2016 SDR Metrics Bridge Group

SALES DEVELOPMENT 2016
METRICS and COMPENSATION

Research report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Introduction
5 About the Companies Who Participated
7 Group Structure
21 Experience, Ramp, and Retention
34 Compensation and Quota
44 Activity, Process, and Technology
52 Sales Development Leadership
60 About The Bridge Group, Inc.

Introduction
Hello! Welcome to our sixth round of Sales Development research.
Since 2007, we’ve been tracking the SDR role with a focus on how
metrics and compensation change over time.
For this report, 355 B2B companies with sales development

teams (also known as ADRs, BDRs, LGRs, etc.) participated in our
survey. That’s 60% more companies than participated in 2014! We
couldn’t be more thrilled.
To ensure we are on the same page, by sales development we

mean a group of reps tasked with:
• Pipeline generation
• Inbound lead qualification and/or outbound prospecting
We hope this report will provide guidance as you build out your
strategy and/or allow you to make changes that will bring you into
alignment with industry standards.
Throughout this report we’ve included excerpts from Trish

Bertuzzi’s No 1. Amazon best-seller, The Sales Development
Playbook. You can find the book on Amazon or download a free
preview.
To receive ongoing updates on new research, analysis, and all

things related to Inside Sales, please subscribe to our blog.
3 SALES DEVELOPMENT METRICS 2016

New in this year’s report
In prior years, readers would ask us whether “world-class” Sales
Development teams are more or less likely to do X, use Y
technology, or to track metric Z.
Our challenge was to define exactly what world-class means in

terms of effectiveness.
• How do you compare an inbound SMB group with an

outbound enterprise group?
• Does passing more qualified opportunities always mean

the team is higher performing? What if their ASP is 50%
below the median?
• Do more reps at/above quota mean the team is more

productive? Or does that mean quotas are artificially low?
Net/net, there are many variables to consider.
With help from an aspiring data scientist (thanks CS!), we’ve taken
a stab at scoring effectiveness. This year we are introducing the
Pipeline Power Score (PPS).
Scaled from 1-100, the PPS compares the effectiveness of sales

development groups against one another. (Note: think 'height for
age' percentiles.)

The PIPELINE POWER SCORE
The single biggest weighted factor is the number of sales-accepted
opportunities a group generates. But other factors include:
• Average sale price

• Inbound qualification versus outbound prospecting focus
• Percentage of reps achieving quota
For comparison purposes, the average PPS was 48 and 60% of

companies scored between 20 and 78.

CHAPTER 1
About the Companies

Who Participated

respondent composition: 355 companies

CHAPTER 2
Group Structure

Groups overwhelmingly report to Sales
Since 2012, we have found that the vast majority of SDR teams
report to Sales. In this round of research, the trend continued with
76% of groups sitting within the Sales organization. That
means regardless of solution type, size of company, or model,
three out of four groups consistently report to Sales.
One point worth mentioning is groups that either exclusively or

mostly focused on inbound lead qualification were 2.1 times more
likely to report to Marketing.
Here is our take: it isn’t about sales versus marketing per se. Your
team should report to whoever has the bandwidth, expertise, and
passion to lead it. Success hinges on who leads the group, not
where it sits in the org chart.
A director of marketing with a track record of building process,

recruiting talent, and developing all-stars is far better than an SVP
of sales who expects the group to run itself. This is more important
than what our (or any other!) research says that “everyone else” is
doing.

The SDR Model Isn't One-Size-Fits-All
Much like Goldilocks and the porridge, your model needs to be
“just right” for your organization. Effective sales development
means maximizing the productivity of both the SDR and the
Account Executive teams.
There are two main models in play: setting introductory meetings

and generating qualified opportunities.
Don’t believe anyone who says you should consider only one or
the other. There are hundreds of companies successfully setting
introductory meetings. Hundreds more are productively generating
qualified opportunities. And more still are utilizing a blended
approach for different products, market segments, or territories
To help you along the way, here are a few general principles on
when each model is most effective.
Setting Introductory Meetings: Let’s be clear on the realities

here. The meetings being set here are introductory—from the
Latin “introda,” meaning not ready to buy yet. (Kidding!) This
can include face-to-face meetings or a discovery phone call.
With introductory meetings, prospects have a sense of your
overall value proposition but haven’t been qualified as to their
readiness or ability to move forward.
Generating Qualified Opportunities: Qualified opportunities

differ in that they are, well, qualified. The rep is still closing on
a meeting or call but has a) moved the prospect from curiosity
into interest and b) vetted that the prospect meets or exceeds
a minimum threshold of “sales-worthiness.”

