Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
1
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Inside/Telesales
Performance Optimization
2008 Survey Analysis
Compliments of
Jim Dickie
♦
Barry Trailer
CSO Insights
CSO Insights
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
2
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Other Current Research Studies by CSO Insights
Lead Life Cycle Optimization –
Executive Report
Demystifying the Sales Effectiveness Challenge –
Executive Report
2008 Sales Performance Optimization –
Executive Report
©CSO Insights
3
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Other Current Insights White Papers by CSO Insights
Sales Strategy Insights
•
Sales 2.0 Part 1. - Time to Run Away and Join a New Circus
•Sales 2.0 Part 2. - Think, Think Differently, Think Again
Sales Management Insights
•
Sales Management 2.0: Metrics Not Hunches
•
Optimizing Hiring Effectiveness: Getting the Right Team on the Field
Demand Generation Insights
•
Optimizing Lead Generation
•
Building Relationships: Turning Cold Calls into Opportunities
•Optimizing Sales Messaging
Sales Knowledge Management Insights
•
Proactive Sales Intelligence
•Dynamic Sales Knowledge
•
Sales Knowledge Management: Is Progress Being Made?
Sales Process Insights
•
The Impact of CRM and Sales Process on Sales Effectiveness
•Sales Process Primer
•
Sample Sales Process Template
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Insights
•
On Demand versus On Premise CRM: Are There Performance Differences?
•Improving Inside Sales Effectiveness Using Technology : Putting Web
Collaboration to Work
•
The Impact of CRM and Sales Process on Sales Effectiveness
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
4
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
©CSO Insights
5
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Inside/Telesales
Performance Optimization
2008 Survey Analysis
Compliments of
Jim Dickie
♦
Barry Trailer
Sales Mastery Press
Mill Valley, California
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
6
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Terms & Conditions
Printed in the United States of America. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be produced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval systems, without the prior written permission of the publisher except in the cases of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. For additional information, contact CSO Insights, 4524 Northfield Court, Boulder, CO 80301, Phone: (303) 521-4410, e-mail: [email protected].
The reader understands that the information and data used in preparation of this report were as accurate as possible at the time of preparation by the publisher. The publisher assumes no responsibility to update the information or publication. The publisher assumes that the readers will use the information contained in this publication for the purpose of informing themselves on the matters which form the subject of this publication. It is sold with the understanding that neither the authors nor those individuals interviewed are engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal or other expert advice is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. The publisher assumes no responsibility for any use to which the purchaser puts this information.
All views expressed in this report are those of the individuals interviewed and do not necessarily reflect those of the companies or organizations they may be affiliated with, CSO Insights, Insight Technology Group, or Sales Mastery. All trademarks are trademarks of their respective companies.
Copyright © 2008 CSO Insights
All Rights Reserved.
©CSO Insights
7
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Acknowledgements
First, we wish to thank all of the far-sighted industry executives who unselfishly contributed their time and insights to the development of the research knowledge base used in the creation of this publication. Next, we would like to thank the following sales effectiveness solution experts for their underwriting and thought leadership support for this project: FrontRange Solutions Goldmine, Jigsaw, and Cisco/Webex. Finally, we owe a debt of gratitude to many colleagues, mentors, and advisors whose help made this report possible. To list them all would be impossible, but a few deserve special mention: Trish Bertuzzi of the Bridge Group for her outstanding support covering the Eastern U.S.; Sally Duby and PhoneWorks for their support covering the Western U.S.; and Willis Turner, President and CEO of Sales & Marketing Executives International (SMEI). Thanks, too, to Kim Cameron, our new Executive Director of Research, for doubling up and providing her keen-eyed editing.
And a special thank you to Denise Quinn, who was involved to an unprecedented level in the creation of this expanded report and we are pleased to have as the most recent edition to the CSO Insights team.
Compliments of
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
8
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Table of Contents
2008 Sales Performance Optimization Project Overview ... 13
Introduction ... 17
Sales Force Demographics ... 21
• Percentage of Inside/Telesales Reps Achieving Quota ... 22
• Percentage of Company Revenues from Inside/Telesales ... 23
• Primary Functions of Inside/Telesales Reps ... 24
• Defining Inside/Telesales Territories ... 25
• The Inside/Telesales Organization (partnered with field/channel) ... 26
• Ratio Between Inside/Telesales field/Channel Sales Reps... 27
• Inside/Telesales Reps Average Quota ... 28
• Overlaying Sales Quotas for Inside/Telesales Reps and Managers ... 29
• Compensating the Inside/Telesales Manager ... 30
• Measuring/Compensating Inside/Telesales Performance ... 31
• Inside/Telesales Rep Total Targeted Compensation ... 32
• Other Types of Recognition/Incentive Programs ... 33
• Average Tenure of Inside/Telesales Reps ... 34
• Current Annual Inside/Telesales Rep Turnover Rates ... 35
• Reasons Inside/Telesales Reps Voluntarily Leave ... 36
• Retention Programs for Inside/Telesales Reps ... 37
• Average New Inside/Telesales Rep Ramp-up Time ... 38
• Inside/Telesales Rep Time Allocation ... 39
Sell Cycle Analysis ... 41
• Average Deal Size ... 42
• Length of Average Sell Cycle ... 43
©CSO Insights
9
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
• Lead Generation Analysis ... 45
