n. panagopoulos, phd a.la.r.m. – aueb ... -...

N. Panagopoulos, PhD A.LA.R.M. – AUEB Global Sales Barometer

Global Global Sales Barometer Sales Barometer (GSB)(GSB)Results from the 2010 surveyResults from the 2010 survey

N. PanagopoulosN. Panagopoulos, PhD, PhDg pg p ,,A.LA.R.M. - Athens University of Economics & Business


ABOUT THE GSBABOUT THE GSB

2


Mission and objectivesMission and objectivesMission and objectivesMission and objectives

Mission– The GSB is an annual GSSI-sponsored research initiative that aims

at providing sales academics and practitioners with the latest global insights on what constitutes sales best practice. g g p

Objectives– Identify the trends in the world of selling on a global scale. – Provide sales practitioners a basis for benchmarking sales best

practice.– Publish sales research priorities and a research agenda on topics of

importance to organizations worldwide.

3


GSB Research ModelGSB Research Model

Sales goalsSales

competencies

Customer strategy

Benchmarking salesBenchmarking salesbest practice acrossbest practice across

•Countries

Sales management

expenses

Sales channels

•Sectors•High vs. low performing companies•Time*

Sales management

practices

Customer portfolio mix

practices

Sales expenses budget

Improving

Sales compensation

sales practice

4


RESEARCH METHODSRESEARCH METHODS

5


Research designResearch designgg

Key informants:• Sales executives.

Population:• Any organization employing salespeople in both B2B and B2C

settings across countries.

Sampling frames:• Compiled by country coordinators at the local level.

Data collection method:• Online data collection was the dominant method of collecting

responses.responses.

6


Data collectionData collection

• Initial size of sampling frame: 33,872.

- Nonexistent contacts: 436.

= Effective size of sampling frame: 33,436.

• Total number of initial responses:1,526 (4.6% response rate)

- cases with excessive number of incomplete responses: 452

= Total number of effective responses: 1,074

7


Distribution of effective responses across countriesDistribution of effective responses across countries

Italy 27,6%

Chile

Greece

19,6%

20,6%

US

Poland

France

5,4%

5,8%

8,0%

Finland

Germany

US

3,7%

4,7%

,

India

Austria

UK

0 7%

2,0%

2,0%

0,0% 5,0% 10,0% 15,0% 20,0% 25,0% 30,0%

Australia

India

0,1%

0,7%

8


Research instrumentResearch instrument

• Initially designed in the English language

• Translation-back-translation method was employed

• Pretesting conducted in Greece and ItalyPretesting conducted in Greece and Italy

9


PRELIMINARY ANALYSESPRELIMINARY ANALYSES

10


Preliminary Preliminary analysesanalysesyy yy

1. Competence assessment:

• We assessed the competence and knowledge level of respondents bye assessed t e co pete ce a d o edge e e o espo de ts byemploying a 3-item 7-point scale(see Kumar, Stern & Anderson, 1993, Academy of Management Journal)

• Overall the mean value of competency was 6 13 indicating a relatively high• Overall, the mean value of competency was 6.13 indicating a relatively highlevel of competence among respondents.

• To ensure that only those responses of maximum quality are included in thel i h t i d l th d t th t t danalysis, however, we retained only those respondents that reported an

average competency of at least 4 on the 7-point scale.

• This procedure resulted in a final usable sample of 670 respondentsacross countries.

11


Preliminary Preliminary analysesanalyses

2. Conversion of monetary values:• To allow meaningful comparisons of monetary values (i.e., compensation, sales

d l ) diff t t i th t h t i d b

yy yy

expenses, and sales revenues) among different countries that are characterized bydifferent cost-of-living and GDP levels, variables were converted tointernational dollars by using the 2010 Purchasing Power Parity index(implied PPP exchange rate) which is published by the International MonetaryF d d th W ld B kFund and the World Bank.

• A PPP exchange rate is the ratio of the local currency prices of a particular basket ofgoods in two different countries.

3. Company performance groups:• For the purposes of the study, companies were grouped into 2 groups (i.e., high vs.

low performing) on the basis of their responses on four items which assessedcompany performance relative to major competitors on a 7-point scale rangingfrom 1=“Much worse than competitors” to 7=“Much better than competitors”(Vorhies and Morgan, 2005, Journal of Marketing).

• Specifically, items referred to performance in terms of (a) market share growth, (b)sales revenue growth, (c) profitability, and (d) customer satisfaction.

• Cronbach’s alpha reliability value for this scale was .80, thereby providingevidence that the scale is a reliable measure of company performance.

