Optimizing Sales Effectiveness to Achieve High Performance

7/31/2019 Optimizing Sales Effectiveness to Achieve High Performance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/optimizing-sales-effectiveness-to-achieve-high-performance 1/16

Customer Relationship Management

Optimizing Sales Effectivenessto Achieve High Performance Key Findings from the 2010 Sales PerformanceOptimization Study



Sales Performance

While many signs point to economic recovery,underlying performance challenges persist for thesales teams at many large enterprises where more

than cosmetic fixes may be needed to capturegreater revenue from current customers, penetratenew and emerging markets and maintain profitmargins. Composing a high performance salesfunction, even in an upturn, may require a deepertransformation of the fundamentals—from strategyand process to systems and talent—to bring thescience and art of sales back into focus.



The 2010 Sales Performance

Optimization Study—Accenture’s annual

assessment of sales force performance

and challenges—demonstrates that

by just about any measure of salesperformance, 2009 was a tough year.

This year’s study, which included more

than 2,800 companies worldwide,

showed that in 2009 organizations

experienced the biggest single-year drop

in percentage of revenue plan attained

since this research began 16 years ago.

In addition, enterprises across the globe

had the second-lowest percentage

of sales representatives meeting

their quotas in the study’s history.

In response to the tough economy,

we witnessed a variety of strategies

employed—deep cuts in expenses,

reduced sales headcount, and product

offerings at extraordinary pricing—all

in an effort to make it through 2009.

Yet, as the global economy shows signs

of pulling itself out of one of the most

severe recessions ever encountered,

chief sales officers are looking

cautiously toward improved sales

effectiveness and a return to growth.

About the 2010 SalesPerformance Optimization Study

Accenture, in collaboration with

CSO Insights, a leading research and

benchmarking resource for chief sales

officers, recently completed the 16th

annual study on sales performance

optimization. The research surveyed

more than 2,800 companies worldwide

to assess current sales performance,

challenges facing sales teams, the

reasons those problems exist, andwhat organizations are doing to

effectively address these issues.

In addition to gathering perspectives

and opinions, the Web-based

survey collected data on more

than 100 metrics related to sales

performance in enterprises ranging

from manufacturing to services, retail,

government, non-profits and many

others. To ensure a global sample,

about two-thirds (66 percent) of

participating firms were based in North

America and the remaining third were

internationally based companies.

Data was collected from enterprises

with less than $50 million in revenue

to multi-billion dollar corporations.

In this year’s study, 19.6 percent of

respondents were from enterprises with

more than $1 billion in revenue (or

“large enterprises”). For purposes of this

report we focus on the large enterprise

segment of the study’s respondents.

And in the pages that follow, we review

the key findings regarding 2009 salesperformance and 2010 sales plans

among these large enterprises.

Introduction

Optimizing Sales Effectiveness to Achieve High Performance 3



4 Key Findings from the 2010 Sales Performance Optimization Study

Key Findings



Feeling significant revenue generation

pressure, the sales forces of most

organizations faced extreme challenges

in 2009. Both of the primary metrics of

sales force performance slipped in 2009:

The revenue generation performance

of salespeople dropped significantly,

and as a result, overall company

plan attainment declined as well.Across all large organizations, an average

of 53.3 percent of sales representatives

met or exceeded their sales quota in

2009. This is a substantial drop from

the 65 percent having achieved quota

in 2007 and 64 percent in 2008 (Figure

1). Perhaps this mediocre performance

in meeting quotas helps explain why

the top sales objective for 2010 for

large organizations is improving

sales effectiveness. (Figure 2).

Multiple components can contribute

to sales effectiveness—from sales

strategy and execution to compensation,

sales process, sales management, and

account management. We review how

companies fared across each of eight

key sales capability areas below.

Compensation and hiring

Our findings in the area of compensation

and hiring reflect a difficult year for

sales executives. Many chose to stay in

jobs that were secure, as voluntary sales

representative turnover was low (at justunder 12 percent for large enterprises).

Involuntary turnover of sales

representatives in large organizations

was just over 12 percent as companies

shed less-productive sales people to

manage through difficult times. These

figures are down from those in 2007 (18

percent and 14 percent, respectively)

but not substantially different from

those in 2008 (12 percent and 11

percent, respectively) (Figure 3). The

outlook is cautiously optimistic for2010: Almost half (46 percent) of large

enterprises plan to increase sales force

size in the next 12 months while only

9 percent plan to reduce its size.

