Today I was told not to worry about contacts anymore. We are looking for “engagements”. I am sorry but it is the same darn thing - just different terminology!!!! I wish this company would stop with the smoke and mirror game. It is exhausting. Do they really think people don’t. Know it is the same thing? Are we just stupid in their eyes? I am tired of the games they are playing.
6 replies (most recent on top)
They are not the same
It would be nice if the collateral contacts were also counted towards productivity or at least acknowledged as moving the member forward.
To answer your question, though……yes, they do think that we are stupid.
This is something that plagues all telephonice programs. Engagement, Connects, converting to future connects. Can anyone clarify how exactly engagement rate is calculated and idenfity the "other" variables? It's vague enough that we can't perfectly refine it or it can be interpreted to their desire.. do connections with new members count heavier than connecting with existing members? do connections with doctors offices, pharmacies, DME companies, SW's, and what not count the same weight? maybe a little clarity would help our performance overall?
How can you engage without a contact?
Contacting vs engaging a member is certainly two different things so may want to think about that a bit.