• Percentage of Leads that Progress to an Initial Customer Discussion ... 46
• Percentage of Initial Discussions that Progress to a Presentation ... 47
• Percentage of Presentations Resulting in a Sale ... 48
• Percentage of Deals that Close as Forecast ... 49
• Outcome of Forecast Deals ... 50
Sales Strategy Development Assessment ... 52
• Ability to Prioritize Accounts upon Which to Focus ... 53
• Ability to Develop Strategic Plans for Key Prospects ... 54
• Ability to Thoroughly Research New Prospects Before Calling Them ... 55
• Ability to Generate the Necessary Number of New Leads... 56
• Ability to Qualify and Prioritize Properly the Opportunities ... 57
• Ability to Incubate Leads Who have Interest, but No Time for Action ... 58
Sales Cycle Execution Assessment ... 60
• Ability to Understand Clearly the Customer’s Buying Process ... 61
• Ability to Differentiate among Competitive Products/Services... 62
• Ability to Cross-sell and Up-sell ... 63
• Ability to Sell Value/Avoid Excessive Discounting ... 64
• Ability to Close Deals Accurately, in the Timeframe Originally Forecast ... 65
• Top Three Reasons Why Companies Win Competitive Deals... 66
• Top Three Reasons Why Companies Lose Competitive Deals ... 67
Account Management Assessment ... 69
• Ability to Effectively Introduce New Products ... 70
• Ability to Farm Additional Revenues from Existing Customers ... 71
• Ability to Effectively Communicate with Customers ... 72
• Ability to Create/Maintain Case Studies/References ... 73
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
10
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
• Ability to Hire Sales Reps Who can Succeed at Selling Offerings ... 76
• Ability to Provide Managers Access to Timely/Accurate Sales Metrics ... 77
• Ability to Accurately Forecast Business ... 78
• Ability to Easily and Accurately Calculate Sales Commissions ... 79
• Ability to Regularly Conduct Win/Loss Reviews ... 80
• Ability to Continually Adapt Sales Process to Market Changes ... 81
• Ability to Proactively Identify Which Reps Need Coaching/Mentoring ... 82
• Ability to Share Best Practices Across the Sales Force ... 83
Sales Process Assessment ... 85
• Annual Investment in Training Per Sales Rep ... 86
• Change in Amount of Sales Skills Training... 87
• Change in Amount of Product Training ... 88
• Change in Amount of Customer’s Marketplace Training ... 89
• Change in Amount of Purchase Justification Training ... 90
• Level of Sales Process Implementation by Inside/Telesales Reps ... 91
• Impact of Sales Methodology on Performance ... 92
• Type of Sales Methodology Used in Sales Process ... 93
• Sales Methodology Adherence Rate ... 94
• Attitudes Toward Recommending Sales Methodology Vendor ... 95
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Utilization ... 97
• Organizations that Have Formally Implemented a CRM System ... 98
• Type of CRM System(s) Implemented ... 99
• CRM Adoption Rates ... 100
• Sales Impact Resulting from CRM Usage... 101
• Performance Improvements Resulting from CRM Usage ... 102
• Satisfaction Rating of Primary CRM Vendor ... 103
©CSO Insights
11
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
• Plans for Additional CRM Enhancements/Additions in the Next 12 Months ... 105
Internet and Sales Knowledge Management Utilization ... 107
• Uses of the Internet to Support Sales and Marketing Efforts ... 108
• Impact of Internet Usage on Sales and Marketing Performance ... 109
• Integrating CRM with VoIP ... 110
Sales and Marketing Alignment ... 112
• Uses of the Website to Engage Prospects ... 113
• Assessment of Marketing-Generated Sales Collateral ... 114
• Assessment of Marketing-Generated Lead Quality and Quantity ... 115
• Timeframe for Marketing Programs to Start Generating Sales ... 116
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
12
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
2008 Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization Project Overview
This report represents a new level of investigation into Inside/Telesales performance benchmarking. In past years, CSO Insights has conducted surveys of Inside/Telesales and reported on a much smaller question set; the 2008 survey instrument was completely overhauled based on our experience with our annual sales performance optimization survey and three earlier Inside/Telesales polling efforts. The result was a much more comprehensive survey than the report which you are now reading.
To solicit sales executive participation for this study, we partnered with FrontRange Solutions, JigSaw and WebEx to extend invitations to inside sales management professionals. We also worked with an Inside/Telesales management on-line community headed by Trish Bertuzzi in the eastern U.S. and the PhoneWorks in the west as well as Sales and Marketing Executive International (SMEI). In all, we invited professionals directly involved in the management of their organizations’ inside sales teams to give us feedback on 100+ unique sales performance metrics. Nearly 500 firms participated in this study.
Looking at the profiles of the firms taking part in this study, it’s apparent that we attracted broad participation from Manufacturing firms. Figure 1, profiling industry sector segmentation at the highest level, shows that we also have reasonable representation of Services, and Other (including retail, government, non-profits, education, distribution, etc.).
Figure 1
Not surprisingly software was well represented in this year’s survey population. The software industry has been a leader in leveraging inside/telesales teams to complement and augment traditional field sales. Geographically, this year’s report is heavily weighted to North America representing over 90% of total respondents.
Looking at the size of the firms, we focused on two metrics: company revenues and the number of inside/telesales people employed. In Figure 2, you see the breakdown of participants by revenue into what we consider small businesses (under $50M), medium-sized firms ($50M to $1B) and large enterprises (>$1B).
©CSO Insights
13
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Figure 2
An initial review of the data has shown key differences in terms of the challenges companies face, and also the types of sales effectiveness initiatives they are able to successfully take on, based on their relative revenue size. Therefore, we will be doing further analysis of the 2008 survey results for small, medium and large businesses.
