Consensus - 2023 SE Report - V1.4

<10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% <1 day 1-2 3-5
60% 70% 80% 90% 100% <1 day 1-2 3-5 6-10 days 11-15 16-20 21-30 days 31+ <10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
<1 day 1-2 3-5 6-10 days 11-15 16-20 21-30 days 31+
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% <1 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20
<1 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20

1-2 3-5 6-10 days 11-15 16-20 21-30 days 31+ <10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Sales Engineering
<1 day 1-2 3-5 6-10 days 11-15 16-20 21-30 days 31+
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% <1 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20
2023 Compensation & Workload Report

<10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% <1 day 1-2 3-5 6-10 days 11-15 16-20 21-30 days 31+ <10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
<1 day 1-2 3-5 6-10 days 11-15 16-20 21-30 days 31+ <1 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20
GOCONSENSUS.COM
© 2023 CONSENSUS SALES, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

A b o u t C o n s e n s u s
We researched these trends – which led to our first
workload and comp study – and found that, rather
Presales research has come to mean more to us

than fixing it, leaders were mostly trying to grow
than just serving as an avenue for thought

Presales teams through hiring. At the same time,
leadership. It has literally shaped our business.

sellers hold buyers hostage to a calendar because
Several years ago, we found a glaring problem in

they operate as though they close deals. Garin
B2B that nobody was solving successfully: how to

Hess, Founder and CEO of Consensus, determined
scale Presales.
from the data that “sellers can’t close deals, only
buyers can.”
There were, and are, waves of disruption in B2B –
bigger buying groups, more asynchronous buying What buyers really want is to be enabled. They
journeys, changes in buyer behaviors, etc. Buyers want authentic, guided and frictionless buying,
were spending less time engaging with vendors, and they want more of it on-demand.

and pulling them into conversations later in the
process. But when they did engage, they preferred

Consensus solves this with the #1 Intelligent Demo
Presales interactions.
Automation Platform. We use patented interactive
video demos along with a stakeholder discovery
This led to a surge in demand for Presales

and insights engine to scale Presales as well as
resources across the customer lifecycle that has

help technical sales teams deliver better buying
only grown. But there’s a gap between that demand

experiences. Our research informs our strategy. We
and the availability of Presales talent to deliver it,

are purpose-built for scaling Presales and enabling
creating bottlenecks that delay and can even kill

buyers. For more information, visit our website at
deals.
www.goconsensus.com.
 
© 2023 CONSENSUS SALES, INC. | GOCONSENSUS.COM 1

Table of Contents
03
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
36
W O R K L O A D
63
D E M O S
37
Presales Work Week
64
Who Delivers Demos
04
A d v a n c e p r a i s e
38
Presales Crunch Week
65
Demo Lag Time
39
Presales Crunch Week (Cont’d)
66
Demo Lag Time (Cont’d)
06
H i g h l i g h t s
40
Presales Crunch Week (Cont’d)
67
07
A B O U T T H E S A M P L E
41
Presales Activities
68
Demos Per Week
07
Geographic Location
42
AE:SE Ratio
69
Hours Per Demo
08
Company Size
43
Stakeholders Per Deal
70
Hours Per Demo (Cont’d)
08
Product Type
44
SE Onboarding Time
71
Demos Per Deal
08
Industry
45
SE Onboarding Time (Cont’d)
72
Unqualified Demos
09
Roles Demoing to Prospects
46
73
Unqualified Demos (Cont’d)
09
Years Of Experience In Your Role
47
Supporting Different Revenue Functions
74
10
Number of Solutions
48
Assigning Presales Resources
11
Generalist vs. Specialist
49
Assigning Presales Resources (Cont’d)
75
B U R N O U T
50
Presales KPIs
76
Costs of Burnout
12
C O M P E N S A T I O N
51
Performance Quota
77
Key Drivers
13
OTE At A Glance
52
Measuring Quota
78
Misallocation of Time & Resources
14
OTE At A Glance (Cont’d)
79
Long Hours
53
Presales v. Sales Influence
15
OTE By Years of Experience
54
Presales Influence Over Time
80
Unqualified Demos
16
OTE By Total Contract Value
55
Presales Influence Over Time (Cont’d)
81
Perceived Lack of Influence & Recognition
17
OTE By Company Size
56
Presales Influence Over Time (Cont’d)
82
High Stakes Deals
18
OTE By AE:SE Ratio
57
Multilingual Strategies
19
OTE by Customer Size
83
D E M O A U T O M A T I O N
58
Hiring Sales Engineers
20
OTE By Time In Current Position
84
Adoption of Demo Automation
59
SE Professional Mobility
21
OTE By Stock Options
85
Scaling Presales Resources
60
Quality of Work Life
22
OTE By Stock Options (Cont’d)
86
Scaling Presales Resources (Cont’d)
61
Most Valuable Tools in Tech Stack
23
OTE By Quota
87
Scaling Presales Resources (Cont’d)
62 Most Valuable Tools in Tech Stack (Cont’d)

