dreamforce 2013 lead response report - insidesales.comstatic.insidesales.com/assets/pdf/dreamforce...

Accelerated Sales Performance

November 15, 2013

InsideSales.com Research DivisionPerformed by James W. Phillips

Dreamforce 2013Lead Response Report

$495

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om

Copyright © InsideSales.com 2013

2

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning,

or otherwise, except as permitted under section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of InsideSales.com. Requests for permission should be addressed to the Legal Department, InsideSales.com, 34 East 1700

South, Suite A113, Provo, Utah 84606.

© 2013 InsideSales.com

All rights reserved, including the right of reproduction in whole or in part or in any form.

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om

DREAMFORCE 2013 LEAD RESPONSE REPORT

3


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents .................................................................................... 3

Table of Charts ........................................................................................ 4

About the Research Team ....................................................................... 5

Lead Roles .......................................................................................... 5

Supporting Roles................................................................................. 6

Research Overview ................................................................................. 7

Optimal Lead Response Management..................................................... 7

Dreamforce ............................................................................................. 8

Methodology ............................................................................................ 9

ResponseAudit Technology ................................................................ 9

The ResponseAudit Process ............................................................... 9

Dreamforce Sample ............................................................................ 9

Results .................................................................................................. 10

Immediacy......................................................................................... 10

Persistency ....................................................................................... 11

Response Types ............................................................................... 12

Tradeshow Comparisons .................................................................. 15

Action Items........................................................................................... 17

Lead Response ................................................................................. 17

Companies Need to Be More Persistent ........................................... 18

Content Presentation ........................................................................ 18

Initiate Contact With a Phone Call ..................................................... 18

Conclusion ............................................................................................ 18

About InsideSales.com .......................................................................... 19

Works Cited ........................................................................................... 20

Appendix A – Top 20 Fastest Callers.................................................... 21

Appendix B – Fast Phone Response .................................................... 22

Appendix C – Top 20 Most Persistent.................................................... 28

Appendix D – More Persistent than Average ......................................... 29

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


4


TABLE OF CHARTS

Figure 1 First Call Response Times ....................................................... 10

Figure 2 Number of Overall Attempts .................................................... 11

Figure 3 Number of Phone Attempts ..................................................... 12

Figure 4 First Response Medium ........................................................... 13

Figure 5 Total Response Medium .......................................................... 14

Figure 6 Response Medium Progression ............................................... 15

Figure 7 Median First Phone Response Time by Tradeshow ................. 16

Figure 8 Number of Attempts by Tradeshow.......................................... 17

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


5


ABOUT THE RESEARCH TEAM

LEAD ROLES

James W. Phillips, Lead Researcher

James W. Phillips joined InsideSales.com in April 2013 as a Business Intelligence Analyst. In this role he is responsible for conducting research on company and industry level questions and to promote InsideSales.com’s position of innovation and leadership. Prior to InsideSales.com, James was a PhD student at Rice University where he conducted and published his own original research. Prior to his doctoral studies, he received his MS at Brigham Young University where he taught research methods undergraduate coursework and received several student awards as well as grant fundings.

David Elkington, CEO and Co-Founder of InsideSales.com

David Elkington has a rich background in technology, venture capital and corporate development. As CEO and Chairman, he has led InsideSales.com to consecutive 50-100% year-over-year growth rates, starting with the company’s inception in 2004. David has been active in the evolution and definition of the inside sales industry and speaks regularly. He is co-author of the groundbreaking Lead Response Management industry study, done in conjunction with James Oldroyd, Ph.D (visiting Research Fellow at M.I.T.). David has co-authored articles that have appeared in Harvard Business Review, Kellogg School of Management, Forbes, and other academic and industry publications. He is recognized both locally and nationally as a leader and entrepreneur in the cloud computing and inside sales/remote selling spaces.

Prior to InsideSales.com, David co-founded Integr8ted Technology Solutions, LLC, a leading e-business consulting and application development firm. Before Integr8ted, he co-founded and served as Director of Business Development for Everfill, Inc., an e-Health distribution company, until the sale of the company. Prior to his entrepreneur years, David worked as a financial analyst for the investment bank firm of Deutsche Bank Alex Brown, in their Baltimore, MD, office. David has also held positions with Merrill Lynch and MiraQuest Capital (a healthcare technology venture capital firm).

David serves on the board of ProvoTechX, on the advisory board of the American Association of Inside Sales Professionals (AA-ISP), and on the BYU CVLC advisory council. He has a background in computer science and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Philosophy from Brigham Young University, with minors in Business, Japanese, and Hebrew.

