saas inside sales report

8/13/2019 Saas Inside Sales Report

1/26

Inside Sales for SaaSMetrics & Compensation Report

for B2B technology companies


2/26 2 2012 The Bridge Group, Inc.

ABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD...3

INTRODUCTION....4

THE COMPANIES THAT PARTICIPATED......4

ABOUT THE GROUPS ....7

RAMP & RETENTION.........10

COMPENSATION & QUOTA..........13

ACTIVITY & INFRASTRUCTURE.....18

INSIDE SALES MANAGEMENT........23

MANAGEMENTS TOP CHALENGES.....25

ABOUT THE BRIDGE GROUP, INC.....26



OREWORD

Over the last ten years we have seen a huge change in buyer behavior. The

Internet completely changed the balance of power, giving buyers the ability to

find product information, reviews, competitive information, pricing, customer

satisfaction commentary, etc. In short, the buyer is now in charge.

However for those who want to sell, the Internet has enabled us to change the

way we sell. Websites with videos provide a great way to give rich product

demonstrations with the buyer in charge of navigating to the specific additional information they might

want to look at. Tools like WebEx/GoToMeeting have taken away the need for on-site demos. Social

Media and other information sources have given us enormous amounts of data that can be used to

research customer needs and interests to create highly personalized and relevant cold calls. Marketing

Automation tools allow sales people to know when buyers have opened and forwarded emails, or come

back to the website, indicating a perfect time to call them.

A downside of this is that marketers have overused techniques like emails, and buyers have become

extremely resistant to all but the very best marketing pitches. This has forced companies to up their

game. Smart marketers have recognized the power of Inbound Marketing, and realized that they need to

create marketing that customers love to quote the folks at HubSpot. Similarly the best sales reps are

those that add value to the customer during the sales process and earn their customers trust as a result.

The smartest B2B companies are those that have responded to changes in buyer behavior by adopting

their marketing and selling. Key amongst those new ideas is the use of Inside Sales to augment or

replace costly field sales organizations. In this post (www.forEntrepreneurs.com/sales-complexity), I

discussed how using a field sales force usually leads to a ten times higher cost of customer acquisition

than using inside sales.

The art of designing your sales process is all about removing complexity and human touch. Providing

Software as a Service (SaaS) allows new startups to disrupt incumbent vendors, as the cost of customer

acquisition for SaaS companies is so much lower. This allows them to charge less for the product, which

disrupts competitors. (Think Salesforce.com versus Siebel Systems.) For the buyer, SaaS is easy to

evaluate using a free trial, and because the financial commitment is so much lower, it requires fewer

decision makers. And risk is removed from the purchase decision as they can always cancel their

subscription if things arent working as hoped. This simpler sales process lends itself perfectly to the use

of inside sales teams instead of field sales.

I have seen great value amongst our SaaS portfolio companies from connecting sales and marketingexecs with each other to share best practices. I encourage each of you to connect with your peers in the

SaaS world. There is a ton that can be learned from others. Reports like this are great because they

help stimulate the discussion by allowing inside sales managers to understand where they fit relative to

their peers in a number of dimensions.

- David Skok @BostonVC

General Partner - Matrix PartnersAuthorforEntrepeneurs
http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/sales-complexity/http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/sales-complexity/http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/sales-complexity/http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/sales-complexity/http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/sales-complexity/http://twitter.com/bostonvchttp://twitter.com/bostonvchttp://www.forentrepreneurs.com/http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/sales-complexity/http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/http://twitter.com/bostonvc



NTRODUCTIONIn 2012, The Bridge Group surveyed 197 B2B technology companies on their Inside Salesimplementations.

This is our fourth research report since 2007 with a longitudinal focus on metrics & compensation.

This particular report covers the results forInside Sales groups within SaaS companies, defined

as:

Reps owning the entire sales cycle as an individual contributor

-and/or-

Reps in a team selling model sharing a territory with a field partner

We hope this report will provide guidance as you build out your strategy and/or allow you to makechanges that willbring you into alignment with industry standards. (Please note: we produced arelated report on Inside Sales at non-SaaS companies.)

