The myth that “78% goes to the first to respond”: an unsourced figure versus evidence you can review

You have seen it on a workshop slide, in a colleague's post or in an email from a software provider: “78% of clients buy from whoever responds first”. It sounds compelling, which is why it circulates. In the reference chain we audited, there is no primary source with a sample, year and methodology for that percentage. Studies on delay, contact and qualification do exist, all from the United States and with different scopes.

Where that 78% does not come from

When tracing the citation chain behind ‘78%’, we found blogs pointing to other blogs or inconsistently attributing it to a ‘Lead Connect survey’, McKinsey, Forrester or InsideSales. None of the references reviewed provided the original document, sample, year and question. Without that primary source, the percentage should not be presented as fact.

This is not a purist’s detail. If your sales pitch, or that of someone selling you software, rests on a number that cannot withstand a five-minute search, any discerning client will dismantle it. Worse, the false figure is unnecessary: verifiable evidence is stronger.

We audit it with four questions: who produced the data, which people or businesses were observed, what question or event was measured, and where is the methodology? Attribution to a well-known brand answers none of them. Nor is it enough for hundreds of pages to repeat the same phrase if they all lead back to another secondary publication.

The right conclusion is not that 78% is mathematically impossible. It is more limited: we found insufficient evidence to present it as fact. If the original study emerges with verifiable methodology, the article should be updated to evaluate it. Until then, it should not support a commercial proposal.

What the evidence you can review actually says

There are citable studies anyone can review, although none represents Panama.

The first is the Lead Response Management Study by InsideSales (2007): six companies, more than 15,000 web leads and more than 100,000 call attempts. The odds of qualification were 21 times higher when calling after 5 minutes rather than 30, and contact odds were 100 times higher. This is an association observed in telephone follow-up, not a closing rate or evidence about WhatsApp.

“21 times higher odds” also does not mean the probability of qualification is 21 times higher. Odds compare the probability that an event will happen with the probability that it will not; the effect on probability depends on the starting point. Turning that ratio into “21 times more sales” would be incorrect.

A note by Harvard Business Review from 2011 is frequently cited to claim a qualification multiplier. We do not use that multiplier in our conclusions or in the table: the available page summarizes a US audit, but does not provide a local dataset or a methodology that would allow the effect to be applied to Panamanian real estate brokerage.

The study that can be examined supports an operational hypothesis: measure delays and their relationship with contact and qualification in your own operation. It does not prove that responding first wins a sale, that intent converts within a universal number of minutes, or that the multiplier repeats in Panama.

The numbers the industry would rather not look at

The previous studies measure the opportunity. The following ones measure what actually happens in the real estate business, and the result is worse.

The Agent Responsiveness Study by WAV Group measured 384 inquiries sent to brokers in the United States: 48% received no response and, among those answered, the average was 15 hours and 17 minutes. In 2024, Mike DelPrete reported a mystery-shopping study of 100 inquiries to more than 25 US firms: 47% unanswered and an average of 8 hours and 17 minutes among those answered. These are two separate samples, not a longitudinal series or a figure for the Panamanian market.

That is the point: there is no need to replace an unsourced percentage with another taken out of context. In these two US samples, 47% and 48% of inquiries received no response. An operation in Panama must measure its own rate, delay and subsequent action.

Contact, qualification and closing are different events

Response means the operation sent a message or made an attempt. Contact means a connection was made with the person. Qualification means a defined criterion was confirmed, such as budget, intent, timeframe or need. Closing means the transaction took place under the terms recorded by the company.

A study may find more contacts without demonstrating more closed deals. An automated response may improve the first metric while worsening the experience if it communicates incorrect availability. A qualified conversation may not close because of price, financing, documentation or a family decision. Combining the four events produces strong headlines and weak decisions.

Before comparing results, write down the definitions. Does a WhatsApp attempt count as a response? When is a person considered contacted? Which fields make an inquiry qualified? What period connects that inquiry to a transaction? Without these rules, two agents can report incompatible numbers even when they work on the same team.

What an operation in Panama can measure

All four studies are from the United States and measure neither the Panamanian market nor WhatsApp conversations. We cannot apply their percentages to Panama as though they were local data. What they do offer is a useful operational hypothesis: the longer the first contact takes, the harder it becomes to qualify intent.

A sample of 235 residential sales in ACOBIR's MLS took an average of 248 days from listing to closing (Xposure via Servmor, second half of 2025). To model the value of a response, use the actual transaction price, agreed total commission, allocation between sides, internal splits, taxes, costs and historical closing rate. A response does not guarantee a sale or a specific return.

Start with a four-week baseline: inquiries by source; percentage with an assigned owner; median time to first response; percentage contacted; percentage with defined qualification; and percentage with a next action and date. Also retain the number of records without a property of interest or a source, because those gaps reduce your ability to interpret the outcome.

An operational test without sales promises

Choose one channel and one time window. Record the current process for two weeks. Over the next two, apply one specific change: automatic assignment, an internal alert or a supervised initial response. Do not change the ad, audience, script and tool at the same time; afterward, you will not know what caused the difference.

Compare response, contact, qualification, next action and errors. Review a sample of conversations, not just the dashboard. If time decreases but incorrect answers increase, operations have not improved. If contact increases but qualification falls, the criteria or message may need adjustment.

Decide using a threshold written before you start: what minimum improvement would justify continuing, what error requires a stop and who approves the next phase. This method does not need to adopt 78%, 7x or any other external figure. It produces your own evidence.

Stop citing an unsourced number; address the real problem

The conclusion is not to replace one statistic with another on your next slide. It is to treat response as a process: record the inquiry, assign a person and leave a visible next action.

FARO 0.5 organizes clients, assignees and actions. When an operation needs automation, an inquiry-handling proposal can add a managed bot using Meta’s official API. It is an assisted integration, not a native inbox or a replacement for human judgment.

If you want to see it working before believing another number: schedule 30 minutes and we will walk you through it using your own cases.

When presenting a figure, use a complete sentence: “In this sample, in this country, during this period, this result was observed.” Then explain what it does not allow you to conclude. This practice does not weaken your argument. It shows you distinguish evidence, interpretation and sales.