"IVRIS Demo-Conversion Public Source Ledger v1.0 | compiled and re-verified 24 July 2026 | original organisations retain ownership of their research | IVRIS contribution is selection, classification and transfer limits"

"ID","Evidence class","Claim or data point used by IVRIS","Original organisation","Source title","Direct URL","Publication date","Data period","Sample / population","Metric anatomy (numerator / denominator)","Methodology","Known limitations and commercial bias","Transparency score (0-6)","Access status","Re-verified live","How IVRIS uses it"
"S01","Vendor telemetry","Median qualified-to-booked 62%; top performers 78% or more; below-average band 35-40%. Per-industry medians include Sales Tech 62.8%, Construction Tech 69.1%, Ecommerce 68.8%. The article separately names request-to-held conversion but publishes no held benchmark.","RevenueHero","Industry Benchmarks for Inbound Meeting Conversion","https://www.revenuehero.io/blog/industry-benchmarks-for-inbound-meeting-conversion","20 February 2026","Full calendar year 2025","More than 1,000,000 inbound form submissions; RevenueHero customers; B2B SaaS-heavy; volume-weighted","Numerator: booked meetings. Denominator: qualified inbound form submissions","Product telemetry analysis; year, broad population and weighting disclosed; inclusion rules, bot filtering and customer minimums not published","Vendor-selected product users; selection and survivorship bias; descriptive, not causal","5","Free","2026-07-24","Comparison input and definition source. Separates qualified-to-booked from request-to-held better than any other page on this SERP. Not a market benchmark and not evidence that scheduling software caused the rates."
"S02","Vendor telemetry","Qualification rate and qualified-to-meeting figures with a proposed three-stage demo funnel; one definition blends scheduling and attendance.","RevenueHero","The State of Demo Conversion Rates in 2025","https://www.revenuehero.io/blog/the-state-of-demo-conversion-rates-in-2025","2025","Not specified","Thousands of demo requests; exact count and customer count undisclosed","Qualification rate and qualified-to-meeting; meeting not consistently split into booked vs held","Product-data benchmark article; methodology sparse","Scheduling-vendor context; denominator ambiguity; not independent of S01","3","Free","2026-07-24","Example of state compression. Not counted as independent confirmation of S01."
"S03","Vendor argument","Positions demo conversion as the single strongest growth lever. Customer example moves 34% to 58% and claims 2.5m dollars of added pipeline and a 12-hour to under-2-minute response change. No source is given for any figure.","RevenueHero","Why Demo Conversion Is the #1 Growth Lever in 2025","https://www.revenuehero.io/blog/why-demo-conversion-is-the-1-growth-lever-in-2025","5 September 2025","Not disclosed","One unnamed customer; no study sample","Uses demo conversion broadly; start and end events not stated","Commercial argument plus an uncontrolled customer example","Strong commercial bias; absolutist framing; a case study is not an experiment; 5 statistics, 0 sources and 6 CTAs in roughly 1,800 words","1","Free","2026-07-24","Prohibited-claim example. Its uplift figures are excluded from every IVRIS calculation."
"S04","Vendor telemetry","14.1 percent of submissions disqualified (561,977 disqualifications); 66.7 percent of qualified submissions booked; 69.2 percent where live calling is offered. States a 30 percent industry average and that form scheduling more than doubles conversion.","Chili Piper","2025 Benchmark Report on Demo Form Conversion Rates","https://www.chilipiper.com/post/form-conversion-rate-benchmark-report","18 February 2025","Calendar year 2024","Nearly 4,000,000 submissions; full Chili Piper customer base; customer count undisclosed","Qualified-to-booked = booked meetings divided by qualified submissions. Disqualification = records rejected by customer rules. Live call grouped with booked meeting in one comparison","Product telemetry, descriptive; no randomised exposure to scheduling or live-call features","Vendor selection; the 30 percent comparator is not methodologically reconciled; a cross-population comparison cannot establish doubling","5","Free","2026-07-24","Calculation input. Publishing the disqualification denominator is what makes the whole-funnel rate derivable at all. Used only with its exact denominator and product-user population."