To receive ongoing updates on Inside Sales best practices as well as insight and guidance to increaseproductivity, please sign up via RSS or email for theInside Sales Experts Blog.

ABOUT THE COMPANIES THAT PARTICIPATED

In previous years, weve shared metrics based on broad categories:

Established companies -vs- Growth companies

Selling into the SMB -vs- Selling into the Enterprise

This year we wanted to take a different tack. We asked respondents to a) characterize the nature oftheir sale and b) share the percentage of sales pipeline sourced by Marketing.

6%

9%

14%

46%

26%

$500M+

$250-499M

$50-249M

$10-49M

Less than $10M

Participants by Revenue
http://www.bridgegroupinc.com/inside_sales_metrics.htmlhttp://www.bridgegroupinc.com/inside_sales_metrics.htmlhttp://www.bridgegroupinc.com/inside_sales_metrics.htmlhttp://blog.bridgegroupinc.com/subscribehttp://blog.bridgegroupinc.com/subscribehttp://blog.bridgegroupinc.com/subscribehttp://blog.bridgegroupinc.com/subscribehttp://www.bridgegroupinc.com/inside_sales_metrics.htmlhttp://blog.bridgegroupinc.com/subscribe



Weve borrowed this concept from SiriusDecisions. The Demand Type classifies where a companyssolutions fall in the evolutionary lifecycle.

Or as we are calling it, in shorthand: How would you describe your sale?

For the purposes of this research, companies classified themselves as one of the following:

New concept-buyers dont know they have asolvable problem, we are adisruptive product, evangelical sale

New paradigm-buyers understand the problem andare currently solving it with legacysystems, we offer a more effectivesolution, quantifiable reason tochange sale

Established market-well-defined space, highly competitivemarket, differentiation sale

Given the very nature of SaaS, we expected to see an increased percentage of New paradigmresponses. That is exactly what we found.

14%

42%44%

New concept New paradigm Establishedmarket

Description of Sale

UESTION: How would you describe your sale?

14%

42%44%

13%

30%

57%

New concept New paradigm Establishedmarket

Type of Saleby Saas vs. Non-Saas

SaaS

Non-SaaS
http://www.siriusdecisions.com/live/home/document.php?dA=AssessingDemandTypetheSiriusWayhttp://www.siriusdecisions.com/live/home/document.php?dA=AssessingDemandTypetheSiriusWayhttp://www.siriusdecisions.com/live/home/document.php?dA=AssessingDemandTypetheSiriusWay



We asked respondents to rate how much of their groups pipeline is sourced by Marketing.

Weve broken down the results into the following categories:

We found that, on average, 57% of the inside groups pipelines were generated by Marketing.This is consistent with our 2010 finding of 59%.

As an interesting aside, we noted a difference in the weight of Marketing-sourced pipelinebetween SaaS (57%) and non-SaaS (38%) companies.

SaaS Marketing groups contributed 50% more pipeline than their non-SaaS counterparts. Thissuggests, and anecdotal evidence supports, that strong and consistent air cover from themarketing organization is a critical success factor for SaaS companies.

27%

31%

14%

18%

10%

Heavily rep-sourced

Lean rep-sourced

Approx 50/50

Lean marketing-sourced

Heavily marketing-sourced

UESTION: What percentage of the group's pipeline is sourced by Marketing?

25%

28%

19%

22%

6%

Heavily rep-sourced

Mostly rep-sourced

Approx 50/50

Mostly marketing-sourced

Heavily marketing-sourced



We found the average group size to be 13 reps.

Not surprisingly, companies with higher revenues employ a larger sales force. The chart belowdisplays group size by company revenues and stacked by number of reps (e.g. < 10 reps, 10-20 reps,etc.)

Centralization vs. decentralization of inside sales groups is a hot topic and one we decided to explorethis year.