24
USA
88
Reduce Burnout
28
UK
89
Reduce Burnout (Cont’d)
32 Europe 90
The Rise of Demo Automation
92 V e r s i o n H i s t o r y
© 2023 CONSENSUS SALES , INC. | GOCONSENSUS.COM 2

BACK TO TOP
Think about your most recent B2B buying experience. How did you feel? Were you pressured, confused, and
talked at? Or were you educated, assured, and listened to? If it felt more like the latter, you likely have a Sales
Engineering team to thank.
From the buyer’s perspective, Sales Engineers are the key to superior buying experiences. They serve as
trusted advisors who focus not on selling products but on solving customer problems. Authentic, substantive,
and invaluable, it's no surprise that demand for this Presales function is growing across the entire buying
process.
For the fourth year running, we're pleased to present our "Sales Engineering Compensation & Workload
Report." This is no mere summary of survey results. Our research is based on detailed answers from about
1,000 Presales Leaders and Individual Contributors, with statistically and practically significant findings drawn
from in-depth modeling and consultations with data science expertise. The result? Timely coordinates and
Executive Summary fresh insights to help upgrade Presales to the disruptive differentiator it deserves to be. As always, we welcome
your feedback.
A Note On Leaders and Individual Contributors
Leader titles include Sales Engineering managers and above, as well as Sales leadership roles which
bear responsibility for Sales Engineering.
Individual Contributor titles include Sales Engineer (SEs) and similar variants such as Solutions
Consultant, as well as Senior Sales Engineer, Principal Sales Engineer, etc.
This report is governed by the licensing terms found here.

BACK TO TOP
"I just finished reading the Sales Engineering 2023 "Are you curious about how your fellow SEs are being
Compensation & Workload Report. There are some compensated? Or how much time they are spending on
incredible insights in there. 3 areas of the report that different tasks like demos or discovery? If so, you are
really jumped off the page for me were around KPIs, going to want to check out the Consensus Sales
burnout, and seat at the table. Don’t waste a minute. Get Engineering 2023 Compensation & Workload Report put
in there and start reading it!” together by our friends at Consensus.”
Todd Janzen
Julie Hansen
Global VP Solution Engineering,

Founder
Q Branch | Salesforce Performance Sales Training
Advance Praise
“The Consensus Sales Engineering 2023 Compensation & "I am absolutely delighted to see the release of
Workload Report offers a goldmine of insights to help Consensus’ Sales Engineering 2023 Compensation &
Presales Leaders and Enablement properly support and Workload Report. Some individuals and organizations will
develop their Presales Team and work together better simply use the report to compare their situations with
with their Sales counterparts to become more efficient their peers. Others will identify and pursue opportunities
and close more deals, impacting the entire Selling and for change and improvement and THAT is the real power
Buying process.” of the report.”
Art Fr o mm
P e t e r C o h an
Owner & Founder

Founder
Team Sales D e v elo p men t I nc . G rea t D emo !
© 2023 CO N S EN S U S SA LE S , IN C . | G OCO N S EN S U S . CO M 4
BACK TO TOP
"The Consensus Sales Engineering Compensation & "By shifting intro demos towards discovery, we enhance
Workload Report is a great piece of work and I learned  their value and enable our teams to feel more impactful.
1) We are hiring more than ever from outside the industry Discover more insights in the Sales Engineering 2023
2) the 2nd most common KPI is “satisfaction from sales” Compensation & Workload report - let's make every
which I find concerning and 3) We have an demo count!"
overwhelming focus in Presales on demos and I think we
should be spending more time on relationship building Nataja Bax
and discovery.” Trainer & Coach
The DemoScene
John Care
Managing Director
Mastering Technical Sales
Advance Praise
"Presales organizations have traditionally lacked quality
insight into best practices, benchmarks and other data
with which to better understand their own efficiency and
how they compare to industry best practices and norms.
Consensus’ landmark SE Compensation and Workload
Report continues to admirably fill that gap, not only
through an incredibly expansive set of data, but with
unique insights that aren’t available anywhere else."
Kerry Sokalsky
Founder & President
Presales Mastery
© 2023 CO N S EN S U S SA LE S , IN C . | G OCO N S EN S U S . COM 5