12


SAMPLE PROFILESAMPLE PROFILE

13


Job titles of respondentsJob titles of respondents

Export Manager

Finance/Accounting Manager

0,6%

0,4%

Marketing & Sales Manager

Operations/Services Managers

HR manager

0,7%

0,7%

0,6%

Other

Account/National/Key Account Manager

Commercial Director

1,5%

1,0%

1,0%

Marketing/PR/Product Manager

Salesperson/Sales support employee

Business development manager

2,9%

2,9%

1,7%

Business-Unit/General Manager

Vice President of Sales/Marketing

Top Management (President/Chairman/CEO/Owner/Managing Director)

10,6%

3,3%

3,2%

General/National Sales Manager

Field/District/Regional Sales Manager

Sales Manager

19,9%

11,7%

11,0%

140,0% 5,0% 10,0% 15,0% 20,0% 25,0% 30,0%

Chief Sales Executive/Officer 26,4%


Area of economic activity (sectors)Area of economic activity (sectors)

Information and communication

Wholesale and retail trade

Manufacturing (other than food)

10,14%

12,19%

30,55%

Construction

Professional, scientific, and technical activities

Financial and insurance activities

Agriculture, forestry, and fishing


4 38%

5,75%

6,16%

6,44%

,

Cosmetics/pharmaceuticals

Human health and social work activities

Food manufacturing

Construction

3,15%

3,42%

3,56%

4,38%

Transportation and storage

Administrative and support service activities

Electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply

Accommodation and food service activities

1,78%

1,92%

2,19%

2,88%

Other

Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation activities

Arts, entertainment, and recreation

Education

0,55%

0,82%

0,96%

1,51%

0 00% 5 00% 10 00% 15 00% 20 00% 25 00% 30 00% 35 00%

Mining and quarrying

Real estate activities

Public administration and defense; compulsory social security

0,55%

0,55%

0,55%

15The statistical coding schemes employed to group companies around areas of economic activity are in line with the NACE and ISIC schemes, which arerepresentative of world commerce (see http://circa.europa.eu/irc/dsis/nacecpacon/info/data/en/NACE%20Rev.%202%20structure%20-%20EN.pdf andhttp://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/regcst.asp?Cl=27

0,00% 5,00% 10,00% 15,00% 20,00% 25,00% 30,00% 35,00%


MAIN FINDINGSMAIN FINDINGS

16


Sales competenciesSales competencies

Quickly turning new recruits into effective salespersonsUsing sales technologies

Decreasing the time needed to close a saleDesigning compensation systems

Attracting the best sales talent

0 530,53

0,500,350,34

Building salespeople’s skillsAccurately forecasting sales

Allocating sales resourcesMotivating salespeople

Building sales managers’ skillsDetermining the right size of the sales force

Quickly turning new recruits into effective salespersons

0 690,67

0,640,610,60

0,550,53

K i th b t l lControlling sales expenses

Turning sales goals into sales plansProviding training to salespeopleGenerating attractive sales leads

Evaluating sales force performanceBuilding salespeople s skills

0,750,75

0,730,72

0,690,69

Working effectively with other functions in the organizationProviding good support to salespeopleGetting customer/market information

Avoiding excessive discountingSelecting the right mix of sales channels to reach customers

Keeping the best salespeople

0,830,82

0,800,790,78

0,76

Setting sales goalsSelecting the appropriate selling model for each customer

Organizing the sales forceCross/up-selling customers

Delivering the right sales messageSegmenting customers

0,900,900,89

0,870,850,84

Maintaining customer relationshipsBuilding customer relationships

Providing good after-sales service to customersClosing sales

Providing leadership to salespeopleTargeting customers in the right way

1 301,29

1,150,93

0,920,91,

Numbers correspond to mean values on a 7-point scale, where -3 = “Much worse than competitors” and +3 = “Much better than competitors”17

0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40

g p 1,30


ConclusionsConclusions

•There is much room for improvement in almost any aspect of salesforce and sales process management (mean value of competencies isnot very high).

Cl l I di US d A i f i h f h•Clearly, India, US, and Austria are outperforming the rest of thecountries with regard to the average level of most sales competencies

The lo est a e age le els of competencies a e fo nd in the•The lowest average levels of competencies are found in thefollowing countries:

•Finland•Finland•France•Germany•Italy•Italy•UK

18



•Average levels for most of the competencies do not differsignificantly among sectors.

•However, the following statistically significant differences were found:

Competencies Highest‐performing sectors Lowest‐performing sectorsCompetencies Highest performing sectors Lowest performing sectors

Organizing the sales force Transportation and storage Accommodation and food service activities

Building salespeople’s skills Other Public administration and defense; compulsory social security

Controlling sales expenses Construction Real estate activities

Working effectively with other functions in the organization Administrative and support service activities Public administration and defense; compulsory social securityfunctions in the organization

19



•More effective companies outperform lower performing ones across all34 sales competencies.