We found that 50% of respondents have teams that are either entirelyorpartially decentralized.

We have a few thoughts around this finding.

As companies grow, they often expand in geography - think West Coast, European or APAC offices.Combine that with the fact that talent is harder than ever to find. Organizations are starting to lookoutside of the major metro areas for talent and sometimes that requires workers in either home officesor even the opening of sales offices outside of HQ.

UESTION: How many reps make up the group?

UESTION: Where are the reps located?

ABOUT THE GROUPS

44%

60%

90%

20%

38%

20%

10%

80%

19%

20%

$250M+

$50-249M

$10 - 49M

Less than $10M

Group Sizeby Company Revenues



Once, it made sense to house the inside group together inside the mother ship - a single team, sharingknowledge and experiences. Now, we are often seeing smaller pockets of inside sales beyond HQ inremote outposts.

There are a host of challenges associated with dispersing sales teams, but more and more, smartcompanies are figuring out how to make this work.

UESTION: How are territories assigned?

We found some companies using up to 3 factors in assigning territories. However, the vast majority(61%) were using a single factorto determine territory assignment.

For all companies surveyed, we found:

Clearly, Territories by Geography is still the standard. For those companies using more than onefactor, we found the most common groupings to be:

Vertical & Geography

-or- Geography & Named Accounts

Combined, Round-robin and No Territories accounted for 33% of responses - not an insignificantnumber. We took a closer look at the data and noticed that, almost exclusively, those particulargroups reported 70%+ Marketing-sourced pipeline.

Our impression is that for those organizations, an even distribution of leads replaces territories andensures equity among the reps.

11%

14%

19%

25%

25%

67%

Other

No Territories

Round-robin

Vertical Territories

Named Accounts

Geographical Territories



UESTION: Do you segment reps into hunters & farmers?

We found that 46% of respondents currently segment their reps. This is consistent with our 2010finding of 50%.

In terms of employing segmentation and/or specialization, wenoted a sharp difference between SaaS (46%) and non-SaaS

(24%) companies.

This is a metric we will continue to measure in futurestudies.

As SaaS companies grow, their likelihood of segmenting repsalso increased.

This may result from smaller companies simplyhaving fewer overall sales reps and operating inthe all hands on deck phase of customeracquisition.

There are obviously many factors at play in thedecision to split the sales organization. Youllneed to take into account your companys:

Churn rate

Potential for cross/up-selling

Average # customers per rep

% Enterprise vs. % SMB customers

46%

24%

SaaS Non-SaaS

Percentage that Segment

30%

56%

75%

Less than $10M $10-249M $250M+

Percentage that Segmentby Company Revenues

This was a new metric this year and one wewill continue to track.

UESTION: When are accounts transitioned from hunters to farmers?

57%

14% 14% 14%

Immediatelyupon close

< 6 months 6 - 11 months 12 - 24months

ACCOUNT TRANSITION TIMEFRAME



One of the most difficult SaaS challenges is choosing and evolvingthe right SaaS sales model for your business. While the mostcommon SaaS sales model is characterized by a transactionalinside sales organization, frequently split into new business

focused sales reps and retention focused account managers, this is by nomeans the only SaaS sales model, and may NOT be the best SaaS sales

model for your business.

SaaS businesses come in many flavors from consumer-ish freemium serviceslike Box.net and Cloudflare to high-end enterprise solutions like Workday andBazzarVoice. Choosing the right SaaS sales model is often a bet-the-company decision, as second chances are rare in the fast moving world of theInternet. Plus, as your SaaS product offering and customer base grows, youare likely to find yourself supporting several distinct and varied SaaS salesmodels. How to choose?

Full article and ebook

- Joel York | Chaotic Flow @chaoticflowSaaS/Cloud Blogger & Startup AdviserVP, Marketing - Meltwater Group

EXPERT OMMENT RY
http://chaotic-flow.com/saas-sales-model-and-organization-strategy-the-ebook/https://twitter.com/chaoticflowhttps://twitter.com/chaoticflowhttp://chaotic-flow.com/saas-sales-model-and-organization-strategy-the-ebook/https://twitter.com/chaoticflow



AMP & RETENTION

UESTION: What do you require as experience when hiring?