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


6


Ken Krogue, President and Co-Founder of InsideSales.com Kenneth Krogue co-founded InsideSales.com in November 2004, where he currently leads the marketing, business development, consulting, education, implementation, and support departments. In this role, he is responsible for working with the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer to set the vision and strategy for the company, as well as overseeing all day-to-day sales and marketing operations. Ken brings more than 24 years of experience in sales, development, and marketing in both domestic and international markets.

Prior to joining InsideSales.com, Ken was one of the original founders of UCN, now inContact (NASDAQ:SAAS), where he held a number of positions including Chief Operating Officer. Prior to inContact, he built and directed the inside sales division at FranklinCovey (NYSE:FC), a leading provider of time and life management training systems. Ken has received many industry awards including being recognized among the Top 25 Most Influential Inside Sales Professionals in 2010 and 2012 by the American Association of Inside Sales Professionals (AA-ISP).

Ken is a weekly contributor to Forbes.com and an active thought leader in the inside sales industry. His personal blog is the top ranked blog in the world on the topic of inside sales. Ken speaks to audiences about twenty times a year around the country. He founded and served from 2010 to 2011 as the President of the Salt Lake City Chapter of AA-ISP. Ken attended the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, and earned a BS in Psychology from the University of Utah.

SUPPORTING ROLES

William Krohn, Business Intelligence Manager

Megan Strong, Business Intelligence Analyst, Team Lead

Anthony Berrett, Business Intelligence Analyst

Ben Warner, Business Intelligence Analyst

Ashley Biesiada, Business Intelligence Intern

Andrew Oldroyd, Business Intelligence Intern

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


7


RESEARCH PAPER


RESEARCH OVERVIEW

Attendees of the 2013 Dreamforce Conference in San Francisco, CA were tested for how quickly and persistently they responded to Web-based leads. Previous business research links immediacy and persistency of lead follow-up with positive sales outcomes. All participating firms can benefit from the identification and application of these results. This report describes the trends of all conference participants and highlights the top performing companies. As a result, this report also helps companies recognize areas of weakness and improve their lead management.

OPTIMAL LEAD RESPONSE MANAGEMENT

Response time and persistency greatly impact lead qualification and progress into the sales pipeline. Response time refers to the period between when an electronic lead has been submitted and when first contact is attempted by a sales rep. Persistency refers to how many times a company attempts to contact a new lead.There are two types of contact methods this study tracks: email contact and call attempts made by a member of the sales team.

In 2007, Dr. James Oldroyd published the Lead Response Management Study, which shows that sales agents do not have much time to respond before their leads become “cold.” In fact, the odds of contacting a lead after it is submitted and having it enter the sales cycle are 100 times greater when contacted within 5 minutes versus 30 minutes after the lead was submitted. Similarly, the odds of the lead entering the sales process, or becoming qualified, are 21 times greater when contacted within 5 minutes versus 30 minutes after the lead was submitted (Oldroyd, 2007).

In the March 2011 issue of the Harvard Business Review (HBR) an article entitled “The Short Life of Online Sales Leads” reported that companies are spending more on Internet leads, but their systems and processes are not keeping up. Between 2005 and 2009, the amount companies spent on Internet-generated leads increased 82%. However, of companies audited

http://www.insidesales.com/research

http://www.insidesales.com/research

http://hbr.org/2011/03/the-short-life-of-online-sales-leads/ar/1

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


8


in the study referenced in HBR, only 37% responded within an hour, and almost a quarter—24%—took over 24 hours to respond. The average first response time of companies that responded within a month was 42 hours (McElheran, 2011).

In May 2012, Forbes.com came out with an article about lead response time entitled “When it Comes to Inbound Marketing Time is Definitely of the Essence.” The article discusses how companies are essentially wasting money on poor lead management. B2B companies spend an estimated $30 to $200 on each marketing lead generated, and B2C companies spend an estimated $2 to $25 per generated lead. Company executives likely do not realize the money they are losing by taking too long to attempt first call contact or by never attempting to contact a new lead (Olenski, 2012).

The speed at which a company responds to a lead is not the only factor that matters; the day and time of response also have an effect on the odds of contacting a lead. An article in Inc magazine, published in July 2011 entitled “How to Best Harness Inbound Marketing Leads,” mentions that for a group of 42 companies, Wednesdays and Thursdays between the hours of 4 pm and 6 pm are the best times to contact a lead (Markowitz, 2011).

Another factor in successfully contacting leads is persistency. Based on ResponseAudit research conducted by InsideSales.com, across 7,960 companies between the years 2008 and 2012, sales reps make, on average, only 1.3 call attempts to a new lead before giving up. Ken Krogue, president and co-founder of InsideSales.com, has blogged and spoken on this topic and on how to improve this metric, among others, at a number of events such as the Sales 2.0 and AA-ISP conventions (Krogue, 2012). He advocates making 8-12 calls in order to dramatically improve contact rates. Companies will likely increase the number of leads moving down their sales pipeline by being more persistent in contacting them.