•Sales competencies that high performing companies differ mostd l f i i i d di dcompared to low performing companies are in descending order:

1 Motivating salespeople•These are areas h i1. Motivating salespeople

2. Attracting the best sales talent

that companies around the world should target for improvement

3. Providing good after‐sales service to customers

improvement

•Academic research and teaching need

4. Closing sales

5. Accurately forecasting sales

gto focus at these areas in order to help companies

20

y gimprove their performance



•Greek sales forces score lowest on the following 5 sales competencies

1 Motivating salespeople1. Motivating salespeople

2. Designing compensation systems

3. Allocating sales resourcesNeed improvement

4. Building sales managers’ skills

5. Attracting the best sales talent

21

g


Sales Sales management management expensesexpenses

22


Sales management expenses across countries Sales management expenses across countries i L l C U iti L l C U itin Local Currency Unitsin Local Currency Units

Mean cost of …

recruiting selecting training an …recruiting, selecting, and hiring an individual

new recruit

...training an individual new recruit

... training an established salesperson

… a sales call

Australia (Dollars) NA NA NA NA

Austria (Euros) 3.804,00 6.583,33 2.300,00 86,25

Chile (Pesos) 1.279.354,65 2.024.588,24 1.095.912,50 112.734,21

Finland (Euros) 8.447,06 5.852,94 4.052,94 372,50

France (Euros) 8 629 63 9 380 00 7 126 09 611 77France (Euros) 8.629,63 9.380,00 7.126,09 611,77

Germany (Euros) 17.520,00 15.132,81 3.903,57 672,42

Greece (Euros) 13.002,94 1.444,84 1.029,53 168,49

India (Rupees) 16.500,00 31.625,00 25.600,00 641,00India (Rupees) 16.500,00 31.625,00 25.600,00 641,00

Italy (Euros) 9.403,03 5.934,85 3.796,67 473,57

Poland (Zloties) 4.935,29 3.650,00 3.692,86 279,29

UK (Pounds) 8.364,08 8.250,00 4.653,64 519,75

US (Dollars) 33.427,78 35.125,00 26.325,26 1.140,16

Executives can use these figures to benchmark their expenses intheir respective country

23Mean costs are shown; Costs across countries are not directly comparable since they are measured in local currency units. They should only be interpreted within the realms of a given country.

their respective country


Average cost of recruiting, selecting, and hiring a new recruit Average cost of recruiting, selecting, and hiring a new recruit ac oss co nt iesac oss co nt iesacross countriesacross countries

35.000,00 33.427,78

25 000 00

30.000,00

SS

20.000,00

25.000,00

20.515,22

17.959,86

15.000,0012.577,56

10.685,26

9.504,00

5.000,00

10.000,009 50 ,00

8.780,73

4.449,12

3.165,722.507,77

0,00

951,78

24

Mean costs are shown; Costs are converted to international dollars using IMF/WB PPP index 2010; Australia is excluded from this analysis due to very low number of cases; Statistically significant differences were found among countries based on Kruskal Wallis test (Chi-square = 79,38; Asymp. Sign. = ,000)


Average cost of training a new recruit across countriesAverage cost of training a new recruit across countriesg gg g

40.000,00

30.000,00

35.000,00

35.125,00

SS

25.000,00

15.000,00

20.000,0017.719,92

12.406,02

5.000,00

10.000,00

10.330,40

7.699,816.744,15

6.084,145.009,77

0,00

1.995,64 1.854,67 1.824,24

25



Average cost of training an established salesperson across Average cost of training an established salesperson across co nt iesco nt iescountriescountries

30.000,00

25.000,00

26.325,26

SS

20.000,00

10.000,00

15.000,00

5.000,00

7.848,11

6.997,95

4.570,93 4.314,39 4.213,04

2.711,80 2.690,06

0,00

1.876,451.476,70 1.422,01

26



Average cost of a sales call across countriesAverage cost of a sales call across countriesgg

1.200,001.140,16

1.000,00SS

600 00

800,00787,38 781,58

673,76

400,00

600,00538,15

387,21

200,00

278,96

232,72

141,91

100,88

0,00

36,98

27



Average cost of recruiting, selecting, and hiring a new recruit across Average cost of recruiting, selecting, and hiring a new recruit across sectorssectorssectorssectors