We found average experience prior to hire to be 2.5 years. This is unchanged from our 2010 finding.

We found average tenure of respondents reps to be 2.5 years. Again, this remains unchanged from2010.

UESTION: What is the average tenure of a Rep?

8%

19%

47%

19%

6%



We found the average ramp time to be 4.2 months. This is up sharply from 2010s finding of 3months.

This increase brings ramp time for reps at SaaS companies more in line with their counterparts atnon-SaaS companies (4.2 months vs. 4.4 months for non-SaaS).

UESTION: How long does it take for a new Rep to be fully productive?

31%

39%

22%

8%

1-3 months 3-5 months 5-7 months 7+ months

AVERAGE RAMP TIME

The long-term trend is very interesting. When we looked at all inside sales reps with a 6+ month ramptimes (both SaaS & non-SaaS companies), we found an upward trajectory.

17% 19%

24%

2009 2010 2012

% Companies with Ramp TimeGreater than 6 Months

ASIDE: Ramp trending over time



Giving this some thought, we identified a factor that may be influencing this finding: changing buyerbehavior.

Buyers are more educated and expect more from their interactions with sales reps.There is a stat floating around that the buyers complete 60-70% of the buying processbefore they ever talk to a sales rep.

If true, this completely changes the kind of interactions we have with them. Sellers will nolonger have the benefit of information asymmetry. Buyers will be asking tougher, moredetailed & potentially more competitively-framed questions. Being able to have those newkinds of conversations takes more knowledge and, one would suspect, a longer ramp time.

Risk averse decision makers buy on consensus.Decision makers are requiring not only more information, but further the support of a cadreof other stakeholders. Rarely is a decision made by just one person, this includes the CEO.

In the book The Challenger Sale, the authors identify widespread support for the supplieracross my organization as the top item that decision makers care about.

Consensus gaining takes time, requires a different kind of selling and those skills take longerto acquire and master.

While the Internet has wrought dramatic adaptations in the newbreed of B2B buyer, its influence is minuscule compared to themillions of years of evolution that have preceded it.

In the end, the new breed of B2B buyer is still an emotional creature thatdespite great attempts to cover it up in the form of ROI analyses, vendorcomparison matrices, technical evaluations and the like is often driven by fear.Fear of the unknown. Fear of public opinion. Fear of failure. What is portrayedas rational decision making and risk reduction is often better characterized asrationalization and CYA. There is no shame in this. This is who we are.

We are not machines and it is critically important to us to feel good about thedecisions we make. The savvy B2B sales rep understands this.

Full article

- Joel York | Chaotic Flow @chaoticflow

SaaS/Cloud Blogger & Startup AdviserVP, Marketing - Meltwater Group

EXPERT OMMENT RY
http://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Sale-Control-Customer-Conversation/dp/1591844355http://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Sale-Control-Customer-Conversation/dp/1591844355http://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Sale-Control-Customer-Conversation/dp/1591844355http://www.b2b-marketing-strategy.com/b2b-sales-the-new-breed-of-b2b-buyer-series-part-3/https://twitter.com/chaoticflowhttps://twitter.com/chaoticflowhttps://twitter.com/chaoticflowhttp://www.amazon.com/Challenger-Sale-Control-Customer-Conversation/dp/1591844355http://www.b2b-marketing-strategy.com/b2b-sales-the-new-breed-of-b2b-buyer-series-part-3/https://twitter.com/chaoticflow



OMPENSATION & QUOTA

UESTION: How are the reps compensated?

On average, base pay & target income have increased modestly since 2010. The average on-targetcompensation now sits at $109K up from $100K in 2010.

The shape of the compensation curve has shifted to the right. The percentage of respondentswith OTE of $120K+ more than doubled from 2010 to 2012..

