AI Took the Cold Leads. Call-Center Agents Then Sold Less

An online insurance broker in China handed most of its weakest sales leads to an AI voice agent in August 2024. Its human agents were left with better leads, and on the high-intent leads they kept, their conversion rate fell from 4.4% to 3.7%. A working paper built on 567,090 call records traces the drop to how agents treated each call once they expected a better one next.

What changed on August 28, 2024

[Fact] The firm, kept anonymous under a data agreement, phones people who abandoned an online insurance purchase. Leads that reached the payment page are "hot"; earlier dropouts are "cold". On August 28, 2024, routing changed so the AI voice agent took cold leads by default while humans kept priority on hot ones. The AI's share of cold leads jumped from under 25% to above 60%.

[Fact] Pay, scripts, training and evaluation stayed the same. Agents earn mostly commission on policies they close themselves and get nothing if a lead they hand back later sells under a colleague.

Three findings

1. Better leads arrived early in the day. [Fact] Measured against the same day's average, the chance that a human call was a hot lead rose 23.4 percentage points on an agent's first three calls, 15.7 points on calls four to six, and zero by calls 81 to 120.
2. Sales fell in the same place. [Fact] Conversion on the first three calls dropped 4.5 points and on the next three 2.5 points, was flat in the middle of the shift, and rose 3.4 points at the end.
3. Agents let go sooner. [Fact] On the first three calls, agents returned unconverted leads to the shared queue 8.1 points more often, and the calls they kept ran about 13% shorter. Returned leads went on to convert at about 1.9 times the rate of retained ones, so agents were giving up good prospects, not weak ones.

The authors explain the pattern with search theory. When richer leads are expected next, the lead in hand looks worse by comparison, and the pull is strongest while most of the shift is still ahead. [Estimate] In their accounting model, the better ordering of leads added 0.58% to hot-lead yield and the change in agent conduct subtracted 17.6%, a behavioral effect about 30 times the mechanical gain. Their day-level causal estimate of overall performance is statistically indistinguishable from zero.

What the firm's totals show

[Fact] Over the 60-day windows, human calls fell 31.8% and AI calls rose 351%. Conversions per 50 human calls rose 6.3%, which reads like a productivity gain, but only because human call volume shrank faster than sales did. The authors calculate that at daily volume, humans lost about 50.5 hot-lead sales a day while the AI recovered about 7.7 on cold leads.

[Estimate] By our division of those two figures, about 6.6 human sales were lost for each one the AI added.

Which jobs this touches

[Claim] The authors expect the same response wherever workers draw from a shared queue, can release a task, and expect more work afterward, naming claims processing, fraud review, content moderation and customer triage. On our site the closest matches are telemarketers, customer service representatives and insurance sales agents.

What to prepare

• Watch your first calls of the day. The losses sat in the first three to six calls. Logging how long you stay with morning leads, and how many you hand back, gives you your own check on the pattern.
• Ask when good leads are released, not only which ones you get. In the authors' model, returning hot-lead release to its pre-AI rhythm would raise conversions per call by about 13.5% (bootstrap interval 10.5% to 16.6%). Spreading strong leads across the shift is a change a team lead can request.
• Question "output per human call" figures. In this firm that number rose while conversion on the work humans kept went down.

Limits

The study covers one firm, one routing change, and about 60 days on each side of it. Estimates describe shifts at each call position relative to the same day's average rather than absolute levels, call length stands in for effort, and the cost model is a calibration, not a causal estimate. Human agent-days fell from 7,492 to 5,561 between the windows (26%, our arithmetic); the authors report modest turnover and no break in agent characteristics at the cutoff. The paper is a working paper and has not been peer reviewed.

Sources

• Xinyu Fu, Shulong Luo, Narayan Ramasubbu, Peng Shen, Xincheng Wang and Yucheng Wang, "When Better Opportunities Backfire: Service Worker Responses to Parallel AI Deployment in Customer Acquisition", arXiv:2610.25603, October 2026: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.25603

About this analysis

This article was written with AI assistance from the full text of the paper, including its appendices. One of the six authors lists an affiliation with Waterdrop Research Institute in Beijing; the studied firm appears only under a pseudonym. The paper is released under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Figures marked [Estimate] are either the authors' calibrated model or our own arithmetic from the paper's numbers, as stated in the text.