Findings From Phone Works Inside Sales Metrics Surveys: How Do You Compare?

Process and metrics are the lifeblood of inside sales organizations. Leaders of phone/Web sales organizations — or their sales operations managers — typically measure conversions at every step of the sales cycle, in addition to average sales cycle length, average deal size and other more common metrics. Sales 2.0 companies are following their lead and putting increased focus on tracking and measuring their key performance indicators (KPIs) in all sales channels in order to predict and improve results at both team and individual levels.

But not every sales manager knows which metrics to track or how their productivity measurements compare against those of other companies. If you want to see what leading B2B companies in the San Francisco Bay Area are measuring, check out the latest inside sales (quota-carrying phone/Web sales) and lead generation (sales development/pipeline-building) metrics reports produced by Phone Works, based on surveys sponsored by the Bay Area Telebusiness Alliance (TBA).

Here are some highlights:

Inside Sales Survey

• The average annual quota for inside sales reps has increased dramatically in the past three years
• During the same time period, the percent of reps achieving quota has declined
• Inside sales reps achieving 75% or more of quota carry an annual average quota of more than $1 million
• Inside sales reps achieving 75% of quota or better close an average of 2 more deals per quarter, compared to all respondents

Sales Development Survey

• Companies that are achieving 100% of quota have a 6–8 attempt contact strategy to reach the prospect
• Average talk time has increased 18% in the past 3 years
• The number of qualified leads generated per week increased an average of 38% in the past 3 years
• Average daily volume of e-mails increased 31% in the past 3 years

Metrics will, of course, vary, depending on factors such as your market, your position in the market, your target audience, and your implementation of technology and process.

How do your sales metrics compare? What sales KPIs do you measure? Which metrics would you like us to add to future surveys?

Tags: inside sales, lead generation, Metrics, Sales 2.0, sales development

Sales 2.0 Leaders Interview: Solar 2.0 Meets Sales 2.0

I’m publishing a series of Q&A excerpts from my interviews with Sales 2.0 leaders, which will appear in my next book. This is the first excerpt from my interview with Andrew “Birchy” Birch, CEO of Sungevity, a leading provider of home solar-energy systems.

Sungevity is creating Solar 2.0 through Sales 2.0, and proving it is possible to work for social change and make a profit. Birchy worked with my company, Phone Works, to test and implement a customer-focused inside sales system and successfully introduce the principles of Sales 2.0 to the solar-energy industry.

Anneke: There really wasn’t a Solar 2.0 model before; you guys are breaking new ground with how you’re selling. Phone Works applied what we know works in other industries, and then modified that for Sungevity based on customer feedback, results, metrics and measuring.

Birch: It didn’t exist before we implemented it. Some 99.5% of all solar sold in California and across the states is sold by a very labor intensive, unscalable model. The customer goes to the Yellow Pages, online or however they find those installers; they then have to take valuable time to get someone out on the job a few days or weeks later. That experience is incredibly time-consuming, and it increases sales pressure, which makes the face-to-face sales process really intrusive on your life. You’ve got a guy or gal who’s just driven a truck at great expense, and they know they have to close that sale; they’ll push pretty hard.

The great thing about having much more of a pull strategy on the sales side is customers come to you and call the inside sales consultant to request information at their own pleasure and time frame, seven days a week from 8 am until 7 pm. They can get that service with no pressure, so it suddenly becomes a much nicer experience for the customer.

Anneke: Solar 1.0 reps are trying to force a decision in one in-person call. Because solar is still early-adopter territory for most people, they can’t make a decision that quickly. Your approach is not economics-driven. You can avoid the pressured sales approach that is necessary to cover the cost of the face-to-face sales call. You call that visit a “truck roll,” right? How much does that cost?

Birch: The cost of doing that truck roll generally adds up to about 10% of the end cost of the residential system. By removing that truck roll, you have a real economic advantage, which is basically passed on to the customer in the shape and form of a lower electricity bill with solar energy.

The process has made a meaningful impact on renewable energy, which is kind of unusual. If you think about it, most people wouldn’t imagine Sales 2.0 and Solar 2.0 could affect solar uptake, but it’s a really smart model.

