Get Geoff's telesales tips for inside reps and managers each week. Subscribe by email:

Your email:

Inside Sales Telesales Tips Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Those Darn Call Metrics: Reality or Fiction?

Submit to Digg digg it |  Add to delicious  delicious |  Submit to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon | Submit to Reddit reddit 

Special note: Since this post was written, I've developed a great model for deriving metrics that makes logical sense, and can be easily customized for any company. Read it by clicking here.

Many inside sales reps today are measured on Key Performance Indicators (KPI), among which are Dials Per Day. Ken, one of our blog subscribers, mentions that he's being tasked with 50 dials per day, and asks how he can manage to call high, ask great qualification questions, and still make 50 dials in a given day. Additionally, he's mandated to get back to every inbound voicemail or lead call within one hour. Sounds tough, so let's dig in. I'll analyse it, and tell you how you can succeed through it

In an eight hour work day, a rep can realistically be expected to be on the phone six hours of that time. The rest is spent on paperwork, proposals, and in-house communications. There is also a burn-out factor that every rep experiences by being on the phone for all eight hours. Even I couldn't do it.

So if we take Ken's 50 dials, that amounts to 8.33 dials every hour, based on that six hour call day. If Ken actually has a conversation on every call, each call could only last 7.2 minutes. Furthermore, each of those calls would require at least 2 minutes of post-call data entry, lowering call time to 5.2 minutes. Even on a cold call, a rep should take two preliminary minutes to review the account being called, from a quick visit to the prospect's website to see what his or her company sells, to reviewing notes of past conversations on a warm call. Now our time per call has been lowered to 3.2 minutes, not enough time to fully qualify much of anything. Now we know that 7 people aren't actually going to answer the phone each hour. But if half of them do, and we take 15 minutes to fully qualify the prospect and two minutes for data entry, 34 minutes have elapsed and we have only 26 minutes left for the 6 dials we have left in order to meet the metrics. We have to hope, for Ken's sake, that he doesn't reach anyone in those 6 dials, or his metrics are shot.

Now that we've debunked the real-world reality of a 50 dials per day KPI, let's ask ourselves why management is enforcing this metric, and see what we can do to change it. Typically, this metric is enforced when the revenue numbers are down and call reports show that the reps are making fewer than 20 or so dials per day. Management knows that even great reps won't meet the metric, but does it in order to get reps out of lazy habits. It does tend to get call volume up, but can have a disastrous counter-effect of increasing the length of the sales cycle because leads aren't qualified (or disqualified) as well and efficiently as they should be.

My old boss Perry Lynne had an effective way of measuring metrics.  He asked each rep to log every dial per hour, and also list "lost sales," where the prospect had already bought from a competitor. He then compared the dials metric to the top rep's sales numbers (often that was me). That gave him an idea of how many dials it would take to make optimum sales numbers. Perry could have taken the top rep's dials, doubled it, set a metric, and assumed that sales would double. But he didn't because, in my case, he knew I was qualifying the heck out of every opportunity, and he didn't want to run the risk of monkeying with success. There is both an art and a science to selling. The science involves metrics, but the art involves qualifying. This nexus represents the challenge that inside sales management has to deal with every day.

So how can Ken perform as well as possible within the framework of tough metrics? Here are a few ideas. Not perfect, but as perfect as I can get it, within Ken's boundaries:

1) Spend no more than 2 minutes reviewing the prospect's website and/or previous notes before the call.

2) On inbound sales leads from lower-level prospects, call high instead. You may reach an administrative assistant, but he or she can get you through to someone high enough that it's a better call than starting low. Your sale will progress faster there, and let her transfer you, because the call will be coming from an exec's office, the other party can see that on the phone display, and chances are he or she will pick up your call instead of ignoring it than if you dial cold, which sometimes happens. If he or she doesn't refer you, go back to the original lead, and call that person. That's 2 dials right there.

3) You've got to qualify or disqualify the prospect really fast. Use these six qualification question types we teach in our telesales training courses to ensure that you've gotten everything, and don't forget to get your prospect's official title right up front, so you'll know how valuable your information really is:

a) Timeframe: When do you have to have a solution on board?

b) Requirements: What does your ideal solution look like?

c) Business/Consequences: Tell me a little about your business, how the solution will positively affect your bottom line, and describe the consequences of not moving forward with it.

d) Scope: How many people/departments/lines of business will need this solution?

e) Decision Tree: How does the decision process work for getting the solution on board?

f) Budget: Is the solution budgeted? If not, what is the process for establishing a budget?