BA C K TO TOP
Compensation burnout
20 Recently hired ICs report higher OTE than their 78 Misallocating time and resources fuels burnout,
tenured counterparts, while the opposite is true draining productivity and perpetuating a cycle
for Leaders. of inefficiency and frustration.
22 Stock options are a newer perk for ICs in the last 80 Unqualified demos are comparable to long work
4-6 years. hours in predicting burnout.
23 Personal quotas are a major predictor of higher
OTE (& base salary) for ICs. demo automation
88 Firms who automate a portion of the demo
workload process report less burnout.
Highlights 41 Too much time spent on Intro Demos; not 89 Automation optimizes IC time to be spent on
enough on developing product expertise. higher impact activities.
New and Notable

60 ICs and Leaders want the perks of Sales, less
Findings repetition, and more help.
demos
73 More unqualified demos predict greater
misallocation of time spent on Intro Demos.
© 2023 CO N SE N SUS S A LES, I N C. | G OCO N SE N SUS.COM 6

BACK TO TOP
Geographic Location
49
Canada
149
United Kingdom
About the Sample:  123
Geographic Location 555
United States
Europe
8Middle East
We gathered about 1000 responses* from 15

South Asia
Sales Engineering professionals all over the
world. The following charts illustrate general 6South America / Mexico 19
Asia / Pacific
characteristics of the survey respondents.
* Note: Sample sizes vary throughout the report because not all
respondents answered all questions.
40
Australia

BA C K TO TOP
Software | 53% Software & Prof. Services | 37%
151 to 500 | 19%
1 to 10 | 0%
11 to 50 | 2%
51 to 150 | 9%
Company
Product
Hardware | 0%
Over 10,000 | 18% 5,001 to 10,000 | 9% Type
Size
Combination | 6%
3,001 to 5,000 | 10%
Other | 2%
501 to 1,000 | 15%
Prof. Services | 2%
1,0001 to 3,000 | 18%
A b o u t t h e s a m p l e :
Company information
Logistics & Supply Chain | 2%
Internet| 2%
Computer Software | 43% Human Resources | 3%
Telecommunications | 3%
Industry
Marketing & Advertising | 3%
Info. Tech. & Services | 29%
Accounting | 5%
Financial Services | 5%
Computer & Network Security | 5%
© 2023 CO N S EN S U S S A L E S , I N C . | G O C O N S EN S U S . C O M 8
B AC K TO TO P
How many years of experience do you have in your current role?

150
Which best describes your professional role?
117 Median:
Leader | 38% Individual Contributors (IC) | 62%
115 5
102 106 Sr. Sales Engineer | 37%
100 Sales Engineer | 25%
87 Professional
Presales Leader | 22%
73 Role Presales Manager | 13%
Sales Leader w/ Presales | 2%
About the sample:
Account Executive | 1%
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 57 55 C-Suite | 0%
50 49
46
35
23 22 21
Frequency
11 11 10
8 6 6 5 4 4 4 7
3 3 3 3
0 1 1 1
<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31+
Years of Experience
Count: 999 | Median: 5 | Mean: 6.61 | Min: 0.5 | Max: 31
© 2023 C ON SE N S U S SALES , I N C. | GO C ON SE N S U S.C O M 9

BACK TO TOP
How many products/solutions do you (ICs) or your Presales team (Leaders) support?
106
100
97
81
80
76
ICs support more than 6 solutions on average.
A b o u t t h e s a m p l e :
61
Number of Solutions 60
55
49
ICs support 4-5