Despite the general availability of good

talent in the market today, many large

companies felt that hiring representatives

who will be successful at selling remains

a problem. In fact, 38 percent said

candidate selection needs improvement

in their organization. When it comes

to finding qualified candidates, few

companies turn to recent collegegraduates. Two-thirds of large enterprise

respondents said their sales force

comprises largely sales professionals

from within their industry, while only

9 percent said the majority of their

sales force are new college graduates.

According to respondents, a key practice

to making successful hires is sales

competency testing. Almost half (44

percent) of large enterprise respondents

conduct sales competency testing as part

of the hiring process and four-fifths of

those that test believe it improves hiring

success. One-fifth of respondents feel it

significantly improves hiring outcomes,

although this figure is down from 2008,

Figure 1. Percentage of sales

representatives in large organizations

meeting or exceeding their quotas.

Figure 2. Top sales objectives for

large organizations.

Figure 3. Sales turnover in large organizations.

1 Improving sales effectiveness -53%

2 Increasing revenue -50%

3 Capturing new accounts -40%


65%

64%

53%

Met in

2007

Met in

2008

Met in

2009

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

2007 2008 2009

Sales Rep Turnover: 2007-2009

Voluntary Involuntary



when just under one-third of respondents

believed such testing improves their

ability to hire the right sales people.

Once a part of the workforce, new

hires can take significant time to ramp

up. The vast majority (71 percent)

of large enterprises felt it took sales

representatives at least six months to

gain the skills they need when newlyhired. In fact, 23 percent said it takes

more than a year for a new rep to

be fully-ramped up and effective.

However, the good news is that time to

competency appears to have decreased

compared with 2007 and 2008, when

80 percent and 81 percent, respectively,

reported it took new hires at least

six months to be fully productive.

In addition, across enterprises sales

compensation structures remain achallenge. Almost half (49 percent)

of respondents in 2009 felt their

compensation plans needed improvement

at driving precise selling behaviors.

When reviewing compensation, one

aspect companies should look at is what

percent of compensation is variable.

While the prevailing assumption in most

companies is that a higher percentage of

variable compensation equates to a more

motivated sales rep and, thus, higher

sales performance, the research proves

just the opposite is true. As shown in

Figure 4, the reps for whom 0 percent to

15 percent of compensation was variable

actually outperformed those for whom

more than 15 percent was variable.

Yet fewer than one in 10 companies

surveyed in 2009 used such a scale; the

most prevalent compensation schedule

involved 26 percent to 40 percent,

followed by 41 percent to 60 percent

(Figure 5). Furthermore, our analysis

found that reps for whom a higher

percentage of compensation was variable

were more likely to leave the company.In short, our findings show that not only

is high-variable compensation least likely

in encouraging reps to meet plan, it also

results in greater sales rep attrition.

Sales cycle

When the market is contracting and

revenue-generation opportunities are

fewer, companies tend to turn to existing

customers for new leads, as well as

increase their focus on all aspects of

the lead generation and sales funnel.

Indeed, in 2009 enterprises with more

than $1 billion in revenue generatednearly three-quarters of that revenue

from existing clients, with just 26

percent coming from new accounts.

These figures are virtually the same as

those reported in 2007 and 2008.

Despite the pressure to sell, sales

representatives on average spent 42

percent of their time actually selling—on

phone or in face-to-face meetings

(Figure 6). However, this represents an

increase over the 37 percent reported in2008 and 36 percent in 2007. The rest

of their time was spent in non-direct

sales activities such as generating leads

and researching accounts (19 percent),

Figure 4. Variable Pay to Quota Achieved

Figure 5. Sales Rep Variable Compensation Package Breakdown


57.6% 57.8%

51.5% 52.7%

47.8%

53.3%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0% 1-15% 16-25% 26-40% 41-60% >60% Variable

Lowest achieved quotaHighest attrit ion rate

Amount of Variable Pay

% o

f R e p s A c h i e v

i n g Q u o t a

1-15%

16-25%

26-40%

41-60%

>60%

No variable pay

2007 2008 2009

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35



in meetings and administrative tasks

(21 percent) and other activities (18

percent for training, account service calls,

etc). Interestingly, the percentage of

time spent on “other” activities dropped

substantially from 31 percent in 2008.

