Post today. Interview Tues–Thurs. Offer by Friday. Without a second closer, the entire pipeline bottlenecks at Samarah regardless of how many setters you hire.
Print the Strong / Moderate / Weak definitions from Section 9. Every setter gets a copy. If the DBM has no specific cleaning complaint and no trigger event — it goes to email quote, not Samarah.
Post setter roles Monday. Screen with the mock call test from Section 12. If they pitch price when the prospect says "we're pretty happy" — pass. Hire the ones who ask follow-up questions.
Executive SummaryThe 20% Close Rate Is Misleading
The team is closing at 45.7% of deals that actually sat and resolved — right where January was. The 20% headline is diluted by 24 no-shows (23%) and 33 deals (32%) still working through the pipe. This is not a closing crisis. It's a show-up crisis and a pipeline timing issue.
Samarah's PerformanceMonth-by-Month Close Rate
6-month average: 30.7%
Roughly 17–19 of March's 41 "closed lost" deals were stale pipeline from 2024–2025 that got bulk-closed on March 12–13 and March 27. These were not real March losses. When stale pipeline cleanup deals are removed, March's adjusted close rate is approximately 35–37% — a drift, not a cliff.
- More "staying in house" and "HO said no" rejections — contacts were interested but higher-ups killed deals. Authority not confirmed at setter level.
- Weaker DBMs — January had strong pain ("can't tell things are cleaned," "contract ending"). By March: "just looking for a quote," "price only."
- Contract objections are new — "CONTRACT IS DEAL BREAKER" and "still in contract" appearing in March. Setters not qualifying contract status.
- Smaller deal sizes — January had whales ($2,736, $1,696, $1,242). March wins are mostly $290–$400.
60-Day PerformanceSetter Scorecard
Saeed, Joie, Rocky, Erika, and Jared combined booked 21 appointments and produced 1 close. That's 20% of total volume producing near-zero revenue. Meanwhile Melcher, Aika, Joyce, and Elvie carry the entire operation with 74 bookings and 18 wins.
Activity MetricsPer-Week Averages & No-Show Rates
Individual AnalysisSetter-by-Setter Deep Dive
Volume leader but 3–4 losses were leads with thin DBMs or no authority confirmed. Trish First General — contact wanted it, HO killed it. Roxanne City Sheet — price-only lead. Gerald Golden Palm — weak urgency. Shannon Bella Turf — email price check. If those 4 were filtered out, Melcher's pipeline would be 20 deals with a 45.5% close rate. Quality control is the fix, not more volume.
Authority not confirmed on deals. Booking people who can't make the final decision. Also letting price-only leads through without a real DBM.
Aika's issue isn't closing — it's no-shows. 7 of 18 never sat (39%). Aika books legitimately strong leads (Ritvik Mampster $9,882, Ryan Yard & Flagon, Salik Universal Supply) but they're not showing up. The booking confirmation process needs tightening. If even 3 of those 7 had sat at that 67% close rate, that's 2 more wins. Also has 5 strong deals still in pipeline.
Aika is the standard other setters should be trained against. Specific, pain-based DBMs. Active switching signals. Clear urgency. Every appointment has a reason to meet.
Best sit rate on the team (89%) and close rate is exactly at the 40% target. But 3 of 6 losses (Bryson, Edward, Andrea) were qualification failures — contract terms, frequency, and pricing weren't screened before booking. These are people who had disqualifying conditions that a few questions would have caught. Remove those 3, and the numbers become 4/7 = 57% close rate. Strong pipeline with Sarah Costantini ($895), Pedro EMedia ($895), Chris Berendsen ($290) in verbal agreement.
Add 3 mandatory screening questions: (1) What are you paying now? (2) Are you in a contract? (3) Do you need weekly or less? These alone would have prevented 3 losses.
Best closer by a mile. 83% win rate on resolved sits. Wins include Usman Soho ($400), Amanda Homer Animal Hospital ($382), Taylor Turning Leaf ($1,221), Cory Lynch Bus ($401), Serena Kerr Design ($290). Real businesses with real pain. Only 1 loss — Cat Gearhead ($290), where the contact was interested but management killed it. Has 3 deals in presentation-done stage that could close soon.