Average Base Salary $57K

Average On-Target Earnings $109K

Base / Variable Mix 52% : 48%

42%

18%

63%

44%

$100K + $120K +

% Companies with OTEof $100K+

2010

2012



SaaS scholars do love their acronyms. If you are interested in hugely valuable reads on theeconomics of the SaaS model, we recommend you spend some time at:

SaaS Economics from David Skok

-and-

Guide to SaaS Financial Performance from Joel York

ASIDE: And now for the alphabet soup portion of the report.

ACV is the most popular metrics upon which respondents based quota. That being said, youll need todecide upon the measure that makes the most sense for your group, model & business.

Whichever way you go, make sure that you and, more importantly, the reps agree that the plan isclear, fair and timely (meaning paying/punishing as soon as possible for good/bad behavior).

UESTION:

What is rep quota based on?

3%

24%

26%

47%

Seats/Units

Monthly Recurring Revenue (MRR)

Total Contract Value (TCV)

Annual Contract Value (ACV)
http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/saas-economics-1/http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/saas-economics-1/http://chaotic-flow.com/saas-metrics-guide-to-saas-financial-performance/http://chaotic-flow.com/saas-metrics-guide-to-saas-financial-performance/http://chaotic-flow.com/saas-metrics-guide-to-saas-financial-performance/http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/saas-economics-1/



We found average quota to be:

Note: the above average quotas are not connected. TheACV average is based on only thosecompanies that reported calculating quota based on ACV.

Similarly, the MRR average is based on only those companies that reported calculating quota onMRR the quota reflecting new bookings per month.

Just for comparisons sake, lets convert MRR quota in ACV terms:

$5,245 / month in MRR means

$62,940 / month in ARR which gives us

$755K / year in ACV

UESTION: What is the average quota per rep?

Average quota based on ACV $670K

Average quota based on MRR $5,245

14%

50%

14%

23%

< $400K $400 - 699K $700 - 999K $1M +

Average Quota per RepBased on ACV

38%35%

15%12%

< $3.5K $3.5 - 5.4K $5.5 - 7.4K $7.5K +

Average Quota per RepBased on MRR



We extrapolated a bit to determine average order size; which we found to be : $27.8K.

Note: this was a particularly tough metric to gather. Order size means different things to differentpeople (e.g. MRR, LTV, ARR, TCV, etc.).

That being said, the larger point remains true: inside sales groups at SaaS companies are closingsimilarly-sized deals to their counterparts at non-SaaS companies.

UESTION: What is the group's average order size?

We decided to break out average order size by deal volume.

While certainly not prescriptive, it may be helpful to find the average number of wins per year at yourcompanys order size.

Here is what we found:

ASIDE: Average number of deals per year

80

31

1511

< $10K $10K - 29K $30K - 49K $50K+

AVERAGE ORDER SIZE

Deals Won per Yearby Average Order Size



In a given group, 74% of reps achieved quota. This is up slightly from our 2010 finding of 70%.

We did notice a few positive developments since 2010, which included:

21% of respondents reporting greater than 90% of their reps at quota

-up from-

Only 11% reporting the same in 2010

UESTION: What percentage of the group achieves quota?

9%

21%

48%

21%

Less than 50% 50-69% 70-89% Greater than

90%% REPS IN GROUP AT QUOTA



ACTIVITY & INFRASTRUCTUREThis year we continued our research into activity levels (dials, connects, etc.), but decided to add anew component: infrastructure.

Specifically, we were interested in the use of commercial data sources, public social sources andother technologies.

Nearly 90% of respondents reported using one or more commercial data provider. SaaS groupsclearly understand the value of good data.

For those groups that do utilize commercial data sources, we found:

UESTION: Which data providers (contact & account information) is the group us

12%

6%

12%

12%

24%

30%

30%

33%

Other

DiscoverOrg

OneSource

RainKing

InsideView

Hoovers

ZoomInfo

Data.com/Jigsaw

Which Data Provider(s) DoesThe Group Utilize?