Spending time on lead generation was

critical, as sales reps reported doing the

majority of lead generation themselves.

Just over half (55 percent) of leads were

generated by the sales representative—

down slightly from 2008 (59 percent) and

2007 (58 percent). The rest of their leads

came from marketing (23 percent of leads

on average) and other sources (22 percent

came from partners, press, and referrals).

Overall, large enterprises reported

mixed success at managing leads

through sales stages once they were

generated. Interestingly, between

10 percent and 15 percent reported

not knowing their conversion rates

at various sales stages (Figure 7).

Sales strategy

Sales strategy is of particular

importance when resources are tight

and performance thresholds are high.

Overall, large enterprise respondents felt

their sales strategy needs improvement.

In fact, just over half (51 percent) felt

they need to improve the way they

prioritize the accounts on which to

focus selling resources. About the

same proportion (52 percent) said

they need improvement in developing

sales plans for key prospects, and 53

percent said they need to improve

in thoroughly researching prospects

prior to sales calls. And regarding

lead generation, 56 percent said they

need to improve in generating leads,

52 percent said they need to improve

in properly qualifying and prioritizingopportunities and 53 percent said they

need to improve at incubating leads

with interest but no time. In general,

large companies appear to have made

some progress in the preceding areas,

as the percentage of respondents in

2009 reporting they need improvement

declined slightly from 2007 and 2008.

Also of critical importance to sales

effectiveness is doing an exceptional job

of converting opportunities into sales. In

general, large enterprise respondents are

bullish on their sales execution abilities.

How good is sales execution? More than

half (58 percent) said their ability to

clearly understand the customer buying

process meets or exceeds expectations.

Nearly three-fourths (73 percent) said

they meet or exceed expectations at

effectively and consistently presenting

features and benefits. Nearly two-

thirds (64 percent) said they are

meeting or exceeding expectations at

differentiating from the competitionand 61 percent said they meet or

exceed expectations at aligning their

solution with customer needs. And,

76 percent said they meet or exceed

Figure 7: Knowledge of conversion rates at various stages of the sales process

Figure 6. Sales Rep Time Allocation

What percentage of

qualified leads results

in an initial customer

discussion/meeting?

Percentage of proposals

that result in a sale

Percentage of

presentations that

result in a proposal

Percentage of

discussions that result

in a presentation

Percentage of leads

that result in an initial

discussion

<25% 15% 41% 12% 15%

26 - 50% 38% 30% 44% 30%

>50% 32% 13% 28% 39%

Do Not Know 15% 16% 16% 16%


41.9%

21.2% 17.5%

19.4%

% Selling (phone or face-to-face)

% Meetings/Administrative Tasks

% Other (account service calls, training, etc.)

% Generating Leads/Researching Accounts



expectations at generating accurate bids,

configurations and proposals. These

figures are generally consistent with

those reported in 2007 and 2008.

Which areas of sales execution need

improvement? Fifty-six percent of

large enterprise respondents said their

cross-selling and up-selling needs

improvement (up substantially from 45percent in 2008 and 49 percent in 2007);

58 percent said they need improvement

in selling value and not discounting, a

critical skill in a price-pressured economy

(up slightly from 2008 and nearly 15

points from 2007); and half (50 percent)

need improvement in closing deals in

the timeframe originally forecast (about

the same as reported in 2008 but 11

points higher than in 2007) (Figure 8).

Clearly there are deal-breakers in any

sales situation, with price at the top of the list. Indeed, the top reason large

enterprises in 2009 cited for losing a

sale– by far – was price and terms (81

percent had it in the top-three loss

reasons, similar to 2008 and 2007).

Regardless of industry, product or sales

situation, price and terms lost the sale.

The next-most cited reason for losing

a sale was competitors having existing

relationships, selected by 58 percent of

respondents in 2009 (and 66 percent

and 61 percent, respectively, in 2008 and

2007). Beyond these factors respondents’

perspectives varied widely on other

reasons deals were lost. Accountcoverage, sales process execution,

availability of product, competitors’

market messaging and competitor’s

brand equity all were chosen by about

20 percent of respondents in 2009.