In a perfect world, you'd want to get the prospect to elaborate on all of those questions, and a good rep like Ken will probably do it anyway. If he does, his metrics will go down, but he'll increase sales, and overshoot his quota. He and his company will make a lot of money. And I don't think his manager will give him too much grief for not hitting the metrics.

Being the top earner in your department always gives you leeway with management. In a future blog post, I'll elaborate on the questioning methodology in item #3 above, because it works every time, and it's fast. Add it to your Best Practices playbook. And good luck with the metrics.

Comments

I think this is bunk. Salespeople should be evaluated on the sales they make and empowered to make their own decisions on how to efficiently sell more, with guidance from their managers and peers.  
 
I have a few more things that you need to add to your list of things Ken can't do.  
 
1. Think about improving his skills or what he could be doing better on the next call.  
2. Build repoire and trust with prospects.  
3. Build relationships with referral sources.  
4. Stay in touch with clients who might refer business.  
 
I do all of these things as an inside sales reps. I get half my deals that way. If I was forced to make 50 calls/day, I'd quit and find a job where my skills are valued.
Posted @ Thursday, September 11, 2008 2:42 PM by peter caputa
Okay, let me play devil's advocate. 50 calls a day for an inside sales rep really is not a lot. I think it is a valuable metric to measure because so many inside reps now resort to email and don't use the phone at all (see our blog posting called Pen Pals or Prospects http://blog.bridgegroupinc.com/blog/tabid/47760/bid/3903/Pen-Pals-or-Prospects.aspx). 
 
 
 
Having said that, and in deference to Pete who is working in an inbound lead environment, this metric is most important for those who are doing primarily outbound.  
 
 
 
Here is another way to do the math: 
 
6 hours a day equals 8 calls an hour 
 
2 minutes prep time per call leaves 44 minutes 
 
The industry connect rate for outbound is 20% so you only have a conversation with 1.6 contacts 
 
At 7 minutes per connect (we will use your number)that leaves roughly 33 minutes 
 
Remove from that 1 minute for each voice mail you leave and you have around 25 minutes for longer conversations or data entry or whatever. 
 
 
 
This is what we tell our clients. If your team is hitting their numbers, this metric no longer holds value - they get it. If your team is not hitting their numbers or is new, it is a great way to reinforce the value of activity to drive opportunity. 
 
 
 
Just another opinion...btw Geoff...great blog with lots of great info. Thanks!
Posted @ Thursday, September 18, 2008 7:10 AM by trish bertuzzi
Trish's commentary has lots of value, and please note her figure of a 20@ connect rate for outbound. I want to re-emphasize the value of using my 6 types of qualification questions (above) to qualify or disqualify effciently and effectively.
Posted @ Thursday, September 18, 2008 12:12 PM by Geoff Alexander
I think the point of metrics has been completely missed. 
 
You don't judge performance by metrics but by results. Metrics come into play when performance is outstanding or dismal. In either case you are looking to see how the metrics stack up against norms or benchmarks.  
 
If you have a rep who is doing badly you compare their metrics to a couple of reps that are doing well. Depending on the metrics you may be able to identify specific problems -- most of which will lead you back to poor skills. 
 
Then you use metrics to improve productivity. For example you use the 60 calls a day number above -- in my work in high tech telesales this is a rotten number. If you can make 60 calls before lunch something is deadly wrong with your efforts on your methods. 
 
I had the occasion to actually do some calling for a a friend of my and I could make over 120 calls in under 5 hours. But I didn't start there, when I started it was much slower -- I simply improved my methods for those calls and thus almost doubled my calls per day. 
 
The average rep is only going to make 5-10 contacts per day if they are lucky -- the rest will be voice mail. The typical voice mail call takes 3 minutes from start to stop -- that's 20 calls per hour not counting contact and you are not going to leave a message every time so 20 calls is conservative -- 20 calls per hour with Jeff's correct assessment of about 6 hours of calling is 120 calls per day. 
 
I could say a lot more but I think the point is made -- metrics are for guidance and productivity improvement and they tell you very little about the salesperson. 
Posted @ Friday, October 10, 2008 12:29 AM by Flyn Penoyer
Flyn, you actually made 120 calls in under 5 hours? That's really cranking them out, to the tune of about 24 calls per hour. What brand of coffee did they have in the office???
Posted @ Friday, October 10, 2008 1:50 AM by Geoff Alexander
Never mind what brand of coffee...more like what were you trying to accomplish?? 
 