DREAMFORCE

The Dreamforce Convention, organized by salesforce.com, is a tradeshow held each year in San Francisco, California. This event provides those affiliated with the sales industry, or otherwise affiliated with salesforce.com the opportunity to attend trainings, network with one another, and to learn of recent product developments.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/05/22/when-it-comes-to-inbound-marketing-time-is-definitely-of-the-essence/2/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/05/22/when-it-comes-to-inbound-marketing-time-is-definitely-of-the-essence/2/

http://www.inc.com/guides/201107/how-to-best-harness-inbound-marketing-leads.html

http://www.kenkrogue.com/best-practices/inside-sales-best-practices-7-ways-in-increase-contact-ratios/

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


9


METHODOLOGY

RESPONSEAUDIT TECHNOLOGY

The patent-pending ResponseAudit technology from InsideSales.com was used to conduct this research. The process begins with a “secret shopper” who creates an alias name, email, phone number, and company website. Next, this “shopper” visits a website, locates a Web form, fills it out using the alias information, and submits it. As the company responds to the lead, the ResponseAudit system then records all call attempts, email messages, and timestamps for when each response is received during the following two-week period.

THE LEAD RESPONSE PROCESS

Audits are only performed during the standard business hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (accounting for time zones), allowing companies to have the best chance at responding quickly. At the end of the process, a report is compiled for each company, complete with a list of response types (for call attempts and emails), counts, response times, and summary statistics. The ResponseAudit system automatically tracks all responses to the Web lead.

DREAMFORCE SAMPLE

For this report, we audited attendees of the 2011 or 2012 Dreamforce conference events, as well as publicized sponsors of the 2013 event. Each company’s website was searched for a Web form, and if found, audited using the process described above.The attendance of these companies to the Dreamforce event is indicative of their interest in sales management processes, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that these companies would benefit from research on response time and persistency of their Web form leads.

The results of this study include 5257 companies included in analysis. Of the 5257, 1811 (or 34%) were eliminated from further reporting because they did not have a website which contained a functioning Web form. The remaining 3446 companies received a Web form submission successfully, and comprise the remainder of analysis. Of these 3446 companies, 1368 (or 40%) did not respond to the lead we submitted.

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


10


RESULTS

IMMEDIACY

Immediacy refers to how quickly companies make their first contact attempt. Since many companies can set an automatic email reply within seconds of receiving a Web lead, the first attempt by email is less telling of response immediacy. Rather, the first attempt by phone is more revealing of contact immediacy, which we focus on here.

As previously described, if a company attempts phone contact within 5 minutes after lead submission, the odds that the lead is contacted are 100 times greater than if it is contacted 30 minutes after submission. In this Dreamforce 2013 audit, we found that the median first call response time of all companies that responded by phone was 4 hours and 8 minutes. The average for the same group was 40 hours and 56 minutes. In this case, the median is more informative than the average because outlying response times pull the average time much higher. The median, on the other hand, shows the time in which half of companies responded faster. Thus, about half of companies that responded by phone are responding in about 4 hours, as shown by Figure 1.

First Call Response Times

© InsideSales.com 2013

Figure 1 First Call Response Times

68

288

162 148170

70

0

232

146

408

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0-5 min 5-30min

30-60min

1-2 hrs 2-4 hrs 4-8 hrs 8-12hrs

12-24hrs

24-48hrs

Over 48hrs

Nu

mb

er o

f C

om

pan

ies

Response Times

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


11


OVERALL PERSISTENCY

As previously explained, persistency refers to how many times a company attempts to contact a lead. Figure 2 illustrates the persistency of companies. Of the 3446 companies that received a Web lead, we noticed that 1368, or 40%, did not respond. The most common number of attempts was 0, and the second most common was 1.

Number of Overall Attempts


Figure 2 Number of Attempts

1368

925

507

724

13579

214

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0 1 2 3 4 5 >5

Nu

mb

er o

f C

om

pan

ies

Number of Overall Attempts

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


12


PHONE PERSISTENCY

Of the 3446 companies that received a Web lead, we noticed that 847 (or 25%) responded by phone at least once. Of these companies, the average number of phone responses is 2.53. Figure 3 represents the persistency of companies who respond through phone attempts. The most common number of phone attempts among those who did respond through phone, was one, with 307 companies.

Number of Phone Attempts


Figure 3 Number of Attempts

307

256

130

64

30

60

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 2 3 4 5 >5

Nu

mb

er o

f C

om

pan

ies

Number of Phone Attempts

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


13


RESPONSE TYPES

Companies are able to respond through email or phone in following up on their Web leads. Of those that respond by phone, many also leave a voicemail, which we also tracked. Regarding first response, email is the primary method that companies use to respond to leads. Figure 4 shows that 75% of companies make their initial response through email.