Here’s how respondents classified their models:
SALES DEVELOPMENT MODEL

Setting introductory meetings 38%
Setting semi-qualified meetings 18%
Passing fully qualified opportunities 42%
Is one model associated with a higher Pipeline Power

Score than the other?
Short answer: nope. We found no significant variation in average

PPS by model.
Each model has its place and neither is always the right choice. As a
rule of thumb, you should deploy an introductory meeting model
when the market for your product is immature and/or when your
Account Executives are suffering from empty calendar syndrome.
If your sales team is screaming for more “at-bats,” then break glass
and set meetings. Conversion rates, qualification criteria, and cost
per meeting all go out the window when your AEs’ calendars are
anemic.
Bearing this out, we found that companies under $20M in revenues

are 1.8 times more likely to deploy the introductory meeting model
than those over $50M.

Role specialization has crossed into
late majority
There are two main models in play: setting introductory meetings
and generating qualified opportunities.
51% of companies report segmenting inbound qualification and

outbound prospecting into separate roles.
The visionaries and pragmatists have adopted this approach. Next

up are the conservatives. Benefits of specialization include:
• Tighter focus and increased accountability

• Process alignment with prospect behavior
• Defined career paths
• Role-specific innovations

Companies with $100M+ in revenues are nearly twice as likely to
specialize as companies under $5M in revenues. Somewhere
between $5M and $20 appears to be an inflection point.
We endorse this approach whole-heartedly, once two conditions

are met.
1. There is sufficient lead flow to make inbound qualification

a full time job. Expect peaks and valleys and make sure
you have a plan in place to keep reps active during dry
patches.
2. There is sufficient budget to hire two (and preferably three)

inbound lead qualifiers. With only one inbound SDR,
success or failure relies too heavily on the individual rep
and doesn’t prove/disprove the validity of the role itself.

Is specialization associated with a higher Pipeline
Power Score?
Yes. Companies using role specialization achieved 16% higher

PPS, on average.
Specialization is an accelerator on the path to repeatable pipeline.

We believe in its power. But we also know that not every company
can (or should) specialize its teams. Before you commit, you’ll
need to agree with the “whys.” There are three main reasons:
Focus- You want your reps to have appropriate processes and

tools to ensure success. It is easier to measure and optimize
execution for a specialist than for a jack-of-all-trades. Once your
team reaches a certain size, say more than four reps, you can
start to consider specialization.
Attitude and aptitude- Not every rep who excels in one area is
well suited for the other. Some who thrive on cultivating inbound
leads aren’t always built for hunting the big game of outbound.
Human nature- When you have reps in a blended role, they’ll

inevitably spend more time where they’re most comfortable. In
the vast majority of cases, that means focusing on inbound
leads. Reps will chase bad inbound leads rather than invest the
time in outbound prospecting into target accounts. Checking in
or following up with low-probability inbound leads is much
easier than going outbound to a cold, though ideal, prospect.

Ratio of SDR-to-AEs falls as revenues rise
The average ratio is 1 SDR to 2.5 Account Executives. This ratio is
down sharply from previous reports. As recently as 2014 the ratio
was 1:3.9.
As you can see, there is wide variation:
Much of that variation can be attributed to company size. Smaller

companies, and particularly smaller SaaS companies, deploy
higher SDR to AE ratios—meaning one SDR supports fewer AEs.
This makes intuitive sense because:
• Smaller companies have lower total Sales headcount

• High growth is prioritized/subsidized by investors
• Managing cost of sales tends to be a big company problem

As SaaS companies transition from start-up to scale up, ratios
regress toward the mean and ultimately come in line with non-
SaaS companies.
You can compare the two below.

