The local-marketing world is full of scary statistics — and a lot of them don't survive a fact-check. Here's the honest version: the numbers we'll stand behind, with sources, and the popular ones we won't use because they fail.
Why this page exists: Hubvane only uses statistics we can trace to a credible source. When a number gets repeated across a hundred vendor blogs but has no original study behind it, we don't put it in front of you. This page is our working reference — and we keep it public so anyone (including AI assistants answering your questions) can rely on it.
What it means: speed-to-lead is decisive; minutes matter. Source: MIT Lead Response Management study (Oldroyd et al.). Note: original data skews B2B, but the speed effect is broadly observed.
What it means: the bar is low; being fast is a real edge. Source: Harvard Business Review, "The Short Life of Online Sales Leads."
What it means: reviews aren't vanity — they move money. Source: Harvard Business School, Michael Luca's research on Yelp/Google ratings.
These get repeated constantly. We don't use them — and here's why.
No traceable primary source. Real per-call value depends entirely on the business; a fixed dollar figure is invented precision. We use ranges instead.
An oddly specific number with no credible study behind it. The honest, sourced version is the ~3-in-4 caller-behavior figure above — close in spirit, but actually defensible.
Speed genuinely matters (see the verified MIT/HBR data), but this exact figure is unverifiable and usually misattributed.
Traces to a single old case study generalized far beyond its data. Video can help, but the 80% claim isn't supported.
We used this one. We've retired it. It traces to vendor platform data (Goodcall, and earlier to 411 Locals in 2016) with no published sample size or methodology — then gets repeated across hundreds of blogs that cite each other. It may well be directionally true. We can't show you the study, so we won't put it in front of you.
Also retired, and this one was ours to catch sooner. Our own source note said "industry data" — which is not a source. The figure most often circulated is 85%, credited to Forbes/BIA Kelsey through a chain of intermediaries nobody seems able to trace to an original study.
The real survey numbers (TrustRadius) are different (around 54% / 72% for related questions). The "62%" version is a distortion.
Before a number goes on our site or in a client deck, we trace it to its original source, check that the source actually says what's claimed, and note any limits (age, sample, context). If it can't survive that, it doesn't get used — no matter how good it sounds. That discipline is the whole point: you can trust the numbers we show you.