s11s

I frankly can’t think of anything that favours behaviour #2 since the actual conversion is the form submission. There’s a good chance that leads may not even interact with the thank you email leading to a mismatch in reported and actual numbers

*<@U02UUCE1ASD>* *<@U02USELSBRT> any thoughts?*

Ofcourse there is a lot of merit in #2. I would argue that why do you need to pick between #1 and #2? Why not do both! best teams do both. #1 will get you all emails but #2 will get you all verified emails. A list of #1-#2 can be put on a nurture till they verify their emails as well, making your DB stronger.

I have tried #2 in the past. As <@U034WGLASMA> said a lot of folks (unless they have an urgent need - think doc consultation, order confirmation etc) will ignore their mail. (we had open rates of 32% - which meant 68% ignored the email). Click rate was 20 odd percent so which meant a very small funnel (corollary you get the most active demand capture because these folks have taken the effort to connect)

Also like you rightly pointed out, you will need to measure differently (definition changes)

I would not think of #2 as a different approach but as a subset of #1. So you get all emails and then you ask them to do #2 - for those that do you capture the most active demand and for the rest nurutre and push down the sales funnel

The  approach in general makes a lot of sense - My issues is with the changing definition of Leads. Is it not better to stick with the standard method to track Leads and use this approach to score them?

For me this approach only make sense if you are having a lead volume - which will need the biz to scale their 5-10x of your sales team to cater to demand and you are almost certain with a high degree of confidence that over 50% of leads would not make the cut.

Lead definition doesn't change. All people who fill the form are leads. People who verify their emails have a field, lead status = verified.

The place where i saw #2 - they were firing Lead only on email - click