I don’t think there is a perfect number or ratio or solution at all. Salespeople can manage different numbers of leads effectively, the market will justify how much you can spend, the rest is hoping that you have enough salesmen or leads to be “Just Right”

Analytical, precise and I for sure won’t jump up and down and say “you are wrong and I am right!”

But here is my acid test that I curse/bless you with at this very point in time.

If you have lived this curse/blessing already, then I will just have to smile and shrug. Maybe my experience was a one off or I did something wrong or whatever.

One day… you are going to be in charge of exactly how much $ is spent on leads/marketing.

And every dollar that you don’t spend on a lead goes directly in your personal pocket.

And if your salesman sell “more stuff” you personally make “more money” less the amount of money you spend on leads.

And if your salesmen don’t sell “more stuff” or “any stuff” then you make zero money – or even worse, lose the money you spent on leads/marketing.

After you have been doing this for a period of time…

My experience tells me that although “too many” and “too little” leads are both “bad”…

Having too little is better than having too many.

If you have a salesman with a peak close rate(C) that can manage X number of leads to produce Y number of sales like so:
X*C=Y

Now if a salesman has less leads then he could reasonably be assumed to be able to spend more time on each and possibly raise his close rate a bit. But I don’t think that it would be a linear relation (cutting leads in half doubles close rate) ie (x/2)*(C*2) would still equal Y. Lets say that it is half that though – so that if you cut the leads in half their close rate goes up by 50% so now you have (x/2)*(C*1.5) = (Y*.6666) or a 1/3 cut in closes.

Lets use the same fuzzy math in the other direction. Lets assume again that doubling the workload would cut the close rate in half (X*2)*(c/2) still equals Y but again reality steps in and reminds you that it wouldn’t work like that. If a salesman is over loaded with leads – and I’m assuming that they know what they’re doing – they’ll start ignoring those with the lowest perceived close chance – the long shots. So lets say it cuts it by half of that then and you’re at (x*2)*(c*.75) which would equal (Y * .6666) or again a 1/3 cut in closes.

So now that I have it all laid out lets take those again to the logical conclusions knowing what you and I know about salesmen. Because of many things – including the 2-4-6-8 problem and the Back Alley Factor – the good salesman will focus EVEN MORE on the leads closer to closing when overloaded with leads because HE WANTS TO COME OUT OF THAT BACK ALLEY WITH THE CLOSES. I’d say that a good salesman can maintain his close rate or even close to it with more leads than they are used to which would allow for that one or two more deals closed to make a difference.

(phew, sorry about all the math) Now I’m agreeing with you that most salesmen are going to beg for more leads and more leads until they get all the easy closes done and then have to actually work at it. So yes your rules work in the general case (same for the 2-4-6-8 rule which works in the general case) but I will argue to my grave that if you manage to the average case instead of to higher quality standards you’ll never improve. Hold the salesman up to the top guys as a standard and get them to step their game up or ship out. Do you want Ricky Roma or Shelly Levene (gratuitous Glengarry GlenRoss reference)? If you have both which do you want to move to the other’s level or do you want them both at the mean?

Wow I’m not sure if this all makes sense or not but we definitely should continue this conversation.