After the first attempt, the response medium changes considerably. Figure 5 displays the overall response media used across all responses. Email still remains the primary contact method, which comprises 65% of all responses. The remaining 35% used phone calls to respond. Overall, 23% of the responses called and left a voicemail, and 12% called and did not leave a voicemail.

First Response Medium


Figure 4 First Response Medium

4%

75%

21%

Call

Email

Voicemail

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


14


These data display a strong indication that sales reps use email for most of their Web lead responses, especially for the first response to the lead. Although email is easier, cheaper, and less intrusive, it is less effective because it does not involve live interaction with the lead in a timely manner. In noticing that the amount of responses by email decreases after the first response attempt, we can conclude that reps are using phone interaction later in the sales process as opposed to earlier. Figure 6 shows the percentage that each contact medium was used for each contact attempt number, which helps depict which response medium was used, and at what time during the lead response process.

Total Response Medium


Figure 5 Total Response Medium

12%

65%

23%

Call

Email

Voicemail

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


15


Overall, the trend is that later contact attempts tend to involve more phone calls. This finding means that companies like to make their initial contacts through email, or that companies that rely more on email make fewer contact attempts.

TRADESHOW COMPARISONS

Although the Dreamforce tradeshow is one of the largest events for the inside sales profession, comparing other tradeshows with a similar focus on inside sales offers additional insights into lead response management. Over several years, InsideSales.com has conducted a number of similar reports of Web lead responses for a host of other tradeshow events. Figure 7 displays the median first phone response time for each of the tradeshows we have examined recently. Additionally, we examined the Fortune 500 companies.

Response Medium Progression


Figure 6 Response Medium Progression

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

Perc

ent

Met

ho

d U

sed

Attempt Number

Email Voicemail Call

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


16


These comparisons allow companies who attend one or several of these events to gauge their standing in comparison to industry peers. For those who attend Dreamforce, it is important to understand that a median first phone response time of about 4 hours is the middle-of-the-pack first phone response time. Companies should strive for quicker responses than their peers in order to gain a competitive advantage. It should be noted that an improvement occurred in the aggregate response time between Dreamforce 2012 and Dreamforce 2013. Although a 6 minute improvement in median first phone response time might seem trivial, it is important to consider that these events involve thousands of companies, across dozens of industries. This improvement is one indication that lead response management research is being implemented successfully as a whole, which is a benefit to these company’s business success, as well as to the consumers who are attempting to engage in business.

Additionally, it is important to compare the response attempts overall across each of these groups. Figure 8 displays the percentage of companies who responded at least once to their lead.

Median First Phone Response Time by Tradeshow


Figure 7 Median First Phone Response Time by Tradeshow

4:08:28 4:14:00

2:14:37

25:31:00

16:06:37

1:07:20

0:00

3:00

6:00

9:00

12:00

15:00

18:00

21:00

24:00

27:00

Dreamforce2013

Dreamforce2012

Cloudforce2012

2012Fortune 500

AA-ISP 2012 LeadsCon2013

Ho

urs

:Min

ute

s

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


17


From Figure 8 we learn that a consistent trend occurs where 49-65% of Web leads receive at least one response. This is somewhat surprising because it suggests that 35-51% of leads—consistently across these groups and consistently over time—do not receive a response. Regarding the Dreamforce tradeshow, we notice an inconsistent response to Web leads. In 2011, only 49% of leads received a response. This number increased to 65% in 2012, but then declined slightly for 2013 to 60%. Overall, a slight decline in overall responsiveness occurred comparing 2013 to 2012 for Dreamforce attendees. udies—Persistency

ACTION ITEMS

LEAD RESPONSE

As previously mentioned, rapid response to a lead is necessary for effective lead management. It is likely that companies are lose money by not responding quickly to their Web leads. Those companies which invest money into marketing efforts to generate Web traffic, and ultimately, Web leads, should also be aware that the returns on that investment depend highly on their responsiveness. Businesses that respond quickly to leads

At least 1 Response Attempt Percentage


Figure 8Cloudforce Other Studies—Response Time

60%65%

49%

56%

64% 64%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Dreamforce2013

Dreamforce2012

Dreamforce2011

Cloudforce2012

2012Fortune 500

AA-ISP 2012 LeadsCon2013

Per

cen

t o

f C

om

pan

ies

wit

h 1

Res

po

nse

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


18


before they go “cold” will increase contact and qualification rates, and therefore increase the number of leads coming into their sales pipelines.