While price and terms are clearly reasons

for losing deals, only 28 percent of

large enterprise respondents cited price

and terms as a reason for winning.

Factors cited as the top three reasons

why companies won deals last year

included existing client relationships

(62 percent placed this in the top three

reasons), brand equity / reputation (53

percent), level of service/support (46

percent), and product superiority (40

percent). Interestingly, only 31 percent

of respondents in 2007 cited service and

support as a factor in winning deals, a

figure that rose to 51 percent in 2008

before dropping in 2009 (Figure 9).

Account management

With new accounts being scarce and the

majority of revenue being generated from

existing accounts, account management

was critical in 2009. The majority of largeenterprise respondents believe they meet

or exceed performance expectations on

such things as effectively introducing

new products, generating additional

revenue from existing clients, effectively

communicating with customers,

renewing business with existing

customers, and creating customer loyalty

(Figure 10). The only area where the

majority reported account management

needed improvement is in creating

and maintaining customer referencesand case studies (58 percent said this

area needed work), an area that posed

a challenge for a similar percentage

of respondents in 2008 and 2007.

Figure 8: Sales Execution Activities Needing Improvement


Sell value/avoid discounting

56%

58%

50%

40%

37%

35%

25%

21%

Effectively cross-sell/up-sell

Close deals in timeframe originally forecast

Clearly understands customer's buying process

Align solution with customer's needs

Differentiate versus the competition

Effectively/consistently present features and benefits

Generate accurate bid/configuration/proposal



Figure 9. Factors in winning and losing deals among large organizations.

Figure 10. Account Management Activities Needing Improvement


58%

47%

40%

29%

27%

19%

Create/maintain customer case studies/references

Farm additional revenues from existing customers

Effectively introduce new products

Effectively communicate with customers

Create customer loyalty

Renew business with existing customers

61.7%

52.5%

46%

39.5%

28%

15.7%

15.3%

14.9%

13.8%

11.9%

4.6%

1.9%

Brand Equity/Reputation

Existing Relationships

Top Three Reasons for Winning

Level of Service/Support

Product Superority

Price and Terms

Sales Process Execution

ROI Business Case

Availability of Product/Solution

Account Coverage

References

Market Messaging

Other

80.5%

57.5%

22.2%

21.1%

21.1%

20.3%

20.3%

17.2%

12.3%

11.9%

4.6%

1.9%

Ccompetitor’s ExistingRelationships

Price & Terms

Top Three Reasons for Losing

Account Coverage

Sales Process Execution

Availability of Product

Competitor’s Market Messaging

Competitor’s Brand Equity/Reputation

Service/Support

Competitor’s Product Superiority

Competitor’s References

ROI Business Case

Other



Sales management

Clearly there is a direct correlation

between the level of competence

of sales managers and the results

generated by the sales force. However,

sales management (i.e., first-line sales

managers) is often overlooked and

sales managers are often overwhelmed.

This proved true among our surveyrespondents (Figure 11). About half of

large enterprise respondents felt they

need improvement on several sales

management dimensions: accurately

forecasting business, regularly

conducting win/loss reviews, continually

adapting the sales process to market

changes, and effectively sharing best

practices across the sales force (Figure

11). The percentage of respondents

indicating they need improvement

in these areas remained largelyconsistent between 2007 and 2009.

Sales process, methodologyand training

Despite their size, 15 percent of large

enterprise respondents in 2009 reported

using a random sales process and 42

percent classified their process as

informal (Figure 12). Both figures are

slightly higher than those reported

in 2007 and 2008. The remaining 43percent use a formal process of some

sort and a minority (13 percent) classified

their sales process as formal but dynamic

to flex with the changing environment.

Enterprises were evenly split between

using an in-house and a commercial

methodology for sales process

management. But regardless of

methodology, most firms struggle with

getting full adoption of the process.

Only seven percent reported more than a90 percent adoption rate (up two points

from 2008 and 2007), and an additional

19 percent reported between 76 percent

and 90 percent adoption (up from 13

percent in 2008 and 16 percent in 2007).


