By Victor Antonio, BSEE, MBA
Measuring sales performance is easy compared to the
Herculean task of trying to predict how well salespeople will perform. Every quarter and at the end of every fiscal
year, somewhere in the boardrooms or meeting rooms of corporate America, there
are teams of managers and executives trying to hammer out next years budget.
That budget largely depends on where they
predict the sales number will be at the end of the year. The higher the revenue projections, the more
that can be done to grow the business in terms of investment: Research and
Development (R&D), expanding into new markets, and of course adding more
salespeople. But just because a number
is projected to grow doesn’t necessary mean the sales team will hit it.
For example, let’s say our total year’s revenue number is
$1,000,000 ($1M) and that we have 50 salespeople on our staff. If we were to democratically ration out sales
quotas, each person would have to sell $20,000 ($1M divided by 50). I realize this is unrealistic, but let’s
work with this assumption.
Now, lets also assume that we have no ‘sales history’ from
which to look at to see what the new sales year will bring. That means we have to estimate what
percentage of salespeople will hit their quota (100% or more) and what
percentage will falls short and by how much.
In the figure below, I assumed that: 25% of the 50
salespeople (12.5 people) will hit 100%, 40% (20 people) will only achieve 65%
of their assigned quota, 25% (12.5 people) will hit 35% and the bottom 10% (5
people) of the sales force will hit only 10% of their quota.
|
Total Sales Revenue
|
$1,000,000
|
|
|
Salespeople
|
50
|
|
|
Avg per Salesperson
|
$20,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Met Quota
|
% of Quota
|
Revenue
|
|
25%
|
100%
|
$250,000
|
|
40%
|
65%
|
$260,000
|
|
25%
|
35%
|
$87,500
|
|
10%
|
10%
|
$10,000
|
|
|
|
$607,500
|
As you can see, the total revenues would fall 40% short of
the sales revenue goal of $1M. At this
point we have a problem and we need to find ways to resolve it (i.e., hit the
$1M).
Scenario: Add more salespeople
This is an option but there are many things that have to be
factored in on whether or not this will solve the problem. First, adding more salespeople will increase
the costs (expenses) thereby reducing the overall profit margin or worse,
eroding any possible profit all together and putting your company in the
red.
Second, you have to consider training time and ramp up time
for new salespeople. It would be nice to
think that the salespeople will hit the sales ground running, but that would be
betting on a long shot.
Nonetheless, let’s assume we added 20 more salespeople and
still require them to hit the same quota of $20,000. As you can see, the revenues did increase to
$850,500 but we're still 15% short of hitting our $1M revenue goal and we’ve just
increased my expenses by adding more people.
|
Total Sales Revenue
|
$1,000,000
|
|
|
Salespeople
|
70
|
|
|
Avg per Salesperson
|
$20,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Met Quota
|
% of Quota
|
Revenue
|
|
25%
|
100%
|
$350,000
|
|
40%
|
65%
|
$364,000
|
|
25%
|
35%
|
$122,500
|
|
10%
|
10%
|
$14,000
|
|
|
|
$850,500
|
Scenario 2: Improve
the performance of your existing team
Sometimes the answer to the sales question can be found in
your bathroom accessories. Instead of
buying a more tubes of toothpaste, maybe the answer is to find a way to
effectively ‘squeeze’ the tube to make sure we’re getting 100% of what we paid
for. Now, squeezing sales people by
demanding they meet their quota and then threatening them with job loss is not
what I have in mind. What if instead we decided
to retrain the sales force on product capabilities so they know what their
selling and how to effectively position the product? And on top of that, what if we retrained them
on using sales techniques that are specifically designed to sell their type of
product?
|
Total Sales Revenue
|
$1,000,000
|
|
|
Salespeople
|
50
|
|
|
Avg per Salesperson
|
$20,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Met Quota
|
% of Quota
|
Revenue
|
|
25%
|
150%
|
$375,000
|
|
40%
|
100%
|
$400,000
|
|
25%
|
65%
|
$162,500
|
|
10%
|
35%
|
$35,000
|
|
|
|
$972,500
|
Let’s assume that after the training: the top 25% increased
their sales by 50% (total of 150%); which means each sold on average $30,000
instead of $20,000, the next 40% could increase their sales from 65% to 100% of
quota, the next 25% of salespeople increase their sales from 35% to 60% and the
last 10% increased their sales from 10% to 35%.
As you can see from the table, the new revenue number is
$972,500. Although we didn’t hit the $1M
revenue goal, it’s pretty darn close and within striking distance.
It’s worth noting that in both cases you will be increasing
your expenses. But in the first scenario
I can bet the costs (S,G&A) will be much higher compared to the expense of
sales and product training.
I am amazed at how much money corporations and small
businesses spend on R&D, hiring people, product development, marketing and
so on and how little they invest in sales and product training!
Jim Cathcart in the Sales Success seminar series
“Relationship Selling in a New Era", had a great anecdote about sales
training. He mentioned how managers or
business owners often worried and complained about people leaving the company
after they’ve been trained. They’d say,
“What if I train them and they leave?”
Cathcart’s response, “What if you don’t train them and they stay!”
It's like I've often stated, "Upgrade your training, or downgrade your expectations!"
--
Copyright
© 2008 by Victor Antonio G. All rights reserved. This article
MAY be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, as long as the author’s name, website and email address
are included as part of the article’s body. All inquiries, including
information on electronic licensing, should be directed to Victor Antonio G. at
info@victorantonio.com.