In Figure 3, we see the breakdown of study participation based on the second size metric, number of inside/telesales reps currently employed.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
14
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
As in the past, we used a web-based survey approach for this research project to collect the data from participating firms. Prior participants and other candidates invited to take part in this study were initially pre-screened based on their job function. These executives were then emailed an invitation to take part in the study.
Those who accepted were directed to a website where they could take the online survey. We also provided a direct link to the survey from our website, www.csoinsights.com. The survey instrument was designed to take up to 30 minutes to complete. Participants had the option to sign off from the site, return, and continue where they left off if they needed to get more information or had a time constraint.
Survey questions focused on sales performance metrics relative to ten key areas:
Sales Force Demographics: Metrics on sales force make-up, quotas, compensation, ramp-up times, time allocation, etc.
Sell Cycle Analysis: Metrics on sales effectiveness at various stages in the sales process and also forecasting.
Sales Force Hiring and Retention Analysis: Metrics on how companies are interviewing, hiring, and keeping sales people.
Sales Performance Assessment: Metrics on the performance of specific sales and service tasks, as well as communication between teams and across the enterprise.
Change in the Marketplace Assessment: Metrics on what types of changes sales people are being asked to cope with and the ability of their company to support them in doing so.
Sales Methodology Assessment: Metrics on the role sales process is playing in helping to improve sales rep effectiveness.
CRM Assessment: Metrics on the role CRM technology is playing in helping to improve sales rep effectiveness.
Sales Knowledge Management: Metrics on what types of information sales reps need to sell effectively, and if/how that knowledge is being shared across the sales force.
Sales and Marketing Alignment: Metrics on how effectively sales and marketing are seeing their organizations working together.
The following report summarizes the input we received from participating firms in each of these areas. To help put the data into perspective and increase relevance to your sales organization, we recommend that research clients take the survey either prior to, or after, reviewing this report. (Contact your CSO Insights partner if you need the link to the online survey.) We also urge you to read both the following Introduction and the Closing remarks (see pg. 117), which contains additional considerations for the strategies and tactics you may want to include as part of your sales optimization initiatives closing out 2008 and planning 2009.
In this study, where applicable, we also refer to other analyses we have completed on topics such as lead generation, sales process, sales management, CRM, sales effectiveness, best practices, etc. These are listed immediately following the front cover. If an area covered in the report is of particular interest to you,
you can access the related documents via the research client portal or our website: www.csoinsights.com.
As you review our report findings, you will be able to compare your company’s performance to other sales forces and determine where your team excels, equals, or lags behind your peers. In doing so, you will see where your specific areas for improvement are. Research clients who may then want a more targeted
©CSO Insights
15
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
look into their performance, based on industry, company size, geography, etc. should contact their CSO Insights partner.
We hope the information in this report will help you more effectively chart the course for your own inside/telesales effectiveness efforts for 2009. While we believe the issues raised have broad applicability, we encourage you to use this information simply as the basis for brainstorming and goal planning, and to identify and prioritize your organization’s operational challenges. Everyone can benefit from understanding the strategies and tactics of other companies, but in the end, you have to implement solutions that fit your specific business needs, not those of other firms.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please contact:
Jim Dickie Barry Trailer
Managing Partner Managing Partner
CSO Insights CSO Insights
(303) 521 4410 (415) 924-3500
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
16
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Introduction
In the Closing section of our 2007 Sales Performance Optimization (SPO) report, we introduced the concept of the Sales Relationship/Process (SRP) Matrix, seen below in Figure 4. After several years of writing about levels of relationship and levels of process implementation we postulated that cross-indexing these two scales might offer interesting insights. In our 2008 SPO report we published that firms that adopted more process rigor and increased the level of relationships with their customers achieved better performance than their lower level counterparts.
In this report we make repeated references to this matrix and its levels: Vendor through Partner on the relationship axis and Levels 1-4 on the process axis. Given the liberal use of these terms throughout the report it is worth a moment of your time to familiarize yourself with them.
Five Levels of Sales Relationships
Level 1—Approved Vendor: You are seen by the majority of your customers as a legitimate provider of the products or services you offer, but are not recognized for having any significant sustainable competitive edge over alternative offerings.
Level 2—Preferred Supplier: Based on your marketplace reputation and past dealings with your customers, while competitors may offer alternatives, you are normally seen as the preferred vendor with whom to do business.
Level 3—Solutions Consultant: Based on a specific set of product-related, value-added knowledge or services you offer, your customers see you as not only a vendor, but also a consulting resource on how to best use your products or services.
Level 4—Strategic Contributor: Above and beyond the products and services you offer, your customers view you as a source of strategic planning assistance for dealing with broader-based challenges they are currently facing.
Level 5—Trusted Partner: At this highest level, you are seen as a long-term partner whose contributions – products, insights, processes, etc. – are viewed as key to your client’s long-term success.
Four Levels of Sales Process
Level 1—Random Process: Your company may be perceived as being anti-process, though what you really lack is a single standard process. Essentially every sales rep does their own thing their own way.
Level 2—Informal Process: Your company exposes your salespeople to a sales process and indicates that they are expected to use it, but that use is neither monitored nor measured.
Level 3—Formal Process: Your company regularly enforces the use of a defined sales process (sometimes religiously), and you conduct periodic reviews of the process to see how effective it is, and then make changes based on that analysis.
Level 4—Dynamic Process: Your company dynamically monitors and provides continuous feedback on sales reps’ use of your formal sales process. You also proactively modify the process when you detect key changes in market conditions.
With these definitions in mind, consider the chart represented in Figure 4 and what companies in each of the various boxes might look like. A lower left company would be an Approved Vendor/Random Process (R1/P1); how would such a company’s sales force operate? How would they manage their
©CSO Insights
17
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
inside/telesales reps and what competencies and/or personality profiles would they hire? Self-starter, aggressive, maverick, quick learners, trained professionals, and individuals looking for a “sales-driven culture” might come to mind.