Figure 11: Sales Management Activities Needing Improvement

Figure 12: Adherence to Use of

Sales Process

Effectively share best practices across the salesforce

54%

54%

56%

49%

47%

43%

41%

38%

Accurately forecast business

Regularly conduct win/loss reviews

Compensation plans driving precise selling behavior

Continually adapt sales process to market changes

Sales manager has access to timely/accurate metrics

Proactively identify which reps need coaching

Consistently hire reps who succeed at selling

41.5%

30.0%

13.0%

15.4%

Level 1—Random Process

Level 2—Informal Process

Level 3—Formal Process

Level 4—Dynamic Process



Perhaps related to this lack of formality

and incomplete adoption, large

companies in 2009 appear to believe

their sales methodology has less of

an impact on performance than their

counterparts did in 2008 and 2007. In

fact, the percentage of those believing it

had a significant impact on performance

dropped by half between 2008 and 2009,

while the percentage of those believing it

had no impact doubled during the same

time. About two-thirds of respondents

in 2009 (68 percent, which is up 13

points from 2008 and 18 points from

2007) said their sales process modestly

improves sales performance (Figure 13).

Another key element of sales

performance is investment in sales

training. According to the survey,

such investment varies considerably

among companies with revenue of $1 billion or more (Figure 14).


Figure 14: Investment in sales training

Approximately how much

do you spend on training

per sales person per year? 2009Less than $1,500

per rep/year

37%

Between $1,500-2,500

per rep/year

33%

More than $2,500

per rep/year

30%

We do not do training 1%

Figure 13: Impact of sales methodology on performance

What impact does your sales

methodology have on your

sales performance? 2007 2008 2009

Significantly improves 34% 33% 16%

Modestly improves 50% 55% 68%

No impact 6% 4% 8%



Perhaps not surprisingly given the recent

recession, this spending on training hasdecreased since 2007, when 30 percentof respondents said they spend between$5000 and $7500 per sales person eachyear. That figure dropped to 10 percentfor respondents in 2009. At the otherend of the spectrum, the percentage of respondents reporting spending less than

$500 per person on training doubledbetween 2007 and 2009—from 6 percentto 12 percent—and those investingbetween $500 and $1500 rose from 19percent in 2007 to 25 percent in 2009.

Furthermore, many aspects of trainingneed improvement. For instance, whilea slight majority of respondents in2009 (53 percent) are happy with theamount of sales skills training that isdone and 66 percent are happy with theamount of product training received,

a small majority also believed severalspecific areas need improvement. Theseareas include the amount of customermarketplace training (58 percent),the amount of training on justifying apurchase (50 percent), and the amount of sales management training (55 percent).

Core CRM and CRM 2.0 usage

For the most part, large enterprises

have CRM systems in place for sales

(78 percent have formally implemented

a CRM system) and the majority are

using commercial packages. Adoption

of CRM is greater than adoption of

the sales process: 31 percent reported

greater than 90 percent adoption, and anadditional 27 percent reported between

76 percent and 90 percent adoption.

In addition, the use of newer CRM

functionality is progressing. Sales

forces increasingly use mobile

applications, knowledge management,

collaboration, and sales analytics

as they integrate CRM with their

formal sales processes (Figure 15).

Interestingly, the primary benefits

respondents receive from CRM systemsare improved sales representative/

manager communications (53 percent),

improved forecast accuracy (47

percent), and reduced administrative

burden (35 percent). Far fewer large

enterprise respondents reported the

CRM system having direct top- or

bottom-line impacts: 6 percent said it

increased margins, 11 percent said it

increased revenue, 13 percent said it

shortened sales cycles, and 17 percent

said it improved win rates (Figure 16).

Sales and marketing alignment

Companies believe they still have

considerable work to do on sales and

marketing integration. For example,

nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of large

enterprise respondents reported the

quantity or quality of leads generated

by marketing needs improvement (the

same percentage as in 2008) and almost

as many (57 percent, about the same as

in 2008) said the effectiveness of their

website at engaging prospects needswork as well. Forty-two percent of

respondents in 2009 (compared with 44

percent in 2008) reported the quantity

or quality of sales support materials


Figure 15: The use of newer CRM functionality

Use of newer

CRM functionality for… We’re using now

We plan to start using

next year

Sales force collaboration 62% 8%Sales analytics/ forecasting 25% 16%

Lead generation/management 21% 14%

Sales knowledge management 10% 14%

CRM/sales process integration 8% 11%



needs improvement. And while marketing

generates almost one-fourth of leads, the

majority of respondents recognized that

it takes a long lead time for marketing

programs to generate sales (Figure 17).