44
40
products/solutions
35 34
33
on average. 28
25
24
23
20 20
19
18 18
16
15
Frequency
14 .
10
9
8 7
6
4
4 4
33 3 3 3 3
2 2 22 22 2 2 2
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45+
Products Supported Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
Individual Contributors (IC): Count: 616 | Median: 4 | Mean: 6.34 | Min: 1 | Max: 46
Leaders: Count: 371 | Median: 5 | Mean: 9.24 | Min: 1 | Max: 46
© 2023 CO NSENSUS S LES, IN . G A C | OCO NSENSUS. COM 1 0

BACK TO TOP
Would you classify yourself as more of a “generalist” or “specialist”?
Both | 1% Other | 2%
About the sample:
Generalist vs. Specialist Individual

Specialist | 37% Generalist | 60%
Contributors (IC)
Leaders and ICs report
roughly twice as many
generalists as specialists.
37% of ICs are specialists and 60% are Both | 1% Other | 1%
generalists.
30% of Leaders are specialists and 68% are

generalists.
Specialist | 30% Leaders Generalist | 68%

$ Compensation

BACK TO TOP
Median On Target Earnings

300,000
OTE at a glance 255,000

250,000
OTE = On-target Earnings, or annual
compensation, assuming they hit quota or
mid-level target.  
200,000 193,100 190,000
180,000 . 189,000
174,000 .
On regions and currency: All compensation 164,000
160,000 .
amounts were reported and are shown in 150,000
USD regardless of the currency in which the 133,500 .
participant is actually paid. This conversion 119,000 .
to USD is meant to facilitate more meaningful 100,000
comparisons between regions.
On small sample sizes: Small samples for 50,000
Frequency
especially Canada and Australia make
estimates less reliable.
0
USA UK EU Canada* AU*
*Responses for these regions were not statistically significant.
Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders Figures are supplied for information purposes only.

BACK TO TOP
Individual Contributors (IC)

OTE Stock
Quota
Options
Median
Personal
Personal
No
Team
Median Mean Min Max Count Exp. in

Only & Team Quota Only
Years
OTE at a glance (cont’d)
USA 180,000 188,222 51,500 416,500 325 3 63% 12% 6% 37% 45%
OTE = On-target Earnings, or annual UK 133,500 136,358 55,000 292,000 80 5 56% 16% 2% 44% 38%
compensation, assuming they hit quota or EU 119,000 143,771 53,000 902,000 65 5 52% 9% 8% 32% 51%
mid-level target.  
Canada 160,000 163,797 56,400 309,485 29 5.5 63% 30% 16% 24% 30%
On regions and currency: All compensation AU 174,000 175,311 77,977 328,000 19 5 73% 26% 0% 21% 53%
amounts were reported and are shown in
USD regardless of the currency in which the
participant is actually paid. This conversion Leaders
to USD is meant to facilitate more meaningful OTE Stock
Quota
comparisons between regions.
Options
Median
Personal
Personal
No
Team
Median Mean Min Max Count Exp. in

Only & Team Quota Only
On small sample sizes: Small samples for Years
especially Canada and Australia make USA 255,000 277,481 104,000 623,000 177 5 74% 4% 6% 32% 58%
estimates less reliable. UK 193,100 226,696 75,000 971,500 51 5 78% 2% 4% 43% 51%
EU 164,000 160,921 77,142 299,000 47 7 54% 8% 9% 35% 48%
Canada 190,000 222,253 105,000 500,000 15 5 73% 0% 7% 27% 66%
AU 189,000 207,037 580 480,000 17 8 76% 12% 11% 18% 59%

BACK TO TOP
Median On Target Earnings by Years of Experience

255,000
250,000
240,000
222,000
216,500
210,000
OTE By Years of Experience 200,000 200,000
192,500 .
201,000 .
185,500 .
Tenure has a greater 168,750 .
impact on IC wages than

161,000 .
150,000
Leader wages.
140,000 .
It appears ICs get regular raises over the 100,000

majority of their careers.
Leader wages start strong but do not appear 50,000

to rise as steadily.
OTE = On-target Earnings, or annual compensation,
assuming they hit quota or mid-level target.