At the opposite upper right hand corner would be a Trusted Partner/Dynamic Process (R5/P4) company. What terms would these companies use to describe the inside/telesales reps they’re looking for and what characteristics would be typical? Process-oriented, team player, strong communicator and able to establish rapport quickly might be part of the mix. Not entirely different from the R1/P1 description and, no doubt, many terms would overlap. After all, win/win and strong communication skills would likely be espoused as useful at any location on the matrix.
We’ve hinted that R5/P4 companies generally report better performance figures than their R1/P1 counterparts but does this mean R1/P1 companies are not or cannot be successful? No. There are examples of companies in any of the matrix addresses that have been successful. From our research and the data we’ve collected we are prepared to say the key distinguishing feature as companies move from
lower left to upper right in the SRP Matrix is they become more predictable.
And increased predictability, particularly in times of increased uncertainty is a good thing—a very good thing.
Sales Relationship/Process (SRP) Matrix™
Trusted
Partner
Strategic
Contributor
Solutions
Consultant
Preferred
Supplier
Approved
Vendor
Random
Process
Tribal Wisdom
Process
Formal
Process
Dynamic
Process
Figure 4The data in this report was collected as recently as September 30, 2008, and the report is being released October 22, 2008 with information that is as current as possible. Even so, economic uncertainties and global convulsions greater than ever seen in the past eighty years have made “uncertainty” a daily reality and “predictability” seems like a pipe dream. Still, sages far wiser than us have observed, “This too shall pass.”
In no way do we mean to minimize the challenges that lie ahead. At the same time we recognize the critical engine that sales represents in keeping things moving. While conventional wisdom seems to be buckling under at an unprecedented rate, some things stand fast. One is this: Nothing happens until someone sells something.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
18
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
We present the SRP Matrix model in the introduction because we feel that it’s a useful filter through which to view many of the metrics presented in this report. However, you will also find truth in the saying: The more things change the more they stay the same. The following chart (Figure 5) shows the ongoing imperative to bring in new accounts, increased revenue and doing so by generating new leads. Sound familiar? This is probably not new in the least but, no doubt, you will find new urgency in defining programs and executing against these in the weeks and months ahead.
Figure 5
Alvin Toffler said, “Technology is the engine that drives change and information is the fuel that feeds it.” The following report distills more than 50,000 data points down to the most timely insights and actionable information we can offer. As you scan through the following pages think about your own answer to each question, then consider the distribution of answers plotted on each page, the Key Findings and our Observations.
We hope you will find this high octane fuel at a time when you can use it most. We end this report with some final comments with In Closing, (see pg. 117).
We welcome your feedback. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report please contact:
Jim Dickie Barry Trailer
Managing Partner Managing Partner
CSO Insights CSO Insights
(303) 521 4410 (415) 924-3500
©CSO Insights
19
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
20
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Sales Force Demographics
Introduction
This section looks at a number of metrics related to the inside/telesales force make-up, including quota attainment, business focus, the size of the sales team, how they are organized, their level of experience, where they work, how they spend their time, etc.
• Percentage of Inside/Telesales Reps Achieving Quota ... 22
• Percentage of Company Revenues from Inside/Telesales ... 23
• Primary Functions of Inside/Telesales Reps ... 24
• Defining Inside/Telesales Territories ... 25
• The Inside/Telesales Organization (partnered with field/channel) ... 26
• Ratio Between Inside/Telesales Field/Channel Sales Reps... 27
• Inside/Telesales Reps Average Quota ... 28
• Overlaying Sales Quotas for Inside/Telesales Reps and Managers ... 29
• Compensating the Inside/Telesales Manager ... 30
• Measuring/Compensating Inside/Telesales Performance ... 31
• Inside/Telesales Rep Total Targeted Compensation ... 32
• Other Types of Recognition/Incentive Programs ... 33
• Average Tenure of Inside/Telesales Reps ... 34
• Current Annual Inside/Telesales Rep Turnover Rates ... 35
• Reasons Inside/Telesales Reps Voluntarily Leave ... 36
• Retention Programs for Inside/Telesales Reps ... 37
• Average New Inside/Telesales Rep Ramp-up Time ... 38
©CSO Insights
21
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings
Over half of
inside/telesales reps made quota.
The percentage of
reps making quota has dropped over the last 3 years.
Actual quotas have
seen a relatively small increase.
Observations
In looking at one of the key barometers of sales health, we see that 52% of inside/telesales reps met or beat their revenue targets. This is 10% lower than in 2005. What’s changed?
When reviewing the average telesales quota attainment by quota size, the big winners are those reps at the highest end of the spectrum, greater than $1M. This group had 60% of their reps achieve quota.
The largest drop in the number of reps meeting their sales numbers was in the $250K-500K range. In 2005, 68% of reps met their quota compared to 51% in 2008. It may be that this group has reached the awkward stage, like an
adolescent, of having grown to a significant size but not fully coordinated with all available resources. For example, this mid-range group has invested in CRM (90%) and reports only 70% of reps consistently using these systems.
One area that might hold the promise of improved performance is more formal implementation of sales process. The $250K-500K quota group had 83% of its participants in the Random or Tribal Wisdom levels. Those that were Level 1 or 2 had an average of 47% of their reps meet/exceed quota. Those at Level 3 or 4 had 56% of their reps do so.