Elvie's only weakness is volume — 1.6 booked/week is below the other core setters. If Elvie booked at Melcher's rate (2.8/week) with that 83% close rate, the output would be 8–9 wins per 60 days instead of 5. Getting more dials and contacts flowing to Elvie is the single best investment available.
Zero wins in 60 days. The lowest volume of any core setter and the weakest close rate. 3 of 4 losses had disqualifying information that basic screening questions would have caught: Yang's sqft was wrong, Christina was paying half what the quote came in at, Tammy was in a contract. These should never have hit Samarah's calendar. Even if 1–2 pipeline deals close, the 60-day output would be 1–2 wins from 10 bookings — 10–20% when the team average is 46% of resolved sits.
- Yang Intertek — sqft not verified (thought 3,200, was actually 8,700). Price-only DBM.
- Christina Success Tutorial — paying $1,600, quote came in at $3,395. Current price never asked.
- Tammy TJH2b — still in contract. Contract status not pre-qualified.
- Yuliya Amrize — ghosted after presentation. Moderate DBM, no urgency.
All 6 deals still in pipeline — zero resolved outcomes to judge. Includes Doug Loblaw ($7,000, pres done) which is a whale that could change everything. But DBM quality is mixed: Doug and Tina are strong, Jenise is price-only, Mukul is C-rated price-only. The primary concern is volume — 0.7 bookings/week is barely one appointment every 10 days. Even if 2–3 close, the throughput isn't enough to move the needle.
Omolade Favor (3 booked, 1 won) — Kelly Avenuephysio closed. The other 2 no-sat. Not enough data — the issue is pure volume at 0.3/week.
Raj Akinniyi (3 booked, 1 won) — Samantha CBDentistry ($671) closed, A-rated lead. Same story: quality looks fine, volume is the problem.
Rocky Baldado (2 booked, 0 won) — Both appointments no-sat. Zero sits in 60 days. Not producing anything usable.
Erika Cabantog (2 booked, 0 won) — G All Spec lost (C-rated, price-only). One deal that sat in 60 days and it was a junk lead.
Jared Rodriguez (1 booked, 0 won) — Gordon Blackbird (pres done). The DBM was "he said he wants better cleaning." One deal in 60 days with a one-sentence DBM.
March 16–28 AnalysisLead Quality Breakdown
34 non-DQ'd, non-email-quote appointments booked in this 13-day window. Here's how they sort into quality tiers:
| Setter | Booked | Strong | Moderate | Weak | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aika | 6 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 83% Strong |
| Joie | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 50% Weak |
| Joyce | 7 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 43% Weak |
| Saeed | 6 | 1 | 5 | 0 | Soft Not Junk |
| Melcher | 5 | 0 | 4 | 1 | Moderate Heavy |
| Elvie | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | Recent Dip |
| Jared | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Weak |
Quality ControlWeak Appointments — Sorted by Date
These 10 appointments had no real DBM, were price-only, or were not real opportunities. They should not have made it to Samarah's calendar.
Direct ComparisonWhat Was Different in January
January was the best month — 41.3% close rate, 19 wins. Same filters applied: no DQ'd, no email quotes. 53 appointments booked in January vs. 103 in the 60-day period (Jan 28–Mar 28). Here's the head-to-head.
Resolved sits are closing at nearly the same rate (47.5% → 45.7%). Samarah isn't the problem. What collapsed was the support system: more no-shows, fewer setters contributing wins, and a massive pipeline buildup of unresolved deals.
January Setter Scorecard
53 booked · 19 won · 4.4 weeks · No DQ'd, no email quotes
Setter-by-Setter: What Changed
Close rate is exactly the same. Volume went up. But zero no-shows in January turned into 5 in the 60-day period — that's the only regression. The core performance is stable.