COMPANIES NEED TO BE MORE PERSISTENT

Persistency is also important to successful lead management, and therefore, the successful sales pipeline. About 40% of leads we submitted did not receive a response, and most others received only one response. The Dreamforce 2013 attendees would benefit from additional persistency and quicker immediacy as these items are directly related to successful business outcomes.

CONTENT PRESENTATION

Many companies who do engage in successful lead management and phone response can improve in content of the follow up phone calls as well. Often, we receive voicemails with reps who do not identify themselves other than first name. Others do not speak slowly while presenting their information as well. Elsewhere, InsideSales.com research describes call criteria which is most associated with successful business outcomes, which we encourage inside sales personnel to engage with further.

INITIATE CONTACT WITH A PHONE CALL

The data from Figure 3 shows that too many companies are trying to initiate contact with their leads through email. The phone is the best tool for this because it is much more assertive and often makes a live interaction with a “hot” lead who has recently expressed interest in a company by completing a Web form entry. Email does not demand immediate attention, and relies upon the lead to generate additional interest to garner a rep’s attention. Once should be enough, if managed timely and effectively. Email is a useful medium to use to respond to leads, but InsideSales.com research describes phone response to be the most successful.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that companies need to respond more quickly and more persistently to Web leads. These general results can be useful for all companies that respond to Web leads. Further areas of investigation shall examine why companies do not respond to leads and how much money companies can gain by contacting faster. As the information about lead management grows, companies should emphasize

http://www.insidesales.com/resources

http://www.insidesales.com/resources

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


19


utilizing this knowledge to improve their processes and increase their profitability.

ABOUT INSIDESALES.COM

InsideSales.com accelerates efficient lead response management and qualification. While many companies offer some improvement to some steps of the sales sequence, InsideSales.com aims to streamline and accelerate all processes pertinent to sales by addressing addresses the following:

1. Communication. Through software and dialing solutions, InsideSales.com allows reps to communicate most effectively through the sales sequence.

2. Gamification. Using a fun, interactive system of displaying work metrics, Insidesales.com technology helps address the human needs of the sales reps through a gamified work metric platform.

3. Predictive Analytics. Through analysis of millions of anonymized sales transactions, InsideSales.com now provides intelligent predictions of sales outcomes. In other words, the next lead is no longer random, rather, it is based on research most associated with successful business.

4. Data Visualization. Soon to be released technology will allow real-time data visualization in a user-friendly, 3D visualization which allows reps and managers to measure activity and intensify the sales process.

ResponseAudit is a unique service offered by InsideSales.com for analyzing a sales team's response time and persistence to an Internet-generated lead. To learn more, visit www.InsideSales.com.

http://www.insidesales.com/lead_response



http://www.responseaudit.com/

http://www.insidesales.com/

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


20


WORKS CITED

Kristina McElheran, J. O. (2011, March). The Short Life of Online Sales

Leads. Harvard Business Review, p. 28.

Krogue, K. (2012, February 23). Inside Sales Best Practices: 7 Ways to

Increase Contact Ratios. Retrieved from www.kenkrogue.com:

http://www.kenkrogue.com/best-practices/inside-sales-best-

practices-7-ways-in-increase-contact-ratios/

Markowitz, E. (2011, July 6). How to Best Harness Inbound Marketing

Leads. Retrieved from www.inc.com:

http://www.inc.com/guides/201107/how-to-best-harness-inbound-

marketing-leads.html

Oldroyd, J. (2007, October). Lead Response Management Study - Oct.

2007. Retrieved from Inside Sales Best Practices:

http://www.insidesales.com/images/LRM_07.pdf

Olenski, S. (2012, May 5). When It Comes To Inbound Marketing Time is

Definitely Of The Essence. Retrieved from www.forbes.com:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/marketshare/2012/05/22/when-it-

comes-to-inbound-marketing-time-is-definitely-of-the-essence/2/

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


21


APPENDIX A – TOP 20 FASTEST CALLERS

The following list gives the ranks, names, and times of the top 20 fastest responding companies by phone.

Rank Company Name Time

1 Adapx Inc 0:00:29

2 MIR3 Inc 0:00:30

3 Responsys Inc 0:00:45

4 i2i Systems 0:01:02

5 Sun Microsystems 0:01:32

6 UnityWorks Media 0:01:34

7 DealerFire 0:01:42

8 InMage 0:01:50

9 Didit 0:01:51

10 CPI Security Systems 0:02:00

11 Vindicia 0:02:04

12 CL&D Digital 0:02:10

13 TreeHouse Interactive 0:02:12

14 Advanced Solutions International Inc 0:02:38

15 Paramount Equity Mortgage 0:02:39

16 Demand Metric 0:02:41

17 Novation Capital 0:02:41

18 Redseal Networks 0:02:44

19 Fairway America 0:02:45

20 SilkRoad Technology Inc 0:02:54

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


22


APPENDIX B – FAST PHONE RESPONSE

The following list gives the names of all companies that made their first phone call faster than the median time. For exact times of all companies, please ask personnel from InsideSales.com.