Also worth noting: All companies reporting overall sales quotas have seen a modest increase of 7% over the last three years.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
22
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings On average, 38% of total revenue is generated from inside /telesales teams. Telesales numbers continue to increase year over year.
Smaller firms are
more likely to rely on telesales.
Observations
When it comes to revenue, size matters. Inside/telesales plays a much more important role in directly impacting revenues in small and midsize companies. Company reliance on telesales revenue decreases as the size of the company increases. Responding firms under $10M in annual sales report more than half (50%) of their revenue is from inside/telesales; companies in the $10M-$50M range—41%; mid size companies $51M-$250M—36%.
Not only do smaller companies count on inside/telesales for a larger portion of their revenue, we see an increased focus on using telesales reps to work independently of field sales. For example, companies under $10M realized revenue percentages as high as 63% from those independent sales reps. Again, similar to the overall average, we continue to see a decrease in revenue contribution from independent telesales reps as the size of the organization increases. Companies with $50M or less count on independent sales reps to contribute 55% of overall revenues compared to less than 21% from the high end or firms over $1B.
Regardless of size, telesales contribution is increasing. The 38% noted above is a high water mark compared to the 24% reported in our 2008 SPO survey and 22% in our 2007 SPO survey.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
23
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings Lead generation continues to be the primary activity of inside/telesales staff in almost all segments.
Outbound cold calls
remain the leading method of generating leads. Manufacturing companies lead in leveraging inbound calls to increase existing customer sales. Observations
Over the last three years we are seeing a 22% increase of companies listing lead generation as a primary activity of their inside/telesales personnel. A total of 82% companies have lead generation as their top activity. Of these
companies, over 80% are doing it with a combination of outbound cold calls and follow up on marketing generated leads.
With this level of emphasis of lead generation being placed on the inside sales team the question must be asked: Are we doing everything we can to maximize the return on these efforts? No doubt there are improvements that have been made but the high levels of inside rep turnover suggest that this is still a grind. One example of improving this activity comes to mind. More than half of respondents to this survey feel their web site’s ability to engage prospects either needs to improve or is unknown (see pg. 113). One major manufacturer took this issue head on. They developed a profile of highly desirable prospects and employed web technology to alert inside reps when such a prospect was visiting the company’s web site. The technology enabled the inside rep to begin a chat session with the prospect. There were several benefits derived from this, but the most significant was the number of leads generated by inside reps increased from 1.5 per day to 7 per day!
Manufacturing uses inside/telesales reps to increase existing customer sales via a combination of inbound and outbound calls. Like the other organizations in this study, Manufacturing firms will make outbound cold calls but at a much lower frequency.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
24
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings Geographic assignment of territories continues to be the most common. Technology is enabling new approaches to gain traction. No territories
moved into second position as the most popular territory breakout.
Observations
Not surprisingly, since “territories” historically were plotted on maps to maximize coverage, the geographic approach is still the most widely used today. There were other good reasons for arranging territories in this way including being in the same time zone and minimizing expenses.
These considerations seem quaint in today’s modern communications world where many functions have been outsourced to countries halfway around the world and unlimited calling plans and Internet phones essentially eliminate the concept of “long-distance” calls.
The table below shows the top three territory breakouts across some of the key vertical industries we track.
Types of Business Geography No Territory Account Size
Software 52% 20% 10%
Telecom 50% 20% 10%
Manufacturing 46% 12% 12%
Professional Services 29% 21% 17%
Although just about every business uses geography as a territory breakout, it is most widely used in the Software (52%) and Telecom companies (50%). For the first time, “no territory” has by-passed account size moving into second position.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
How do you define your inside/telesales territories?
.
©CSO Insights
25
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings
Independent
telesales reps vary based on business size.
Professional
Services firms lead in percentage of independent inside sales reps.
Majority of
companies use telesales reps for outbound cold calling.
Observations
As seen in the chart above, one-half of all companies report their inside sales reps are partnered with field sales reps while less than one-third have
completely independent inside reps. However, this percentage changes with the size of the sales force; small (<50 reps) and large firms (>150 reps) reflect the averages above, but mid-size (26-150 reps) have a higher percentage of independents (40%). Professional Services have the highest percentage of inside sales reps (33%).
This 10% difference seems to be strictly a question of independent versus partnered with the field. Regardless of size, the 20% average supporting field and partners and/or just partners is relatively constant.
Perhaps a more interesting way of viewing this metric is comparing firms with only independent inside reps against those that only partner. The solely independent inside rep organizations contributed 48% of total company revenues versus 34% for the partnered firms. The size of the firms was comparable. Quota attainment was slightly higher for the independent reps (54.2% versus 50%) but total turnover was also higher (43% versus 38%). The biggest difference occurred in average deal size. 65% of independent firms reported average deal size under $10,000, compared with 47% for partnered firms. Over $25,000 average deal size the figures were 19.8% with independent inside reps, 37% for firms with partnered reps.
Does the inside/telesales organization function as an independent or partner with
the field sales organization?
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
26
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings Minimum changes in ratios between 2007 and 2008. Ratio of 1 inside rep to 2-3 outside reps is the most common in the majority of business segments.
Ratio between
telesales reps and field/channel sales versus quota attainment.
Observations
A common assumption is that as the average deal size increases, so too does the complexity of the sale. And the logic might follow that more complex sales would require more focused support.
However, the ratio of 1:2-3 was as popular in the >$50K deal size range (the highest in this survey) as it was in the $10K-25K and $5K-$10K categories. In fact, 1:2-3 was the most frequently chosen range for number of field/channel sales reps to each inside/telesales rep, followed by 4-6 regardless of deal size, representing a combined 57% as shown in the chart above.
