should they even differ between the AEs? Let's see.
White
What should quotas be based on?
Quotas based on
Attached poll
*Voting in this poll no longer yields commission.
11
Quota should be based on, if it's territory, looking at target accounts in that area and what hasn't been penetrated yet. from there what the REALISTIC expectation is for growth and then some fancy mathematical equation to see what the number should be.
Yes, I agree... In an ideal world 👌🏻
I think they can differ between reps based on comp. If i make 100k and you make 125k it’s not unheard of for you to have a higher quota.
Right. You’re unlikely to have a 300k OTE and a quota of 600k.
Yeah, I feel this. I don't think it's unfair to expect more from higher paid reps.
Gotta earn that base.
Geographic territories are the typical norm and some territories are obviously better than others. *IF* I was selling medical stuff, I would do well to have the Mayo Clinic in my territory. But my quota should therefore be higher.
Same for greenfield territories. Your quota should be higher if your territory has been developing for a while. But if no work has been done, your quota should be less.
Same for greenfield territories. Your quota should be higher if your territory has been developing for a while. But if no work has been done, your quota should be less.
Both someone with a higher OTE typically should have a higher quota even if its the same territory. And someone with a better territory should typically have a higher quota
Can you clarify?
The topic around quotas, when discussed, often includes some level of injustice (e.g., quotas be same for all, but someone has a better territory). I've seen these three models (well, quotas are not based on OTE, but the other way around; the point is the link between the two).
That makes sense. Seems like it's more than one answer. I know SFDC is notorious for giving out ludacris quotas with abysmal territories.
It was all about market penetration. A lot of the big tech companies overhired deliberately for years and honestly didn't care if reps or teams made money, just so every single rock was overturned to find revenue.
Now they're trimming back, but I do wonder if they've learned their lessons at all.
Now they're trimming back, but I do wonder if they've learned their lessons at all.
For me it is all about the territory and who is in it.
Hard to say since not every company looks at territory. How about pipeline / MQLs?
I’m confused about a quota being based on OTE.
I agree. I have seen more OTE be based on quotas.
You're right. I was aiming towards the link between quotas and OTE.
I figured, but I couldn't get my head around it.
Usually, the lower the quota target range, the lower the OTE.
Usually, the lower the quota target range, the lower the OTE.
Exactly. But should the ratio be the same for everyone?
It is in our org, but we are a small team and not currently geo based. Should it be? Shrug.
I'd argue that considerations could be if there's a territory that's notoriously poor or oversaturated, but usually companies don't get that granular about who's where and the quota per rep.
I'd argue that considerations could be if there's a territory that's notoriously poor or oversaturated, but usually companies don't get that granular about who's where and the quota per rep.
I know I’m the minority here as I chose “same for all”… Currently, we built a model for each automotive sales segment person to have access to enough market share to obtain their plan. Some reps have more states than others. We pulled data for the last two years on revenue per state. I used that data to divide up the states into 4 territories.
Same 4 all..
Related posts
Members only
22 comments