Social Security Disability (SSD) Lead Package Recommendations

In recent years, internet lead generation has had a major impact on how businesses get in contact with their clients. As more and more people turn to the internet to seek out products and services, taking advantage of the internet’s ability to instantly connect businesses with consumers becomes increasingly critical. Rather than look something up in the Yellow Pages or the local newspaper, it has become more common for individuals to utilize their favorite search engine, e.g. Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc., to find a good restaurant for dinner, someone to paint their house, or someone to fix their car.

Just as someone in need of a mechanic to repair their car’s radiator may go to Google and search 'car repair in (city)', more and more people across the United States are looking to get in touch with a disability attorney or advocate by searching for 'social security attorney in (city)'. Disability attorneys and advocates across the country have become increasingly savvy in getting connected with these potential claimants who are seeking assistance with their claim by using lead generation services such as eGenerationMarketing.

eGenerationMarketing

What separates eGenerationMarketing from other lead providers is our ability to customize almost every aspect of our client’s campaigns to help ensure that they receive the best return on investment (ROI) possible with our service.

Knowledge is Power

When trying to figure out what would be the best lead package for a particular attorney, it is crucial to capture the following information in order to make as informed of a recommendation as possible:

  • What are your ultimate goals for your practice?
  • Do you handle children’s cases? SSI?
  • What is your current strategy for obtaining new SSD cases?
  • Have you ever utilized internet lead generation before?
  • Will you be following up on the leads by yourself?
  • What criteria do you qualify a ‘pursuable’ case upon?
  • What is your current cycle to bring a potential client all the way to settlement?
  • What is your average fee per SSD case?
  • If a claimant is already represented, but seeking other options, would you take that case?
  • Do you currently utilize lead or case management software?

By asking these questions, eGenerationMarketing can better grasp on exactly how the firm currently operates, and gain a better understanding of where they want to be in the future. Then, all we have to do is implement a customized lead campaign that best fits that firm’s process, and provide the attorneys/advocates there with the know-how and follow-up tools to help them realize their ultimate goals.

Statistical Insight

In 2012, eGenerationMarketing unveiled eLuminate, a client management software. Among many other useful tools, it allow our clients to keep track of their intake process and how they are doing with the service by indicating which leads they are retaining. By capturing this data, this not only has allowed us to improve lead quality over time, but also has provided some insight as to which of the qualifying questions on our web form best determine what will be a retainable lead and what will not.

The web form where we generate our Social Security Disability leads asks the following 4 questions

  • Is applicant currently receiving Social Security benefits?
  • Does applicant expect to be out of work for at least 12 months?
  • Does applicant have an attorney helping them with this case?
  • Is applicant receiving treatment from a doctor?

Not surprisingly, the first question on our web form 'Is applicant currently receiving Social Security benefits?' has proven to be a good qualifier, namely that those who indicate ‘yes’ to this question very rarely will be retained by one of our clients. Conversely, those who indicate ‘no’, they are not receiving Social Security benefits, will be retained at a much higher rate. The other question on our web form that has proven to be a good qualifier is the fourth question, 'Is applicant receiving treatment from a doctor?' We all know how important it is for a claimant to have well documented medical history to support why they’re unable work, so it makes sense that those who answer 'yes', that they are treating with a doctor, will typically have a better chance of being retained than someone who indicates 'no', they are not treating with a doctor.

Just because someone indicates 'no', they are not treating with a doctor, does not mean that they do not have a disabling condition that could result in being rewarded benefits. A lot of our clients that have become savvier over the years have decided not to add the filter for this question for multiple reasons. First, even without paying for this filter, the vast majority of claimants will indicate they are treating with a doctor anyways. Second, some firms feel that if they had someone with a good case on the phone that wasn’t treating with a doctor, they could get that claimant in touch with a local doctor that they have a previous working relationship with. That doctor can begin building and documenting medical evidence.

According to data we have, the question 'Does applicant have an attorney helping them with this case?', has proven to be a poor indicator of the potential a particular claimant has to be awarded benefits. The reason for this is that our clients retained the same percentage of those who answered 'yes' as those who answered 'no'. Most of the clients we work with do not care how the claimant answers this question, so they do not pay to validate for it to be answered a particular way. However, some of the attorneys and advocates we work with really prefer to eliminate the possibility of any leads indicating that they are already working with another attorney, so they pay a little extra per lead to validate for that filter to be answered 'no'.

Although we share our data with our potential clients, it is completely up to the attorney or advocate to decide which screening questions they’d like to validate for.

Pros and Cons to Each Qualifying Questions

Not Receiving Social Security Benefits: 90% of the time the claimant answers ‘no’ to this question

  • Positive: Relatively inexpensive qualifier, weeds out leads that attorneys have no chance to generate a fee from. Helps prevent attorney from getting frustrated over ‘bad’ leads – i.e. 'I lost my SS card and need a new one'
  • Negative: Someone may be filling out form for their spouse/relative. They also could lie.

Out 12 Months: 90% of the time the claimant answers ‘yes’ to this question

  • Positive: In order to qualify for benefits, you must be unable to work at least 12 months – so by verifying for this the claimant probably has a legitimate ailment or injury – unless they lied.
  • Negative: Some attorneys forego this qualifier, because even if they have someone who is working then they can convince them to quit their job if they want to receive benefits.

Is applicant working with an Attorney: 90% of the time the claimant answers ‘no’ to this question

  • Positive: Some attorneys don’t accept cases from people who have already sought alternative representation.
  • Negative: Someone that is working with another attorney must have a pretty good case for that attorney to have taken it, so a lot of attorneys do not pay for this question to be verified one way or another.

Has Doctor: 80% of the time the claimant answers ‘yes’ to this question

  • Positive: Documented history of medical exams are essential to winning a case at any level.
  • Negative: This is a very expensive qualifier. Attorneys/advocates might be able to obtain lower CPC without this.
  • Negative: If an attorney/advocate is receiving age screened leads, the older a person is the more likely they are to be receiving treatment from a doctor, so this qualifier may not be necessary in that case.

Age Screening

  • Positive: If an attorney doesn’t handle children’s cases or SSI cases, then you can make sure that they receive leads 18-65.
  • Positive: Utilizing age screening, for example 40-65, will cut down on the number of leads a smaller firm will have to sift through to find a retainable case.
  • Negative: It may not be worth paying to screen out leads by age for a firm that handles children’s cases and SSI cases. For example, if you receive leads 40-65, you could potentially be screening out a lot of good leads – i.e. – With 40-65 age screening, you would never receive a lead from a 38 year old with a ‘slam-dunk’ case. So, there is a chance that you will end up with a higher cost-per-desired case with age screened leads than you would with our unfiltered, standard leads. You would, however, probably save on labor costs.

For more information on our what is the best lead package for your firm, contact us today.