This lower—but not lowest—range also does best in quota attainment. The lowest level of quota attainment—46.4%--occurred with the 1:7-9 ratio. The popular ratio of 1:2-3 tied with 1:1 for second highest quota attainment of 52.5%. The highest quota attainment—53.5%--was registered by the 1:3-4 ratio group. The ratios of 1:10-12 and 1:13+ were too small to report separately but
combined they averaged 50.7% of reps meeting or exceeding quota.
Regardless of the support ratio, the top tasks all inside/telesales reps perform are outbound cold calls, outbound follow up on marketing generated leads, qualifying leads and building/updating the prospect database. The percentages vary between the groups, but the ranking of these tasks remains at the top in each case.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
27
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings Approximately 78% of inside/telesales reps carry an annual quota. Percentage of
telesales reps with over $1M annual quota has dropped slightly.
Quotas between
$500K-1M has dropped by 11%.
Observations
What are typical quota ranges? What percentage of inside/telesales reps are attaining quota and how are they being paid? The answer to the first of these questions is shown above. In addition, this year respondents had the ability to answer “Not Applicable” to this question. A total of 22% of telesales teams do not carry an annual quota.
This non-quota carrying group was found primarily in companies with annual revenues of $50M or less. The percentage of this group also varied by industry: Software--30%, Other--17%, and Professional Services-Business--13%. As noted in the prior metric, the primary responsibilities for these telesales reps is prospecting, qualifying leads and building the data base. 61% of them partner with field sales and have a compensation range of $30K to $100K.
When comparing the results with 2005, we see a three percent drop in the number of telesales reps with quotas over $1M. The industry most represented in the mega-quota group is Software companies (35%). On average, 60% of telesales reps in this group met or exceeded quota.
The big changes are with quotas ranging from $500K-$1M. Three years ago this accounted for 31% compared to the current 19.5%. These telesales reps met or exceeded quota 54% of the time. Telesales reps in this group’s salary ranges; $50K-$100K with variable compensation of 41%-60%.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
28
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings
Overlay quotas for
reps are more the exception than the rule.
Even for managers
overlay quotas are seen just one-third of the time outside of high-tech.
Don’t know
suggests this concept is not well defined or well understood.
Observations
One of the challenges with measuring and improving sales effectiveness is the fact that there are no standard definitions or practices. Manufacturing has ISO. Accounting has FASB. Law, engineering and medicine each have certain standard practices and/or definitions. Not so for sales.
For the purposes of this survey, this question was to look at whether reps and/or managers were solely responsible for, measured upon, and
compensated on the basis of their own production (however this is measured) or in conjunction with or as a part of someone else’s quota.
Perhaps not surprising, only one in seven reps is compensated on an overlay basis while more than half (56%) are direct. This is the most straightforward measurement/compensation model. The 14% that use an overlay model is consistent with the 17% of firms who have telesales reps supporting channel partners.
What is surprising is that two-thirds of managers are either direct or don’t know, with only one in three having overlay quotas. Since management by definition is getting things done through others’ efforts, it is surprising the rewards are not aligned in this same way.
In our 2007 Inside Sales Survey of Global High-Tech Firm’s survey, the distributions were quite different. 62% of managers were overlay (only 4% did not know) and 42% of reps were also overlay quotas.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
29
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings Majority of manager compensation is $125K or less. As compensation increases so does the level of responsibility. There is no direct correlation between size of company and amount of compensation. Observations
Over 68% of compensation targets range between two categories: Less than $75K and $75K--$125K. Let’s break this down further to identify types of companies, annual revenues, average deal size and ratio between the manager and telesales reps.
The table below summarizes a few key metrics associated with various levels of inside/telesales compensation. Shown for each level of manager compensation are the leading component of company size (in annual revenue), leading industry, highest percentage score for any band of average deal size and highest percentage of number of sales reps per manager.
Manager Compensation Annual Revenues Leading Industry Average Deal Size Span of Reps <$75K <$10M (43%) Other (27%) <$5K (40%) 1:1-3 (48%) $75K-125K $10-$50M (42%) Software (27%) $5K-$25K (36%) 1:4-12* (33%) $125K-150K >$1B (25%) Software (38%) $10K-$25K (40%) 1:8-12 (43%) $150K-$175K $10-$50M (37%) Software (57%) $25K-$50K (36%) 1:8-12 (48%) >$175K <$10M (36%) Software (52%) >$25K (60%) 1:8-12 (48%) * tie at 33% between 1:4-7 and 1:8-12
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
30
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings
Individual quota
attainment is the top compensation criteria across all groups.
Many activities
are measured and inspected even if they are not compensated. Introducing a formal sales methodology improves quota attainment. Observations
Regardless of a company’s size, type of business or number of telesales reps, there were some very clear consistencies. Approximately 60% of respondents identified individual quota attainment as the primary measure for pay. If there was a second component, it was team quota attainment.
One factor that is unique to the telesales environment is the level of structure of day to day activities across all groups i.e., outbound calling, follow up on marketing leads, etc. Almost all firms, regardless of their sales methodology identified leads/opportunities generated and adherence to sales process as a key measure, meaning these practices and activities were reviewed even if not paid for performing.
So if everyone is doing fundamentally the same things, why are there such differences in the level quota attainment between organizations? In the Introduction we presented the Sales Relationship Process (SRP) matrix and defined the four levels of process implementation (see pg. 18).