13%

52%

23%

13%

None 1 Provider 2-3 Providers 4+ Providers

Number ofCommercial

Data Providers in Use



The vast majority (85%) of groups were using at least one social source. For those groups,LinkedIn was clearly the preferred choice.

UESTION: Are the reps using any of the following social sources for prospecting

UESTION: Are your reps using any automated / power dialing technologies?

We found that 25% of groups are utilizing dialing technologies. We included click-to-dial,ConnectAndSelll, Insidesales.com, M5, etc., in this category.

A Bridge Group opinion here, we think dialing technologies are a massive productivity boon. Yes,inside reps dont have the same volume of activity as their lead generation counterparts, butnonetheless if you combine the time saved from not banging away on a telephone keypad plus somedegree of automation for activity logging in CRM, companies can add significant time back into a givenreps day.

15%

48%

24%

12%

None 1 Provider 2 Providers 3+ Providers

Number ofPublicSocial Sources in Use

15%

30%

85%

Facebook

Twitter

LinkedIn

% of Groups Utilizinga Given Social Source



We found the average to be 38 dials per day. Activity levels have remained relatively consistent forthe last five years.

As youd expect, groups usingpower dialing / productivity technologies reported higher averagecalls per day.

UESTION: What is the average number of dials per day per rep?

Dials / Day Trending

2009 39

2010 352012 38

We found the average to be 9.5 conversations per day per rep.

We observed a wide span of reported dial-to-conversation rates ranging from 3-47%. Across allrespondents, the average connect rate (dial : connect) was 29%.

UESTION: What is the average number of conversations per day per rep?

21%

52%

12% 15%

< 19 20-39 40-59 60-79

AVERAGE DIALS PER DAY

27

3840

66

Primarily InboundQualification

Primarily OutboundProspecting

Without Dialer

With Dialer

10%

39%

29%

6%

16%

< 4 4 - 7 8 - 11 12 - 15 16+

AVERAGE # CONVERSATIONS PER DAY



We found that, on average, reps made 6 attempts before moving on from a prospect. When weexamined the data a bit more deeply, we found two interesting points.

We try slightlyharder to reach prospects when outbound prospecting (6.3 attempts) vs. inboundqualifying (5.7 attempts)

Higher daily activity correlates to a higher number of touches per prospect

The second finding suggests that a higher daily call volume doesnt necessarily mean touching moreprospects (going wider).

It suggests a greater degree of additional attempts to reach the same number of prospects (goingdeeper).

UESTION: Before moving on, how many touches/attempts do the reps make?

3.8

5.95.1

12

< 19 20-39 40-79 80+

DIALS PER DAY

Average Attemptsper Prospect

A best practice that I have observed here is how Mark Roberge ofHubSpot tracks the number of connects after a voicemail hasbeen left. This helps sales management identify which reps areleaving the most effective messages.

The weakest players can also be identified and given a chance to improve by

listening to the messages that are being left by the top scorers in thiscategory.

EXPERTCOMMENTARY

- David Skok @BostonVC

General Partner - Matrix PartnersAuthorforEntrepeneurs
http://twitter.com/bostonvchttp://twitter.com/bostonvchttp://www.forentrepreneurs.com/http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/http://twitter.com/bostonvc



NSIDE SALES MANAGEMENT

UESTION: What is the title of the groups direct manager?

We noticed movement away from directmanagement by executives with Directorand Vice Presidenttitles.

The percentage of respondents withManagers directly leading their groupsgrew by nearly 2.5x (from 17% in 2010to 41% in 2012).

In examining the data, we found nocorrelation between size of group andtitle of the direct manager.

UESTION: What is the on-target compensation for that executive?

On-Target Earnings by Title

Manager $135K

Director $178K

Vice President $212K

We found the average ratio to be 1 : 7.