I think part of the problem may lie in the fact that inside sales is very much an umbrella term but implementations differ dramatically across industries. If you are selling widgets, maybe you can crank out 120 calls in a day but if you are selling technology it just doesn't work that way. 
 
Metrics are the cornerstone of successful inside sales implementations. Inside Sales is science and not art and if you don't embrace that fact you won't be successful. Now, having said that, what you do with the metrics you collect is up to you. We recommend you use the information as a divining rod that will point you at either best practices or problem areas as opposed to using it as a stick with which to beat your reps. 
 
Interesting post and comments - always a hot topic!
Posted @ Friday, October 10, 2008 8:03 AM by trish bertuzzi
Ken, here. I fully agree with Geoff's comment that once a rep has proven they can achieve revenue goals, the phone metrics become less significant. 
 
When one has just started at a new place, however, and has not yet proven oneself, the metrics are at the forefront of a manager's perception of the rep's skills, work ethic and so on. 
 
Still, it is frustrating when one has spent the day providing four one-hour product demonstrations to qualified prospects, yet is still being admonished for only making 25 dials that day.
Posted @ Monday, October 27, 2008 9:29 PM by Ken
Jeff & Trish 
 
It's not coffee, in fact I don't drink the stuff, it's focus. 
 
When I make calls I am totally organized and focused. You have to remember in most cold calling situations you will only talk to 4-10 people in a day if you're lucky. 
 
The purpose of the aforementioned calls was to identify the decision maker, introduce myself, and invite these folks to one of our seminars, or if determined appropriate set an appointment (IT Services). 
 
And I totally disagree that you can't achieve high call volumes selling technology. Years ago I managed a group selling PC's for Goldstar and my reps never made less than 70 calls in a day and that includes me chasing them out after 6 hours of calling. This call rate also held up at Logitch when I was manager of the inside retail sales group. 
 
You put an actual timer on the "talk time" of inside sales teams and you will be lucky to get more than 120 minutes of actual talk. 
 
Reps don't make high numbers of calls for a number of reasons: 
 
1. Most waste incredible amounts of time -- at Goldstar there were 5 other groups like my own and they all worked the phone 8 hours as opposed to my groups 6 -- they made 30% less calls and we sold more that all of them -- it was not dialing for numbers -- we were the most successful group. 
 
2. Managers that don't realize that making the little wheels spin faster, i.e. more calls, is how you get maximum results.  
 
As a manager I spent a lot of time taking away the stops that made my people "time ineffective." Most managers don't do anything to make their folks successful except tell them what to do. 
 
That included (at Goldstar) taking them off the phones about 90 minutes per week for skills training. 
 
3. Most companies don't have effectively set up work flows for their people -- and those using products like SalesForce.com spend an extra 30% of their time simply navigating the mangement system. 
 
I had the fortune, or misfortune, of making calls for a company that used this product thus forcing me to do so. My call rates for this project were nearly half the rate above. 
 
A well organized high tech sales team can make at least 60 calls a day without blinking an eye -- that is of course dependent on the proficiency of management's ability to practice "sales prevention." 
 
Finally, with regard to the comment about the sales metrics of the successful rep becoming less important, I would totally disagree. His or her metrics are probably the most important of all. 
 
It is via the metrics of outstanding performers that you can establish the highest quality benchmarks of what should be done, not to mention what works.  
 
This is directly tied to the above. If you have a whole crew of salespeople making 40 calls a day -- you may think -- wow -- that's good. On the other hand if a top person sits down and doubles that rate, then you'll have questions, or you should have questions. 
 
The problem with most managers is that they never come close to finding the groups upper performance limits.  
 
This happens primarily because there is no consistent skills (NOT product) training in place, but secondarily because no one ever bothers to work on the efficiency of the team. 
 
Finally Jeff, with regard to the metrics of the 24 calls per hour look at it this way. If the rep made 15 contacts during the day (a lot) averaging 10 minutes each that is 150 minutes. In just a 6 hour work day that leaves 210 minutes. If the rest of the day's calls voice mail at 3 minutes per call that is 70 more calls for a total of 85 calls for the day. 15 contacts in a day, by my experience is more than exceptional, and 150 minute of take time in a day is also very high based on what I have experienced in the last 30 years of my career. 
 