16,64

26,91

Manufacturing


Construction


11,63

12,31

13,84

15,10

SS

Water supply; sewerage waste management and remediation





7 63

7,78

8,24

8,98

10,41

Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles




Water supply; sewerage, waste management and remediation …

4,40

4,79

4,88

6,94

7,63

Other

Food manufacturing

Education


1,52

2,88

3,94

4,18

0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00

Transportation and storage 0,66

Thousands

28

Mean values are shown; Expenses are converted to international dollars using IMF/WB PPP index 2010; Statistically significant differences were found among countries based on Kruskal Wallis test (Chi-square = 41,934; Asymp. Sign. = ,002)


Average cost of training a new recruit across sectorsAverage cost of training a new recruit across sectorsg gg g

Ad i i i d i i i i


Real estate activities

25 70

32,85

33,04

Manufacturing





10 54

12,24

12,47

16,30

25,70

SS


Construction



Manufacturing

5,51

7,12

7,16

7,82

10,54


Other



u a ea t a d soc a o act t es

4,00

4,38

5,36

5,40

,


Food manufacturing



3,37

3,73

3,73

3,74

0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 35,00


Education

1,48

3,35

Thousands

29


Thousands


Average cost of training an established salesperson across sectorsAverage cost of training an established salesperson across sectorsg g pg g p

P ofessional scientific and technical acti ities



8 06

15,88

20,84



Manufacturing



4,49

4,78

4,95

5,51

8,06

SS



Education



3,25

3,46

3,68

4,18

4,49





y, g , g pp y

2,58

3,00

3,01

3,08


Other

Food manufacturing

Construction

1,43

1,72

2,04

2,41

0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00

Transportation and storage 0,83

Thousands

30



Average cost of a sales call across sectorsAverage cost of a sales call across sectorsgg



0,80

1,88

Construction


Manufacturing


0,68

0,73

0,76

0,80

SS



Other

Education

0,32

0,37

0,50

0,53





0,19

0,20

0,25

0,26



Food manufacturing


0,16

0,17

0,17

0,19

0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 1,40 1,60 1,80 2,00



0,06

0,13

Thousands

31


Thousands


Average cost of recruiting, selecting, and hiring a Average cost of recruiting, selecting, and hiring a it b t f it b t f new recruit between performance groupsnew recruit between performance groups

12.000,00

14.000,00

8 249 55

12.600,52

NS

8.000,00

10.000,008.249,55

2.000,00

4.000,00

6.000,00

0,00

,

Low performing companies

High performing companies

32

Mean values are shown; Expenses are converted to international dollars using IMF/WB PPP index 2010; Statistically significant differences were not found between groups of companies based on T-test (T-test = -1,1592; Sig. (2-tailed) = ,247)


Average cost of training a new recruit between Average cost of training a new recruit between f f performance groupsperformance groups

9 312 89

9.000,00

10.000,00

9.312,89

SS

6.000,00

7.000,00

8.000,00

5.510,03

3.000,00

4.000,00

5.000,00

0,00

1.000,00

2.000,00

L f i i Hi h f i iLow performing companies High performing companies

33

Mean values are shown; Expenses are converted to international dollars using IMF/WB PPP index 2010; Statistically significant differences were found between groups of companies based on T-test (T-test = -2,544; Sig. (2-tailed) = ,011)


Average cost of training an established salesperson Average cost of training an established salesperson b t f b t f between performance groupsbetween performance groups

6.000,00

5.250,29NS

3 000 00

4.000,00

5.000,00 3.659,88

1.000,00

2.000,00

3.000,00

0,00



34

Mean values are shown; Expenses are converted to international dollars using IMF/WB PPP index 2010; Statistically significant differences were not found between groups of companies based on T-test (T-test = -1,160; Sig. (2-tailed) = ,247)


Average cost of a sales call between performance Average cost of a sales call between performance groupsgroups

475 00

480,00

479,90

NS

455 00

460,00

465,00

470,00

475,00

449,29

435 00

440,00

445,00

450,00

455,00

430,00

435,00



35

Mean values are shown; Expenses are converted to international dollars using IMF/WB PPP index 2010; Statistically significant differences were not found between groups of companies based on T-test (T-test = 0,270; Sig. (2-tailed) = ,787)


ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions

Cl l ff ti i d ’t d thiClearly, more effective companies don’t overspend on everything.

•Expenses for…R i i l i d hi i l l•Recruiting, selecting, and hiring salespeople,

•Training established salespeople, and•Making sales calls

•…do not differ significantly between the two groups of companies.

•Higher performing companies, however, spend more money fortraining new recruits.

•Apparently, this helps companies in ramping up new recruits fasterand more efficient.