0
OTE 0-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 20+
Years of Experience Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

BACK TO TOP
Median On Target Earnings by Typical Total Contract Value

253,188
250,000
239,774
236,437
225,305
200,000
192,648
183,545 . 184,215 .
181,343 .
OTE By Total Contract Value (TCV) 172,111 .
150,000
Bigger deals,
141,189 .
higher earnings.
100,000
For both ICs and Leaders, bigger deals drive
higher earnings especially when Contract
Value is over $50K.
50,000
TCV = Total Contract Value
OTE
0
0 - 50k 50 - 150k 150 - 500k 500k - 1m 1m+
TCV Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

BACK TO TOP
Average On Target Earnings by Company Size
248,835
250,000 241,521
240,010 237,313
215,016
210,265
204,559
200,000
189,374 .
177,309 .
166,726 .
167,371 . 161,915 .
161,109 .
156,584 .
OTE By Company Size
150,000
Larger firms
121,998
pay more. 100,000
All else equal, larger corporations offer ICs
and Leaders higher wages.

50,000
OTE
0
11-50 51-150 151-500 500-1k 1k-3k 3k-5k 5k-10k 10k+
Company Size Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

BACK TO TOP
Average On Target Earnings by AE:SE Ratio
250,507
250,000
229,015
228,577
221,772
200,000
OTE By AE:SE Ratio 178,801 .

178,473 .
175,682 .
156,294
150,546 .
Higher earners report a 150,000

146,431 .
lower AE:SE ratio.
100,000
As SEs become more experienced, they are
moved up market to partner with Account
Executives (AEs) and cover more strategic
enterprise accounts with larger deal sizes.

50,000
OTE 0
1-2 3-4 5-7 8-10 11+
AE:SE Ratio Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

BACK TO TOP
Median OTE by Time on Customers with over 10,000 Employees

308,750
300,000
258,000
226,000 231,886
240,000 216,500 245,000
208,875 215,000 217,500
OTE by Customer Size 200,000 170,000 179,750
174,500 189,000 175,000
192,500 206,500
162,500 160,000
150,000
Customer size predicts 100,000
OTE for ICs, but Leaders
OTE
0
selling into smaller 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
companies do not % Time Spent on Customers with 10,000+ Employees Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
sacrifice OTE.
ICs and Leaders who make the most money Median OTE by Time on Customers with under 150 Employees
are spending more time working with larger
customers.
250,000 235,000
223,000
200,000 202,000 201,500 200,000 207,750
200,000
However, salaries for Leaders who support 175,5000 165,000 165,619
150,545
150,000 147,500
smaller customers hold steady, statistically 126,031 130,000
speaking. 100,000
50,000
OTE
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
% Time Spent on Customers with <150 Employees Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
© 2023 CO NSENSUS S AL ES , I N C. | G OCO NSENSUS .CO M 19

BACK TO TO P
New and notable
OTE By Time In Current Position

Expected Change in On Target Earning (OTE)
Expected Change in OTE for Leaders
for ICs by Time in Current Position by Time in Current Position

Recently hired ICs report
higher OTE than their
tenured counterparts, For each additional year of tenure,
expected OTE for ICs
while the opposite is true fall $3k.

For each additional year of tenure,
of Leaders. expected OTE for Leaders
rise $1.6k.
New SEs joining the firm are negotiating

higher salaries upfront and often make more
than more tenured SEs on day one. On
Expected OTE
Expected OTE
average, all else equal, we expect new SEs at
a firm to make $3k more per year of tenure
than existing SEs.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Leaders tend to steadily increase their pay
Years in
Expected Change
Years in
Expected Change
with tenure. For each year of tenure, Leaders Current Position in IC OTE Current Position in Leader OTE
can expect to make $1.6k more annually.
© 2023 CONSENS U S S A LES, INC. | G OCONSENS U S.CO M 20

BACK TO TOP
Average On Target Earnings by Stock Options

255,565
250,000
OTE By Stock Options

200,000
Stock options are a 181,040 183,093
growing compensation
strategy and also predict 150,000 145,290
higher OTE.
100,000
Increasingly, Presales professionals do not
have to choose between stock options and
higher OTE. Respondents who have stock
options report 26% more OTE, while Leaders 50,000
with stock options earn 46% more than those
without stock options.
OTE
0
Without Stock Options With Stock Options
With or Without Stock Options Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

BACK TO TOP
New and notable
Probability of Stock Options by Time at Current Position
0.8
.77
.73
OTE By Stock Options (cont’d)
.68 .68
.66 . .65
.63 .
Stock options are a newer 0.6

