# Performance Lead Gen Offer

**Status:** brainstorming
**Created:** 2026-08-15
**Source:** Perplexity session — Rob asked whether there's a GHL-based offer where setup is free and the business pays a % of leads collected
**Agents involved:** Hermes, Claude (pending), Rob

---

## Context

Original question: is there a version of GHL outreach to local service businesses where there's no charge for website, booking agent, chat-bot, CRM setup, etc., and the business simply pays a % of the leads collected to the agency?

Perplexity confirmed the model exists — performance-based lead generation, pay-per-lead, revenue-share, "growth partner." Key insight from the session: don't lead with "percentage of leads" because lead value is disputed. Better entry points are per-booked-appointment or revenue share on collected revenue.

Full Perplexity output archived in `research.md`.

---

## Hermes Analysis

### What Perplexity got right
- The model is real and established in local lead gen
- Per-booked-appointment is a better entry point than per-lead (less dispute surface)
- 90-day pilot structure is sensible for proving the model before scaling
- Asset-licensing vs. transfer distinction matters — we should retain control of the GHL infrastructure
- Response-time SLA is critical — if the business doesn't answer leads fast, we can't guarantee outcomes

### Gaps Perplexity didn't address

1. **Lead quality definition without GHL enforcement** — Perplexity says "define a qualified lead" but doesn't show how GHL actually enforces it. We need: form validation rules, call-tracking qualification scripts, pipeline stages with mandatory fields, and a weekly reconciliation workflow inside GHL itself.

2. **Revenue share mechanics in GHL** — Perplexity mentions revenue share at 5–20% but skips the operational question: how do we see what the client collected? GHL doesn't natively track client-side invoicing. Options: client grants read-only access to their invoicing tool, or we structure as per-appointment and skip revenue share until trust is proven.

3. **Ad spend ownership** — Perplexity says "client pays ad spend directly." That's the safest model, but it raises a question: if we're the "growth partner" running campaigns, why wouldn't we also manage the ad spend? The answer is liability — we absorb build time, not ad budget. But that means the client needs Google/Meta literacy or we're managing accounts for free. Worth flagging as a friction point.

4. **The GHL sub-account cost** — Perplexity frames GHL as "your fulfillment stack" but doesn't mention that GHL charges per sub-account. At $297+/month per sub-account, that's our cost, not the client's. Need to model whether per-appointment fees cover GHL overhead on low-volume accounts.

5. **Lead attribution integrity** — Perplexity mentions tracking numbers and UTMs but doesn't address the circumvention problem: a smart client can route calls elsewhere to dodge fees. The anti-circumvention clause is a legal fix, but operationally we need: dedicated tracking numbers we control, form source fields that can't be spoofed, and calendar attribution that logs the source.

6. **What happens at 90 days** — Perplexity says "90-day pilot, then month-to-month if both sides want to proceed." But doesn't address: what if results are bad? Who absorbs the build cost? What does the client get if they walk away? The asset-licensing model (we retain the workflows) is the answer, but that needs to be explicit in the offer, not a surprise at exit.

7. **Vertical selection** — Perplexity lists good verticals but doesn't rank them by economics. A $125 per-appointment fee works for HVAC replacement (ticket $5K+) but not for a $75 drain cleaning call. We need a vertical-by-vertical pricing model, not one flat rate.

### What this means for RRR

RRR's current offer is flat-fee website + chatbot. This performance model is a *different* offer — it changes the sales conversation from "buy software" to "buy outcomes." That's a bigger shift than it sounds.

**Where it fits:**
- Gannon's Garage Doors is a natural first case study — no website, no system, pure lead leakage
- The RRR vertical list (HVAC, plumbing, electrical, locksmith, etc.) maps directly to Perplexity's recommended verticals
- GHL is already the fulfillment stack — no new tooling needed

**Where it gets hard:**
- Per-appointment billing requires GHL pipeline discipline (stages, call recordings, tracking numbers)
- Revenue share requires client-side financial access — a trust hurdle
- 90-day pilots require cash flow patience from us (we absorb GHL costs during the pilot)

---

## Claude Analysis

_[Claude to append: strategic framing, creative angles, competitive read]_

---

## Research

Perplexity full output: [to be linked or pasted from Connie's session]

Vertical economics table: TBD
Competitor analysis: TBD
GHL sub-account cost model: TBD

---

## Decisions

| Date | Decision | Made by |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-08-15 | Created project folder, seeded with Perplexity session | Rob |

---

## Next Steps

| Action | Owner | Deadline |
|---|---|---|
| [ ] Get Claude to review this and append analysis to claude.md | Rob | Next session |
| [ ] Model GHL sub-account costs vs. per-appointment fees for top 3 verticals | Hermes | This week |
| [ ] Draft one-page offer framing ("Risk-Reversal Lead Generation Partnership") | Claude + Hermes | This week |
| [ ] Test the offer language with Gannon as a thought experiment | Rob | Informal |