When we compare quota attainment between companies with no formal sales process (Level 1) and those that have a formal process (Level 3), the data clearly shows higher performance for the latter. In this example, let’s compare Level 1 and Level 3 quota attainment. Companies with no formal sales methodology had a dismal 43% quota attainment, compared with those companies who moved to a formal process at 68%.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
31
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings 24% of firms pay more than $100K as quota. 38% of firms pay between $50K and $100K when quota is achieved. Over 90% of firms include a variable pay element in their compensation plans. Observations
Compensation targets have changed over the last three years, the most significant impact is in the over $100K level. In 2005 18% of respondents paid over $100K in target compensation, today that has grown to 24%.
Compensation between $30K and $100K represented over 70% of total targets in 2005, compared to 66% this year.
Almost every firm surveyed includes some amount variable pay as part of their compensation package. The actual percentage of pay seems to be influenced by the type of business. As an example, Manufacturing’s average range is between 1-15% compared to software, which averages as low as 26% all the way to the top variable range of 60%.
As you approach the high end (>$100K), Software again emerges as the dominant industry. Software companies targeting compensation in the very highest range (>$125K) have nearly half (48%) of their annual revenues generated by inside/telesales.
Although inside sales still lags field sales in compensation (among other metrics) it appears that inside sales is steadily catching up to field sales in this important metric. In our 2005 Telesales Effectiveness survey, 17% of inside rep were targeted at >$100,000; this year that figure is nearly one quarter.
What percentage of an inside/telesales rep's targeted compensation is variable?
pay?
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
32
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings
The frequency and
type of recognition companies use varies by salary levels.
President’s Club is
more prevalent with higher salaried telesales reps.
Stock options are
offered primarily by Software
companies.
Observations
A frequently cited method of recognition for telesales reps making less than $30K is personal recognition. In fact, it is used almost twice as often (46%) as contests or spifs (25%).
As salaries increase, so does the frequency of recognition events. Contests, spifs and personal recognition are the core or most widely used types of recognition in each group. President’s Club and stock options become more widely used once salary levels jump up to $100K or more.
Regardless of the type of business, contests, spifs and personal recognition, were the most commonly used types of recognition. It is not until we look at stock options and extra paid days off that we see a trend regarding the type of business. Stock options were primarily used as a motivation tool by Software companies. Extra paid days off, although used less than 20% of the time, were primarily in Software, Manufacturing and Other categories.
The table below shows the types of recognition/incentive programs sorted by company position in the marketplace and the order in which various programs are ranked in frequency.
Company
Position Contest Spifs Pres Club Days Off
Personal Recog Stock Options Dominant 1 2 4 6 3 5 Lead Player 2 3 4 6 1 5 One of Many 1 2 4 5 3 6 Start Up 1 3 6 5 2 4
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
33
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings
Percentage of
tenured sales reps has decreased.
40% software
companies
reported majority of inside sales reps were new.
Longer tenure
does not translate into better results.
Observations
The average tenure for inside/telesales reps has shifted over the last three years; approximately 60% of telesales reps represent two years or less in their positions. Compare this with our 2005 Telesales Effectiveness survey in which 56% were in this range. More worrisome is the 4% drop in 2-4 year telesales reps. This group has traditionally demonstrated the highest quota attainment and now represents less than 18% of the average inside/telesales rep population.
Software companies reported some of the highest levels of first year telesales reps (82%). This group typically carried an annual quota of less than $500K. Approximately (40%) met or exceed their quotas for the year.
Here’s another bit of unwelcome news: Inside/telesales reps with the highest tenure demonstrated the lowest percent of quota attainment (53%). Even telesales reps in their first year had outperformed their more tenured peers by 2% (55%). The highest quota attainment came from telesales reps that have been in their roles between one and two years (58%).
One company had an innovative and surprising way of challenging all their sales reps. The new CEO determined the company needed to shift from being
product-centric to customer-centric. After determining the profile of rep needed to make this shift the question was asked: Would we hire all our same reps today? Approximately 20% of the existing reps did not meet the new hiring criteria.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
34
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings
Total rep turnover
is above 40%.
Rep ramp up time
averages six months. Planned expansions are slowing down compared to previous years. Observations
Both voluntary and involuntary inside/telesales rep turnover rates are nearly identical to those in our 2005 survey. With a 40% turnover rate for
inside/telesales, there is a new inside sales force every two-and-a-half years. Also unchanged is sales rep ramp up time: the period it takes new hires to become fully productive—to attain parity in production with experienced sales personnel. Similar to 2005, average ramp time is six months.
This combination suggests two questions for you to consider. First, are your people staying with you because of what you do for them or in spite of what you do to them? If the latter, expect turnover rates to remain high. Second, whether you retain or acquire personnel, getting them up to speed faster than the seven months to a year reported by 24% of respondents (see pg. 38) will be essential to productivity.
The focus on increasing team sizes seems to have slowed down over the last three years, In 2005, a quarter of companies surveyed planned on expanding their teams by over 30%. This has dropped to just 16% in 2008. In addition, this year’s respondents report over one quarter (26%) plan on making no changes to their team size. Few firms (2%) anticipate their teams shrinking.
Note: the best managers are recruiting/interviewing all the time regardless of
their turnover or staffing plans. They build a file of qualified candidates that can be brought in and up to speed quickly when a vacancy does occur. You do not want to wait for an opening to begin the process.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
35
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings
Not a good job fit
continues to be the top reason for leaving.
“Pay Issues” and
“Lack of Career Opportunity” show strong correlation.
Telesales reps not
meeting quota are more likely to leave.
Observations
Over 78% of small to mid size companies showed “not a good job fit” as the top reason telesales reps leave compared with the less than a quarter who leave large companies for the same reason. This suggests the larger companies are doing a better job of setting expectations, have a clearer process/profile for screening new hires, and/or are providing better support to help inside/telesales reps be successful.
