Hi Seth. This is a tough topic. It is really challenging to build a model that delivers an equal number of meetings for each and every field rep because it assumes they have the exact same number of potential organizations in which to drive those meetings. Territories are rarely that scientifically designed.
And, even if you do the math and make the number of organizations work, what are the odds that an even number in each territory will be ready to address the problem that you solve?
The most important thing to remember is that an inside rep can not make the market want you...they can arouse curiousity and close on the next step in the process but they can not (unless you want unqualified meetings) make their patch yield a 100% evenly distributed ratio of opportunities.
To answer you question regarding ratios, the industry standard for inside rep to outside rep is 3:1. You go beyond that and the effectiveness of the inside rep is diluted.
Hope this helps.

The ratio that works best IMO is 3:1. As for even distribution, this is tough because it's more about the territory than the ISR. However, you can ensure that each ISR is giving an even distribution of 'effort'. You can measure this in # of dials or # of hours spent on each rep. This way, even if the meetings are disproportionate -you can prove that its not because of an unfair level of effort. Also, i found that distribution almost takes care if itself simply by tracking and posting results. If there is a board that clearly shows Field Rep A got 4 leads this week and Field Rep B got 1, naturally the ISR will work hard to get B more. I would not go as far as measuring them on this as its out of their control.

Hi Seth. I agree with the 3:1 ratio. It seems to work in most industries that I have worked in. The measurement of the reps really should be in total activity (# conversations/ #dials / # appointments) However, don't shy away from a bonus, spiff, or kicker of some sort for having all 3 of the outside reps get their appointment numbers met. I have seen this work well. The only caveat is some sort of objective criteria on the "quality" of the meeting. For example, if the company is on the target list and the meeting is with someone with a role that we are targeting, that is a "quality" meeting, regardless of the sales outcome. Meeting with someone's 3rd cousin twice removed.. well maybe not, unless the deal closes. Overall though, load balancing an inside resource will always be a challenge, especially if you have a particularly vocal outside rep. Good luck!

Agree with the answers above, 3:1 or even 2:1 for early stage solutions, 4:1 or perhaps 5:1 for more commodity sales.
On the measurement side: we take the approach that the inside sales rep should work approx 50% spread across a target account list (each outside guy provides a list) and the remainder is on leads generated outside of the target account list, these are then apportioned equally between the outside reps.

From the models I've worked in the past 2:1 is an ideal ratio and also helps address your concern about each territory getting their fair share of the ISR's time since the ISRs are less diluted and do not have as much juggling to do. I agree with Trish that territories are not scientifically designed, so it would be nearly impossible for the ISR to set up an equal amount of qualified meetings for each territory they cover.

Seth,
Typically we recommend a 3:1 ratio but it really depends on the stage of company and market demand- we recommended 1:1 and and 1:2 in some really early stages where they are creating a new market.
As for equally setting appointments amongst field reps is a tricky question and not one that you should necessarily be responsible for. Marketing needs to be involved. They need to provide you lists for each rep, or they need to do marketing programs that are equal across territories. You can also get the individual reps to provide lists of accounts for their territories.

I've found 1:1 or 2:1 is generally the most effective. 3:1 may have some merit if the territory is gigantic (for example, a colleague of mine has the entire Mountain and Pacific time zones as his sales region).
Once a territory's revenue stream is established, account management may fall more on the ISR team and therefore require increasing the ratio of ISR:field sales. Your mileage might vary, especially if the field sales team has some type A personalities that need to be hands-on with their customers at all times.
In my market (telecommunications hardware to rural phone companies), there is a finite amount of customers/prospects. Having an ISR qualify as many customers as possible while the field sales rep either visits existing business or is presenting to a new customer is critical.
For a new region to get off on the right foot, ISR must drive almost 100 percent of the appointments and activity. Unless, and this is rare, the field sales person comes into the region with a Rolodex full of contacts. Once the region is more established, the ISR can then relegate some of the activity to the field sales person for account management and maintain focus on generating new business leads.

Seth,
As an individual who has many years of experience as an inside sales representative the 3 to 1 ratio works well. I have found that working a New York territory to be challenging with three field reps to support but can be done if your inside sales rep is well organized. I have found that working a west coast patch I could support 4 field reps. I agree with most that the territory really predicts the success ratio

We have the same model exactly where I work. Generally, there are 5 field reps to each ISR. I agree that the best ratio would be 3:1. It is more effective that way. As far as driving an equal amount of meetings for all, I really depends on the field rep's territory. (i.e., I can book 50 meetings in Maryland, but would struggle to produce 30 in Oregon).

What a great post! Lots of good info and actionable stuff in here. Keep up the good work.

Hi Seth,
So I went to the website and the gist of it is that you are selling a subscription based research solution to university or research labs?? Assuming that's correct, when I worked for EBSCO Publishing we had the same industry average 3-1 ratio. However, the only time you needed the RSM onsite with the customer was if we were selling to a district wide prospect wherein a dog and pony show was necessary. I would think that provided that the only task the ISRs have is to generate F2F mtgs, then there isn't any reason why they couldn't handle 4 RSM's and if the market you are targeting is pretty finite then perhaps 5. Insofar as equal time, the metrics you set for the ISRs can be geared toward the result you are looking for. Perhaps you could break out the amount of dials per rep per RSM or like the previous poster suggested Target list gets this many dials per RSM and then they call the DB after that. Either way, you certainly have your work cut out for you and I wish you the best of luck with it.

Hi Seth - one thing that's important to consider is how the comp plan is structured. You may want to consider setting up the plan so that an equal attainment of meetings per territory is how the plan pays out. I have learned that the comp plan drives my reps behavior.

I think the comments are very interesting. A further question that I have:
what is the source of your leads? Are these reps cold calling in the purest sense of the term or are they being served up leads with some level of qualification?
My experience has been that when your inside team is being served up qualified leads, then you can have an inside rep supporting multiple outside reps, but if the inside rep is starting from scratch and having uncover who to call, then qualify the leads, and finally setting up meetings, then you need closer to a 1:1 ratio. Thoughts?

@Jason. Jason, great point. One of the key variables in this equation most assuredly should be the number of qualified leads delivered to the team. Thanks for the feedback!

Thank you all for your feedback! We have been working close to the industry average with a 2.5:1 ratio. My initial findings are that within our industry (Higher Education Research & Consulting) a 2:1 ratio ensures better equality and converage for the outside reps. One key takeaway for me from all of the comments here is that we need to rework our compensation plans for our ISRs. Incenting around specific ratios and quotas will hopefully helps us get closer to those goals.
Jason, you make a great point. I believe that part of the reason we need to work at a 2:1 is that we have not yet had consistent qualified lead generation. I think that this is key to making a larger ratio work without sacrificing quality and converage.
Thanks again to all who provided their feedback. This forum has been very helpful and has provided me with many new ideas/thoughts.
If any one is interested in chating more you can find my profile on Linked In.