OUT-OF-HOURS inquiries represent 33 per cent of all engaged leads, highlighting a wider challenge for dealers trying to maintain the same speed, quality and persistence of follow-up across every inquiry.

Based on UK research combining a mystery shop of 99 dealer website inquiries with Impel data covering more than 300,000 leads and 89,000 engagements, automotive AI provider Impel found that there is a gap between buyer behaviour and human operating limits.

Impel said that the solution can be a mix of AI and human.

Impel general manager APAC Michael Clarke

“This research was conducted in the UK, but the pressures it identifies will be very familiar to Australian dealers,” said Impel APAC managing director Michael Clarke.

“Out of hours is where the capacity gap is easiest to see, but it doesn’t disappear when the dealership opens. Sales teams are juggling customers, calls, appointments and inquiries throughout the day. AI can provide the consistency and persistence around that workload, while people focus on the conversations where they add most value.”

The issue was raised after a UK mystery shop of dealer websites found that while email inquiry response rates appear high and in-hours performance can be fast, a structural “capacity gap” emerges when buyer behaviour meets human operating limits.

Impel’s research called After the lead lands, analysed email responses to 99 website inquiries submitted to the UK’s top 100 most profitable dealers.

Inquiries were split between new and used and between in and out-of-hours, and tracked over 21 days.

Across the sample, almost all (99 per cent) received some form of response. However, 12 per cent did not receive a tailored reply. 

This was more pronounced for new-car inquiries, where 21 per cent did not receive a tailored response compared with seven per cent for used-car inquiries.New-car dealers were also less likely to provide a tailored response in-hours than out-of-hours (71 per cent vs 88 per cent).

Impel said that the patterns fall into three areas – How quickly dealers respond, how long they sustain follow-up, and how consistent the experience feels.

Speed

Response speed showed a clear structural divide. The median in-hours response time was 28 minutes. Out of hours, the median response time shifted to 13 hours and 31 minutes, placing it firmly in next-day territory.

Mr Clarke said that this was not a story about dealers ignoring leads.

“The effort is clear, and in-hours performance can be genuinely fast,” he noted.

“The data points to a structural pressure point. When inquiries arrive outside operating hours, or when follow-up needs to be sustained over time, maintaining consistency becomes harder.”

Persistence

Follow-up efforts exist, but they are often compressed into a short window. 

The research found that among inquiries that received tailored contact, 66 per cent received two or more tailored attempts and 51 per cent received three or more. 

However, the median duration of tailored contact was just 3.9 days, suggesting that sustained engagement beyond the first few days is uncommon.

Out-of-hours inquiries were more likely to receive only a single tailored attempt than those submitted in-hours (30 per cent vs 38 per cent), meaning two-fifths of out-of-hours inquiries received just one tailored response.

Just six dealers maintained tailored contact across the full 21-day monitoring period.

Consistency and completeness

Quality and consistency also varied. On average, responses answered 1.3 out of three questions, and only 26 per cent answered all three.

Out-of-hours replies were less complete than in-hours responses.

The research said that consistency across email exchanges was mixed with only 30 per cent of inquiry threads rated as consistent, meaning branding, tone, and format were applied uniformly across each message. 

It also found that 32 per cent were rated partially consistent and 22 per cent inconsistent.

Consistency was notably lower in new-car inquiries, where only 21 per cent of threads were rated consistent compared with 35 per cent for used-car enquiries.

Remaining threads consisted of a single tailored response and were not rated for consistency.

Mr Clarke said that these weren’t signs of neglect.

“This points to operational complexity. When inquiries come in out of hours or require sustained follow-up, consistency becomes harder,” he said.

“In some cases, multiple automated emails from different systems shape the early customer experience before a meaningful exchange has begun.

“And this was a single-channel test, and website leads are likely to be prioritised by sales teams. Apply the same pressures across multiple lead sources and the risk of gaps increases, particularly as teams hit fatigue and bias enters the process.”

These findings are set against consumer research from MOTORS and Cazoo, and Impel’s large-scale UK engagement data to provide behavioural context.

According to the MOTORS and Cazoo research, 67 per cent of buyers expect a reply to an email, SMS or WhatsApp enquiry within six hours or the same day; 26 per cent within an hour; and 35 per cent will look elsewhere if dealers do not respond quickly.

Four in five buyers expect interactions with a dealer to be simple and joined-up.

Impel’s UK data found that out-of-hours engagement performs at a comparable level to in-hours demand, converting to appointment at 12.5 per cent versus 11.2 per cent during operating hours. 

However, it said that the behavioural pattern was materially different. 

Out-of-hours customers exchange significantly more messages on average, and 90 per cent of those who engage outside business hours go on to book their appointment while the dealership is closed. 

Time-to-engagement and time-to-appointment are broadly comparable across both groups, with out-of-hours customers marginally faster to appointment on average.

Mr Clarke said buyers move quickly, shop out of hours, and don’t behave in straight lines.

“Some respond within minutes; others go quiet and return days later,” he said.

“That behaviour meets a dealership model that still relies heavily on manual effort. That’s where the capacity gap shows up.”

The report concludes that closing that gap requires a combined approach – AI plus people. 

It said AI can provide consistent, on-brand responses and structured follow-up, including when inquiries arrive out of hours or teams are under pressure, before handing over to dealership staff when a conversation requires human judgement, reassurance or negotiation.

Impel argues that the opportunity for dealers is not simply to generate more leads, but to protect the value of those already arriving.

“The data does not suggest a lack of intent or professionalism,” added Mr Clarke.

“It suggests pressure. AI plus people is how you close that gap by delivering consistent responses, steadier follow-up over time, and clean handovers so teams can focus on the conversations where human judgement and trust matter most.”