36


Sales Sales management management practicespractices

37


Number of new salespeople hiredNumber of new salespeople hiredNumber of new salespeople hiredNumber of new salespeople hired

SS

38Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences were found among countries based on Kruskal Wallis test (Chi-square = 125,92; Asymp. Sign. = ,00); Australia is excluded from this analysis due to very low number of cases


Number of terminated salespeopleNumber of terminated salespeopleNumber of terminated salespeopleNumber of terminated salespeople

SS



Number of salespeople who left voluntarilyNumber of salespeople who left voluntarilyNumber of salespeople who left voluntarilyNumber of salespeople who left voluntarily

SS



Number of salespeople assigned to a field sales Number of salespeople assigned to a field sales iisupervisorsupervisor

SS



% of the sales force that is female% of the sales force that is female% of the sales force that is female% of the sales force that is female

SS



Age of the sales forceAge of the sales forceAge of the sales forceAge of the sales force

SS



Number of new salespeople hiredNumber of new salespeople hiredNumber of new salespeople hiredNumber of new salespeople hired

SS

44Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences were found among countries based on Kruskal Wallis test (Chi-square = 64,45; Asymp. Sign. = ,00)


Number of salespeople who were terminatedNumber of salespeople who were terminatedNumber of salespeople who were terminatedNumber of salespeople who were terminated

SS



Number of salespeople who voluntarily leftNumber of salespeople who voluntarily leftNumber of salespeople who voluntarily leftNumber of salespeople who voluntarily left

SS



Number of salespeople who were assigned to a field Number of salespeople who were assigned to a field l il isales supervisorsales supervisor

SS



% of the sales force that is female% of the sales force that is female% of the sales force that is female% of the sales force that is female

SS



Number of weekly sales callsNumber of weekly sales callsNumber of weekly sales callsNumber of weekly sales calls

SS



Comparison between performance groupsComparison between performance groupsComparison between performance groupsComparison between performance groups

42 69

number of customers assigned to a salesperson

number of weekly sales calls

104,21

28,29

38 00

137,19

42,69

% of the sales force that holds a college/university degree or more (e.g. MBA)

age of the sales force

41,72

38,98

21 77

44,98

38,00

number of salespeople who were assigned to a field sales supervisor

% of the sales force that is female

7,05

21,08

3 05

8,14

21,77



number of salespeople who were terminated

number of salespeople who voluntarily left

5,53

2,07

8 83

5,91

3,05

number of salespeople employed

number of new salespeople hired

49,85

4,09

74,71

8,83

50

0,00 20,00 40,00 60,00 80,00 100,00 120,00 140,00

Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences (at least at α = 5%) found between groups are based on T-test and are indicated by a red circle


Sales compensation practicesSales compensation practices

51


Compensation practices across countriesCompensation practices across countries(i l l it )(i l l it )(in local currency units)(in local currency units)

Average…

Countriesgross

monthly salary

gross monthly bonuses

gross monthly commission

gross monthly fringe

benefits

total gross monthly

compensation

total gross annual

compensation

Australia (Dollars) NA NA NA NA NA NA

i ( ) 3 6 29 8 2 86 33 280 00 3 30 0 66 00Austria (Euros) 3.164,29 842,86 533,75 280,00 3.730,50 44.766,00

Chile (Pesos) 869.941,67 329.537,50 574.512,94 106.691,18 1.675.067,80 20.100.813,56

Finland (Euros) 3.344,74 676,92 872,73 420,67 5.351,25 64.215,00

France (Euros) 2.833,53 739,91 839,75 274,88 4.163,25 49.959,00

G (E ) 4 144 61 1 114 91 1 043 94 495 33 4 950 00 59 400 00Germany (Euros) 4.144,61 1.114,91 1.043,94 495,33 4.950,00 59.400,00

Greece (Euros) 1.551,66 622,44 211,96 220,67 2.323,19 27.878,32

India (Rupees) 89.600,00 29.600,00 20.200,00 7.625,00 106.875,00 1.282.500,00

Italy (Euros) 2.546,24 313,10 1.864,53 370,31 4.366,39 52.396,65

P l d (Zl ti ) 11 905 26 2 188 89 7 082 35 977 06 17 189 29 206 271 43Poland (Zloties) 11.905,26 2.188,89 7.082,35 977,06 17.189,29 206.271,43

UK (Pounds) 3.051,21 498,69 280,27 502,85 4.112,00 49.344,00

US (Dollars) 4.254,64 1.104,37 5.284,83 1.333,69 11.584,83 139.017,92

Executives can use these figures to benchmark their compensationpractices in their respective country

52

Mean values are shown; Compensation across countries is not directly comparable since remuneration is measured in local currency units. They should only be interpreted within the realms of a given country.