"S05","Secret-shop study","114 B2B companies tested. 1 sent a personalised email within five minutes; average personalised email response 11h54m; 31 percent called, averaging 14h29m; suspected routing-tool users averaged 3h32m against nearly 13h for non-users.","Workato","B2B Lead Response Times: What We Learned from 114 Companies","https://www.workato.com/the-connector/lead-response-time-study/","24 March 2026","Fieldwork dates not disclosed","114 leading B2B companies; size, industry and region mix not fully published","Elapsed time from form submission to personalised email or phone response","Secret shop followed by a G2 profile visit at least an hour later","Small non-random sample; disqualification and form-delivery failures not reconciled; tool detection is inferred, so the routing-tool gap is confounded","4","Free","2026-07-24","Current evidence that response latency is worth measuring. Not causal evidence for routing tools."
"S06","Observational study","Across three years of data from six companies, 15,000 or more leads and 100,000 or more call attempts, the odds of qualifying a lead fell roughly 21-fold as response time went from 5 to 30 minutes. Close ratios were not studied.","InsideSales.com with Prof. James Oldroyd (MIT)","Lead Response Management Study","https://www.leadresponsemanagement.org/lrm_study/","Presented 2007","Three years of data before presentation","6 companies; more than 15,000 web leads; more than 100,000 call attempts","Qualify = each participating company own qualification standard. Start = web form lead; end = phone contact or qualification","Retrospective observational analysis of call attempts","Old, phone-led environment; company-specific qualification; no random assignment; routinely misquoted as revenue or conversion evidence","6","Free","2026-07-24","Historical association supporting latency measurement. Never a modern universal five-minute rule and never a booked or held uplift estimate. The often-quoted 100x contact figure was not visible on the live page and is not used."
"S07","Observational study","Audit of 2,241 US companies found 37 percent responded within an hour, 16 percent in 1 to 24 hours, 24 percent after 24 hours and 23 percent never. A separate analysis of 1.25m leads across 42 companies found leads contacted within an hour were nearly seven times as likely to qualify.","Harvard Business Review (Oldroyd, McElheran, Elkington)","The Short Life of Online Sales Leads","https://hbr.org/2011/03/the-short-life-of-online-sales-leads","March 2011","Collection dates not fully disclosed","2,241 US companies audited; 1.25m leads across 29 B2C and 13 B2B US companies","Qualification = meaningful conversation with a key decision maker; start = online lead","Company audit plus retrospective observational analysis","PAYWALLED full text; mixed B2B and B2C; old; not specific to demo bookings or held meetings","5","Paywalled - title, byline and framing public","2026-07-24","Historical response-time context, cited with population and date. Qualification odds are never translated into meeting conversion."
"S08","Observational analysis","Across more than 40,000 landing pages, conversion fell only slightly as field count rose. Multiple textareas had a powerful depressing effect and multiple dropdowns were associated with lower conversion.","HubSpot / Dan Zarrella","Which Types of Form Fields Lower Landing Page Conversions?","https://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/6746/which-types-of-form-fields-lower-landing-page-conversions.aspx","Legacy analysis; page updated 6 June 2025","Original data period not disclosed","More than 40,000 HubSpot customer landing pages","Landing-page conversion rate; exact analytics rules not published","Cross-sectional observational association","Heavy confounding by offer, traffic and form purpose; unknown data period; not demo-specific; cannot isolate a single field","4","Free","2026-07-24","Evidence that field TYPE matters more than field COUNT. Never used to claim a universal optimal field count."
"S09","Single-company A/B test","Five-, seven- and nine-field registration forms converted at 13.4 percent, 12.0 percent and 10.0 percent, with cost per lead of 31.24, 34.94 and 41.90 dollars.","Marketo, reported by MarketingExperiments","Testing form field length reduces cost-per-lead by 10.66 dollars","https://marketingexperiments.com/lead-generation/lead-generation-testing-form-field-length-reduces-cost-per-lead-by-10-66","27 June 2011","Test period not disclosed","One Marketo web programme","Conversion = registration completion divided by page traffic per treatment","In-house A/B test reported through an interview; the three lengths changed several fields at once","No sample size, no confidence interval, no traffic allocation and no quality outcome; field effects are bundled; old","3","Free","2026-07-24","A single-company case that visible burden can reduce completion. Never a benchmark."