Direct manager to rep ratio needs to take intoaccount:

The skillsets of the repsReps with less experience will requiremore coaching and mentoring

The sophistication of your strategyThe more sophisticated your salesstrategy, the more time you will need tospend with each rep

UESTION: What is the ratio between the direct manager and the reps?

6%

9%

22%

22%

41%

Other

Team Leader

Director

Vice President

Manager

9%

52%

36%

3%

1 : 3 orfewer Reps

1 : 4-7Reps

1 : 8-12Reps

1 : 13+Reps

MANAGER : REP RATIO



Roughly 14% of respondents reported not tracking this particular metric. Of the remaining, we foundthe average to be 14 hours a month.

This breaks down to, on average, 2.4 hours per rep per month, or 8% of a given managers time.

We need to stop the insanity. There is no polite way to say this: as a profession, we need to dobetter.

The folks over at the Corporate Executive Board have called 3-5 hours of coaching per rep per monththe magic number. The vast majority of us (69%) are missing that mark.

Management thinkerTom Peters shares:

Research by the likes of Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman, reported in First Break All

the Rules, demonstrates that the first-line manager is the single most important key to

employee satisfaction, retentionand productivity.

No matter how fine the organization, if the employee is sour on her or his immediate boss,

her performance will more often than not significantly suffer. The evidence in fact is clear

that most people who leave a company voluntarily do so because of their supervisornot

because of the quality of the company per se.

UESTION: How many hours/month do managers spend 1-on-1 coaching rep

14%

47%

9%

26%

5%

< 1 hour 1 - 2 hours 2 - 3 hours 3 - 4 hours 4+ hours

Hours of 1-on-1 CoachingPer Rep Per Month
http://www.executiveboard.com/http://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/012117.phphttp://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/012117.phphttp://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/012117.phphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First,_Break_All_the_Ruleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First,_Break_All_the_Ruleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First,_Break_All_the_Ruleshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First,_Break_All_the_Ruleshttp://www.executiveboard.com/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First,_Break_All_the_Ruleshttp://www.tompeters.com/dispatches/012117.php



We asked respondents to identify their top two challenges in managing inside sales groups.

In our opinion, Inside Sales has made great strides in the last few years and gained wide acceptanceas a channel for revenue growth. That is not to say we are without our growing pains.

To address many of the issues highlighted above, the most important activity a Manager can performis coaching. Yet only 8% of their time is spent on this activity.

What are they doing? Or more accurately: What are we forcing them to do that is detracting from thispart of their job?

This is a question that needs to be examined in every organization and will most assuredly impactboth many of the challenges listed above.

MANAGEMENTS TOP CHALENGES

UESTION: What are your top 2 challenges?

2%

6%6%

10%

12%

12%

12%

12%

18%

20%

22%

24%

44%

Other

On-going trainingRetention

Professional development

Compensation (optimizing, planning)

List & data sourcing

Motivation

Technology (selecting tools, maximizing use)

Metrics/reporting (collection, interpretation)

Ramp time (for new hires)

Hiring

Forecast accuracy

Productivity/performance


26/26

I hope youve found this research useful. If you have any questions or comments,

please let me know. Im always interested to hear from the Inside Salescommunity.

Thank you!

The Bridge Group, Inc. specializes in building,expanding and optimizing inside sales

strategies for B2B technology companies.

Weve helped Sales & Marketing leaders from200+ B2B companies make the big decisions:on implementation strategy, productivity &performance, process, technology and tools.

Learn more today!http://www.bridgegroupinc.com

ABOUT THE BRIDGE GROUP, INC.

Trish Bertuzzi @bridgegroupincPresident & Chief Strategist

The Bridge Group, Inc.978-562-2623

HAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION
http://www.bridgegroupinc.com/http://www.bridgegroupinc.com/https://twitter.com/bridgegroupinchttps://twitter.com/bridgegroupinchttps://twitter.com/bridgegroupinchttp://www.bridgegroupinc.com/https://twitter.com/bridgegroupinc

saas inside sales report

Documents