The Warm Lead scorecard produced the lowest average in the dataset and carries nearly half of recent volume. After reading the calls, we don't believe the number reflects your agents. It reflects a mismatch between what the scorecard measures and who is actually calling.
The Warm Lead scorecard is designed for a returning prospect who needs to be re-engaged: verify what changed since you last spoke, re-confirm budget and move-in, re-pitch availability, create urgency to apply. Eight of its twenty questions (40 of 100 points) assume that scenario.
We read a random sample of 20 Warm Lead calls. Only 3 were prospects in a sales conversation. Eleven were applicants already converting who called with a blocker: a login code that didn't arrive, a guarantor form that went to the wrong person, which lease term to select, whether a fee could be waived, a lease that was approved but never emailed. The right agent behavior on those calls is to remove the blocker quickly and confirm the next step. The scorecard asks whether they re-verified budget and created urgency.
The remaining 6 were calls from incoming or current residents and their parents (a signed lease awaiting move-in, a renewal question, a lease takeover). In conventional multifamily those calls sound nothing like leasing calls. In student housing they use the same vocabulary, which is why Preiss needs call-type definitions written for student housing rather than the standard defaults.
Together these are worth 40 points. Agents earn of them on average, and of calls earn zero across all eight. These rates are not an agent problem; they describe a behavior that doesn't apply to most of these calls.
Opening, selling, delivery, and closing. On these, Warm Lead agents perform almost exactly like they do on Cold Lead calls: strong basics, weak proactive selling. Rescaled to 100, this is the shown above.
All 20 questions as currently graded.
Preiss's "warm" population is dominated by people who have already decided and need help finishing. Grade the behaviors that matter on that call.
Draft for discussion. Weights to be finalized with Preiss.
| # | Behavior |
|---|---|
| 1 | Branded greeting and self-introduction |
| 2 | Obtained the caller's name and located their record |
| 3 | Confirmed understanding of the issue before acting |
| 4 | Set a time expectation before any hold and checked in |
| 5 | Resolved the blocker on the call, or stated a specific owner and timeframe |
| 6 | Confirmed lease term, pricing, and move-in date against the record |
| 7 | Asked about roommates or roommate matching where relevant |
| 8 | Explained the next step in the leasing process |
| 9 | Created appropriate urgency where a deadline or incentive applies |
| 10 | Enthusiastic, reassuring tone |
| 11 | Asked if there was anything else and closed professionally |
Genuine re-engagement calls still exist (a prospect who toured last week, a caller comparing next year's pricing). They are a minority of this bucket, and they can continue to be graded on a Warm Lead scorecard once the call types are defined for Preiss. Our proposed definitions:
Until the new scorecard is live, we recommend reporting Warm Lead to agents as "under review" rather than publishing the current number.
The transcript review surfaced two coachable patterns that will carry over to any scorecard.
Multi-minute holds were common: two to four minutes with no check-in while an agent found a manager or looked something up, and in one case a caller was never picked back up. No agent set a time expectation before placing the hold. Recommend: "This will take about two minutes, is that okay?" and a check-in at the two-minute mark. This is the one behavior that showed up across all three scorecards.
Agents were patient with confused parents and guarantors, located records quickly, resolved the issue on the call or committed to a specific follow-up, and were uniformly polite. Objections were addressed with clear answers on 73% of calls and next steps were explained on 56%. These are the behaviors the proposed scorecard would reward.
Shown for completeness. The shape is a product of the scorecard mismatch described above.