"S10","Expert synthesis","Form simplification should follow Eliminate, Automate, Simplify. Simplification is explicitly not the same as reducing field count, and longer forms are sometimes necessary.","Nielsen Norman Group (Huei-Hsin Wang)","Less Effort, More Completion: The EAS Framework for Simplifying Forms","https://www.nngroup.com/articles/eas-framework-simplify-forms/","7 March 2025","Not applicable","Not an empirical benchmark; established UX principles and examples","No effect-size metric; the outcome is reduced user effort","Expert synthesis","No disclosed experiment or sample; design logic, not uplift quantification","2","Free","2026-07-24","The design logic behind the field-purpose audit. Paired with a lead-quality guardrail."
"S11","Vendor dataset","739 forms, about 20,000 labelled fields, 93m views, 60m starts and 38m completions. Only 5.2 percent of sessions were enquiry forms and 73.8 percent were mobile.","Zuko","Form Analytics Benchmarking Dataset","https://www.zuko.io/benchmarking/about-the-data","Current page","Collection period not disclosed","739 instrumented forms","Views, starts and completions as instrumented by Zuko","Aggregated product analytics","Vendor-selected clients; enquiry forms are a small minority of the mix; period and weighting unclear","5","Free","2026-07-24","Measurement-design input: proof that view, start and completion are separate events. Explicitly excluded as a B2B demo-form benchmark."
"S12","Systematic review of RCTs","Seven studies with 5,841 participants found SMS reminders improved appointment attendance against no reminder, RR 1.14 (95 percent CI 1.03 to 1.26). Attendance was 67.8 percent with no reminder, 78.6 percent with SMS and 80.3 percent with phone calls.","Cochrane (Gurol-Urganci I, de Jongh T, Vodopivec-Jamsek V, Atun R, Car J)","Mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments","https://www.cochrane.org/CD007458/COMMUN_mobile-phone-messaging-reminders-for-attendance-at-healthcare-appointments","5 December 2013","Searches January 1993 to August 2012","8 RCTs and 6,615 participants overall; 7 studies and 5,841 participants for the SMS comparison","Numerator: attended appointments. Denominator: scheduled appointments per trial arm","Systematic review of randomised and quasi-randomised trials; moderate-quality evidence","HEALTHCARE, NOT B2B. Domain transfer is indirect; timing and message design vary; cannot predict a B2B effect size","6","Free","2026-07-24","The only randomised evidence behind any intervention on this page. Used directionally, with the domain transfer stated, and never as a predicted B2B lift."
"S13","Systematic review and realist synthesis","All types of reminder system improve attendance across settings, with no differential effectiveness between simple systems. Only three studies examined cancellation and rebooking. Services need supportive administrative processes to turn cancellations into reallocated capacity.","McLean SM, Booth A, Gee M, Salway S, Cobb M, Bhanbhro S, Nancarrow SA (Patient Preference and Adherence)","Appointment reminder systems are effective but not optimal","https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4831598/","4 April 2016","Reviews spanning roughly 2000 to 2012","11 systematic reviews and 31 randomised controlled trials","Attendance, cancellation, rebooking and rescheduling; definitions vary by included study","Systematic review plus realist evidence synthesis","Healthcare; cancellation and reschedule evidence is sparse; implementation context matters","6","Free (PMC open access)","2026-07-24","Support for pairing reminders with easy cancel and reschedule plus capacity reallocation. No B2B effect-size prediction."
"S14","Product documentation","Connected calendars keep scheduled meetings in sync; availability windows, minimum notice and buffer time are configurable; times display in the contact time zone; the booking form defaults to first name, last name and email; cancel and reschedule links are optional; up to three reminder emails can be sent, and reminders send only if the calendar is connected.","HubSpot","Create scheduling pages with the meetings tool","https://knowledge.hubspot.com/meetings-tool/create-and-edit-scheduling-pages","Updated 24 June 2026","Not applicable","Not a study; product behaviour documentation","No conversion metric; defines operational events and configuration dependencies","Official product documentation","Vendor-specific; features vary by subscription and calendar integration; no outcome evidence","2","Free","2026-07-24","Implementation-risk and QA source for calendar connection, buffers, minimum notice, timezone display and reminders."
"S15","Product documentation","Free/busy rules govern which connected-calendar events block availability, and specific event types can be made bookable over.","Calendly","Free/busy rules overview","https://calendly.com/help/free-busy-rules-overview","Current help article","Not applicable","Not a study; product behaviour documentation","No conversion metric; availability and conflict behaviour","Official product documentation","Vendor-specific and plan-dependent; the article does not enumerate provider-by-provider event statuses","2","Free","2026-07-24","Evidence that no slots is a configurable systems state, not a statement about buyer demand."