Close rate actually improved. Lead quality is consistent — all have specific pain. The problem is purely the no-show explosion: 1 of 6 in January → 7 of 18 in the 60-day period. If that no-show rate stayed at January's 17%, that would be 4 more sits at 67% close rate = 2–3 more wins ($1,500–$2,000/month lost to no-shows alone).
Close rate went UP, not down. Sit rate is still the best on the team. But weekly booking volume dropped 35% — from 3.2/week in January to 2.1/week. If Joyce was still booking at 3.2/week, that would be 27 bookings in the 60-day period instead of 18. At a 40% resolved rate, that's potentially 4 more wins = $2,400+/month. January losses were also higher-quality deals (David Gem Cabinets $3,930, Brett Bonin $1,872) that came down to pricing — not junk leads or qualification failures.
Nothing broke — everything improved. Volume up, close rate up, no-show rate stable. The only setter who got better across every metric. January wins: Tanya Wolfond ($709), Kanika DQ ($439), Usman Soho ($400). 60-day period added Taylor Turning Leaf ($1,221) and Amanda Homer ($382). Average deal value went up too. Elvie is the gold standard and the data proves it across both periods.
Saeed had exactly 1 win in January — Aaron Sunbelt ($290), a price-only lead that happened to close. That was the floor, not the ceiling. The qualification gaps (Yang Intertek sqft wrong) existed in January and compounded later (Christina, Tammy). Saeed wasn't good in January either — 1 win from 6 bookings with a 50% no-show rate. The difference is that 1 win masked the problem.
This is the single biggest swing on the team. In January, Rocky booked 8 appointments and closed 3: PK Temple ($290), Isabella Smile Designing ($639), and Russell Imperial Distributors ($2,071). That's $3,000/month from one setter. By the 60-day period, Rocky dropped to 2 bookings — both no-shows — producing $0.
Rocky accounted for 3 of the 19 January wins (16% of all closes). That contribution vanished completely. If Rocky was still performing at January levels, the 60-day period would have roughly 5–6 more wins. Whatever happened to Rocky is responsible for a significant chunk of the revenue gap.
Joie, Jared, Erika, Omolade, and Raj either didn't exist in January or had zero bookings. In the 60-day period, they collectively booked 15 appointments and produced 2 wins (Omolade: Kelly $290, Raj: Samantha $671). In January, 7 setters were active and all 7 contributed at least 1 win. In the 60-day period, only 5 of 11 setters contributed a win. The team got wider but shallower.
The 5 Things That Were Different in January
8 bookings, 3 wins, $3,000/month including a $2,071 whale. Rocky went from 16% of all closes to producing nothing. That's the single biggest explainable gap.
6 fewer percentage points across 103 bookings = 6 extra no-shows in the 60-day period. Roughly 3 more losses and 2–3 more wins at team close rates. That's another $1,500–$2,000/month in lost revenue.
Booking volume dropped 35%. If that pace held, 9 more appointments would have flowed through at a 40% close rate = 3–4 more wins. Whatever changed in Joyce's workflow, call list, or dial volume needs to be identified and reversed.
Even Saeed (1 win) and Rocky (3 wins) were on the board. In the 60-day period, Saeed, Joie, Rocky, Erika, and Jared combined for 0 wins. When every setter on the roster contributes something, the team total compounds. When half the roster goes dark, 4 people can't carry 11 people's targets.
Only 4 of 53 January deals were still in pipeline at time of analysis (8%). In the 60-day period, 33 of 103 are still in pipeline (32%). Deals are taking longer to resolve, which delays revenue recognition and inflates the "low close rate" appearance.
The gap from $8.5K to $24K breaks down into fixable components:
- Fix #1 — Get Rocky back or replace that output. 3 wins/month at $1,000 avg = $3,000 in revenue that vanished.
- Fix #2 — Crush the no-show rate back to 17%. Across 2 presenters' volume, that recovers 2–3 wins/month = $1,500–$2,400.
- Fix #3 — Get Joyce back to 3.2 bookings/week. That volume drop alone accounts for ~3 missing wins per 60 days.
These three fixes — without hiring a single new person — would take you from $8.5K to roughly $13–14K/month. The second presenter plus new setters get you the rest of the way to $24K.