Looking ahead at the

next 12 months

Large enterprises are expectinggrowth in 2010, albeit modest.

Virtually all respondents said they

have increased sales targets to try

to achieve growth (Figure 18).

But this growth won’t be achieved

easily. In fact, 50 percent of respondents

have concerns about meeting revenue

goals in 2010 and 4 percent said it just

won’t happen (3 percent said goals

will easily be met and 44 percent

said it’s achievable with effort).

However, respondents are pressing ahead

on improving sales effectiveness: Top

initiatives for large enterprise sales

executives in 2010 include enhancing

team communications (40 percent),

improving sales representative

access to information (38 percent),

and more closely aligning sales and

marketing (35 percent). Overall, our

large enterprise sales executives have

conveyed cautious optimism for the

next 12 months, but fully recognize

that strong account management,

careful planning and improved sales

effectiveness are critical to success.


Figure 16: Benefits Resulting from CRM Usage Figure 17: Lead time for marketing to

generate sales

Figure 18: Sales targets for 2010

Timeframe for Marketing

Programs to Generate Sales

2-5 months 30%

More than 5 months 25%

Less than 2 months 23%

Don’t’ know 22%

2010 Targets Compared to 2009

Targets were less than or the

same as 2009

15%

Grew targets by 1-5 percent 29%

Grew targets by 6-10 percent 33%

Grew targets 11-15 percent 12%

Grew targets 16-25 percent 8%

Grew targets more than 25

percent

3%

53.0%

47.0%

34.5%

21.5%

17.0%

16.5%

15.5%

14.5%

14.0%

13.0%

10.5%

6.0%

Improved Forecast Accuracy

Improved Sales Rep/Manager Communications

Reduced Administrative Burden on Sales

Improved Order Processing Accuracy

Improved Win Rates

Reduced New Sales Rep Ramp-up Time

Improved Best Practices Sharing

Improced Support of Channels

Other

Shortened Sell Cycles

Increased Revenues

Increased Margins



At a high level, what do our survey

findings mean? We drew four high-

level conclusions from our research.

The first conclusion is that thechallenges facing chief sales officers

are difficult and interrelated. In many

firms, revenue growth targets are not

being met, a large percentage of sales

people are not proficient at qualifying

and prioritizing opportunities, and

the foundations of account planning

are not being routinely executed.

Sales methodologies are not being

leveraged consistently, even though

it’s widely recognized that the use of

a methodology improves performance.And, in many cases, sales forces cannot

effectively map the sales process

to the customer’s buying process,

despite the fact that clients are

often vocal about what they need.

Our second conclusion is that solution

selling, relationship selling and formal

processes drive results. Growth is

dependent on client relationships. Our

research shows that companies with

stronger client relationships and a

dynamic sales process significantly

outperformed peers. For instance, top

performers—those with a more strategicor trusted partner relationship with

accounts and a formal yet dynamic

sales process— had 20 percent more

of their sales force attaining quotas

and were 17 percent closer to attaining

their company’s sales plan than their

peers that lacked strong customer

relationships and a formal sales process.

A focus on strategic accounts truly

sets these top performers apart: They

jointly set long-term objectives andreview results of their solutions with

these key customers, and they regularly

collaborate across their department to

provide superior account management.

Third, talent is expensive, but is a

clear differentiator. Furthermore,

the classic approach to the talent

management process is no longer

valid. Organizations continue to

struggle at hiring the right salespeople

and attaining sales quotas. One

thing that’s consistent across all

sales forces, however, is that high

performers continue to excel. Ourresearch shows that the top 20 percent

of salespeople bring in more than

60 percent of the revenue for their

firm. The challenge is to capture

what differentiates high-performing

salespeople, and then use that profile

in hiring, training and retention.

Finally, variable pay is not the only

driver of performance. Companies

continue to increase variable

compensation as a performanceincentive, yet our research shows that

greater variable pay does not correlate

to an increase in the attainment

of sales quotas. Rather, what is

critical is helping sales executives

fulfill their potential by having the

supporting conditions in place that

increase their chances of success.

