The B2B sales organisation world is still roughly equally divided…those that measure their reps against a visit activity rate target…those that don’t.

The pro’s…

  • Focusses rep activity onto visiting to a specific numeric level
  • “what gets measured gets done” culture
  • Facilitates cross-team competitiveness , driving up this vital activity

The con’s …

  • A form of micro – management…”so long as you hit your dollar number , I don’t care how many or who you visit” management culture
  • Drives wrong behaviour…reps end up making visits on friendly or low value customers, just to make up their numbers
  • Poor execution derails the intent…eg a “one size fits all” solution does not take account of territory – to – territory differences

Well, like all dichotomies like this, there is usually a happy medium.  In this specific case the “happy medium” is actually a compelling sales management system imperative.

  • Set the number as a benchmark, not a target … In other words, a level modest enough to be meaningful, but sets a minimum standard that must be achieved…not an upper end target
  • Meaningful, in this context, means that the math around the minimum standard must support your sales team optimisation “law of gravity”


Law of Gravity v2


…which means it must mathematically balance out all other seven sales team productivity  and resourcing value drivers.  Just like an accounting equation.  In the same sense then, the visit frequencies applied to classified customers and profiled prospects should be also set at a level that honours the benchmark-not target principle.

Why?  Come back next week to see why.