Gross monthly salary (PPPGross monthly salary (PPP--adjusted)adjusted)Gross monthly salary (PPPGross monthly salary (PPP adjusted)adjusted)

SSSS

53

Mean values are shown; Compensation is converted to international dollars using IMF/WB PPP index 2010; Australia is excluded from this analysis due to very low number of cases; Statistically significant differences were found among countries based on Kruskal Wallis test


Gross monthly bonuses (PPPGross monthly bonuses (PPP--adjusted)adjusted)Gross monthly bonuses (PPPGross monthly bonuses (PPP adjusted)adjusted)

SSSS

54



Gross monthly commission (PPPGross monthly commission (PPP--adjusted)adjusted)Gross monthly commission (PPPGross monthly commission (PPP adjusted)adjusted)

SS

55



Gross monthly fringe benefits (PPPGross monthly fringe benefits (PPP--adjusted)adjusted)Gross monthly fringe benefits (PPPGross monthly fringe benefits (PPP adjusted)adjusted)

SS

56



Total gross monthly compensation (PPPTotal gross monthly compensation (PPP--adjusted)adjusted)Total gross monthly compensation (PPPTotal gross monthly compensation (PPP adjusted)adjusted)

SS

57



Gross monthly salary (PPPGross monthly salary (PPP--adjusted)adjusted)Gross monthly salary (PPPGross monthly salary (PPP adjusted)adjusted)

SS

58

Mean values are shown; Compensation is converted to international dollars using IMF/WB PPP index 2010; Statistically significant differences were found among sectors based on Kruskal Wallis test


Gross monthly bonuses (PPPGross monthly bonuses (PPP--adjusted)adjusted)Gross monthly bonuses (PPPGross monthly bonuses (PPP adjusted)adjusted)

SS

59



Gross monthly commission (PPPGross monthly commission (PPP--adjusted)adjusted)Gross monthly commission (PPPGross monthly commission (PPP adjusted)adjusted)

NS

60

Mean values are shown; Compensation is converted to international dollars using IMF/WB PPP index 2010; Statistically significant differences were not found among sectors based on Kruskal Wallis test


Gross monthly fringe benefits (PPPGross monthly fringe benefits (PPP--adjusted)adjusted)Gross monthly fringe benefits (PPPGross monthly fringe benefits (PPP adjusted)adjusted)

NS

61

Mean values are shown; Compensation is converted to international dollars using IMF/WB PPP index 2010; Statistically significant differences were not found among sectors based on Kruskal Wallis test


Total gross monthly compensation (PPPTotal gross monthly compensation (PPP--adjusted)adjusted)Total gross monthly compensation (PPPTotal gross monthly compensation (PPP adjusted)adjusted)

SS

62



Compensation practices across performance groups Compensation practices across performance groups (PPP(PPP dj t d)dj t d)(PPP(PPP--adjusted)adjusted)

63Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences between company groups are indicated by a red arrow


S l lS l lSales goalsSales goals

64


How did the sales goals (in monetary value) assigned to your How did the sales goals (in monetary value) assigned to your How did the sales goals (in monetary value) assigned to your How did the sales goals (in monetary value) assigned to your sales force for 2010 change as compared to 2009?sales force for 2010 change as compared to 2009?

65


What is the average % change in sales goals (in monetary What is the average % change in sales goals (in monetary What is the average % change in sales goals (in monetary What is the average % change in sales goals (in monetary value) between 2009 and 2010?value) between 2009 and 2010?

66


Sales goals have increased by ... %Sales goals have increased by ... %

SS

67

Mean values are shown; Australia is excluded from this analysis due to very low number of cases; statistically significant differences were found across countries based on Kruskal Wallis test


Sales goals have decreased by ... %Sales goals have decreased by ... %

NS

68

Mean values are shown; Australia is excluded from this analysis due to very low number of cases; no statistically significant differences were found among countries based on Kruskal Wallis test


Sales goals have increased by ... %Sales goals have increased by ... %

NS

69

Mean values are shown; differences across sectors were not found to be statistically significant based on Kruskal Wallis test


Sales goals have decreased by ... %Sales goals have decreased by ... %

NS

70

Mean values are shown; differences across sectors were not found to be statistically significant based on Kruskal Wallis test


How did the sales goals (in monetary value) assigned to your How did the sales goals (in monetary value) assigned to your How did the sales goals (in monetary value) assigned to your How did the sales goals (in monetary value) assigned to your sales force for 2010 change as compared to 2009?sales force for 2010 change as compared to 2009?