123 Signup

A10 Networks

ABC Appliance Inc

AccuBuild

Active Endpoints ( Cloud Extend )

Activeprime Inc

Act-On Software

Adapx Inc

ADT Security Services Inc

Adtech Global

ADVANCED Motion Controls

Advanced Publishing Corporation

Advanced Solutions International Inc

Afex

Aflac Key Accounts

AirTight Networks

Akamai Technologies Inc

Akken Inc

Aktion Associates

All Traffic Solutions

Alliance Healthcare Services

Allied Vision Technologies

AlliedBarton Security Services

Amadeus Consulting Group Inc

Apac Customer Services Inc

Appfolio Inc

Apttus

Artez Interactive Inc

Ascentis Software Corp

ASI Datamyte

Aspect Software Inc

Astea International Inc

Atex Media Command Inc

Attunity

Audible Inc

JBara Software

JDA Software Group

Jenne Inc

Jitterbit Inc

JobTarget

Jolly Technologies

Juniper Networks

Kaon Interactive

kCura Corp

Kenandy

Kenton Brothers Inc

Kepner Tregoe

Kinetic Growth

Knowlagent

Konsyl

KORR Medical Technologies

Kurtosys

Landstar System

Lansa Inc

Laser Shot Inc

LaunchDM

Lavastorm Analytics

Layered Technologies

LessSoftware

LetterLogic

Leveleleven

Levitate Media

LexisNexis

LifeSize

Linkpoint360

Liquid Motors

LiquidFrameworks

LiveOps Inc

Maintech

Mansa Systems LLC

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


23


AudienceView

Avalara Inc

AvePoint

AWC Incorporated

Axeda Corp

Barracuda Networks

BaseBuilders

Bayer Corp

Benefit Strategies LLC

Berlitz Corp

Bew Global

Bio Rad Labs

Bioness

Birkman

bitHeads

Bizo Inc

BlackLine Systems

Bloomberg LP

Blue Zebra Associates

Bluewolf

Boxwood Technology

Brainshark Inc

Bravo Graphics

Bridgewave Communications

Bridgford Foods Corp

Broadview Networks Holdings

Bunchball

Bungee Loyalty Programs

Burg Translations

Bush Brothers & Company

Cadence Design Systems Inc

Camstar

Catbird Networks

Cattron Group Inc

CCC Information Services Group Inc

Cendyn

Cernium Corp

Channel Advisor

Channel Insight

Charles River Systems Inc

Cipher Cloud

Markit

Maximizer Software

Mazda Motor Co

McElroy Films

Medgate

Medsphere

MetaCommunications

MF Digital

Mimeo Inc

Mindbody

MindTouch

MIR3 Inc

Mobile Iron

Modular Space Corp

Moka5

Monitronics

Motion Computing

Navicure

NeoSystems Corp

NetBase

NetProspex

Network Appliance

Network Hardware Resale LLC

New Breed Inc

New Generation Computing

New West Technologies

Nexidia

Nitech

Noble Systems

novation Capital

Ntirety Technologies Corp

Numerex Corp

NuVue Business Solutions

Oce North America Inc

Oceanwide Inc

Odotech Inc

Okta

Omega World Travel

OneSource Information Services Inc

Onity

Open Text Corp

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


24


CIRCADENCE

Citel Technologies

Citizens Financial Group

CJIS Group

CL&D Digital

Clarizen

ClearSlide

ClickSoftware Inc

Cloud9 Analytics

CloudAmp

CloudCoaching International

Coalfire Systems

Code 42

Comcast Business Class

Comity Designs

Commonwealth Legal

Continental Carbonic Products

Convergys Corp

COPC

Coresense

Cougar Mountain Software

Coupa

Course Trends

CPI Security Systems

Critical Mention

CrunchTime

CUX

CyanGate

Data Domain Inc

Dataflo

Datalogics

Datastax

Datria Systems

DAVID Corp

DealerFire

DealerSocket

Demand Metric

DeviceLock

Didit

Digium

DiscoverOrg

OpSource

Optimum Lightpath

Opt-Intelligence

Palladium Group Inc

Panopto

Paramount Equity Mortgage

Passage Technology

Passkey

Patrick Henry Inc

Patron Holdings

Paychex Inc

Penn Treaty American Corp

Peoples Bank

PeopleStrategy

Perceptive Software

PFSweb Inc

Pilgrim Software Inc

Pint

Pitt Ohio Express

Plexxi Inc

Point N Time Software

Precisio Business Solutions

Precision Point

Prepared Response Inc

Presagis USA Inc

Presidio Solutions

PrintSF.com

ProEdit

Pyxis Mobile

Q4 Web Systems Inc

QlikView

QPharma

Qualifacts Systems Inc

Qualitech

Qualtrics

Qumu Corporation

RapidAdvance LLC

Redseal Networks

Responsys Inc

Reval

Ricoh Americas Corp

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


25


Diskeeper Corp

Diversified Insurance

DMTI Spatial

DocuSign

DocVerify

Doubledutch

Dow Jones and Company

Druva

Dub Labs (ScanBizCards)