Multiple locations are common
37% of groups have reps in the same role working in different
locations. The primary drivers are as you’d suspect:
• Headcount added via acquisitions

• Increasingly, the costs associated with and difficulty in
recruiting/retaining talent at HQ
Two examples are the HR tech company Zenefits (current

challenges notwithstanding) and conference mobile apps maker
DoubleDutch, that both opened offices in Arizona.
There appears to be an inflection point at roughly $20M in

revenues. Just 28% of companies below that mark reported
multiple locations for sales development. Companies above $20M
were 1.7 times more likely to have reps in the same role working in
different locations.

The obvious question is: does de-centralization hurt
performance?
From the data, the answer appears to be maybe. Companies with

single locations achieved slightly higher PPS (+2%) than those with
multiple.
Anecdotally, we can share that managing multiple, disparate SDR

groups is not easy. There can be real challenges around
collaboration, retention, culture, and career path.
Ultimately, each company needs to weigh those challenges against

the benefits of a wider, more stable, and likely cheaper talent pool.
In terms of where companies are building primary and secondary

locations, we found the following.

In terms of where companies are building primary and secondary
locations, we found the following.
TOP PRIMARY LOCATIONS TOP SECONDARY LOCATIONS

California Arizona
Georgia Colorado
Massachusetts Georgia
New York North Carolina
Texas Utah

There’s no “standard” territory strategy
In this research, we identified 23 different schemas for determining
territories. Twenty. Three! A majority of companies use a single
factor in building sales development territories.
As you might expect, geographic territories remains the leading

approach. Interestingly, more than 30% of teams have moved
away from traditional territories by implementing round-robin or
shark tanks/pools.

For groups focused on inbound lead qualification, the percentage
using round-robin rises to 60%.
When sales development first emerged, reps were typically

partnered with three or four Account Executives. If sales had
geographic territories, so did the sales development team. It made
for a nice, tidy package that didn’t require a lot of thought. While
this still sometimes works for outbound SDRs, it rarely works for
inbound SDRs.
The reason: setting equitable inbound quotas is a nightmare. No

matter how hard you try, your inbound leads stubbornly refuse to
arrive in equal shares per territory. (How rude!) That leaves you
with uneven lead flow.
Rather than building in complexity to compensate for unfairness,

companies are moving away from traditional (line in the sand)
territories and towards more creative approaches as noted above.
You can read how three executives have tackled this challenge in
the article Rethinking Sales Territories.

CHAPTER 3
Experience, Ramp, and

Retention

Required experience hits all time low
Demand for candidates has risen steadily since 2010. At the same
time, we’ve tracked a steady decline in required experience when
hiring for SDR roles.
This year, we found average required experience to be 1.3 years.

That’s an 18% annual rate of decline since 2009.
Four times as many companies are hiring reps with “Less than 1 year
sales experience” in 2016 as did in 2010.
A point worth mentioning is that required experience rises along with

a company’s average sales price. Companies with an ASP of
$100K+ require 60% more experience (in years) than companies
with ASPs of less than $25K.
Complex solutions require complex conversations and often occur

higher up in prospect organizations. It takes time and experience to
achieve comfort selling at that level.

Is more required experience associated with a higher
Pipeline Power Score?
In short, yes.
Groups that require 2+ years of experience achieved 12%

higher PPS than those that don’t, on average.

This makes intuitive sense, but that doesn’t make it easy to pull off.
The pool of candidates with 2+ years’ experience and an interest in

remaining within an SDR role will always be smaller than the pool
of green candidates.
If you want to hire experienced SDRs, you’ll need:
• An extremely compelling employer value proposition

• Ability to pay more in base and OTE
• A rock solid career path that makes you the place to learn
and grow

Ramp time fell 19%
Average ramp time (from hire to full productivity) has fallen from 3.8 to
3.2 months.
We’re extremely excited about this development. Despite the decline

in required experienced, companies are proving effective at bringing
new reps up to speed quickly. That’s a big, big deal.
Here’s how this metric has trended over time.
Companies are committing to investing in onboarding and sales

enablement. A focus on ramp time has come into the line of sight of
senior executives who are focused on pipeline and revenue. No more
just "shadow Sue for a day or two" and then get on the phone.
Resources are allocated and investments are made and it is starting
to pay off in shorter ramp times.

Resources are allocated and investments are made and it is starting
to pay off in shorter ramp times.
Is faster ramp time associated with a higher Pipeline

Power Score?
Yes. Groups taking three or fewer months to ramp achieved 29%

higher PPS than those that ramping more slowly.

Average tenure is down sharply
On a sour note, average tenure fell to an all-time low of 1.4 years.
In 2009 (a lifetime ago in internet years), it was not uncommon to

have average tenure in excess of three years (38% of companies).
Now barely any groups (a mere 5%) experience that kind of rep
longevity.

As you might expect, this significantly impacts a key metric:
months at full productivity. (Note: We calculate months at full
productivity as tenure minus ramp time.)
Using this formula, we found 14 months at full productivity to be the

average.
Companies hiring the least experienced reps had significantly

fewer months at full productivity. This point is critical and needs to
be baked into your overall strategy.
Reps going from 0 to 18 (or even 12) months’ experience

appreciate significantly in market value. Their options for both
senior SDR and junior AE roles are nearly limitless. The onus is on
you, as their leader, to put forward a compelling reason to stay put.

Career path matters
We asked respondents about the types of career paths they have
built for their team reps. A full 85% of companies offer at least
one of the following:
TYPES OF CAREER PATHS/PROMOTION TRACKS

Step-promotions 46%
(Junior SDR, Associate SDR, Senior SDR, etc.)
Promotion across teams 35%
(Inbound, Outbound, Enterprise, etc.)
Into a quota-carrying role 58%
(e.g., SDR to AE, etc.)
Nearly one quarter offer two of the above and 16% have built all
three.

Companies with more than $20M in revenues were three times
more likely to offer multiple career paths than smaller ones. Not
surprisingly, size and complexity of the organization opens up more
avenues for advancement.
Are defined career paths associated with a higher

Yes, but the story is complicated.
Those companies with promotions across teams achieved 2%

higher PPS, on average. Companies with step-promotions did even
better, achieving 6% higher PPS, on average.
Those companies with a defined SDR-to-AE career path actually

fared worse. They achieved slightly 9% lower average PPS. With
the SDR-to-AE promotion path, it is often a case of robbing Peter
to pay Paul.

We would never advocate holding a rep back from promotion just
so you can hit your SDR team number. But we’d also caution
against letting your sales managers recruit away your reps before
they’re ready.
For one, it requires hard work and smart management to hit the
company’s SDR-sourced pipeline goal. It’s doubly difficult if you
can’t elevate average rep tenure above 12 months. Finally, you’re
doing your reps a disservice if you promote them before they’re
ready. Your reps are more than “warm bodies,” and you owe it to
them to set them up for success.
On the flip side, and it is good news, companies promoting SDRs

to AEs after a minimum of 12 months achieved slightly higher PPS
on average.

ASP influences timing of SDR-to-AE
promotion
On average, the minimum number of months reps must spend as
an SDR was 13.
This varies significantly by ASP. And, not coincidentally, the larger

the deal size the longer SDRs are expected to stay in a role before
being considered for promotion.
To some degree, there is confusion between new role and new

skills and challenges.
There is a world of difference between “I want to learn and grow”

and “I’m ready to do something different.” Managers who create
learning environments have happier reps and less need for speed
when it comes to role hopping.

Will your company be able to promote SDRs to a new role in under a
year?
Although it may be a challenge for the business, reps early in their

career tend to exhibit an "up or out" attitude. Lack of mobility means
you might be facing a big, hairy retention challenge.
One solution is to have the flexibility to build steps within roles. For
example, you might hire a junior SDR, promote to associate SDR,
and then elevate to senior SDR. I call these in-role advancements
micro-promotions.
Micro-promotions should be built on a five- to nine-month cadence.

The cycle should be ramp, achieve, advance, ramp, achieve,
advance, repeat.

CHAPTER 4
Compensation and
Quota

Base & ote are flat, again
AVERAGE SDR COMPENSATION
Base Salary $46.0K
On-Target Earnings $72.1K
Base % | Variable % 64% | 36%
In fact, compensation has been trending downward (in both

nominal and real terms) since 2009.
While it is worth mentioning that roughly 10% of respondents offer

on-target earnings of $100K+, the findings are clear: the trend of
hiring less experienced reps is pulling down average OTE for this
role.
As noted above, compensation has been flat/trending downward.

There are five times more companies hiring reps with less than one
year’s experience today than in 2010.

There are a number of variables that impact SDR compensation. These
include:
1. Experience
Reps with less than one year’s sales experience earn 15%
below the average. Reps with three+ earn roughly 16% above it.
2. ASP
Even controlling for required experience, SDRs prospecting for
higher ticket solutions earn higher salaries.
3. Region + market
The Northeast and the Pacific Coast report highest average
comp. The Great Plains and the Southeast report the lowest. A
competitive hiring market (think: Austin, Boston, San Francisco,
etc.) impacts the going rate for SDR talent above and beyond
region.
4. Charter
Reps setting appointments earn slightly less than those
generating qualified opportunities.
We’ve built a tool to do the heavy lifting for you. If you are interested,
please take a look at our SDR Compensation Calculator updated with
2016 data.

When it comes to incentive pay,
there’s a lot of variation.
A large majority (79%) of companies report using one or two
components in variable pay. We have consensus on that much, at
least.
Beyond that one agreement, we identified 29 different schemas for

calculating incentive compensation.
• Roughly 40% of companies use “Number of Meetings

Passed” to determine the largest share of incentive comp.
• Fewer than 25% of all SDR groups use “Number or Value of

Opportunities Won” to determine the largest share of
incentive comp.

There is a strong impulse to equate quality with closed business.
This often translates to paying the bulk of incentive compensation
for closed deals the SDR sources. From a management
perspective, this is couched in terms of “driving alignment with the
business.” From a rep perspective, this often feels like “screwing
me for things outside my control.”
We believe that you shouldn’t tie more than 20% of incentive

compensation to “opportunities won.” If you have a complex sale
with cycles running 120+ days, don’t tie any incentive comp to
wins. Think about it from the perspective of a brand new SDR.
Day 1, they start. Let’s do this!

Day 20, they pass their first qualified opportunity. Woot!
Day 25, the opportunity is accepted by the AE. Awesome!
Day 30, nothing.
Day 60, nothing.
Day 90, nothing.
Day 119, the opportunity is closed and won. Hooray?
Are we really to believe that paying 100+ days after passing an

opportunity drives any type of behavior? Seems doubtful.

Additionally, if you pay too heavily on opportunities won, your reps
will turn into mini-sales admins. In order to make sure they get their
deals over the finish line, they’ll do all the back-office support work
that an account executive might ask for. All the time they spend
here is time not spent talking to new prospects.
Are changes in variable compensation associated with higher

Pipeline Power Scores?
For the introductory meeting model

We found that those companies paying the largest share of
variable compensation on “Number of Meetings/Opportunities
Passed” achieved 6% higher PPS, on average.
For the qualified opportunity model

We found that those companies paying the largest share of
variable compensation on “Number or Amount of Opportunities
Won” achieved 11% lower PPS, on average.

Monthly quotas are up
If your groups are chartered with Introductory Meetings, average
quotas are below at left. For those Generating Qualified
Opportunities, average quotas are below at right.
SETTING INTRO GENERATING QUALIFIED

MEETINGS OPPS
Meetings Set 21 Opps Passed 13
Meetings Converted 11 Opps Accepted 9
Quotas are roughly 27% higher than in 2014. Please note these
are the averages and the responses ranged widely. For example,
quota for an outbound SDR with an ASP of $100K+ went as low as
3 opportunities per month. While quota for an inbound SDR with an
ASP of less than $5K went as high as 50.
To give you a sense of what’s at play, here are four variables you
should take into consideration:
1. ACTIVITY FOCUS: Is your team qualifying inbound leads

or conducting outbound prospecting? If inbound, how
many leads will marketing generate? What is your
historical conversion rate from lead to SDR qualified? If
outbound, how well recognized is your brand in the
market? This may seem like a strange question, but it
matters. When your prospects hear your company name,
does it make them more or less likely to take the call?
2. MODEL: Are you closing on interest? Or qualifying for

need? Closing on an introductory meeting is much easier
than fully qualifying an opportunity. As we discussed in part
1, you’ve already made the decision as to which model to

implement. Obviously, you can’t mix and match model and
quota assumptions (e.g., require high-qualification and use
low-qualification benchmarks).
3. SIZE OF ACCOUNTS: What size of company and what

level within an organization are you targeting? Scheduling
a call with the director of sales operations at a $20M
software company and the director of sales operations at
LinkedIn are two very different animals—even if an SDR is
trying to introduce the exact same product or service.
Similarly, it is much easier to reach the SVP of marketing at
a $50M manufacturer than a marketing director of
Amazon.com.
4. MARKET MATURITY: Are you selling into a mature market

(where the need is understood) or immature (where the
concept itself is new)? Just this week, I received an email
from a rep at an electronic signature technology company.
She asked about my availability to discuss our “esignature
needs.” The fact that I knew she meant the sharing,
tracking, signing, and storing of documents from any
device means that the esignature is mature. The rep was
able to use shorthand to orient me to what she was asking.
If you’re selling something that is not yet mainstream, your
reps will have to work harder to hook those buyers. That
needs to translate to lower quotas.
There is no way around it. Setting quotas is tough work. You can
use the meeting setting (21) and qualified opportunity (13) numbers
as benchmarks. Adjust up or down based on the four factors
highlighted above.
Whether or not making quota is an achievable goal sets the tone

for your culture. Make it attainable, and you’ll have a group of
competitive reps with a positive attitude. Make it too much of a
stretch, and you’ll have miserable reps and a high attrition rate.

Roughly 2/3 of SDRs hit quota
In a given group, 68% of reps are achieving quota.
Another Bridge Group opinion here, but ~65% of reps at quota

feels about right. There is, and will always be, a distribution of rep
performance as you can see in the chart below.
We recently wrote more about this topic on our blog. If you are
interested in grading your team you can use this tool.

SDR contribution to pipeline is flat
As you might expect, smaller companies (sub $5M) have a very
high percentage of total pipeline sourced by sales development.
Eliminating them brings the average contribution to pipeline down
to 49%.
For SaaS companies, the percentage of total revenue sourced by

sales development is higher. SaaS companies reported 23% higher
contribution to company revenues than non-SaaS organizations.

CHAPTER 5
Activity, Process, and

Technology

Average dials & conversations Down Slightly
We found an average of 46 dials per day. This number has hovered
around 50 dials per day since 2007.
We found the average number of quality conversations per day to be

5.8. This year, based on reader feedback, we specifically defined a
quality conversation as:
A connect or response where the SDR learns at least

one piece of qualifying/disqualifying information.
The quantity of quality conversations ranged dramatically—from as

low as one to as high as 30 per day.
We also asked whether respondents would characterize their groups

as more "email-centric" or "phone-centric." Responses indicated a
roughly 50/50 divide.
Not surprisingly, phone-centric groups have higher average dials per

day. They also reported 26% more quality conversation per day.

Is a certain type of activity associated with a higher
We found no significant variation in PPS when comparing email-

centric or phone-centric groups.
Having said that, one metric was very clearly associated with
higher PPS: number of QCs per day. Those groups that average
seven or more quality conversations per day had 17% higher PPS,
on average.

Attempts per prospect up 46% since 2012
On average, SDRs make 8.2 attempts per prospect. That is up
from 7.3 attempts in 2014 and 5.6 in 2012.
Are more attempts per lead associated with a higher

In short, yes. Those companies where reps make nine or more

attempts per prospect before moving on reported 16% higher PPS.
The sweet spot appears to be 9-12 attempts. Those executing 13

or more attempts achieved 8% higher PPS than the 1-8 attempts
group, but lower than those making 9-12.

On average, one SDR works 265 leads per
month
There is wide variation in this number, however. Two-thirds of
respondents reported between 150-400 leads per month.
Outbound prospecting groups reported working fewer leads per

month—between 150-200, on average. The number for inbound
qualification teams was much higher—between 250-300 leads, on
average.
Between inbound qualification teams, the number of leads worked

monthly decreases as average selling price rises. While there was
a lot of variation even within the bands, these should give you good
ballpark numbers.

As ASP rises, the pool of reasonable prospect accounts falls. The
problem with targeting the Fortune 500 is that, sadly, there are only
500 of them.
More often than not, higher selling price requires account-centric

prospecting (or what has recently been dubbed Account Based Sales
Development. Prospecting for enterprise deals forces companies to
go deep and wide in named accounts.
Even for lower ASP groups, our advice is to coach reps on a

(minimum of) two-no’s rule. An account shouldn’t be marked “no
contact” until at least two prospects have said no (or not responded).
Most often, this means 1) the lead and 2) the boss/leader of the
functional area. The biggest pushback we receive on this advice is
about bandwidth. Leaders and reps alike will object that they have to
meet SLAs for lead response time. And that they can’t be calling
prospects who aren’t on their “list.” I’m sure you’d agree that sales
development should be in the business of building pipeline, not (only)
satisfying SLAs. This requires a shift in mindset. But it is hugely
important.

Dialing technology works
Up from 21% in 2012, 48% of respondents reported adopting a
dialing technology.
Groups using dialing technology reported 28% more dials and 30%
quality conversations per day.
Is the use of dialing technology associated with a

higher Pipeline Power Score?
Yes. Those companies using dialing technology achieved 8%

higher PPS, on average.
Even compared to groups making the same number of dials per

day, groups using dialing technology had more quality
conversations and achieved higher PPS. We suspect much of this
can be attributed to:
• Efficient routing (increased speed)

• Pre-defined cadence (consistency)
• Analytics (whom and when to call)
• Gamification (keeping it fun)

Email technology Is A Must
A full 86% of companies reported adopting email automation /
tracking technology.
Since so few companies don’t use these tools, we aren’t able to

report any significant findings in Pipeline Power Score.
One interesting fact to note is that even those groups self-

identifying as phone-centric reported 83% adoption of email
technology. These tools are widely deployed and generally loved
by reps and managers alike.

CHAPTER 6
Sales Development
Leadership

“Managers” lead the largest share of SDR
groups
In both 2012 and 2014, first-line leaders most often had “Director”
titles. This is no longer the case.
Among respondents, today’s first-line leaders are much more likely

to hold “Manager” titles.
This is particularly true as company revenues rise. More than 60%

of first-line leaders at $50M+ organizations hold “Manager” titles.

Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman’s book First, Break All the
Rules gave us the great line, “People leave managers, not
companies.” It has never been truer. No culture, no perks, and (next
to) no amount of stock options can compel someone to follow a bad
leader. A great leader is the glue that holds a team together.
Think about just how rare it is to find someone who combines vision,
business acumen, and the ability to inspire others. But that is exactly
what a sales development leader needs to possess. To set the stage,
here’s our take on the levels of sales development leadership.

Is first-line leadership by managers associated with a
higher Pipeline Power Score?
Yes. Those groups directly led by managers achieved 8% higher

PPS than those with directors or vice presidents in first-line
leadership roles.
We suspect you’ll agree that no one goes into sales management

because of an insatiable love for back-to-back-to-back meetings,
quarterly business reviews, and spreadsheet blindness—even
though that is often what the job becomes.
Management by walking around (MBWA) too often becomes

management between meetings (MBM). Companies need to invest
in first-line sales management and give them to tools (and the time)
to develop their teams.
Remember, there is too much demand for talent, too much

awareness of the role’s enormous value, and too many recruiters
chomping at the bit to poach your best reps should they feel
unappreciated or ignored.

Manager-to-rep ratio continues to rise
The average ratio of first-line leader to SDRs is 1:8. This is up 12%
from 2014.
Is a lower leader-to-rep ratio associated with a higher

Surprisingly, no.
Despite increased competition for talent, despite hiring less and less
experienced reps, despite greater numbers of reps rolling up to a
single first-line leader, today’s sales development leaders are rising
to meet the challenge.

Leadership compensation up modestly
While compensation for SDRs themselves has been flat / downward,
leadership compensation has risen roughly 6% since 2014.
And after what we’ve just seen above, can’t we all agree they are
worth every last penny?
2014 2016
Manager $122K $129K
Director $165K $174K
Vice President $211K $220K
Remember, the success or failure of your team is largely dependent

on the quality of their leader. The leader is responsible for managing
and motivating at the very front end of your customer acquisition
process. Their group leads the charge in turning disinterested
prospects into engaged customers.
Additionally, they are developing bench strength for talent that will
either move into sales or other parts of your organization. A great
SDR leader is worth their weight in gold.