SS

71

Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences were found between groups of companies based on Mann Whitney U test


% of companies’ salespeople having attained their sales % of companies’ salespeople having attained their sales l i 2010l i 2010goals in 2010goals in 2010

On average across countries, 63% of company salespeople g , p y p phave attained their sales goals in 2010.

72



SS

Mean values are shown; Australia is excluded from this analysis due to low number of cases; Statistically significant differences were found among countries based on Kruskal Wallis test (Chi‐square: 40,818; Asymp. Sign.: 0,000) 73



SS

74

Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences were found among sectors based on Kruskal Wallis test (Chi‐square: 49,76; Asymp. Sign.: 0,000)



12,9% difference

SS

,

Globalbenchmark!benchmark!

75

Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences were found between groups of companies sectors based on Mann Whitney U test (Mann Whitney U : 30.079,00; Asymp. Sign.: 0,00)


Sales Sales expenses budgetexpenses budget

76


Total sales expenses as a ratio of total sales revenues in Total sales expenses as a ratio of total sales revenues in 2010201020102010

hOn average across countries, the ratio is 18%.

77


Total sales expenses as a ratio of total sales revenues in 2010Total sales expenses as a ratio of total sales revenues in 2010Total sales expenses as a ratio of total sales revenues in 2010Total sales expenses as a ratio of total sales revenues in 2010

SS

78

Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences were found among countries based on Kruskal Wallis test; Australia is excluded from this analysis due to low number of cases



SS

79

Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences were found among sectors based on Kruskal Wallis test; Data for the real estate sector were not available



3,8% difference

SS

,

GlobalGlobalbenchmark!

80


Compared to 2009 sales expenses budget, how has 2010 Compared to 2009 sales expenses budget, how has 2010 sales expenses budget changed in your business sales expenses budget changed in your business

unit/company?unit/company?

81


Average % of change in 2010 sales expenses budget Average % of change in 2010 sales expenses budget Average % of change in 2010 sales expenses budget Average % of change in 2010 sales expenses budget compared to 2009 sales expenses budgetcompared to 2009 sales expenses budget

82


2010 sales expenses budget has 2010 sales expenses budget has increasedincreased compared to 2009 compared to 2009 2010 sales expenses budget has 2010 sales expenses budget has increasedincreased compared to 2009 compared to 2009 sales expenses budget by…sales expenses budget by…

NS

83

Statistically significant differences were not found among countries based on Kruskal Wallis test; Australia is excluded from this analysis due to very low number of cases


2010 sales expenses budget has 2010 sales expenses budget has decreaseddecreased compared to compared to 2010 sales expenses budget has 2010 sales expenses budget has decreaseddecreased compared to compared to 2009 sales expenses budget by…2009 sales expenses budget by…

NS

84

Statistically significant differences were not found among countries based on Kruskal Wallis test; Australia is excluded from this analysis due to very low number of cases


2010 sales expenses budget has 2010 sales expenses budget has increasedincreased compared to 2009 compared to 2009 l b d t bl b d t bsales expenses budget by…sales expenses budget by…

NS

85

Mean values are shown; No statistically significant differences were found among sectors based on Kruskal Wallis test; Data for the real estate sector were not available


2010 sales expenses budget has 2010 sales expenses budget has decreaseddecreased compared to compared to 2009 l b d t b2009 l b d t b2009 sales expenses budget by…2009 sales expenses budget by…

SS

86

Mean values are shown; No statistically significant differences were found among sectors based on Kruskal Wallis test; Data for the real estate, mining/quarrying, and accommodation/food service activities sectors were not available


2010 sales expenses budget has increased/decreased 2010 sales expenses budget has increased/decreased d t 2009 l b d t bd t 2009 l b d t bcompared to 2009 sales expenses budget by…compared to 2009 sales expenses budget by…

SS

87

Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences were found between performance groups based on Mann Whitney U test


C t t tC t t tCustomer strategyCustomer strategy

88


% of selling effort that is allocated to the following activities % of selling effort that is allocated to the following activities % of selling effort that is allocated to the following activities % of selling effort that is allocated to the following activities for 2010for 2010

89


% of selling effort that is allocated to acquiring new % of selling effort that is allocated to acquiring new % of selling effort that is allocated to acquiring new % of selling effort that is allocated to acquiring new customerscustomers

SSSS

90



% of selling effort that is allocated to retaining and growing % of selling effort that is allocated to retaining and growing % of selling effort that is allocated to retaining and growing % of selling effort that is allocated to retaining and growing current customerscurrent customers

SS

91



% of selling effort that is allocated to winning back lost % of selling effort that is allocated to winning back lost % of selling effort that is allocated to winning back lost % of selling effort that is allocated to winning back lost customerscustomers