e4e Inc

eBRIDGE Software Inc

eChalk Inc

eClinicalWorks

ecVision

eDocSecure HealthCare Solutions

egain

Elance

Electric Vine

EMA Design Automation

Emeritus Senior Living

Emtec

Endeavors Technologies Inc

Enterprise Rent A Car Co

Enventure GT

EORM Inc

EPAY Systems

Epocrates

Equilar

Esker

eTrigue Corp

Everbridge Inc

Exfo

Experian QAS

Fairway America

FatStax

FFF Enterprises Inc

FierceMarkets

Financial Information Group

FinancialForce.com

Fine Point Technologies

Firespring

Right On Interactive

Robert Good Associates

Saba Software

Sage Software Inc

Sales Performance Inc

Salesforce

SAManage

Scribe Software Corp

Seal Software

SecureWorks Inc

SeeWhy

Sentry Air Systems

Shipwire Inc

Siemens PLM Software

Silicon Graphics International Corp

SilkRoad Technology Inc

Silver Peak

Simplex Grinnell LP

SimuTech Group

Single Point of Contact

SinglePlatform

SmartZip

SmithBucklin Corp

Snowbound Software Corp

Soluble Systems

Solver

Sparksight

SPS Commerce

State Electric Supply Co

Steelwedge Software

Steven Douglas Associates

Strategic Sales Systems Inc

StrikeIron

Subscriber Mail

Summit Brokerage

Sun Microsystems

Suncast Corp

Sunrise Ford North Hollywood

Surety

Synergis

Talent Analytics

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


26


First Banks

Five9

Fortinet Inc

Fortunoff

Freeman Hyundai

Full Circle CRM

FunnelSource

Gaia Power Technologies

Genco

Genesis Consolidated Svcs

Genscape

Genzyme Corp

Get Satisfaction

Global Relay

Global Software

Globanet

Globeranger

Glowpoint

GoodData

Gorman-Rupp Industries

Gosecure Auth

Green Beacon Solutions

Greenline Financial Technologies

Hireability

HireVue

Horizen Health Corp

Host Analytics Inc

Huthwaite Inc

i2i Systems

iContact

ID Systems Inc

iGrafx

iMedica

Infinite Conferencing

Infoblox

InformaticaCloud

Information Builders Inc

InMage

InsightSquared

Interactive Intelligence Inc

InterLegis

TargetX.com LLC

Team Informatics

TechInsights

Techvalidate

Telehouse

Terabeam Wireless

The Event Team

The NPD Group

The Star Tribune Co

Thermo Electron Corp

ThinkProfits

Thrive Networks

Thunderhead

TimeClock Plus

Tippman Industrial Products

TMG Health

TMone

TOA Technologies

ToolsGroup

Totango

Translations.com

TreeHouse Interactive

Trifecta Technologies

TriNet HR Corporation

Trover Solutions Inc

Tumbleweed Communications Corp

TVC Communications

Twistedpair

Unifirst Corp

Unilock

Unishippers Association Inc

United Building Centers

UnityWorks Media

USA Truck Inc

USFI

Utilimaster Corp

Valley National Bank

VectorMAX

Veeam

Velocify

Ventyx

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


27


Intermec Inc

InterNAP Network Ser

Internet Creations

Interplex Industries

Intertrade

Intransa

IPM Technology Consultants

iRise

Isensix

iSolv

IT@Once

iUniverse Inc

J.D. Associates

Viewfinity

Vindicia

Virtual Radiologic Corp

Vitech

Vitrium

ViXS Systems

Vocalcom

Wolf Consulting Services

WorkSmart

Writing Assistance

yourmembership.com

Zero Zone

Zetta

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


28


APPENDIX C – TOP 20 MOST PERSISTENT

The following list gives the top 20 most persistent companies. This list represents number of response attempts.