Pay issues and personal reasons tied for second place. Jackie Freiberg,
co-author of Nuts!, the book profiling Southwest Airlines, quotes Gallup research
that a poor relationship with one’s immediate supervisor is the primary reason people quit even though they are not always willing to say so. This may be a factor in both the “personal reasons” and “not a good fit” numbers.
Pay, of course, is another major reason people stay or leave their jobs.
Over two-thirds (69%) of companies that sited pay issues as their top reason for telesales reps leaving were in the $30K-$100K. (52% of these reported variable pay component between 26%-60%.)
For three-quarters of those companies where pay was the first issue, “Lack of Career Opportunities” was the second. Lack of individualized coaching may also have contributed; approximately one quarter of these reps worked in teams with a manager to rep ratio of 1:10 or more.
This will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever spent any time in the sales environment. There is a direct relationship between voluntary resignation and quota attainment. 65% of those who self selected out of their sales role had an average of 28% meeting/exceeding quota. Even here, “Not a good job fit” was the number one reason cited for leaving.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
36
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings Retention strategies shift based on types of business.
Pay increases rank
within the top three retention strategies across all types of business.
Small companies
are more likely to use pay increase as their top retention strategy.
Observations
The frequency of using specific retention programs varies based on the type of business, for example, Software and Professional Services companies are more apt to provide career opportunities to their inside sales team. Compare that with Financial and Advertising firms, who opt for training programs over 65% of the time. Telecommunications firms offer pay increases over 80% of the time. Regardless of the type of business there is a common theme, pay increases, career opportunities and/or training opportunities are all within the top three most frequently used retention tools used.
Is there a “right” combination? Probably not but as a matter of interest, the table below shows the frequency firms use the top three programs based on annual revenues for firms with voluntary rep turnover under 15%.
Annual Revenues Pay Increase Training Career
<$50M 59% 47% 40%
$51-250M 61% 47% 61%
$250M-$1B 69% 69% 63%
>$1B 65% 61% 75%
Small companies offer pay increases 59% and career discussions approximately 40% of the time. As the size of the company grows, there is an increase in the frequency of providing more career opportunities; beginning with midsize companies at 61% to the larger companies using it as a retention tool over 75% of the time. As with all groups, training is definitely in the mix as either the second or third most frequently used retention strategy.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
37
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings
The majority of
new hires are fully productive within six months. Ramp time decreases as sales methodologies are formalized. There is a correlation between territory breakouts and training timeframes. Observations
Over 60% of inside/telesales reps are fully productive within their first six months regardless of average deal size. Their primary role is to generate leads and update the prospect data base to support field/channel sales reps. This is accomplished through outbound cold calling and following up on marketing generated leads.
Telesales reps working for companies with no formal sales process (Level 1) had less than 20% of their reps fully productive with in the first three months. Compare that with companies which have implemented a dynamic sales process (Level 4), 30% of their new hires were fully productive within the same time frame.
Carrying this comparison one step further, Level 1-2 companies had 20% of their reps fully productive within three months versus 28% for Level 3-4
companies; they had 39% of their reps taking longer than six months, compared to 31% for Level 3-4 companies; and the percentage of reps meeting/exceeding quota was 48% versus 60%, respectively. Total turnover was roughly the same at 40% for either group.
Companies with training averaging seven to twelve months showed an increase in the number of independent telesales reps (48%) versus 30% for firms with ramp up times of six months or less.
The majority of companies set up sales territories by geography which seems to have little bearing on rep ramp up time. Vertical market territories had the highest percentage of >1 year times—13%.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
38
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Key Findings
Time spent on
non-sales activities is increasing.
More time spent on
sales activities doesn’t directly equate to more telesales reps achieving quota. A median of 16%
for total admin tasks and meeting time correlates with top performance.
Observations
How inside/telesales reps spend their time is always of interest—and for good reason. We are talking about the revenue generating engine of a business, and any activities that detract from indentifying, contacting and communicating with customers or prospects reduces productivity and total revenue.
The table below shows the percentage of reps meeting/exceeding quota and the percentage of time reported for each activity.
Meet/Exceed Quota Lead Gen Selling Admin &
Meetings Other ≥80% 32 38 16 14 ≥70% 29 42 15 14 ≥60% 28 41 16 15 ≥50% 26 42 17 15 <50% 29 35 24 11
As can be seen, the least successful group still spent the majority of their day (64%) generating leads and selling, yet they had the lowest percentage of repss meets/beating quota at a dismal 15%. Further review shows they also had the lowest implementation of sales process (80% were Level 1 or 2).
It should be noted that admin/meeting time over/under the 16% line divides the survey respondents 50/50.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
39
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Inside/Telesales Performance Optimization – 2008 Survey Analysis
©CSO Insights
40
No portion of this report may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the authors.
Sell Cycle Analysis
Introduction
This section contains sales cycle metrics related to the types of deals inside/telesales reps are pursuing in relationship to opportunity value and effort required to close a deal; and an analysis of the success rates experienced in converting prospects from one stage of the sales process to the next.
• Average Deal Size ... 42 • Length of Average Sell Cycle ... 43 • Number of Calls Required to Close a Deal ... 44 • Lead Generation Analysis ... 45 • Percentage of Leads that Progress to an Initial Customer Discussion ... 46 • Percentage of Initial Discussions that Progress to a Presentation ... 47 • Percentage of Presentations Resulting in a Sale ... 48 • Percentage of Deals that Close as Forecast ... 49 • Outcome of Forecast Deals ... 50
