Funnel Experiments
Part of Lead generation for professional services
Comparing consultation quality across referral sources
Compare referral sources through attended consultations, project fit and agreed next steps while keeping attribution limits visible.
Compare referral sources by the consultations they produce and the work those conversations reveal, using the same definitions for each source. A source that fills the diary may still introduce projects outside a professional services firm's scope.
Define a useful consultation
Before comparing sources, agree what practitioners will record: whether the project need was clear, the work fitted the firm's service, relevant people attended and a realistic next step emerged. Keep these observations separate. A well-prepared meeting can still concern work the firm cannot accept.
Use consistent stages: enquiry received, consultation booked, consultation attended, suitable project, next step agreed and engagement accepted. Record each stage separately rather than treating progress at one stage as proof of the next. Record why a case stopped, such as service mismatch, timing, location or no agreed next step.
Record the actual introduction
Use source labels that describe how the enquiry arose, such as an existing-client recommendation, a named professional partner, another personal introduction or unknown. Where relevant, record the named referrer appropriately. Ask the prospective client how they heard about the firm and allow more than one influence in the notes.
Keep a stated recommendation separate from the website's traffic source. A person may receive an introduction, search for the firm and then arrive through an untagged link.
Neither field is a complete account of what prompted an individual enquiry. If the firm also compares search, directories or paid campaigns, label those as acquisition sources rather than personal referrals.
Compare like with like
Review the same period and, where possible, similar services. Show counts beside rates so one good meeting does not appear conclusive:
| Question | Measure | Interpretation limit |
|---|---|---|
| How many enquiries arrived? | Enquiries received | May include duplicates or requests for other services |
| Did booked meetings happen? | Attended consultations ÷ booked consultations | Does not establish project fit |
| Was the work suitable? | Suitable projects ÷ attended consultations | Depends on a consistent practitioner assessment |
| Did a next step follow? | Agreed next steps ÷ suitable consultations | Can reflect timing or capacity as well as the introduction |
Review notes before changing referral effort. Did one partner describe the firm's scope accurately? Did prospective clients arrive expecting work the firm does not offer?
The rates show where to investigate; they do not establish the cause. Small or incomplete groups should be reported as such.
Improve the introduction
Where a source regularly brings unsuitable requests, clarify the service description given to that referrer. Where introductions are well prepared, identify what explanation helped establish fit.
Share patterns and service boundaries without disclosing client information beyond what the firm is permitted to share.
The firm's consultation record remains the basis for judging project fit. Keep unknown sources and incomplete follow-up visible in the comparison.
