Here’s an example of what’s so hard. Sales rep A covers two states plus a part of a third—the part north of Interstate 94, which inconveniently bisects several large cities. Meanwhile, Sales rep B covers the south side of I-94, down to I-90, which bisects even more major city markets. How the hell does corporate marketing or a third-party lead management service—never mind its computers—know what’s north of I-94 and what’s south, and what’s north of I-90 and what’s south? And things get really grisly when sales territories split on state or county highways or even city streets.
Then, we have companies that set sales territories by county, rather than zip code. You always get the zip code back with a response, but how often do you capture the county?
There is an “obvious” solution. But like so many “obvious” solutions, it doesn’t work, at least not very well. That’s forwarding leads to a regional office and letting field managers figure out their own distribution. But running leads through an extra pair of hands is a great way to lose them, or delay them—and even more importantly, not computer-assigning leads after they’re qualified makes a mess out of tracking and drastically lowers rep-level accountability.
Oh, and not to forget, what happens when a lead from a prized national account covered exclusively by national account reps gets thrown into the response mix, as often happens? Nothing good if you haven’t prepared for this contingency. And this problem gets compounded when these respondents use variants on formal company names that slip through the lead management software’s record matching function, if the software even has such a function. Try record matching in Excel or Access, will you? A classic example of company names that defy uniformity is the many divisions of 3M Company, most of which are known internally by acronyms or abbreviations.
Like rolling of a log? Yeah, like rolling off a real log in deep, rushing water when you can’t swim.
Because the problems surrounding lead distribution are so varied, I’m going to use a “collage” example of real-world solutions rather than citing a single company’s approach.
The best solution for assigning leads geographically (as opposed to the first obvious solution) is for lead-generating B2B companies to get a grip on the reality. Hey folks, we’re in the age of automation. If computers can’t accurately assign leads to sales territories, redo your territories instead of thrusting your heads into the sand. And if SCFs (three-digit zip code prefixes) or even five-digit zip codes aren’t precise enough, drill down to nine-digits using software expressly designed for this purpose.
The problem is eased for companies assigning sales territories by county, because you can purchase software that affixes counties to street
addresses. But that’s a lot messier than using three- or five-digit zip codes that require no special software.
I will issue one caveat to the above. If you’re selling through third-party reps, distributing leads to distributor or rep company offices may be the only lead distribution route open. However, if you have to go this route, your partner agreements should spell out accountability for partner companies to follow up all qualified leads and report back outcomes.
Unfortunately, properly distributing leads from national accounts and related “special assignment” customers takes more work—but doing this work up front has distinct advantages over a commission-hungry rep going into a national account unaware of special discounts; losing the business by over-quoting; and then ruffling national account customer feathers because the seller is violating pricing agreements.
So here’s the drill. To resolve this issue, inquiry generating companies with successful lead management programs:
- Build company name matching tables including all known variants and abbreviations
- Use record matching software with “fuzzy logic” that matches against multiple data fields and even uses phonetics (“sounds like”) functionality to suggest possible matches
- Preferably do both. These techniques still fall short of being 100% bullet-proof. But not by much.
No comments:
Post a Comment