.64 .
perk for ICs in the last 4-6

years.
.42 .
0.4
Stock options have always been a
compensation tool for Leaders, but there has
Probability of Stock Options

been an uptick in recent years. 77% of
Leaders who got a job less than a year ago
have stock options, up from an average of 0.2
.19 .
67% for more seasoned (>4 years) Leaders.
Approximately 64% of ICs now have stock

options. This is up nearly 50% from ICs
0
starting in their current role 7+ years ago.
0-1 2-3 4-6 7-12 >13
Time at Current Position Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
© 2 0 23 CO N S EN S U S SAL E S, I N C. | G OCO N S EN S U S.CO M 22

BACK TO TOP
New and notable
OTE By Quota
Average OTE by Quota Type (US only) Average OTE by Quota Type (US only)
Personal quotas are a 210,438
major predictor of higher 200k
179,843
189,084 189,270 300k
273,787 277,143
282,930
OTE (& base salary) for 245,492
ICs. 150k
200k
In the US, a quota appears to be a carrot and

100k
not a stick. Carrying a personal quota
predicts higher salary and higher OTE for ICs.
100k
An IC with a personal quota is expected to
50k
make about $30k more than someone with
no quota. In fact, on average, an IC carrying
any type of quota has higher earnings than
OTE
OTE
0 0
an IC with no quota.
None Both Team Only Personal Both None Personal Team Only
Quota Type Individual Contributors (IC) Quota Type Leaders

In our sample, Leaders with a team quota
reported the highest average earnings.

BACK TO TOP
What is your annual base salary in USD($)?
50
47
41
40 Median:
135K
35
32
30 30
28
USA 24
Individual Contributor
Base Salary 20 19
15 . 15 .
13
10 11
Frequency
5
3
2 2
0 1 1 1
50- 60k 70-80k 90-100k 110-120k 130-140k 150-160k 170-180k 190-200k 210-220k 230-240k 250-260k
IC Salary - USA Individual Contributors (IC)
Count: 325 | Median: 135,000 | Mean: 133,696 | Min: 49,500 | Max: 240,000

BACK TO TOP
What is your total annual (including at-risk) compensation (commission, bonuses, etc)
in USD($), assuming you meet quota?

30 Median:
180k
27
25 25 25
24 24
21
20
18
17
16
USA
14
Individual Contributor OTE
12
10 10
9 9 10 9 9
Frequency
4
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
50-
70-
90-
110-
130-
150-
170-
190-
210-
230-
250-
270-
290-
310-
330-
350-
370-
390-
410-
430k+
60k 80k 100k 120k 140k 160k 180k 200k 220k 240k 260k 280k 300k 320k 340k 360k 380k 400k 420k
IC Salary + At Risk - USA Individual Contributors (IC)

BACK TO TOP
25 24
21 Median:
20 20
19
180k
15 14
USA
12
Leader base salary 10
11
5
4 4 4
Frequency
3
5 5 5
2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1
0
70-
90-
110-
130-
150-
170-
190-
210-
230-
250-
270-
290-
310k+
80k 100k 120k 140k 160k 180k 200k 220k 240k 260k 280k 300k
Leader Salary - USA Leaders
Count: 177 | Median: 180,000 | Mean: 187,611.6 | Min: 70,000 | Max: 370,000

BACK TO TOP

16 16
15
Median:
255k
11 11 11 11
10
9 9
USA
7
Leader OTE 6 6 6
5 5 5 5
5
4 4 4
3 3 3 3 3
Frequency
2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
90-
110-
130-
150-
170-
190-
210-
230-
250-
270-
290-
310-
330-
350-
370-
390-
410-
430k+
100k 120k 140k 160k 180k 200k 220k 240k 260k 280k 300k 320k 340k 360k 380k 400k 420k
Leader Salary + At Risk - USA Leaders
Leaders: Count: 177 | Median: 255,000 | Mean: 277,481 | Min: 104,000 | Max: 623,000

BACK TO TOP

15
Median:
100K
12 12
11
10
8 8 8
Uk
7
Base Salary
5
4 4
3
Frequency
1 1 1
0
50- 60k 70-80k 90-100k 110-120k 130-140k 150-160k 170-180k 190-200k
IC Salary - United Kingdom Individual Contributors (IC)
Individual Contributors (IC): Count: 80 | Median: 100,000 | Mean: 102,511 | Min: 50,000 | Max: 185,000