SS

92



% of selling effort that is allocated to acquiring new % of selling effort that is allocated to acquiring new % of selling effort that is allocated to acquiring new % of selling effort that is allocated to acquiring new customerscustomers

SS

93Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences were found among sectors based on Kruskal Wallis test;


% of selling effort that is allocated to retaining and growing % of selling effort that is allocated to retaining and growing % of selling effort that is allocated to retaining and growing % of selling effort that is allocated to retaining and growing current customerscurrent customers

SS

94Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences were found among sectors based on Kruskal Wallis test;


% of selling effort that is allocated to winning back lost % of selling effort that is allocated to winning back lost % of selling effort that is allocated to winning back lost % of selling effort that is allocated to winning back lost customerscustomers

NS

95Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences were not found among sectors based on Kruskal Wallis test;


% of selling effort that is allocated to the following activities % of selling effort that is allocated to the following activities f 2010f 2010for 2010for 2010

NS

96Mean values are shown; No statistically significant differences were found between groups of companies based on Mann Whitney U test


S l h lS l h lSales channelsSales channels

97


Number of sales channels utilizedNumber of sales channels utilizedNumber of sales channels utilizedNumber of sales channels utilized

More effective companies employ more sales channels to go to markets compared to low performing companies

98



SS

99




NS

100

Mean values are shown; No statistically significant differences were found among sectors based on Kruskal Wallis test;


% of 2010 sales contributed by sales channel% of 2010 sales contributed by sales channel% of 2010 sales contributed by sales channel% of 2010 sales contributed by sales channel

101


% of 2010 sales contributed by company% of 2010 sales contributed by company--owned field sales owned field sales ffforceforce

SS

102



% of 2010 sales contributed by manufacturing % of 2010 sales contributed by manufacturing /d l /b k / t/d l /b k / treps/dealers/brokers/agentsreps/dealers/brokers/agents

SS

103



% of 2010 sales contributed by call centers% of 2010 sales contributed by call centers% of 2010 sales contributed by call centers% of 2010 sales contributed by call centers

SS

104



% of 2010 sales contributed by direct marketing% of 2010 sales contributed by direct marketing% of 2010 sales contributed by direct marketing% of 2010 sales contributed by direct marketing

SS

105



% of 2010 sales contributed by e% of 2010 sales contributed by e--commercecommerce% of 2010 sales contributed by e% of 2010 sales contributed by e commercecommerce

SS

106



% of 2010 sales contributed by mobile commerce% of 2010 sales contributed by mobile commerce% of 2010 sales contributed by mobile commerce% of 2010 sales contributed by mobile commerce

SS

107



% of 2010 sales contributed by company% of 2010 sales contributed by company--owned field sales owned field sales ffforceforce

SS

108

Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences were found among sectors based on Kruskal Wallis test;


% of 2010 sales contributed by manufacturing % of 2010 sales contributed by manufacturing /d l /b k / t/d l /b k / treps/dealers/brokers/agentsreps/dealers/brokers/agents

SS

109



% of 2010 sales contributed by call centers% of 2010 sales contributed by call centers% of 2010 sales contributed by call centers% of 2010 sales contributed by call centers

SS

110



% of 2010 sales contributed by direct marketing% of 2010 sales contributed by direct marketing% of 2010 sales contributed by direct marketing% of 2010 sales contributed by direct marketing

SS

111



% of 2010 sales contributed by e% of 2010 sales contributed by e--commercecommerce% of 2010 sales contributed by e% of 2010 sales contributed by e commercecommerce

SS

112



% of 2010 sales contributed by mobile commerce% of 2010 sales contributed by mobile commerce% of 2010 sales contributed by mobile commerce% of 2010 sales contributed by mobile commerce

SS

113



% of 2010 sales contributed by sales channel% of 2010 sales contributed by sales channel% of 2010 sales contributed by sales channel% of 2010 sales contributed by sales channel

SS

114

Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences were found between the two performance groups based on Mann Whitney test


C t tf li iC t tf li iCustomer portfolio mixCustomer portfolio mix

115


% of sales attributed to different customer types% of sales attributed to different customer types% of sales attributed to different customer types% of sales attributed to different customer types

116


% of sales attributed to different customer types% of sales attributed to different customer types% of sales attributed to different customer types% of sales attributed to different customer types

SSSS

117

Mean values are shown; Statistically significant differences were found between performance groups based on Mann Whitney U test


THANK YOUTHANK YOU

Contact me at Contact me at [email protected]@aueb.gr

118

n. panagopoulos, phd a.la.r.m. – aueb ... -...

Documents