And even if you double the talk time you still have 35 VM calls + 15 contacts for a total of 50 calls. 
 
I don't see the problem, other than management getting in the way. 
 
Ok let me have it, I'm ready. 
 
Thanks for the inspiration guys! You got me wound up!!
Posted @ Friday, November 21, 2008 4:44 PM by Flyn Penoyer
@ Flyn...way too tired on a Friday afternoon to let you have it. I am going to let the market respond for me. We are about to release our 2009 Inside Sales Metrics & Compensation study. Over 120 technology companies participated so the data is incredibly targeted and on point. Stay tuned to the Inside Sales Experts blog for it's release. 
 
Geoff, you are on the west coast and it is earlier there. Maybe you have enough energy to respond to Flyn! 
 
Have a nice weekend all.
Posted @ Friday, November 21, 2008 5:07 PM by trish bertuzzi
Trish and Flyn, nothing like a spririted discussion on a Friday afternoon before Thanksgiving week! When I worked at Atron, my old boss Perry Lynne (you met him, Trish, at that Cadre/NWIS meeting in Arizona) only had us log two metrics, number of conversations and "lost sales," which meant people who had bought from the competition, or who were unqualified. He linked the former stat to revenue numbers, the latter for marketing data. Perry managed by "walking around," so it was obvious who was engaged in calling and who wasn't. And we all were, because Perry hired well, and we all enjoyed hustling for a buck, selling a great product for a company we loved.
Posted @ Friday, November 21, 2008 9:10 PM by Geoff Alexander
This is why I am very grateful that I am no longer in sales I read about this all the time just to keep up to date on whats happening out there. I have to agree with Trish's comment she has it well put, great post again.
Posted @ Thursday, August 06, 2009 3:09 AM by Sue | Air Conditioning
Sue's comment adds another issue pertaining to unrealistic call metrics. They can easily burn out reps who otherwise might have been very good salespeople.
Posted @ Thursday, August 06, 2009 11:07 AM by Geoff Alexander
Flyn, I just love how worked up you became its great to see that people still stand for what they believe in. Sales is one of the toughest business out there and I don't think that there are many people out there that actually know what its like to be a sales person, I personally believe that sales people are born with sales in their blood.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 5:40 AM by Wendy Silk Screening
Thanks for your comment, Wendy. Another good point Flyn made was that using CRMs can be a time-sink if not used efficiently. We've had a lot of commentary on the blog about this recently, and I'm beginning to wonder if this is primarily a training, product usability, or management issue.
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 11:52 AM by Geoff Alexander
Wendy... 
 
You may be right, but the doctors still haven't found that gene or evidence of it yet. 
 
Sales is a skill, and anyone that wants to can master it. The only limit is ones willingness to learn (and the barrier of poor trainers and coaches).
Posted @ Friday, September 04, 2009 12:41 PM by Flyn
Think some of you have picked up on the right point and others haven't. Using the analogy of a driving range - being able to hit 1000 balls in an outing does not a golfer make. Just means you can swing and (sometimes) hit 1000 golf balls. Training and intelligence is what is needed then mutiply that by effort. A decent sales manager will know which of their staff are clever Vs hard working - its a lazy sales manager that solely resorts to calls as THE metric. What they say on the phone, how they position themselves/the company is far more important. Better to sell to one person than fail to sell to 100. 
 
What I'm saying is - get it right, then get it right often. You will do more harm getting it wrong often. Cold callers that annoy people only tarnish the company name - not their own.
Posted @ Tuesday, June 08, 2010 7:33 PM by Huw
Wendy... 
 
Once again the discussion of call volume has taken the turn to "it must be done with incompetence." Not true. 
 
The question is not being able to hit 1000 balls recklessly on the range -- and doing so should never ever be the consideration. NEVER! 
 
To make it perfectly clear I will say it again -- if you think about improving the volume or number of calls with any intention of reducing the quality of the calls in any way you are an idiot*. (*I will state clearly here so it is not misunderstood I am not calling anyone an idiot -- I am saying it is idiotic to destroy call quality and thinking about it or doing it gives you the title. Sorry, that's a fact!) 
 
I believe the points on metrics and call volumes in sales have been completely misunderstood and that's where people start going into the ditch "adding" incompetence to the model. 
 
I can pretty much assure you that I can take most inside sales groups and get 30-40% more calls out of them without degrading the call quality. I have done it many times and those are conservative numbers. 
 