120-Day Analysis · 179 Resolved DealsWhich Leads Are Worth Doing
Every closed won (56) and closed lost (123) deal from the last 120 days was classified into three tiers based on the quality of the Detailed Buying Motivation (DBM) captured by the setter. Here are the exact definitions used:
Lead Quality Definitions
A lead is classified as Strong when the DBM contains at least one of the following:
- Specific cleaning complaints using the prospect's own words — "bathrooms aren't being cleaned properly," "floors are always dirty," "dust everywhere," "they missed the baseboards for three months," "used dirty water to clean the windows"
- An active trigger event forcing change — current cleaner is resigning/retiring, moving to a new location, contract ending, current service was fired, just opened a new business
- Stated unhappiness with current service plus specific examples — not just "unhappy" but can describe exactly what's wrong: areas missed, inconsistency, no-shows, complaints from staff
- No cleaners at all with a stated need — in-house staff can no longer keep up, need to outsource, looking for service now with specific cleaning areas identified
- Referral from existing client — partner or colleague is already a One Janitorial client and recommended us directly
"switching, unhappy with current cleaners, inconsistent & not showing up sometimes, in particular with bathroom cleaning" — Adam Total Fitness, $1,183 WON
"has a service doing all 4 locations but they are very terrible right now, getting lazy, always hiring different cleaners" — Steve DQ Langley, $6,600 WON
"cleaners don't have proper vacuum, extra charges every month amounting to $1,000 they don't know where it's coming from, communication not great" — Allan Holland Gardens, $4,200 WON
A lead is classified as Moderate when the DBM shows some pain but lacks urgency, specificity, or a forcing event:
- General dissatisfaction without specific examples — "wants more attention to detail," "a little more thorough cleaning," "floors could be better" — pain exists but it's vague
- In-house cleaning with mild curiosity about outsourcing — staff do the cleaning and the prospect is wondering about professional service, but there's no deadline or forcing event
- Has a company + pricing curiosity mixed with some quality complaints — "wants better pricing AND better cleaning" — the pain is real but price is a co-equal motivator
- Long-term timing plays — "contract expires in June," "check back in 3 months," "not ready until spring" — real lead but not ready to act now
- Thin but real complaint — "improvement in cleaning the washrooms" or "better floor scrubbing" — a real issue named, but only one sentence of discovery captured
"improvement on carpet cleaning, wants also general improvement overall with lower cost" — Russell Imperial, $2,071 WON
"wants cleaner carpets and a cleaner showroom area" — Usman Soho, $400 WON
"a little more detailed cleaning on the floor and underneath the tables and chairs" — Bo Kim ACUSPORTS, $290 WON
A lead is classified as Weak when the DBM reveals no real cleaning pain — only price curiosity or no motivation at all:
- Price-only motivation — the only reason to meet is to compare pricing. No complaints about cleaning quality, no areas being missed, no dissatisfaction. DBM is "wants better pricing," "save them money," "looking for a quote," "we come in lower"
- Happy with current service — the prospect says there are no issues or "can't think of any improvement" but agreed to meet anyway, usually because the setter offered a base price
- No DBM captured at all — setter wrote nothing, or wrote "no dbm / price comparison," "just send quote," or "he said he wants better cleaning" with zero specifics
- C-rated deal with a one-sentence generic DBM — the setter couldn't extract any real pain, the deal was rated C, and the only note is something like "a little bit more dusting" or "wants to see pricing"
- Setter led with price to book the meeting — "Gave base price of $290 and they agreed to a meeting" — the meeting exists because the setter sold the price, not because the prospect has a problem to solve
"Nothing that he can think of. Provided base price and he agreed to attend the meeting" — Joe Hameed Emco, LOST
"Price offered 290 Cad says its cheaper than what they pay current cleaner" — Yang Intertek, LOST (sqft was also wrong)
"Pretty happy with current service but would like to see what we can offer" — David Thompson Electro-Meters, LOST (ghost)
"Price is the biggest factor, month to month contract, if we save him money willing to switch" — Kyran North American Trade Schools, LOST (happy)
120-Day Results by Lead Quality
39.2% vs 5.9%. This is the single most important number in this entire report. It means 94 out of every 100 weak leads that hit Samarah's calendar will waste a presentation slot and close nothing.