"S16","Competitor page","Defines demo conversion as the share of prospects who take a desired action after experiencing a demo. Cites Gartner (35 percent of B2B buyers engage with an interactive demo), SaaStr (10 to 20 percent B2B SaaS demo conversion) and McKinsey (40 percent more revenue from personalisation).","Demostack","Sales Demo: 8 Tips to Improve Your Demo Conversion Rates","https://www.demostack.com/post/sales-demo-roi","Published 16 September 2024; updated 21 August 2025","Not applicable","Not a study","Denominator is prospects who experienced a demo, which is a different funnel position from form submissions","Editorial tips article","All three statistics are borrowed; no original data; no tables","2","Free","2026-07-24","SERP incumbent at position 2 and an example of a denominator that starts after the demo rather than at the form."
"S17","Competitor page with vendor data","Median interactive-demo click-through conversion 8 percent, top 25 percent at 25 percent and top 1 percent at 67 percent. Also cites an Unbounce median landing-page conversion of 4.3 percent across 44,000 landing pages.","Arcade","6 Ways to Improve Demo Conversions on Your Site","https://www.arcade.software/post/how-to-drive-saas-website-conversions","23 June 2025","Not disclosed","Arcade-instrumented interactive demos; count not disclosed","Interactive-demo click-through rate; denominator not specified","Product analytics reported inside an editorial article","No denominator disclosed for the demo benchmarks; measures demo engagement, not booked or held meetings","2","Free","2026-07-24","SERP incumbent at position 5. Cited as engagement evidence only, never as meeting conversion."
"I01","IVRIS companion review","In a public automated audit, 17 of 20 payload-confirmed forms carried the expected capture values while a static scanner detected only 8 and missed 9. Browser payload is not CRM receipt.","IVRIS","B2B Form Attribution Capture","https://ivristech.com/b2b-form-attribution-capture/","2026","Not applicable","150-form automated audit; 23 validation attempts; 20 definitive outcomes","Payload-confirmed capture against static detection; the end event is the browser payload, not a CRM record","Automated audit plus validation attempts; selected sample with an explicit non-CRM boundary","Selected sample; public browser evidence cannot prove downstream CRM receipt","6","Free","2026-07-24","Companion source for Gate 0 capture reconciliation. Linked, not repeated."
"I02","IVRIS companion review","Distinguishes a genuine human response from an automated acknowledgement and treats the 2007 five-minute finding as an aggressive historical target rather than a modern universal benchmark.","IVRIS","Speed to Lead","https://ivristech.com/speed-to-lead/","Updated 22 July 2026","Not applicable","Evidence review; underlying studies separately attributed","Genuine response against automated response; lead arrival to meaningful human contact","Companion synthesis of public evidence","Not new proprietary data; not independent confirmation of the underlying studies","6","Free","2026-07-24","Terminology source for response latency. Linked, not duplicated."
"I03","IVRIS companion review","Separates validation (is the record usable and real), qualification (does it meet fit and readiness) and scoring (relative prioritisation).","IVRIS","B2B Lead Validation Criteria","https://ivristech.com/b2b-lead-validation-criteria/","2026","Not applicable","Operational definition framework","Distinct decision states and reason codes rather than a single rate","Definition framework","No causal uplift; definitions must be adapted to each company policy","2","Free","2026-07-24","Definition source for Gate 1. Prevents disqualification being counted as process leakage."
"X01","Not cited - could not verify","Google Calendar and Microsoft Outlook event statuses that silently block scheduler availability (busy events, unaccepted invites, declined recurring meetings; Outlook Busy, Tentative and Out of Office).","Chili Piper","Understanding Availability in Google Calendar and Microsoft Outlook","https://help.chilipiper.com/hc/en-us/articles/43621591559827-Understanding-Availability-in-Google-Calendar-and-Microsoft-Outlook","Current help article","Not applicable","Not a study","Not applicable","Official product documentation","EXCLUDED FROM THE ARTICLE: the help centre returned HTTP 403 to automated retrieval on 24 July 2026, so the provider-by-provider status detail could not be verified and is therefore not claimed","Not scored","Blocked to automated retrieval (403)","2026-07-24","Not cited. Recorded here so the exclusion is visible and can be revisited if the page becomes retrievable."