Most salespeople are inefficient and no one has ever even looked at there work flow to see how it could be improved.  
 
Let me insert here an example of work flow -- have you ever seen the cup stackers? That is work flow. Cleaning up your movements and making them more precise gives you speed. 
 
Most salespeople aren't focused when they work hurting not only there efficiency in making calls but the calls themselves. 
 
These are all things that can be changed without changing one word in the presentation and they will usually give you results similar to what I mentioned above. 
 
Call quality is improved by working the unique selling proposition and giving salespeople communications and sales skills training (Best done by completely and fully documenting the sales process.). 
 
This too will have the effect of increasing the number of calls and surely the number of good ones. 
 
These two issues are COMPLETELY separate -- it's like the difference between the driver and the race car -- they can be mutually beneficial but they are also completely independent. You can improve either without hurting the other.  
 
When you talk about the "Lazy Sales Manager" you are talking about someone who is incompetent and simply wasting your time. Why? Because that individual is not going to fix anything and he is proof of nothing -- she's simply incompetent.  
 
You also use the terms "clever" and "hard working" in a way that appears to say one is bad and the other good. I would submit to you that the clever person may actually accomplish more than the hard working one -- in my opinion these are both desirable qualities. 
 
You are correct that it is very bad to chase business away with errors of any kind -- I had a CEO once complain that I was going to reduce the selling time of the reps by 10% with my training program and gave that very argument -- "The way the calls are being made now we will be better off if they spend less time selling!  
 
However, improvement in performance is NOT and NEVER will be accomplished buy or through a discussion of any kind of incompetence.  
 
It will be achieved by focusing on improving every area of the sales function -- leadership, call quality and quantity, the work environment, management, the sales process and so on... (without the introduction of incompetence anywhere.) 
 
While I am here I might as well pick up two other points that should be made.  
 
Selling is a skill, and it can be learned if the desire is there. Selling is a trivial skill for a spiritual being like man/woman compared to the real potential of the being. 
 
CRM's should only be selected based on the basis of "usability" and NEVER via feature comparisons. 
 
Just my two cents -- I hope it helps...
Posted @ Tuesday, June 08, 2010 10:24 PM by Flyn
...forgive me but i'm sure the argument was a link between good sales and call rates. i can think of better things to focus my time on than optimising crm, phone position for best dialing, which numbers take up least amount of time to dial (ie those without int dialing codes). However, not wasting time on anything definitely has its merits. if your in the business of selling then you in the office to make money. don't waste your time doing anything else.  
 
what i'm saying is - if you're relying on call metrics you're missing the bigger picture. a bricky gets paid for making a portion of a house - not laying a brick. no bricky will get paid for speed per brick and likewise no sales person gets paid for numbers dialed.  
 
i think what i'm getting at here is cause and effect - dialing numbers is what operators do - not sales people.  
 
i'm happy to go through the details of the fastest way to send an email too, or type, or the best way to open the door to the office if you think that's what a good sales person does. 
 
 
 
in conclusion - i agree that sales people can waste time in the office but deciding that call rates being low is the problem, is probably missing the bigger picture.
Posted @ Wednesday, June 09, 2010 12:10 AM by still me, not wendy
Where in my comments did I say that you should base everything on the metrics or that the metrics were even the most important thing -- that is as idiotic as intentionally destroying call quality for quantity. 
 
If you really think the metrics are worthless why not just say so, or, as you indicated don't waste your time in a discussion* about them.  
 
*I am not trying to be flippant or nasty here, but you've just in my view indicated that the discussion of these metric is a waste of your time (unless I misunderstood). That it misses the big picture -- I disagree. 
 
There in fact is there is absolutely NO link between "good sales" and "call rates." You could just as easily make 1 good sale in a day as 5. (I think "calls" would be more appropriate than "sales" in that sentence.) 
 
That is far from the point. 
 
However in the day to day operation of a sales team there is value in the call rates and other related statistics. They provide one the ability to improve the team's, and thus the individual's, overall performance through what they can reveal.  
 
By understanding how to work with these metrics you can in fact make key discoveries from call times and numbers that will lead you to potential problems with specific team members. They are just clues, but they frequently have great value. 
 
Additionally, what you throw aside so easily and with apparent contempt could easily represent a 20 even 30 percent increase in the overall sales of team members and the team -- and that is the I believe IS the bigger picture! (That is of course not to say the focusing on the sales process, proposition, and skills won't have beneficial effects as well. Call quality is more important than statistics.) 
 