Read the full interview with Andrew “Birchy” Birch in the Resources section of this website.

Tags: inside sales, Sales 2.0

Sales 2.0 Leaders Interview: Characteristics of Sales 2.0 Professionals

I’m publishing a series of Q&A excerpts from my interviews with Sales 2.0 leaders, which will appear in my next book. This is the third and final excerpt from my interview with Jim Pitkow, CEO of Attributor, which produces Web-monitoring software that protects publishers’ revenue by preventing unauthorized use of content.

An inside-sales veteran, Pitkow worked with my company, Phone Works, to research his market and customers, as well as test the feasibility of using an inside-sales model, before he ramped up his sales efforts. Like most Sales 2.0 leaders, Pitkow isn’t afraid to try new things, but he is smart enough to test his hypotheses on small scales with pilot programs in all aspects of his business.

Anneke: How are your customers changing?

Jim: They don’t require face-to-face. They’re happy with online and phone communication. We close six-figure deals without ever seeing a customer.

Anneke: There are people who believe it can’t be done — “Not in my market, not my customers” — and sometimes that’s true.

Jim: Yes, I hear that a lot, especially in markets outside the U.S. There is still this rolling wave, an evolution of acceptable business practice. We are constantly looking for as much efficiency as far down the stack as we can to reduce our costs and increase our margin.

Anneke: There are certain types of people — Sales 2.0 professionals — who aren’t afraid to ask for help, aren’t afraid to take risks, do things a little differently, experiment, do pilots, test — and not think traditionally about selling. But there are a whole lot of people who aren’t comfortable with that. Why do you think that’s the case?

Jim: The valley is filled with entrepreneurs and business leaders who feel they have to know everything and do everything. There is a lack of confidence from the business community, as well as their investors, as well as their employees. They feel if they’re not Superman, they won’t be successful.

Anneke: And they feel they’re not earning their compensation plan.

Jim: Right, and the exact opposite is true, at least from my experience: Good management knows where it begins, knows where it ends, knows where its strengths are and where they aren’t. Good management doesn’t have ego around itself such that it can’t ask for help; it can try and fail. There is a mantra these days of, “If you’re going to fail, fail quickly and cheaply.” It’s easy to say. It’s a great sound bite. It’s very hard to do — to sit there and say, “I want 50-grand, 100-grand, and at the end of that I’m going to tell you whether we have a scalable sales business.” To me, it almost seems too cheap. If the answer is actually that simple to find, it demystifies everything. A lot of people have a hard time realizing the answer is that simple and that efficient to get to.

Read the other excerpts of this interview series, “Why Pilot Your Sales 2.0 Programs?” and “When NOT to Build Inside Sales,” or find the full interview in the Resources section of this website.

Tags: inside sales, Sales 2.0, telemarketing, telesales

Sales 2.0 Leaders Interview: When NOT to Build Inside Sales

I’m publishing a series of Q&A excerpts from my interviews with Sales 2.0 leaders, which will appear in my next book. This is the second excerpt from my interview with Jim Pitkow, CEO of Attributor, which produces Web-monitoring software that protects publishers’ revenue by preventing unauthorized use of content.

An inside-sales veteran, Pitkow worked with my company, Phone Works, to research his market and customers, as well as to test the feasibility of using an inside-sales model, before he ramped up his sales efforts. Like most Sales 2.0 leaders, Pitkow isn’t afraid to try new things, but he is smart enough to test his hypotheses on small scales with pilot programs in all aspects of his business.

Anneke: I’m curious about your perspective on testing sales messages and approaches, markets and sales processes before building a sales organization. Many companies want to do this themselves with their own employees — often after they’ve hired an entire sales team. Why didn’t you do that?

Jim: I’ve run inside sales. I ran a $10 million-plus run rate telesales company, multinational, multiple sales offices and stuff like that. The first issue is, if you haven’t done it, you’re going to pay the cost of learning on the job and go through all the inefficiencies of that. Even in my situation where I’ve done this — I’ve seen the movie, and I know how it ends — there are certain risks I’m not willing to entertain at certain critical points in the company’s growth cycle.

