Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Why are 50% of Sales Reps Missing Quota?!

Posted by Trish Bertuzzi on Wed, Aug 18, 2010
 

Last week, Chad Levitt (of the New Sales Economy blog) reacted to this data point from our 2010 Inside Sales research report:

 In a given group, percentage of Reps making quota:

  50%

Chad commented:

The most mind boggling statistic in the sales industry has to be that 50% of sales reps are not making quota. With all the Sales 2.0 tools available and ease of finding info on the web the sales industry is still struggling to hit its goals. I want to know why.

Here was my response to Chad.

  1. We are lazy and our hiring decisions are based on gut as opposed to repeatable success
  2. We don’t invest in an effective on boarding process….we let reps sink or swim
  3. Reps don’t know who to call or what to say when they connect
  4. When they do connect they show up and throw up and it is all about them instead of the buyer
  5. Marketing develops content to fill the top of the funnel but neglects the content that would help sales move the process forward
  6. Reps think inbound marketing means “they will call me if they want something”
  7. We have no idea how to ask for referrals or mine our own customer base
  8. Sales management does not know the difference between urgent and important
  9. Quotas are top down and based on something the board hands down after they passed the peace pipe

There were some excellent comments on Chad's post. Here are 2 that stuck out for me:

"I'd go on to add that not only are the hiring decision lazy, but the firing ones seem to be, too. I've seen countless numbers of inside folks stick around WAY longer than they should have, simply because replacing them was going to take too long. Or because they fit the culture."
- Chris Snell
 
 
"Selling the how (technology, methodology, product) rather than the outcomes"
-  Robert Koehler 

Both make excellent points. Why do you think 50% of sales reps are missing quota? Please share your thoughts.
 

----------------------------------------------------

Get the Full Report:
2010 Inside Sales Metrics & Compensation

Research Report: Focusing on the Inside Sales (revenue generation) function.

Inside Sales Metrics & Compensation: KPIs & trends

Tags: 

COMMENTS

I think all the points listed are very valid. I do however think two of them are ones that I have seen the most. The first is very much sales rep controled (though some company processes support and even cause this behavior) - that is that they are waiting for something to happen versus actually driving the sales. This could be a lead passed from marketing, a customer call back from their SINGLE contact with them, and so forth. The second I have seen is that the company sets the quotas unrealistically high. This could be that they're just looking through some rosey glasses or maybe they wish to control how much they pay out. I think a follow up question or resarch needs to be done with regards to the question of sales reps making quota. I could be something like this, Percentage of Senior Sales Management and C-Level Executives receiving performance bonuses. If that percentage is above 50%, then something is out of kilter!

posted @ Wednesday, August 18, 2010 7:46 AM by Larry Scott


I would add a few of my own... 
 
--To take #1 and 2 a bit further - hiring decisions - there is a total lack of selection criteria and process for attracting, assessing, filtering, interviewing, selecting, on boarding and retaining the RIGHT people... 
-- They lack selling skills! 
-- Taking #4 a bit further - They aren't trained to sell; only to demo, tout features, benefits, value and capabilities. That's presenting, not selling. 
-- Their managers don't know how to correctly and effectively coach and develop them. 
-- They have no clue as to how to lower the huge amount of resistance their prospects provide. 
-- They lack listening and questioning skills, making most of the above points impossible. 
-- They don't qualify effectively. 
-- They don't close effectively. 
-- They don't have or follow an optimized sales process. 
-- Many of them don't see theirs as a sales role and would uncomfortable if they thought it was their job to "sell". 

posted @ Wednesday, August 18, 2010 8:59 AM by Dave Kurlan


I'd like to add to #8 & twist #9. 
 
 
 
#8 management - we used to train the sales force along with the managers. Now we develop the managers first. Some managers can coach. Some can manage. Some dictate rather than motivate. When we fix management first, we exponentiate the results for the salespeople. 
 
#9 - If a salesperson is working for a personal goal, they'll move heaven and earth to reach it. If they're working for a company goal, they'll work for it until something more personal becomes more important. Until managers learn how to align company quotas with personal goals, they don't get maximum performance.

posted @ Wednesday, August 18, 2010 9:12 AM by Rick Roberge


-Sales is a balance of ego and empathy, and most reps do not have this in check. 
 
-To piggy back on the hiring criteria comments, many people get into sales simply because their mother told them are a 'people person.' Or, they romanticize on big pay checks but don't have the work ethic to make it happen. There are a lot people in sales that simply shouldn't be. 
 
-sales people lack writing skills; sales people often lack organization skills. In addition to the previously stated 'listening skills', these are often missing with under-performing reps. I always ask about these 3 skills when interviewing potential new hires. 
 

posted @ Wednesday, August 18, 2010 9:44 AM by Adam Mavrikos


Why do sales people have to be good at everything related to the pipeline (lead gen to close). I have a sales person who could get appointments no problem, but he could not close a door. He was not even close to making his number.  
 
So we moved him to led gen only, gave him a quota (# of appt in a month) and now he is killing it. He is also much happier. 
 
We also have closers (real ones not the ones who just talk about it) and we have openers. They work as a team and their commission is tied together (everyone wins).  
 
It is a rare bird when you find a salesperson that is good at everything and does it all well consistently.

posted @ Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:32 AM by Jonathan


Thanks to all for the great comments. Between this post, the comments on Chad's post and some answers to the same question on LinkedIn it appears that we have a major problem! 
 