What Happens If We Filter Out Weak Leads
If those 34 freed-up presentation slots were replaced with Strong leads at the proven 39.2% close rate with an average deal value of ~$650:
Price-only leads (15 deals) — prospect's only reason to meet was pricing with zero cleaning complaints: Yang Intertek, Ayako LM Global, Stanley RA Realty, Kyran North American Trade Schools, Ibrahim Lantech, Edwin Swagelok, Chris DQ Delta, Manjeet Nolan, Shannon Bella Turf, Justine Dermapure, Jordan McWilliams, Joseph Berja, Mike Mastewart, Charles Smugglers, Neal New Life Mills
"Nothing to improve" / happy with current (6 deals) — prospect couldn't name a single cleaning issue: Joe Hameed Emco, David Thompson, Andrew MOTION, Emily Caterpillar, Costa Wiberg, Ashley Lewis Estates
C-rated thin DBMs (11 deals) — setter couldn't extract real pain, generic one-sentence notes: Roxanne City Sheet, G All Spec, Hugh Neilson, Mike Eberley, Daniel Sunbelt, Parry Magnum, katherine Andersen, Chris Di Tomaso, Neal Wellspring, Edward Skyline, Bev JR Capital
BOOK a presentation when: The prospect can name at least 2 specific cleaning problems in their own words, OR has a trigger event (cleaner leaving, new location, contract ending), OR was referred by an existing client. These are Strong and Moderate leads — they close at 30–39%.
SEND an email quote when: The prospect's only motivation is pricing, can't name a specific cleaning complaint, is happy with current service, or the setter had to lead with price to get agreement to meet. These are Weak leads — they close at 5.9% and are not worth a presentation slot.
Headcount ModelHow Many Setters to Hit $24K — Filtered
When weak leads are filtered out, the close rate jumps from 29.1% to 35.5%. That means fewer appointments are needed to hit the same revenue — and fewer setters to book them.
The Filtered Funnel Math
30 ÷ 0.355 close rate = 85 sits/month
85 ÷ 0.77 (23% no-show) = 110 quality appointments booked/month
110 ÷ 4.3 weeks = 25.6 quality appointments booked/week
Old Plan vs. Filtered Plan vs. Filtered + Fixed No-Shows
By not booking leads that close at 5.9%, the weekly appointment requirement drops from 31 to 26. That's 3–5 fewer setters needed to hit $24K — plus less presenter burnout with 2 sits/day instead of 2.5.
Setter Scenarios — Quality Bookings at 2.5/Week Each
Based on the 60-day data, a trained setter booking only quality (non-weak) appointments averages about 2.0–2.5 bookings/week. Using 2.5 as the target:
Weekly & Monthly Expectations Per Person
If a setter is consistently below 2 closes/month, either the quality filter isn't being applied or the volume isn't there. Either way, that setter needs coaching or replacement.
2 presenters × $12K each = $24K/month. Each presenter does about 2 presentations/day. That's a manageable load — not overworked, not underutilized.
Bonus: If No-Shows Also Drop Back to January's 17%
Fixing no-shows to January levels means the current 4 strong setters (Melcher, Aika, Joyce, Elvie) plus 5–6 new quality hires gets you to $24K. That's a much more realistic hiring target than the original 9–10 new hires.
Current Roster vs. What's Needed
With the quality filter in place: 10–12 setters + 2 presenters = $24K/month. If no-shows are also fixed back to 17%, it's 9–10 setters + 2 presenters. That's 3–5 fewer hires than the original plan — less cost, less management overhead, less dilution of appointment quality — for the same revenue target.
Execution Plan · March 30 → May 31Week-by-Week Timeline to $24K
This plan assumes 50–70% setter attrition in the first month. Two hiring waves compensate. Presenter #2 must be hired this week — every day of delay pushes the $24K date further out.
