Sub-national sales targets for field-based teams are often required to link to the national sales target. With the emergence of differentiated account targeting and the adoption of key account management, should everything equal the national? Depending on the life cycle of a product it is possible to make an allowance for the volume contributed by non-targeted accounts. One thing we’ve learnt about the market is it isn’t particularly dynamic, an allowance could be made for these non-targeted accounts based on a consistent contribution to history or expected uplift by adopting a digital approach and removing what is outside the scope of the field team.

A single channel of promotion doesn’t make the difference in isolation, from all sales analysis undertaken over the years there has only been one occasion where an isolated impact could be observed with a 100% share of voice, no access limitation and a direct correlation between customer and company interactions, this was in one brick in the isles of Orkney! The learning here is that there are other influences at play besides customer facing team’s interactions. Do we take account of these when setting targets?

Too much reliance is placed on trend analysis with an uplift for ambition towards a stretch target, blanket distributed regardless of market potential, environmental factors or other relevant factors. Is the stretch target the issue in this scenario? Work undertaken by Cranfield School of Management which reviewed decades of research concluded that ‘people perform better when they are assigned specific and difficult targets than they do when they are assigned easy targets or ‘do your best’ type of targets. However, targets are not free from issues and challenges when implemented. A key problem with the link between sales effort and sales response is that it is neither simple nor direct.1’ This is relatable in the pharma market especially with no direct sales outcome. The question is how can we overcome this? Monica Franco at Cranfield researched the underlying causes of the negative impact of performance targets and found ten common issues2:

• Targets are often based on past performance
• Targets are allocated inappropriately across the sales force
• Targets are frequently perceived to be either too high or too low
• Some targets are based on the wrong performance measures
• Targets are entirely based on financial indicators
• The data analysis process on which targets are based, is frequently poor or lacking rigour
• Targets are not periodically reviewed
• Targets are ‘given’ to the sales people
• The interrelation between targets is not considered
• Agreed action plans are the exception and not the norm

Some of these issues have already been discussed. Business intelligence professionals can endeavour to improve the process for field-based colleagues as targets are a large component in the incentive scheme. One element that we will continue to hear is that the target is either too high or low, there are few complaints if it’s too low but how do we counter the argument that the target is too high when we know that people perform better when chasing something more difficult. There needs to be sanity check on whether the target is realistic with some stretch rather than unachievable and out of sight, resulting in demotivation and defeat from the outset. 

Past performance can be an indicator of how far we’ve come but does this mean that the sales trajectory will remain at the same level into the future. We need to look beyond single measures and look at a mix of market dynamics and penetration levels. Is it realistic to believe that a territory with a high share should continue to take a greater share of the target purely based on the historical performance compared to a low share territory that has seen a market event change such as a formulary positioning change or a change in competitor status.

Positive impact is created by ensuring engagement and ownership is introduced as well as having a defined time window for the period, be it quarterly or six-monthly targets. This allows an adjustment to be made based on the receipt of new data whilst not undermining the principles and providing clarity on expectations.

To be successful the process needs to remain objective, utilising various data sources. Robust modelling with flexibility for go-to-market adjustments should be considered, offsetting some target risk. Utilising the lowest level of granularity that meets business requirements should be implemented. Account level targeting is optimal, allowing for some variability for geographical performance and potential differences. This provides a strong foundation for structural roll-up.

How these targets have been created can be shared with the field-based teams. A simple verbally communicated presentation that tells the story of the steps taken along with the assumptions made should be created. Input is key and account level modulation should be encouraged if the rules of engagement are clear and understood. A regional target pot can be based on the objective unadjusted model as there is likely to be less noise the higher the roll-up.

This facilitates a discussion and trade-off locally based on local knowledge of what is happening and/or what is likely to happen. Involvement in the decision-making process ensures accountability and ownership of the target. This can be rolled up providing the added advantage of being able to assess business impact at a lower (account) level as well as supporting targets for sales territories and the incentive scheme.

The sales target will never be considered correct, we can provide clarity, insights and seek local input. By creating ownership there is a higher chance of achievement!

Article sources
1. Cranfield School of Management (cranfield.ac.uk), “Setting Effective Sales Targets (cranfield.ac.uk)”

Accessed September 2024

2. Dr Monica Franco-Santos (cranfield.ac.uk), “Setting Effective Sales Targets (cranfield.ac.uk)”

Accessed September 2024