Platforms like Bark work by selling the same lead to several tradespeople at once, and the pricing reflects that model directly: you are not paying for a customer, you are paying for a chance at one, shared with three or four competitors quoting the same job. That is not automatically a bad deal, but it changes the maths on cost per job in ways worth understanding before you rely on it as a core channel.
How the Shared Lead Model Actually Works
A homeowner submits one request describing their job. The platform sells access to that request to several tradespeople, each of whom pays for the chance to quote, regardless of whether they win the work. Some platforms charge a flat fee per lead, others use a credit or bidding system, but the underlying economics are the same: your cost is tied to the enquiry, not the outcome.
This model works well for the platform because it monetises the same customer interest multiple times. Whether it works well for you depends entirely on your close rate against however many competitors are quoting the same job.
The Maths on Margin Erosion
Consider a simplified example. A shared lead costs £15 and is sent to four electricians. If your close rate on shared leads runs around 1 in 5, which is a realistic range once you account for price shopping and slower response times losing jobs to whoever calls back first, your real cost per won job is £75 in lead fees alone, before accounting for the time spent quoting on the four you lost.
| Lead Type | Cost per Lead | Typical Close Rate | Approx. Cost per Won Job |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shared platform lead | £10 to £20 | 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 | £40 to £120 |
| Exclusive PPC or LSA lead | £15 to £40 | 1 in 2 to 1 in 3 | £30 to £80 |
| Organic or referral lead | Effectively £0 to £5 | 1 in 2 or better | Under £10 in most cases |
The figures here are illustrative ranges based on patterns we see across UK trade businesses, and your own numbers will vary by area and job type, but the pattern generally holds: shared leads often cost more per won job than they appear to on the surface, precisely because the per-lead price looks cheap in isolation.
When Shared Lead Platforms Still Make Sense
This is not a case for abandoning shared platforms entirely. They genuinely help in a few specific situations:
- Filling quiet periods: extra volume during a slow month can be worth a lower margin if it keeps you and any employees busy rather than idle
- New businesses with no reviews yet: shared platforms can provide early job volume while your Google Business Profile and reviews are still building
- Unfamiliar job types or areas: testing demand for a new service without committing to a dedicated campaign first
The mistake is treating a shared platform as a primary, long-term lead source rather than a supplementary one you scale down as better channels mature.
Building Toward Exclusive Lead Sources
Exclusive leads, meaning enquiries that come to you alone rather than being shared with competitors, consistently close at a higher rate simply because you are not racing several other quotes to the same customer. Google Local Services Ads, a well-optimised local SEO presence, and a genuine referral system all generate exclusive leads without the shared-competition cost baked in. Our guide to Local Services Ads and local SEO tweaks for the map pack cover two of the most reliable ways to build this over time.
Our local growth framework covers how we typically sequence a shift away from shared, pay-per-enquiry sources towards the exclusive channels that compound over time instead of resetting with every payment.
FAQs
Are shared lead platforms like Bark always a bad deal?
Not always. They can be useful for filling quiet periods or for new businesses without reviews yet, but relying on them as a primary long-term channel usually costs more per won job than it appears to on the surface.
How many tradespeople typically quote on the same shared lead?
This varies by platform and area, but three to five competing quotes on the same enquiry is common, which meaningfully lowers the odds of winning any individual lead.
What is a realistic close rate to expect from shared leads?
Close rates vary widely, but expect somewhere in the range of 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 as a rough planning assumption, lower than most exclusive lead sources.
What is the fastest way to reduce reliance on shared lead platforms?
Building out local SEO and a consistent review-generation habit tends to produce the fastest shift, since both create exclusive, ongoing lead flow without an ongoing per-lead cost.
Should a brand new electrical business avoid shared lead platforms entirely?
Not necessarily. They can provide useful early volume before reviews and local SEO have had time to build, provided you treat them as a temporary bridge rather than a permanent strategy.
