DG Rep ratios and encouraging balance across field territories

The Bridge Group just released their 2009 Lead Generation Metrics and Compensation Report, chock full of interesting data and insight for those involved in demand generation. You can get your own free copy at http://tinyurl.com/86v57f.

One of the metrics examined in the report is the ratio of Field Sales Reps to one Demand Gen Rep, with the conclusion being that 3:1 is about optimal.

At Eloqua, we experimented with the ratio ranging from 2:1 to 4:1. I would agree that the demand gen model starts to break down beyond 3:1 for all the reasons listed in the report (i.e. co-ordination and communication challenges, lack of attention to tougher territories, etc.). If you're in very high growth mode in a hot market space, I think a case can be made for 2:1.

The Rep ratio led directly to the question of how much/little to try and control where a DG Rep spends his time across multiple Field Reps/territories. While you don't want to handcuff or micro-manage your DG Reps, at the same time, all field Reps need some level of DG support.

The way we balanced these conflicting needs at Eloqua was to add a "balance bonus/penalty" to the DG Rep incentive comp plan, such that they could earn extra money by achieving a certain level of MQL production across all supported Reps (the "carrot"), but if they really underperformed in a given territory, there was a financial penalty to be paid (the "stick"). This approach left the decision with the DG Rep how best to optimize his incentive compensation, which was primarily driven by MQL/SQL production, but with a clear message that some level of balance across supported territories was also important.

Bottom Line: it seemed to work exactly as intended. Reps knew some level of balance was important, but weren't micro-managed as to where they spent their time to the point of hurting overall DG output and efficiency.