By the way, when as a manager you show team members how to make their quotas in 40 instead of 60 hours per week; or to use that extra 20 hours to make even more money, you get extremely motivated team members -- this is called leadership and empowering your people to achieve the vision or objective at hand. 
 
The only way to improve something is to be able to measure it. Without measurements you cannot compare what you are doing to a different practice and know which is better. 
 
If you only measure gross sales and possibly closing ratios you give yourself very little with and discover and fine tune a sales effort. 
 
You don't rely on, as in put everything into, the statistics, you use them to monitor, test, tune, and improve what you are doing the same way ads are tested in various markets, with various graphics, headlines etc..  
 
I would submit to you that most sales people don't even know what the biggest time consumer of there day is -- so unless you show them they will absolutely waste time even though it may not be intentional. 
 
Please do not misunderstand my comments -- I mean no personal attack, nor am I upset with any of the comments made -- but I do disagree with the ideas and concepts in your argument as I have understood and interpreted them. If I have a mistaken impression please let me know. 
 
 
Posted @ Wednesday, June 09, 2010 1:49 AM by Flyn
Firsty, I appreciate the time and thought you have given this as it has given me great insight in to why people pursue call rates. Secondly I'd like to thank you for the patience you've shown. I was attempting to be flippant in some parts but re-reading it you could have read it either way. 
I don't agree with the statement about measurement. It can be convinient but more than often innacurate. Rewards based on behaviour will often beget said behaviour and not the desired outcome- case in point "info sharing exercises". 
I suppose the issue I have is with any manager that attemps to improve sales FIRSTLY with call rates. I would have it on my list but only insomuch as I would have time and efficiency exercises there. I think a discussion about productivity and process management is valid anywhere in business. however, I also think on a SALES site a discusion on increasing ACTIVITY is (a bit) misplaced. Apologies for the caps- the only emphasis I could place, I'm not yelling!
Posted @ Wednesday, June 09, 2010 2:12 AM by Still me
You are correct about how easily it is to get screwed up using statistics. As I said in my statement they usually provide clues and frequently that results in finding issues that sometimes are not noticed. And call rates probably aren't even the most valuable statistic -- call times/call type give you far more information for example. 
 
The truth about call rates is that you can almost always count on a 20-30 percent increase if you make the effort to clean up the environment. 
 
I would and never have put statistics first except for maybe observing how people are doing relative to quotas. 
 
I would beg to disagree that productivity/activity are inappropriate discussions on a sales site evidenced by the fact they can and usually do represent a significant potential improvement in the results. Isn't that what sales is about? Results? 
 
I would also suggest to you that a manager can far more easily and quickly correct productivity issues that aren't dependent on high skill levels than change sales behaviors and effectiveness. 
 
That said, it is obvious that one must start with a focus on the selling proposition, sales process, communication, and sales skills. 
 
New managers should be aware that you can get a ton of points with management very easily and quickly if you understand how to fix these issues as you can get immediate visible results. But you must also be working on the sales process and skills. 
 
Finally I would say that this question is about the call rates -- if you don't understand what you can do with them or how the really work you cannot make a decision as to their value. 
 
If you look at say this comment in the question: 
 
"So if we take Ken's 50 dials, that amounts to 8.33 dials every hour, based on that six hour call day. If Ken actually has a conversation on every call, each call could only last 7.2 minutes.... Now that we've debunked the real-world reality of a 50 dials per day KPI, let's ask ourselves why management is enforcing this metric,..." 
 
You can see that the concept of the call metrics is totally misunderstood. Here is why I say this: 
 
A call number is a target based on averages that have been established -- if someone has 6 sales in one day when 2 is the average -- you may assume his calls are longer an he won't have 50 calls and it's obvious you don't care. 
 
The manager above is not using the statistic in relation to the whole picture or established averages -- he is forcing a number and using the statistic of one person against himself with out accounting for the reason the statistic is off. 
 
You don't debunk anything by using a broken or incompetent example. 
 
Anyway I thank you for the discussion and would ask you to reconsider your approach to stats -- where else can you drive a 10+ percent in sales in a couple of days!
Posted @ Wednesday, June 09, 2010 11:10 AM by flyn
Post Comment
Name
 *
Email
 *
Website (optional)
Comment
 *

Allowed tags: <a> link, <b> bold, <i> italics

Have a question for the blog?