We are certainly going to take a deeper dive and will get back to you with our analysis a bit later. 
 
Thanks again for reading and participating!

posted @ Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:47 PM by Trish Bertuzzi


I would also add: 
 
1.Salespeople have a hard time prioritizing their time 
 
2.They are inconsistent in qualifying leads hence they focus on the wrong leads. 
 
3.They are prejusticed against the leads that marketing gives them because there is no formalized lead scoring system in place for leads. This creates a situation where leads are ignored and not followed up in a timely manor. 
 
4.They often work within company that has not clearly articulated, defined and communicated BANT criteria for leads. 
 
5. Marketing often sends leads to sales that are not ready for sales. This reinforces the perception that marketing is generating junk leads. 

posted @ Sunday, August 22, 2010 1:23 PM by Derek Gilmore


Hi Trish! I don't think that there are lazy people or staff who do not know how to connect with their customers, BUT.. I agree with the comment of Jonathan. I believe that there are no lazy or slow or weak-minded people- - they are just not in the right department and that they should be transferred to one, where they will really excel. http://bit.ly/ayeen

posted @ Monday, August 23, 2010 3:48 AM by Ayeen


Point 9: There is a tendency to "over subscribe" sales rep quotas: some managers allocate 110 to 120 to their teams, so they will hit their goal of 100. It piles up depending on the number of management layers, and ends up with a significant over- subscription ratio, sometime in the 130% range ... CFO's have also their word in the process. Artificially high quotas is a good mean to cut the salaries, and actually decrease the cost of sales. 
The bad thing is that it de- motivates the sales force, increases turn over, and creates a climate of tension as the relationship if perceived manipulative. 
 
Point 2: the investment in sales training is dramatically low: sink or swim is the norm, while the seasoned reps are retired or have founded their own company. 
 
Point 4: also caused by a to a lack of consultative sales training. Reps tend to act as power point replay machines, vomiting the product management and marketing slides. 
 
8: Sales management is polluted by C-level micro management new habits. Namely CRM. Most are not trained to coach and end up being just bean counters, hated by their teams, because they are asked to do so ... 
 

posted @ Monday, August 23, 2010 10:30 AM by Michel Lavergne


Interesting discussion, but has it occurred to the B2B industry that there may be too may sellers of solutions and too few buyers for the business problems they are trying to solve and are funded? 
 
In the world of B2B software, it is my view that we have far too many tools all trying to solve the same or similar problem. In the CRM, Marketing Automation/Email Marketing world alone we must have hundreds of offerings. 
 
Buyers see all the options and the common complaint i hear is "they all look the same to me".  
 
I agree with a lot of the points raised here, but, just as in real estate today, its a buyers market out there. Which means a few winners and a whole lot of losers.

posted @ Monday, August 23, 2010 3:15 PM by Henry Bruce


Henry 
 
You are right on the spot. Too many sellers and only a few buyers: buying is in, selling is out. At the end of the day, the most critical ability of a business person is to stand out of the crowd: build a relationship, and understand the agenda of the buyer and adapts to it if his offer can match the buying criteria. That's what the SW industry is forgetting right now. 
 
We buy ultimately with our guts, not with our brain (provided the offer provides the proper features). Because we feel we've been understood, and have an accountable person that will deliver during the life cycle of the solution to deliver the expected value. 
 
Mike

posted @ Monday, August 23, 2010 4:50 PM by Michel Lavergne


Agreed Michel. The vast majority of B2B sales and marketing folks I interact with all fail the David Packard (of HP fame) 60 second test of being able to answer these 4 questions in a clear, concise, compelling and consistent (the 4 C's) manner: 
> Who are you? 
> What do you do? (problem you solve) 
> What makes you different 
> Who like me have you worked with before? 
 
Every buyer listens and/or evaluates a prospective seller with these questions in mind. If they don't get the answers in that first couple of encounters. they move onto the next option.With so many solutions/sellers to choose from, they won't even read that slick white paper and opt-in for your content if you fail at step one. 
 

posted @ Tuesday, August 24, 2010 7:37 AM by Henry Bruce


Great list Trish. Just one additional comment …"mind set." 
 
 
 
Many sellers pick up the phone subconsciously (or consciously) thinking “I want to sell you something.” 
 
 
 
Successful sellers have the grounded belief that , “Based on what I know about you / your business/ your industry, there’s mutual value in us talking.”  
 
 
 
Why do most go the the mind-numbingly ineffective route of #1? Because it’s easier to just pick up the phone and talk about me. #2 requires that I talk about the customer - and that takes work.  
 

posted @ Monday, September 13, 2010 3:35 PM by Jill Harrington


We work with hundreds of sales organizations and see many more from afar. Not all selling roles/environments are the same. The number one issue is that many companies have is a limited understanding of what traits the reps need to possess in order to be successful in each unique role. Add to that a lack of structure in the sales hiring process (as Dave mentions above) and limited or no on-boarding (as you mention) and you have all the ingredients for disaster. It is often amazing that *only* 50% of the reps are failing.  
Great response to the original post btw.  
Eliot Burdett 

posted @ Monday, October 18, 2010 12:11 PM by Eliot Burdett


Tim, let me add #10 to your list: 
 
 
 
Reps are unjustly prejusticed against leads from Marketing, which drives their non-action. period.

posted @ Sunday, December 05, 2010 3:38 PM by chris hall


Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics