Category Archives: Sales

Should Customer Success Report into the CRO or the CEO?

The CEO.  Thanks for reading.

# # #

I was tempted to stop there because I’ve been writing a lot of long posts lately and because I do believe the answer is that simple.  First let me explain the controversy and then I’ll explain my view on it.

In days of yore, chief revenue officer (CRO) was just a gussied-up title for VP of Sales.  If someone was particularly good, particularly senior, or particularly hard to recruit you might call them CRO.  But the job was always the same:  go sell software.

Back in the pre-subscription era, basically all the revenue — save for a little bit of services and some maintenance that practically renewed itself — came from sales anyway.  Chief revenue officer meant chief sales officer meant VP of Sales.  All basically the same thing.  By the way, as the person responsible for effectively all of the company’s revenue, one heck of a powerful person in the organization.

Then the subscription era came along.  I remember the day at Salesforce when it really hit me.  Frank, the head of Sales, had a $1B number.  But Maria, the head of Customer Success [1], had a $2B number.  There’s a new sheriff in SaaS town, I realized, the person who owns renewals always has a bigger number than the person who runs sales [2], and the bigger you get the larger that difference.

Details of how things worked at Salesforce aside, I realized that the creation of Customer Success — particularly if it owned renewals — represented an opportunity to change the power structure within a software company. It meant Sales could be focused on customer acquisition and that Customer Success could be, definitionally, focused on customer success because it owned renewals.  It presented the opportunity to have an important check and balance in an industry where companies were typically sales-dominated to a fault.  Best of all, the check would be coming not just from a well-meaning person whose mission was to care about customer success, but from someone running a significantly larger amount of revenue than the head of Sales.

Then two complications came along.

The first complication was expansion ARR (annual recurring revenue).  Subscriptions are great, but they’re even better when they get bigger every year — and heck you need a certain amount of that just to offset the natural shrinkage (i.e., churn) that occurs when customers unsubscribe.  Expansion take two forms

  • Incidental:  price increases, extra seats, edition upsells, the kind of “fries with your burger” sales that are a step up from order-taking, but don’t require a lot of salespersonship.
  • Non-incidental:  cross-selling a complementary product, potentially to a different buyer within the account (e.g., selling Service Cloud to a VP of Service where the VP of Sales is using Sales Cloud) or an effectively new sale into different division of an existing account (e.g., selling GE Lighting when GE Aviation is already a customer).

While it was usually quite clear that Sales owned new customer acquisition and Customer Success owned renewals, expansion threw a monkey wrench in the machinery.  New sales models, and new metaphors to go with them, emerged. For example:

  • Hunter-only.  Sales does everything, new customer acquisition, both types of expansion, and even works on renewals.  Customer success is more focused on adoption and technical support.
  • Hunter/farmer.  Sales does new customer acquisition and non-incidental expansion and Customer Success does renewals and incidental expansion.
  • Hunter/hunter.  Where Sales itself is effectively split in two, with one team owning new customer acquisition after which accounts are quickly passed to a very sales-y customer success team whose primary job is to expand the account.
  • Farmers with shotguns.  A variation of hunter/hunter where an initial penetration Sales team focuses on “land” (e.g, with a $25K deal) and then passes the account to a high-end enterprise “expand” team chartered with major expansions (e.g., to $1M).

While different circumstances call for different models, expansion significantly complicated the picture.

The second complication was the rise of the chief revenue officer (CRO).  Generally speaking, sales leaders:

  • Didn’t like their diminished status, owning only a portion of company revenue
  • Were attracted to the buffer value in managing the ARR pool [3]
  • Witnessed too many incidents where Customer Success (who they often viewed as overgrown support people) bungled expansion opportunities and/or failed to maximize deals
  • Could exploit the fact that the check-and-balance between Sales and Customer Success resulted in the CEO getting sucked into a lot of messy operational issues

On this basis, Sales leaders increasingly (if not selflessly) argued that it was better for the CEO and the company if all revenue rolled up under a single person (i.e., me).  A lot of CEOs bought it.  While I’ve run it both ways, I was never one of them.

I think Customer Success should report into the CEO in early- and mid-stage startups.  Why?

  • I want the sales team focused on sales.  Not account management.  Not adoption.  Not renewals.  Not incidental expansion.  I want them focused on winning new deals either at new customers or different divisions of existing customers (non-incidental expansion).  Sales is hard.  They need to be focused on selling.  New ARR is their metric.
  • I want the check and balance.  Sales can be tempted in SaaS companies to book business that they know probably won’t renew.  A smart SaaS company does not want that business.  Since the VP of Customer Success is going to be measured, inter alia, on gross churn, they have a strong incentive call sales out and, if needed, put processes in place to prevent inception churnThe only thing worse than dealing with the problems caused by this check and balance is not hearing about those problems.  When one exec owns pouring water into the bucket and a different one owns stopping it from leaking out, you create a healthy tension within the organization.
  • They can work together without reporting to a single person.  Or, better put, they are always going to report to a single person (you or the CRO) so the question is who?  If you build compensation plans and operational models correctly, Customer Success will flip major expansions to Sales and Sales will flip incidental expansions back to Customer Success.  Remember the two rules in building a Customer Success model — never pair our farmer against the competitor’s hunter, and never use a hunter when a farmer will do.
  • I want the training ground for sales.  A lot of companies take fresh sales development reps (SDRs) and promote them directly to salesreps.  While it sometimes works, it’s risky.  Why not have two paths?  One where they can move directly into sales and one where they can move into Customer Success, close 12 deals per quarter instead of 3, hone their skills on incidental expansion, and, if you have the right model, close any non-incidental expansion the salesrep thinks they can handle?
  • I want the Customer Success team to be more sales-y than support-y.  Ironically, when Customer Success is in Sales you often end up with a more support-oriented Customer Success team.  Why?  The salesreps have all the power; they want to keep everything sales-y to themselves, and Customer Success gets relegated to a more support-like role.  It doesn’t have to be this way; it just often is.  In my generally preferred model, Customer Success is renewals- and expansion-focused, not support-focused, and that enables them to add more value to the business.  For example, when a customer is facing a non-support technical challenge (e.g., making a new set of reports), their first instinct will be to sell them professional services, not simply build it for the customer themselves.  To latter is to turn Customer Success into free consulting and support, starting a cycle that only spirals.  The former is keep Customer Success focused on leveraging the resources of the company and its partners to drive adoption, successful achievement of business objectives, renewals, and expansion.

Does this mean a SaaS company can’t have a CRO role if Customer Success does not report into them?  No.  You can call the person chartered with hitting new ARR goals whatever you want to — EVP of Sales, CRO, Santa Claus, Chief Sales Officer, or even President/CRO if you must.  You just shouldn’t have Customer Success report into them.

Personally, I’ve always preferred Sales leaders who like the word “sales” in their title.  That way, as one of my favorites always said, “they’re not surprised when I ask for money.”

# # #

[1] At Salesforce then called Customers for Life.

[2] Corner cases aside and assuming either annual contracts or that ownership is ownership, even if every customer technically isn’t renewing every year.

[3] Ending ARR is usually a far less volatile metric than new ARR.

Stopping the Sales & Marketing Double Drowning

I earned my spending money in high school and partially paid for college by working as a lifeguard and water safety instructor. Working at a lovely suburban country club you don’t make a lot of saves. One day, working from the deep-end chair, I noticed two little kids hanging on a lane line. That was against the rules. I blew my whistle and shouted, “off!”

Still young enough to be obedient (i.e., under 11), the two kids let go of the line. The trouble was they couldn’t swim. Each grabbed the other and they sank to the bottom. “Oh my God,” I thought as I dove off the chair to make the save, “I just provoked a double drowning.”

While that was happily the last actual (and yes, averted) double drowning I have witnessed, I’ve seen a lot of metaphorical ones since. They involve adults, not kids. And it’s always the VP of Sales in a deadly embrace with the VP of Marketing. Sure, it may not be an exactly simultaneous death — sometimes they might leave a few months apart — but make no mistake, in the end they’re both gone and they drowned each other.

How To Recognize the Deadly Embrace

I believe the hardest job in software is the VP of Sales in an early-stage startup. Why? Because almost everything is unknown.

  • Is the product salable?
  • How much will people pay for it?
  • What’s a good lead?
  • Who should we call on?
  • What’s the ideal customer profile?
  • What should we say / message?
  • Who else is being evaluated?
  • What are their strengths/weaknesses?
  • What profile of rep should I hire?
  • How much can they be expected to sell?
  • What tools do they need?
  • Which use-cases should we sell to?
  • What “plays” should we run?

You might argue every startup less then $50M in ARR is still figuring out some of this. Yes, you get product-market fit in the single-digit millions (or not at all). But to get a truly repeatable, debugged sales model takes a lot longer.

This painful period presents a great opportunity for sales and marketing to blow each other up. It all begins with sales signing up for (or being coerced into) an unrealistic number. Then, there aren’t enough leads. Or, if there are, the leads are weak. Or the leads don’t become pipeline. Or pipeline doesn’t close.

At each step one side can easily blame the other.

Sales SaysMarketing Says
There aren’t enough leadsThere are, but they’re all stuck with your “generation Z” SDRs
The SDRs are great, I hired themThe SQL acceptance rate says they are passing garbage to sales.
The SQLs aren’t bad, there just aren’t enough of themYour reps are greasing the SDRs by accepting bad SQLs
We’re not getting 80% of pipeline from marketingWe’re delivering our target of 70% and then some
But the pipeline is low quality, look at the poor close rateThe close rate is poor because of your knuckleheaded sellers
Those knuckleheads all crushed it at my last companyYour derail rate’s insane
Lots of deals in this space end up no-decisionMaybe they derail because we don’t follow-up fast enough
Our message isn’t crisp or consistentOur messaging is fine, the analysts love it
We’re the greatest thing nobody’s ever heard of We’ve got a superior product that your team can’t sell
We’re being out-marketed!We’re being out-sold!

Once this ping-pong match starts, it’s hard to stop. People feel blamed. People get defensive. Anecdotal bloody shirts are waived in front of the organization — e.g., “marketing counted five grad students who visited the booth as MQLs!” or “we lost an opportunity at BigCo because our seller was late for the big meeting!”

With each claim and counter-claim sales and marketing tighten the deadly embrace. Often the struggling CRO is fired for missing too many quarters, guns still blazing as he/she dies. (Or even beyond the grave if they continue to trash the CMO post departure.) Sometimes the besieged CMO quits in anticipation of termination. Heck, I even had one quit after I explicitly told them “I know you’re under attack, but it’s unfair and I’ve got your back.”

Either way, in whatever order, they go down together. Each one mortally wounds the spirit, the confidence, or the pleasure-in-work of the other.

How to Break Out of It

Like real double drownings, it’s hard for one of the participants to do an escape maneuver. The good news is that it’s not hard to know there’s a problem because the mess is clearly visible to the entire organization. Everyone sees the double downing. Heck, employees’ spouses probably even know about it. However, only the CEO can stop it and — trust me — everyone’s waiting for them to do so.

The CEO has four basic options:

  • Take some pressure off. If the primary reason you’re missing plan is because the plan is too aggressive, go to the board and reduce the targets. (Yes, even if it means reducing some expense budget as well.) As Mike Moritz said to me when I started at MarkLogic: “make a plan that you can beat.” Tell them both that you’re taking off the pressure, them them why (because they’re not collaborating), and tell them that you’ve done your part and now it’s time for them to do theirs: collaborate non-defensively to solve problems.
  • Force them to work together. This the old “this shit needs to stop and I’m going to fire one of the two of you, maybe both, if you can’t work together” meeting. A derivation is to put both in a room and tell them not to leave until either they agree to work together or come out with a piece of paper with one name on it (i.e., the one who’s leaving). The key here for them to understand that you are sufficiently committed to ending the bullshit that you are willing to fire one or both of them to end it. In my experience this option tends not to work, I think because each secretly believes they will be the winner if you are forced to choose.
  • Fire one of the participants. This has the effect of rewarding the survivor as the victor. If done too late (before death but after the mortal wound — i.e., after the victor is far along in finding another job), it can still result in the loss of both. To the extent one person clearly picked the fight, my tendency is to want to reward the victim, not the aggressor — but that discounts the possibility the aggressor is either correct and/or more highly skilled. If they are both equally skilled and equally at fault, a rational alternative is to flip a coin and tell them: “I value you both, you are unable to work together, I think you’re equally to blame, so I’m going to flip a coin and fire one of you: heads or tails.” An alternative is to fire one and demote the other — that way it’s very clear to all involved that there was no winner. If fights have winners, you’re incenting fighting.
  • Fire both. I love this option. While it’s not always practical, boy does it send a strong message about collaboration to the rest of the organization: “if you fight, are asked to stop, and you don’t — you’re gone.” Put differently: “I’m not firing them for fighting, I’m firing them for insubordination because I told them not to fight.” Odds are you might lose both anyway so one could argue this is simply a proactive way of dealing with the inevitable.

One of the hardest things for executives is to maintain the balance between healthy cross-functional tension and accountability and unhealthy in-fighting and politics. It’s the CEO’s job to set the tone for collaboration in the company. While Larry Ellison and his disciplines may love “two execs enter, one exec leaves” cage fights as a form of corporate Darwinism, most CEOs prefer a tone of professional collaboration. When that breaks down, weak CEOs get frustrated and complain about their executive team. Strong ones take definitive action to define what is and what isn’t acceptable behavior in the organization and put clear actions behind their words.

Does Enterprise SaaS Need a Same-Store Sales Metric?

Enterprise SaaS and retailers have more in common than you might think.

Let’s think about retailers for a minute. Retailers drive growth in two ways:

  • They open new stores
  • They increase sales at existing stores

Opening new stores is great, but it’s an expensive way to drive new sales and requires a lot of up-front investment. It’s also risky because, despite having a small army of MBAs working to determine the right locations, sometimes new locations just don’t work out. Blending the results of these two different activities can blur what’s really happening. For example, consider this company:

Things look reasonable overall, the company is growing at 17%. But when you dig deeper you see that virtually all of the growth is coming from new stores. Revenue from existing stores is virtually flat at 2%.

It’s for this reason that retailers routinely publish same-store sales in their financial results. So you can see not only overall, blended growth but also understand how much of that growth is coming from new store openings vs. increasing sales at existing stores.

Now, let’s think about enterprise software.

Enterprise software vendors drive growth in two ways:

  • They hire new salesreps
  • They increase productivity of existing salesreps

Hiring new salesreps is great, but it’s an expensive way to drive new sales and requires a lot of up-front investment. It’s also risky because, despite having a small army of MBAs working to determine the right territories, hiring profiles and interviewing process, sometimes new salesreps just don’t work out. Blending the results of these two different activities can blur what’s really happening. For example, consider this company:

If you’re feeling a certain déjà vu, you’re right. I simply copy-and-pasted the text, substituting “enterprise software vendor” for “retailer” and “salesrep” for “store.” It’s exactly the same concept.

The problem is that we, as an industry, have basically no metric that addresses it.

  • Revenue, bookings, and billings growth are all blended metrics that mix results from existing and new salespeople [1]
  • Retention and expansion rates are about cohorts, but cohorts of customers, not cohorts of salespeople [2]
  • Sales productivity is typically measured as ARR/salesrep which blends new and existing salesreps [3]
  • Sales per ramped rep, measured as ARR/ramped-rep, starts to get close, but it’s not cohort-based, few companies measure it, and those that do often calculate it wrong [4]

So what we need is a cohort-based metric that compares the productivity of reps here today with those here a year ago [5]. Unlike retail, where stores don’t really ramp [6], we need to consider ramping in defining the cohort, and thus define the year-ago cohort to include only fully-ramped reps [6].

So here’s how I define same-rep sales: sales from reps who were fully ramped a year ago and still here.

Here’s an example of presenting it:

The above table shows same-rep sales via an example where overall sales growth is good at 48%, driven by a 17% increase in same-rep sales and an 89% increase in new-rep sales. Note that enterprise software is a business largely built on the back of sales force expansion so — absent an acquisition or new product launch to put something new in sale’s proverbial bag — I view a 17% increase in same-rep sales as pretty good.

Let’s conclude by sharing a table of sales productivity metrics discussed in this post that I think provides a nice view of sales productivity as related to hiring and ramping.

The spreadsheet I used for this post is available for download, here.

# # #

Notes

[1] Billings is a public company SaaS metric and typically a proxy for bookings.

[2] See here for my thoughts on churn

[3] Public companies never release this but most public and private companies track it.

[4] By taking overall new ARR (i.e., from all reps) and dividing it by the number of ramped reps, thus blending contribution from both new and existing reps in the numerator. Plus, these are usually calculated on a snapshot (not a cohort) basis.

[5] This is not survivor-biased in my mind because I am trying to get a productivity metric. By analogy, I believe stores that closed in the interim are not included in same-store sales calculations.

[6] Or to the extent they do, it takes weeks or months, not quarters. Thus you can simply include all stores open in the year-ago cohort, even if they just opened.

[6] I am trying to avoid seeing an increase in same-rep sales due to ramping — e.g., someone who just started in the year-ago cohort will have year sales, but should increase to full productivity simply by virtue of ramping.

How to Make and Use a Proper Sales Bookings Productivity and Quota Capacity Model

I’ve seen numerous startups try numerous ways to calculate their sales capacity.  Most are too back-of-the-envelope and to top-down for my taste.  Such models are, in my humble opinion, dangerous because the combination of relatively small errors in ramping, sales productivity, and sales turnover (with associated ramp resets) can result in a relatively big mistake in setting an operating plan.  Building off quota, instead of productivity, is another mistake for many reasons [1].  

Thus, to me, everything needs to begin with a sales productivity model that is Einsteinian in the sense that it is as simple as possible but no simpler.

What does such a model need to take into account?

  • Sales productivity, measured in ARR/rep, and at steady state (i.e., after a rep is fully ramped).  This is not quota (what you ask them to sell), this is productivity (what you actually expect them to sell) and it should be based on historical reality, with perhaps incremental, well justified, annual improvement.
  • Rep hiring plans, measured by new hires per quarter, which should be realistic in terms of your ability to recruit and close new reps.
  • Rep ramping, typically a vector that has percentage of steady-state productivity in the rep’s first, second, third, and fourth quarters [2].  This should be based in historical data as well.
  • Rep turnover, the annual rate at which sales reps leave the company for either voluntary or involuntary reasons.
  • Judgment, the model should have the built-in ability to let the CEO and/or sales VP manually adjust the output and provide analytical support for so doing [3].
  • Quota over-assignment, the extent to which you assign more quota at the “street” level (i.e., sum of the reps) beyond the operating plan targets
  • For extra credit and to help maintain organizational alignment — while you’re making a bookings model, with a little bit of extra math you can set pipeline goals for the company’s core pipeline generation sources [4], so I recommend doing so.

If your company is large or complex you will probably need to create an overall bookings model that aggregates models for the various pieces of your business.  For example, inside sales reps tend to have lower quotas and faster ramps than their external counterparts, so you’d want to make one model for inside sales, another for field sales, and then sum them together for the company model.

In this post, I’ll do two things:  I’ll walk you through what I view as a simple-yet-comprehensive productivity model and then I’ll show you two important and arguably clever ways in which to use it.

Walking Through the Model

Let’s take a quick walk through the model.  Cells in Excel “input” format (orange and blue) are either data or drivers that need to be entered; uncolored cells are either working calculations or outputs of the model.

You need to enter data into the model for 1Q20 (let’s pretend we’re making the model in December 2019) by entering what we expect to start the year with in terms of sales reps by tenure (column D).  The “first/hired quarter” row represents our hiring plans for the year.  The rest of this block is a waterfall that ages the rep downward as we move across quarters.  Next to the block ramp assumption, which expresses, as a percentage of steady-state productivity, how much we expect a rep to sell as their tenure increases with the company.  I’ve modeled a pretty slow ramp that takes five quarters to get to 100% productivity.

To the right of that we have more assumptions:

  • Annual turnover, the annual rate at which sales reps leave the company for any reason.  This drives attriting reps in row 12 which silently assumes that every departing rep was at steady state, a tacit fairly conservative assumption in the model.
  • Steady-state productivity, how much we expect a rep to actually sell per year once they are fully ramped.
  • Quota over-assignment.  I believe it’s best to start with a productivity model and uplift it to generate quotas [5]. 

The next block down calculates ramped rep equivalents (RREs), a very handy concept that far too few organizations use to convert the ramp-state to a single number equivalent to the number of fully ramped reps.  The steady-state row shows the number of fully ramped reps, a row that board members and investors will frequently ask about, particularly if you’re not proactively showing them RREs.

After that we calculate “productivity capacity,” which is a mouthful, but I want to disambiguate it from quota capacity, so it’s worth the extra syllables.  After that, I add a critical row called judgment, which allows the Sales VP or CEO to play with the model so that they’re not potentially signing up for targets that are straight model output, but instead also informed by their knowledge of the state of the deals and the pipeline.  Judgment can be negative (reducing targets), positive (increasing targets) or zero-sum where you have the same annual target but allocate it differently across quarters.

The section in italics, linearity and growth analysis, is there to help the Sales VP analyze the results of using the judgment row.  After changing targets, he/she can quickly see how the target is spread out across quarters and halves, and how any modifications affect both sequential and quarterly growth rates. I have spent many hours tweaking an operating plan using this part of the sheet, before presenting it to the board.

The next row shows quota capacity, which uplifts productivity capacity by the over-assignment percentage assumption higher up in the model.  This represents the minimum quota the Sales VP should assign at street level to have the assumed level of over-assignment.  Ideally this figure dovetails into a quota-assignment model.

Finally, while we’re at it, we’re only a few clicks away from generating the day-one pipeline coverage / contribution goals from our major pipeline sources: marketing, alliances, and outbound SDRs.  In this model, I start by assuming that sales or customer success managers (CSMs) generate the pipeline for upsell (i.e., sales to existing customers).  Therefore, when we’re looking at coverage, we really mean to say coverage of the newbiz ARR target (i.e., new ARR from new customers).  So, we first reduce the ARR goal by a percentage and then multiple it by the desired pipeline coverage ratio and then allocate the result across the pipeline-sources by presumably agreed-to percentages [6].  

Building the next-level models to support pipeline generation goals is beyond the scope of this post, but I have a few relevant posts on the subject including this three-part series, here, here, and here.

Two Clever Ways to Use the Model

The sad reality is that this kind of model gets a lot attention at the end of a fiscal year (while you’re making the plan for next year) and then typically gets thrown in the closet and ignored until it’s planning season again. 

That’s too bad because this model can be used both as an evaluation tool and a predictive tool throughout the year.

Let’s show that via an all-too-common example.  Let’s say we start 2020 with a new VP of Sales we just hired in November 2019 with hiring and performance targets in our original model (above) but with judgment set to zero so plan is equal to the capacity model.

Our “world-class” VP immediately proceeds to drive out a large number of salespeople.  While he hires 3 “all-star” reps during 1Q20, all 5 reps hired by his predecessor in the past 6 months leave the company along with, worse yet, two fully ramped reps.  Thus, instead of ending the quarter with 20 reps, we end with 12.  Worse yet, the VP delivers new ARR of $2,000K vs. a target of $3,125K, 64% of plan.  Realizing she has a disaster on her hands, the CEO “fails fast” and fires the newly hired VP of sales after 5 months.  She then appoints the RVP of Central, Joe, to acting VP of Sales on 4/2.  Joe proceeds to deliver 59%, 67%, and 75% of plan in 2Q20, 3Q20, and 4Q20.

Our question:  is Joe doing a good job?

At first blush, he appears more zero than hero:  59%, 67%, and 75% of plan is no way to go through life.

But to really answer this question we cannot reasonably evaluate Joe relative to the original operating plan.  He was handed a demoralized organization that was about 60% of its target size on 4/2.  In order to evaluate Joe’s performance, we need to compare it not to the original operating plan, but to the capacity model re-run with the actual rep hiring and aging at the start of each quarter.

When you do this you see, for example, that while Joe is constantly underperforming plan, he is also constantly outperforming the capacity model, delivering 101%, 103%, and 109% of model capacity in 2Q through 4Q.

If you looked at Joe the way most companies look at key metrics, he’d be fired.  But if you read this chart to the bottom you finally get the complete picture.  Joe is running a significantly smaller sales organization at above-model efficiency.  While Joe got handed an organization that was 8 heads under plan, he did more than double the organization to 26 heads and consistently outperformed the capacity model.  Joe is a hero, not a zero.  But you’d never know if you didn’t look at his performance relative to the actual sales capacity he was managing.

Second, I’ll say the other clever way to use a capacity model is as a forecasting tool. I have found a good capacity model, re-run at the start of the quarter with then-current sales hiring/aging is a very valuable predictive tool, often predicting the quarterly sales result better than my VP of Sales. Along with rep-level, manager-level, and VP-level forecasts and stage-weighted and forecast-category-weighted expected pipeline values, you can use the re-run sales capacity model as a great tool to triangulate on the sales forecast.

You can download the four-tab spreadsheet model I built for this post, here.

# # #

Notes

[1] Starting with quota starts you in the wrong mental place — what you want people to do, as opposed to productivity (what they have historically done). Additionally, there are clear instances where quotas get assigned against which we have little to no actual productivity assumption (e.g., a second-quarter rep typically has zero productivity but will nevertheless be assigned some partial quota). Sales most certainly has a quota-allocation problem, but that should be a separate, second exercise after building a corporate sales productivity model on which to base the operating plan.

[2] A typically such vector might be (0%, 25%, 50%, 100%) or (0%, 33%, 66%, 100%) reflecting the percentage of steady-state productivity they are expected to achieve in their first, second, third, and fourth quarters of employment.

[3] Without such a row, the plan is either de-linked from the model or the plan is the pure output of the model without any human judgement attached. This row is typically used to re-balance the annual number across quarters and/or to either add or subtract cushion relative to the model.

[4] Back in the day at Salesforce, we called pipeline generation sources “horsemen” I think (in a rather bad joke) because there were four of them (marketing, alliances, sales, and SDRs/outbound). That term was later dropped probably both because of the apocalypse reference and its non gender-neutrality. However, I’ve never known what to call them since, other than the rather sterile, “pipeline sources.”

[5] Many salesops people do it the reverse way — I think because they see the problem as allocating quota whereas I see the the problem as building an achievable operating plan. Starting with quota poses several problems, from the semantic (lopping 20% off quota is not 20% over-assignment, it’s actually 25% because over-assignment is relative to the smaller number) to the mathematical (first-quarter reps get assigned quota but we can realistically expect a 0% yield) to the procedural (quotas should be custom-tailored based on known state of the territory and this cannot really be built into a productivity model).

[6] One advantages of having those percentages here is they are placed front-and-center in the company’s bookings model which will force discussion and agreement. Otherwise, if not documented centrally, they will end up in different models across the organization with no real idea of whether they either foot to the bookings model or even sum to 100% across sources.

Why Every Startup Needs an Inverted Demand Generation Funnel, Part II

In the previous post, I introduced the idea of an inverted demand generation (demandgen) funnel which we can use to calculate a marketing demandgen budget based given a sales target, an average sales price (ASP), and a set of conversion rates along the funnel. This is a handy tool, isn’t hard to make, and will force you into the very good habit of measuring (and presumably improving) a set of conversion rates along your demand funnel.

In the previous post, as a simplifying assumption, we assumed a steady-state situation where a company had a $2M new ARR target every quarter. The steady-state assumption allowed us to ignore two very real factors that we are going to address today:

  • Time. There are two phase-lags along the funnel. MQLs might take a quarter to turn into SALs and SALs might take two quarters to turn into closed deals. So any MQL we generate now won’t likely become a closed deal until 3 quarters from now.
  • Growth. No SaaS company wants to operate at steady state; sales targets go up every year. Thus if we generate only enough MQLs to hit this-quarter’s target we will invariably come up short because those MQLs are working to support a (presumably larger) target 3 quarters in the future.

In order to solve these problems we will start with the inverted funnel model from the previous post and do three things:

  • Quarter-ize it. Instead of just showing one steady-state quarter (or a single year), we are going to stretch the model out across quarters.
  • Phase shift it. If SALs take two quarters to close and MQLs take 1 quarter to become SALS we will reflect this in the model, by saying 4Q20 deals need come from SALs generated in 2Q20 which in turn come from MQLs generated in 1Q20.
  • Extend it. Because of the three-quarter phase shift, the vast majority of the MQLs we’ll be generating 2020 are actually to support 2021 business, so we need to extend the model in 2021 (with a growth assumption) in order to determine how big of a business we need to support.

Here’s what the model looks like when you do this:

You can see that this model generates a varying demandgen budget based on the future sales targets and if you play with the drivers, you can see the impact of growth. At 50% new ARR growth, we need a $1.47M demandgen budget in 2020, at 0% we’d need $1.09M, and at 100% we’d need $1.85M.

Rather than walk through the phase-shifting with words, let me activate Excel’s trace-precedents feature so you can see how things flow:

With these corrections, we have transformed the inverted funnel into a pretty realistic tool for modeling MQL requirements of the company’s future growth plan.

Other Considerations

In reality, your business may consist of multiple funnels with different assumption sets.

  • Partner-sourced deals are likely to have smaller deal sizes (due to margin given to the channel) but faster conversion timeframes and higher conversion rates. (Because we will learn about deals later in the cycle, hear only about the good ones, and the partner may expedite the evaluation process.)
  • Upsell business will almost certainly have smaller deal sizes, faster conversion timeframes, and much higher conversion rates than business to entirely new customers.
  • Corporate (or inside) sales is likely to have a materially different funnel from enterprise sales. Using a single funnel that averages the two might work, provided your mix isn’t changing, but it is likely to leave corporate sales starving for opportunities (since they do much smaller deals, they need many more opportunities).

How many of these funnels you need is up to you. Because the model is particularly sensitive to deal size (given a constant set of conversion rates) I would say that if a certain type of business has a very different ASP from the main business, then it likely needs its own funnel. So instead of building one funnel that averages everything across your company, you might be three — e.g.,

  • A new business funnel
  • An upsell funnel
  • A channel funnel

In part III of this series, we’ll discuss how to combine the idea of the inverted funnel with time-based close rates to create an even more accurate model of your demand funnel.

The spreadsheet I made for this series of posts is available here.

Why Every Startup Needs an Inverted Demand Generation Funnel, Part I

Does my company spend too much on marketing? Too little? How I do know? What is the right level of marketing spend at an enterprise software startup? I get asked these questions all the time by startup CEOs, CMOs, marketing VPs, and marketing directors.

You can turn to financial benchmarks, like the KeyBanc Annual SaaS Survey for some great high-level answers. You can subscribe to SiriusDecisions for best practices and survey data. Or you can buy detailed benchmark data [1] from OPEXEngine. These are all great sources and I recommend them heartily to anyone who can afford them.

But, in addition to sometimes being too high-level [2], there is one key problem with all these forms of benchmark data: they’re not about you. They’re not based on your operating history. While I certainly recommend that executives know their relevant financial benchmarks, there’s a difference between knowing what’s typical for the industry and what’s typical for you.

So, if you want to know if your company is spending enough on marketing [3], the first thing you should do is to make an inverted demand generation (aka, demandgen) funnel to figure out if you’re spending enough on demandgen. It’s quite simple and I’m frankly surprised how few folks take the time to do it.

Here’s an inverted demandgen funnel in its simplest form:

Inverted demandgen funnel

Let’s walk through the model. Note that all orange cells are drivers (inputs) and the white cells are calculations (outputs). This model assumes a steady-state situation [4] where the company’s new ARR target is $2,000,000 each quarter. From there, we simply walk up the funnel using historical deal sizes and conversion rates [5].

  • With an average sales price (ASP) of $75,000, the company needs to close 27 opportunities each quarter.
  • With a 20% sales qualified lead (SQL) to close rate we will need 133 SQLs per quarter.
  • If marketing is responsible for generating 80% of the sales pipeline, then marketing will need to generate 107 of those SQLs.
  • If our sales development representatives (SDRs) can output 2.5 opportunities per week then we will need 5 SDRs (rounding up).
  • With an 80% SAL to SQL conversion rate we will need 133 SALs per quarter.
  • With a 10% MQL to SAL conversion rate we will need 1,333 MQLs per quarter.
  • With a cost of $250 per MQL, we will need a demandgen budget [6] of $333,333 per quarter.

The world’s simplest way to calculate the overall marketing budget at this point would be to annualize demandgen to $1.3M and then double it, assuming the traditional 50/50 people/programs ratio [7].

Not accounting for phase lag or growth (which will be the subjects of part II and part III of this post), let’s improve our inverted funnel by adding benchmark and historical data.

Let’s look at what’s changed. I’ve added two columns, one with 2019 actuals and one with benchmark data from our favorite source. I’ve left the $2M target in both columns because I want to compare funnels to see what it would take to generate $2M using either last year’s or our benchmark’s conversion rates. Because I didn’t want to change the orange indicators (of driver cells) in the left column, when we have deviations from the benchmark I color-coded the benchmark column instead. While our projected 20% SQL-to-close rate is an improvement from the 18% rate in 2019, we are still well below the benchmark figure of 25% — hence I coded the benchmark red to indicate a problem in this row. Our 10% MQL-to-SQL conversion rate in the 2020 budget is a little below the benchmark figure of 12%, so I coded it yellow. Our $250 cost/MQL is well below the benchmark figure of $325 so I coded it green.

Finally, I added a row to show the relative efficiency improvement of the proposed 2020 budget compared to last year’s actuals and the benchmark. This is critical — this is the proof that marketing is raising the bar on itself and committed to efficiency improvement in the coming year. While our proposed funnel is overall 13% more efficient than the 2019 funnel, we still have work to do over the next few years because we are 23% less efficient than we would be if we were at the benchmark on all rates.

However, because we can’t count on fixing everything at once, we are taking a conservative approach where we show material improvement over last year’s actuals, but not overnight convergence to the benchmark — which could take us from kaizen-land to fantasy-land and result in a critical pipeline shortage downstream.

Moreover because this approach shows not only a 13% overall efficiency improvement but precisely where you expect it to come from, the CEO can challenge sales and marketing leadership:

  • Why are we expecting to increase our ASP by $5K to $75K?
  • Why do you think we can improve the SQL-to-close rate from 18% to 20% — and what you are doing to drive that improvement? [8]
  • What are we doing to improve the MQL-to-SAL conversion rate?
  • How are we going to improve our already excellent cost per MQL by $25?

In part II and part III of this post, we’ll discuss two ways of modeling phase-lag, modeling growth, and the separation of the new business and upsell funnels.

You can download my spreadsheet for this post, here.

Notes

[1] For marketing or virtually anything else.

[2] i.e., looking at either S&M aggregated or even marketing overall.

[3] The other two pillars of marketing are product marketing and communications. The high-level benchmarks can help you analyze spend on these two areas by subtracting your calculated demandgen budget from the total marketing budget suggested by a benchmark to see “what’s left” for the other two pillars. Caution: sometimes that result is negative!

[4] The astute reader will instantly see two problems: (a) phase-lag introduced by both the lead maturation (name to MQL) and sales (SQL to close) cycles and (b) growth. That is, in a normal high-growth startup, you need enough leads not to generate this quarter’s new ARR target but the target 3-4 quarters out, which is likely to be significantly larger. Assuming a steady-state situation gets rid of both these problems and simplifies the model. See part II and part III of this post for how I like to manage that added real-world complexity.

[5] Hint: if you’re not tracking these rates, the first good thing about this model is that it will force you to do so.

[6] When I say demandgen budget, I mean money spent on generating leads through marketing campaigns. Sometimes that very directly (e.g., adwords). Other times it’s a bit indirectly (e.g., an SEO program). I do not include demandgen staff because I am trying to calculate the marginal cost of generating an extra MQL. That is, I’m not trying to calculate what the company spends, in total, on demandgen activities (which would include salary, benefits, stock-based comp, etc. for demandgen staff) but instead the marketing programs cost to generate a lead (e.g., in case we need to figure out how much to budget to generate 200 more of them).

[7] In an increasingly tech-heavy world where marketing needs to invest a lot in infrastructure as well, I have adapted the traditional 50/50 people/programs rule to a more modern 45/45/10 people/programs/infrastructure rule, or even an infrastructure-heavy split of 40/40/20.

[8] Better closing tools, an ROI calculator, or a new sales training program could all be valid explanations for assuming an improved close rate.

Should SDRs Report to Sales or Marketing?

Slowly and steadily, over the past decade, the industry has evolved from a mentality of “all salesreps must do everything” – including some percent of their time prospecting — to one of specialization.  We, with the help of books like Predictable Revenue, have collectively decided that in-bound lead processing is different from outbound lead prospecting is different from low-end, velocity sales is different from high-end, enterprise sales.

Despite the old-school, almost-character-building emphasis on prospecting, we have collectively realized that having our top hunters dialing for dollars and digging through inbound leads isn’t, well, the best use of their time.

Industrialization typically involves specialization and the industrialization of once purely artisanal software sales has been no exception.  As part of this specialization the sales development representative (SDR) role has risen to prominence.  In this post, we’ll do a quick review of what SDRs typically do and discuss the relative merits of having them report into sales vs. marketing.

“Everyone under 25 in San Francisco is an SDR.” – Anonymous startup CEO

SDRs Bridge the Two Departments

SDRs typically form the bridge between sales and marketing.  A typical SDR job is take inbound leads from marketing, perform some basic BANT-style [1] qualification on them, and then pass them to sales if indicated. While SDRs typically have activity quotas (e.g., 50 calls/day) they should be primarily measured on the number of opportunities they create per week. In enterprise software, typically that quota is 2-3 oppties/week. 

As companies get bigger they tend to separate SDRs into two groups:

  • Inbound SDRs, those who only process in-bound leads, and
  • Outbound SDRs, those who primarily do targeted outreach over the phone or email

Being an SDR is a hard job.  Typical SDR challenges include:

  • Adhering to service-level agreements for all leads (i.e., touches with timeframes)
  • Contacting prospects in an increasingly spam-hostile, call-hostile environment
  • Figuring out which leads to work on the hardest (e.g., which merit homework to customize the message and which don’t)
  • Remembering that their job is to sell meetings and not product [2]
  • Supporting multiple salespeople with often conflicting priorities [3]
  • Managing the conflict between supporting salespeople and executing the process
  • Getting salespeople to show-up at the hand-off meeting [4]
  • Avoiding burnout in a high-pressure environment

To Which Department Should SDRs Report:  Sales or Marketing?

Historically, SDRs reported to sales.  That’s probably because sales first decided to fund SDR teams as a way getting inbound lead management out of the hands of salespeople [5].  Doing so would:

  • Enable the company to consistently respond in a timely manner to all inquiries
  • Free up sales to spend more time on selling
  • Avoid the problem of individual reps not processing new leads once they are “full up” on opportunities [6]

The problem is that most enterprise software sales VPs are not particularly process-oriented [7], because they grew up in a pre-industrialized era of sales [8].  In fact, nothing drives me crazier than an old-school, artisanal, deal-person CRO insisting on owning the SDR organization despite the total inability to manage it.  They rationalize:  “Oh, I can hire someone process-oriented to manage it.”  And I think:  “but what can that person learn from you [9] about how to manage it?”  And the answer is nothing.  Your desire to own it is either pure ego or simply a ploy to enrich your resume.

I’ll say again because it drives me crazy:  do not be the VP of Sales who insists on owning the SDR organization in the annual planning meeting but then shows zero interest in it for the rest of the year.  You’re not helping anyone!

As mentioned in a footnote in a prior post, I greatly prefer SDRs reporting to marketing versus sales.  Why?

  • Marketing leadgen and nurture people are metrics- and process-oriented animals, naturally suited to manage a process-oriented department.
  • It provides a simple, clear conceptual model:  marketing is the opportunity creation factory and sales is the opportunity closing machine.

In short, marketing’s job is to make opportunities.  Sales’ job is to close them.

# # #

Notes

[1] BANT = budget, authority, need, time-frame.

[2] Most early- and mid-stage startups put SDRs in their regular sales training sessions which I think does them a disservice.  Normal sales training is about selling products/solutions.  SDRs “sell” meetings.  They should not attempt to build business value or differentiation. Training them to do so tempts them to do – even when it is not their job.

[3] A typical QCR:SDR ratio is 3-4:1, though I’ve seen as low as 1:1 and as high as 6:1

[4] Believe it or not, this sometimes happens (typically when your reps are already carrying a lot of oppties).  Few things reflect worse on the company than a last-minute rescheduling of the meet-your-salesperson call. You don’t get a second chance to make a firm impression.

[5] Although most early models had wide bypass rules  – e.g.,  “leads with VP title at this list of key accounts will get passed directly to reps for qualification” – reflecting a lack of trust in marketing beyond dropping leaflets from airplanes.

[6] That problem could still exist at hand-off (i.e., opportunity creation) time but at least we have combed through the leads to find the good ones, and reports can easily identify overloaded reps.

[7] While they may be process-oriented when it comes to the sales process for a deal moving across stages during a quarter, that is not quite the same thing as a velocity mentality driven by daily or weekly goals with tracking metrics.  If you will, there’s process-oriented and Process-Oriented.

[8] One simple test:  if your sales org doesn’t have monthly cadence (e.g., goals, forecasts) then your sales VP is probably not capital P process-oriented.

[9] On the theory you should always build organizations where people can learn from their managers.