Implications




Our research shows that CSOs know

they have substantial work ahead of

them in many aspects of improving

sales effectiveness, from hiring,

training, and motivating respondents;

to managing the sales process; to

translating the new capabilities

provided by CRM systems into business

benefits; to tightening the linkage

between sales and marketing. Our

research also reveals that CSOs

believe overcoming these challenges

and attaining their sales goals for

2010 will be anything but easy.

To that end, we believe CSOs should

consider a number of actions that

can help the address their salesforce performance challenges.

These include the following:

Build a comprehensive sales strategy

to boost differentiation, address

competitive threats and maximize

profitability. Identify pockets

of growth opportunities through

customer and channel segmentation

analytics, align routes-to-market

to opportunity segments, and

build the organization strategy

and operating model to effectivelytarget these growth opportunities.

Partner to achieve speed to market,

mitigate risks and add relevance to a

company’s portfolios. Changing the

channel mix to include both direct

and indirect channels can help sales

teams target customers better, and

can be critical to expanding market

coverage (especially globally).

Take a systematic approach to

multichannel sales management.

Strategize, design and implement

customer-focused initiatives

across multiple channels through

coordinated processes, integrated

data and automation.

Deploy resources intelligently. Consider

global/regional sales operations

capabilities. Devise coverage models

that focus on the addressable

market opportunity, rather than

sheer customer count, to optimize

expense-to-revenue utilization

without over-distributing resources.

Be diligent about driving the evolution

of the sales force’s abilities to meet

changing demands, and unlocking

the sales force’s full potential. For

example, use technology to automate

as much activity involving lower-end

customers as possible, freeing up sales

time for more lucrative customers

and reducing operating cost.Work to develop a high-performance

sales organization by migrating top

performers’ attributes to the full

sales organization. Comprehensively

study top sales performers’ behavior,

competencies and personality

to build effective sales training

programs and new-hire profiles.

Adopt a holistic approach to incentive

compensation management, leveraging

next-generation technology solutions

to improve sales performance. Suchan approach should drive desired

sales behavior, enable rapid response

to changing market conditions and

new product offerings, proactively

support complex sales and multichannel

distribution models, consider the

balance of intrinsic versus extrinsic

rewards, and provide higher accuracy

in commission calculation, minimizing

disputes and overpayments.

All indications are that while 2010

likely will be better economically,

the underlying challenges CSOs face

will not simply disappear with a few

quarters of growth. CSOs at large

enterprises still will face continued

pressure to capture greater revenue

from existing customers, penetrate

new and emerging markets and

maintain profit margins in a challenging

economy. For them to reach their

sales goals, even in an improving

economy, CSOs likely will find they

need to change the fundamentals of

their sales organization—from strategy

and process to systems and talent.

Taking the actions just discussed

will be a substantial step forward,

and will help companies create sales

organizations that drive growth and

high performance for years to come.

Recommendations



For more information,please contact:

Richard J. Bakosh

Accenture

Managing Director—

Global Sales Transformation

[email protected]

For more informationabout Accenture,please visitwww.accenture.com/crm

The views and opinions in this article

should not be viewed as professional

advice with respect to your business.

Accenture, its logo, and High

Performance Delivered are trademarks

of Accenture. The use herein of

trademarks that maybe owned by

others is not an assertion of ownership

of such trademarks by Accenture

nor intended to imply an association

between Accenture and the lawful

owners of such trademarks.

About AccentureAccenture is a global management

consulting, technology services

and outsourcing company, with

more than 181,000 people serving

clients in more than 120 countries.

Combining unparalleled experience,

comprehensive capabilities across all

industries and business functions,

and extensive research on the

world’s most successful companies,

Accenture collaborates with clients to

help them become high-performance

businesses and governments. The

company generated net revenues of

US$21.58 billion for the f iscal year

ended Aug. 31, 2009. Its home page iswww.accenture.com.

Copyright © 2010 Accenture

All rights reserved.

Accenture, its logo, and

High Performance Delivered

are trademarks of Accenture.

Documents

Optimizing Sales Effectiveness to Achieve High Performance