inherits the quality rating of the particular selling campaign.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the rating unit further comprises a quality rating generating unit that generates a quality rating for a new lead associated with a new selling campaign based on one or more quality factors.

4. The system of claim 1, wherein the rating unit further comprises a quality rating generating unit that generates a quality rating for a new lead based on one or more quality factors associated with the new lead.

5. The system of claim 4, wherein the one or more quality factors further comprise a survey provided by a Lead Buyer, a validation rate of the lead from a third party validation system and a validation reason score of the lead from a third party validation system.

6. The system of claim 5, wherein the one or more quality factors further comprise a consumer survey and a lead score.

7. The system of claim 1, wherein a new lead in the system receives a quality rating based on one or more lead specific factors.

8. The system of claim 1, wherein the rating unit generate a star rating value based on the quality rating.

9. The system of claim 8, wherein the rating unit provides a default star rating to a new lead.

10. The system of claim 3, wherein the one or more quality factors are weighted to generate the quality rating for the new lead.

11. A method for rating a lead in a lead marketplace system based on one or more quality factors associated with the lead, the method comprising:

determining, for each quality factor associated with the lead, if each quality factor for the lead has been triggered;
determining a weight for each quality factor that has been triggered for the lead;
calculating a quality factor score for each triggered quality factor based on the weight for each triggered quality factor;
combining the quality factor scores for all of the triggered quality factors; and
generating a rating for the lead based on the combined quality factor scores.

12. The method of claim 11, wherein generating the rating further comprises generating a star rating.

13. The method of claim 12 further comprising displaying the generated star rating for the lead in a lead marketplace system.

14. The method of claim 11, wherein calculating the quality factor score for each triggered quality factor further comprises multiplying the weight for each triggered quality factor by a score for the triggered quality factor.

15. The method of claim 11, wherein each quality factor is periodically reset.

15. The method of claim 11, wherein the quality factor further comprises a consumer survey and wherein determining if the consumer survey has been triggered further comprises determining if at least a predetermined number of surveys have been completed for the consumer lead before triggering the consumer survey quality factor.

Patent History
Publication number: 20090018894
Type: Application
Filed: Apr 2, 2008
Publication Date: Jan 15, 2009
Applicant: Reply! Inc. (San Ramon, CA)
Inventors: Payam Zamani (Danville, CA), Sean Fox (San Caros, CA)
Application Number: 12/061,618
Classifications
Current U.S. Class: 705/10
International Classification: G06Q 99/00 (20060101);