There is a certain amount of data I need before I’ll commit toward constructing a full telesales department. I’m a believer in efficiency being more a function of time than cost. I’d much rather bring on a temporary team for six months — where there is zero startup cost outside of working with them — to get to know them and nail the messaging.

I would hire outside consultants if I were building my own sales team. The startup costs are near zero, and in our project we were getting data back within four to five weeks from when we signed a contract, so we could execute upon our thesis. That began to shift our messaging, shift our notion of the product and shift our thesis in the entire marketplace.

Had we seen different results, we would have moved toward building an inside sales team. I wouldn’t build an inside sales team until I had the data that showed it was proved and repeatable. I wouldn’t want to spend six months building the team and then six months dismantling it.

Anneke: Exactly, and paying for all those severance packages.

Jim: There are multiple costs: the physical cost, the morale cost, the resourcing cost. It’s just an expensive proposition. In this day of low-cost, high-efficiency, quick time-to-market requirements, it doesn’t make sense not to test first. We don’t have time to lose getting it wrong. We’ll pay a little extra to get it right, and everybody benefits. The VCs are happier. The employees are happier. Our customers are happier.

Read the other excerpt of this interview series, “Why Pilot Your Sales 2.0 Programs?,” or find the full interview in the Resources section of this website.

Tags: inside sales, pilot programs, Sales 2.0, telesales

Sales 2.0 Thinking: Get an Outside Perspective

We are all insanely busy these days. In our day-to-day jobs, we are so focused on execution that it’s difficult to think about how to improve performance and productivity.    Here’s an idea:  talk to people outside your company, compare experiences and share ideas.   I’ve been interviewing Sales 2.0 leaders for my new book project and they all have one thing in common: they find time to call their peers doing similar work in other organizations, attend conferences and networking events and read about how others are improving results in sales. These Sales 2.0 practitioners seek out and are open to outside perspectives.

Last week I traveled to Atlanta to deliver several Sales 2.0 workshops, thanks to the invitation of Mark Barry of OpenView Partners, Marge Beiler of RareAgent, the AA-ISP (American Association of Inside Sales Professionals) and others who sponsored the events. I call these events workshops rather than presentations for a reason. I am not the only person contributing information: participants share their successes and challenges and everyone learns from each other.   In order to be a credible and current Sales 2.0 “expert”,  I feel I need to be continually learning from my clients and those that come to hear me speak.

In my Sales 2.0 workshops, I start by presenting the key concepts of Sales 2.0, what is driving it, and how companies are producing better results by practicing it. Then I get to my favorite part: facilitating a conversation with the audience.  In two days in Atlanta, I got to hear from Venture Capitalists and investment partners, business executives running venture-funded start-ups, sales professionals,  inside sales managers, inside sales reps, recruiters, trainers, and several other service providers, all of whom were eager to learn – from me as well as from other participants – what is working in the new world of selling and buying. Here are some of the things I learned:

1. In order to engage prospects, stand out from the crowd.

• At one company, e-mails that include a humorous video are getting a 20% better response than those without
• Prospects appreciate a personal touch: hand-written note cards and physical mailings are being well-received

2. Companies are experimenting with allowing inside sales reps to work from home.

• Most managers agree that this works well as special recognition for senior reps who are performing (but not recommended for new hires)
• Bringing the sales group together (face to face) is still important for team-building
• One company found a loss in productivity with remote reps

3. Large, established companies are learning from smaller companies.

• Much of what start-ups (and we in the Sales 2.0 community) take for granted is new learning for the Fortune 500
• There is huge potential to expand the role of inside sales within large companies (and improve their margin and customer satisfaction)

4. Sales teams are using social media  but don’t yet know how to evaluate the results.

• Most managers buy in to using LinkedIn in the sales process; many are skeptical about Facebook and Twitter
• Connecting to customers and prospects is a good idea

Read also Mark Barry’s excellent blog post about these events, Sales 2.0: Succeeding in the New World of High Productivity.

What have you learned by looking outside your company for new ideas? And where do you find them?

Tags: inside sales, Sales 2.0, social media, telework, video