Rank Company Attempts

1 Paramount Equity Mortgage 61

2 Jobfox 26

3 egain 24

4 Everbridge Inc 23

5 Ascentis Software Corp 21

6 LeadLander 18

7 Pier 1 Imports 18

8 Druva 17

9 Mazda Motor Co 17

10 Avalara Inc 16

11 Astea International Inc 15

12 Elance 15

13 RapidAdvance LLC 15

14 SAManage 15

15 Totango 15

16 Akken Inc 14

17 Enterasys Networks Inc 14

18 Appfolio Inc 13

19 Cipher Cloud 13

20 Digium 13 Persistent

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


29


APPENDIX D – MORE PERSISTENT THAN AVERAGE

The following list names the schools that attempted contact more persistently than average (2.7 attempts). Therefore, this list represents companies who respond 3 times or more.

Absolute Software Accuvant Acquia, Inc. Activeprime Inc Adeptia Inc Aderant Holdings Advanced Publishing Corporation Advanced Solutions International Inc Agilone AirWatch Alfresco Alien Technology Allied Vision Technologies Altia Inc Amadeus Consulting Group Inc AmeriVault Corp Anacomp Inc Appian Corp Appirio Architech Aria Systems Arrowpointe Corp Artez Interactive Inc Attunity Audible Inc AudienceView Aveksa Axosoft LLC Bankers Life and Casualty Company Bankrate Inc Basati Bayer Corp Berlitz Corp Bersin & Associates Bigcommerce Bio Rad Labs Birkman BoardVantage Boxwood Technology

Internet Creations IQ Services Isensix iSolv Ixia JDA Software Group JR Simplot Co Kimberly Clark Corp Koch Membrane Systems Kurtosys Laru Corp Level 3 Communications Levitate Media LiquidFrameworks LoopFuse Marathon Technologies Corp Markit Marsh MasterControl Inc Maxim Integrated Products Inc Maxplore Technologies McLane Co Inc Medgate MediaFrames360 Medialets Medsphere Meridium Inc Merkle MetaCommunications Mindbody Mintel Monitronics Moody's Motivaction LLC Mpi Research Neolane Inc NetProspex Network Hardware Resale LLC New York Life Insurance Co

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


30


Bracket Labs Breach Security Bridgford Foods Corp Broadview Networks Holdings California Payroll Callidus Software Inc Cameleon Software Cendyn Centro Cerner Corp Channel Advisor Chase Paymentech ClearSlide Cloud Apps Cloudingo Column Technologies Commonwealth Legal CompuGroup Medical Continental Carbonic Products Correlsense CPA2Biz Inc CronSights Crossroads Systems Cross-Tab Cummins Inc DataBankIMX Dataguise Dexterra DiscoverOrg DocuLex Inc Doubledutch eChalk Inc Embarcadero Technologies e-MDs Inc Emerging Information Systems Inc Entrinsik Equilar Evapt Inc ExactTarget Expensify Inc. Exponent partners Fairway America Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co Fellowes Inc Firespring Flightview

Olympus Corp On24 Inc OneSource Information Services Inc Onity Open Access Inc OpSource Optum Pacific Life Insurance Co Parature Inc Passage Technology Peoples Bank Perseus Development Corp (Vovici Corp) Planalytics Inc Plant CML Poptent Precisio Business Solutions Previsor Inc ProExhibits Proofpoint Inc Q4 Web Systems Inc Qarbon Inc Quadramed Corp Rackspace Riptide Software Salesforce Samsung Electronics America Sara Lee Corp SAS Institute Inc Scribe Software Corp SeeWhy Siemens PLM Software Silicon Graphics International Corp Simplex Grinnell LP SinglePlatform Skillsoft Ireland Limited SkyeTek Inc SSB Bart Group Staples Inc Sto Corp Subscriber Mail Sun Light & Power Symplified Inc Syntellect Tail-f Systems Talisma Corp The Colonial Penn

34

E 1

70

0 S

Pro

vo U

T 8

46

06

| 8

88

.26

7.3

97

9 | w

ww

.insid

esa

les.c

om


31


Fortunoff GaveKal Capital Genius.com Genzyme Corp Global Experience Specialists (GES) Globanet Glowpoint Gorman-Rupp Industries Gosecure Auth Healthcare Management Systems Inc Hermance Machine Company High 5 Software Hired My Way Horizen Health Corp Hosokawa Micron HotLink HTC (HT Cho) iCharts ICS IEX Corp iMedica Indicee.com Infinera InterLegis

The Event Team The NPD Group The Tas group thePlatform for Media Inc Thermo Electron Corp ThinkProfits Thomson West GLS Total Resource Management (TRM) Transera Translations.com UNIT4 United Natural Foods Inc Universal American Financial Corp Validar Vetrazzo LLC VFM Leonardo Visage Mobile Visible Technologies Wealth Engine Westpac New Zealand Limited Wind River Systems Wolf Consulting Services Zanett

dreamforce 2013 lead response report - insidesales.comstatic.insidesales.com/assets/pdf/dreamforce...

Documents