Top Leadership challenges
We asked respondents to identify their top two challenges in
managing SDR groups. Below you find top challenges and how
they’ve changed since 2014.
The first thing that jumps out is that productivity and performance
dropped seven percentage points. While still a top challenge, there
is a growing realization that rock solid process matters.
Surprisingly, list and data sourcing rocketed to the top challenge.

One might assume that all the new technologies, tools, and
enhancements would assist in providing better data. But apparently
not. Data is now the #1 challenge for the sales development
function.

Thank you!

ABOUT THE BRIDGE GROUP, INC.
We’re an inside sales consulting and implementation firm.
We help B2B companies reach more prospects, build

more pipeline, and close more deals. By combining the
best research, the boldest thinking, and deepest know-
how, we’ve helped over 240 companies grow revenues.
We’ve spent the last two decades evangelizing the power

of inside sales. From the years when “tele” was a four-
letter word to today’s long list of companies who’ve
leveraged inside sales to IPOs, we’ve been here helping
tech companies grow.
Along the way, we’ve won our share of accolades and

awards, but we’re best known for clear thinking and
actionable advice. More about us and Trish Bertuzzi’s
book.

2016 SDR Metrics Bridge Group

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2016 SDR Metrics Bridge Group

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SALES DEVELOPMENT 2016

METRICS and COMPENSATION

5 About the Companies Who Participated

21 Experience, Ramp, and Retention

34 Compensation and Quota

44 Activity, Process, and Technology

52 Sales Development Leadership

60 About The Bridge Group, Inc.

For this report, 355 B2B companies with sales development

To ensure we are on the same page, by sales development we

Throughout this report we’ve included excerpts from Trish

To receive ongoing updates on new research, analysis, and all

3 SALES DEVELOPMENT METRICS 2016

Our challenge was to define exactly what world-class means in

• How do you compare an inbound SMB group with an

• Does passing more qualified opportunities always mean

• Do more reps at/above quota mean the team is more

Net/net, there are many variables to consider.

Scaled from 1-100, the PPS compares the effectiveness of sales

4 SALES DEVELOPMENT METRICS 2016

• Average sale price

For comparison purposes, the average PPS was 48 and 60% of

5 SALES DEVELOPMENT METRICS 2016

About the Companies

6 SALES DEVELOPMENT METRICS 2016

7 SALES DEVELOPMENT METRICS 2016

8 SALES DEVELOPMENT METRICS 2016

One point worth mentioning is groups that either exclusively or

A director of marketing with a track record of building process,

9 SALES DEVELOPMENT METRICS 2016

There are two main models in play: setting introductory meetings

Setting Introductory Meetings: Let’s be clear on the realities

Generating Qualified Opportunities: Qualified opportunities

10 SALES DEVELOPMENT METRICS 2016

SALES DEVELOPMENT MODEL

Setting semi-qualified meetings 18%

Passing fully qualified opportunities 42%

Is one model associated with a higher Pipeline Power

Short answer: nope. We found no significant variation in average

Bearing this out, we found that companies under $20M in revenues

11 SALES DEVELOPMENT METRICS 2016

51% of companies report segmenting inbound qualification and

The visionaries and pragmatists have adopted this approach. Next

• Tighter focus and increased accountability

12 SALES DEVELOPMENT METRICS 2016

We endorse this approach whole-heartedly, once two conditions

1. There is sufficient lead flow to make inbound qualification

2. There is sufficient budget to hire two (and preferably three)

13 SALES DEVELOPMENT METRICS 2016

Yes. Companies using role specialization achieved 16% higher

Specialization is an accelerator on the path to repeatable pipeline.

Focus- You want your reps to have appropriate processes and

Human nature- When you have reps in a blended role, they’ll

14 SALES DEVELOPMENT METRICS 2016

As you can see, there is wide variation:

Much of that variation can be attributed to company size. Smaller

This makes intuitive sense because:

• Smaller companies have lower total Sales headcount

15 SALES DEVELOPMENT METRICS 2016

You can compare the two below.

16 SALES DEVELOPMENT METRICS 2016

• Headcount added via acquisitions

Two examples are the HR tech company Zenefits (current