Rocky: Went from 8 bookings/3 wins ($3,000/month) in January to functionally zero. Find out what happened. If Rocky can get back to January levels, that's $3,000/month recovered instantly.
If presenter #2 is fully productive by mid-May (close rate at 30%+), the team hits or is very close to $24K. If presenter #2 is still at 20–25%, expect $18–20K with a clean $24K in June.
- Presenter #2 posted and interviewing by Tuesday. This is the #1 bottleneck.
- 10 setter candidates in the pipeline by Friday. Use the Riley voice screen. Look for curiosity and follow-up questions.
- Quality filter implemented immediately. Print the definitions. No weak leads on the calendar.
- Monday conversations with Saeed and Rocky. Show them the data. 2 weeks to turn it around or they're replaced.
Hiring & TrainingWhat Good Setters Do Differently
Analysis of every DBM written by top performers (Aika, Elvie, Joyce) vs. bottom performers (Saeed, Rocky's recent output, Joie, Jared) across 120 days. Here's what separates the setters whose leads close from the ones whose leads waste presentation time.
- Asks follow-up questions naturally — if you say "I'm looking for a cleaning quote," do they ask WHY or do they jump to booking?
- Can paraphrase what someone just said back to them — this is the skill that creates those prospect-voice DBMs
- Is comfortable with silence — good setters ask a question and wait. Bad setters fill the silence with their own talking (price, features, pitch)
- Has curiosity, not just a script — Aika's DBMs show someone who genuinely wants to understand the prospect's situation before moving forward
- Doesn't rush to the close — the meeting should be a natural outcome of discovering real pain, not the goal of the call
- Talks more than they listen
- Can't resist offering a price when asked "how much does it cost?"
- Writes short, vague notes when asked to summarize a conversation
- Treats every conversation as a transaction rather than a discovery
- Measures themselves by meetings booked rather than meetings that close
Give them a 90-second mock cold call. You play the prospect. Say: "We're pretty happy with our cleaning but I'd be open to hearing a price."
If they immediately pitch the price and try to book — pass.
If they ask "What does 'pretty happy' mean — is there anything your cleaners could be doing better?" — that's your person.
At 70% attrition, 20+ people need to come through the door to end up with 6 that stick. That's not a hiring event — that's a hiring machine running for 4–6 weeks straight. Two waves. Expect wave 1 to thin. Backfill immediately with wave 2.
Findings & RecommendationsWhy 20% and Not 40%
The close rate isn't actually 20%. It's being suppressed by four compounding issues:
A third of the pipeline is still alive. When these close or die, the real win rate will emerge. Right now it's artificially suppressed by open deals. The resolved sit close rate is 45.7% — right on target.
24 of 103 appointments never sat. Aika is running at 39% no-show alone — 7 strong leads that never showed. Rocky is at 100% no-shows. That's not a closing problem, it's a confirmation and show-up problem. Fixing this is cheaper and faster than any hire.
Saeed (0/4), Joyce (3 preventable losses), and Melcher (3–4 preventable losses) are all booking deals where basic screening questions — current price, contract status, decision authority, frequency needs — would have filtered out leads that were never going to close. That's roughly 8–10 losses across the team that shouldn't have been on the calendar.
Saeed, Joie, Omolade, Rocky, Erika, and Jared combined: 24 bookings, 1 win. That's 23% of all bookings producing almost nothing. Meanwhile Melcher, Aika, Joyce, and Elvie carry the entire operation at 74 bookings and 18 wins.
The fix is: (1) tighten setter qualification with mandatory screening questions, (2) fix the no-show leak with a confirmation sequence, (3) let the 33 pipeline deals resolve, and (4) get the bottom setters either performing at Aika and Elvie's quality standard or replaced with people who can.
- What are you paying right now? (catches pricing gaps before presentation)
- Are you in a contract? When does it end? (catches contract objections)
- Are you the person who makes the final decision on this? (catches authority gaps)
- How often do you need cleaning — weekly? (catches frequency mismatches)
- What specifically isn't getting cleaned well? (forces specific DBM, not "better cleaning")