BACK TO TOP

16
15
Median:
10 133.5k
8 8
Uk
6
5 5 5 5 7
4
3 3
Frequency
2 2 2
1 1 1 1
0
30-
50-
70-
90-
110-
130-
150-
170-
190-
210-
230-
250-
270-
290-
40k 60k 80k 100k 120k 140k 160k 180k 200k 220k 240k 260k 280k 300k
IC Salary + At Risk - UK Individual Contributors (IC)


BACK TO TOP

15
Leader Median:
132k
11
10
8
Uk
Leader Base Salary
5 5
4
3 3 3
Frequency
2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
50-
70-
90-
110-
130-
150-
170-
190-
210-
230-
60k 80k 100k 120k 140k 160k 180k 200k 220k 240k
Leader Salary - United Kingdom Leaders

Leaders: Count: 51 | Median: 132,000 | Mean: 165,452 | Min: 55,000 | Max: 940,000

BACK TO TOP

6 6
Median:
4 193.1k
Uk 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Leader OTE
2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Frequency 0
70-
90-
110-
130-
150-
170-
190-
210-
230-
250-
270-
290-
310-
330-
350-
370-
400k+
80k 100k 120k 140k 160k 180k 200k 220k 240k 260k 280k 300k 320k 340k 360k 380k
Leader Salary + At Risk - UK Leaders


BACK TO TOP

11
10
8 8 IC Median:
85K
7
6 6 6 6
eu
Base Salary 4 4
2 2 2
Frequency
1
0
30
50-
70-
90-
110-
130-
150-
40k 60k 80k 100k 120k 140k 160k
IC Salary - Europe Individual Contributors (IC)


BACK TO TOP

8
6 6 6 6
5 5 5
1
Median:
eu 4 4 4 119k
3 3 3
2 2 2 2
Frequency
1
0
50-
70-
90-
110-
130-
150-
170-
190-
210-
230-
250-
270-
290-
60k 80k 100k 120k 140k 160k 180k 200k 220k 240k 260k 280k 300k+
IC Salary + At Risk - Europe Individual Contributors (IC)


BACK TO TOP

10
8
Leader Median:
116k
6 6 6
eu 5
Leader Base Salary

4 4 4 4 4
3 3
2 2 2 2
Frequency
1 1
0
30
50-
70-
90-
110-
130-
150-
170-
190-
210-
230-
250-
40k 60k 80k 100k 120k 140k 160k 180k 200k 220k 240k 260k
Leader Salary - Europe Leaders

Count: 47 | Median: 116,000 | Mean: 121,190z | Min: 62,209 | Max: 230,000

BACK TO TOP

8
6 6
Median
164k
eu 4 4 4 4 4
Leader OTE
3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Frequency
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
50-
70-
90-
110-
130-
150-
170-
190-
210-
230-
250-
270-
290-
60k 80k 100k 120k 140k 160k 180k 200k 220k 240k 260k 280k 300k+
Leader Salary + At Risk - Europe Leaders


Workload

BA C K T O T OP
Presales Work week How many hours do you work in a typical week?
Long
but hours
nearly are
half easing,
of Leaders
250
263
regularly
46 hours. log over
200
Average work week for Leaders & ICs is 42 hours per week.
164
The number of ICs & Leaders who work more 150 27% still work more than
than 46 hours is down 14 percentage points 46 hours on a regular basis.

from 2022, but 27% still work more than 46 126
hours on a regular basis.
100 105
The mean combined work week for Leaders 71
and ICs is holding steady at 42 hours per 66
week.
50 45 40
ICs report a mean work week of 40 hours, 36
Frequency
21
with 16% of respondents working more than 9 8 6
18
46 hours on a regular basis.
0 2 1 6
0 <25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 >61
Leaders estimated a mean work week of 45 Weekly Hours Worked Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
hours, with over 46% working more than 46
hours on a regular basis. Individual Contributors (IC): Count: 616 | Median: 38 | Mean: 40 | Min: 20 | Max: 65
Leaders: Count: 371 | Median: 43 | Mean: 45 | Min: 28 | Max: 65
© 202 3 C ONSENSUS SA L ES , I N C. | GO C ONSENSUS .C O M 37

BACK TO TOP
Presales Crunch Week Average OTE by Typical Number of Weeks Worked Over 55 hours in a 3 Month Period
Frequent
predict crunch
higher weeks
earnings
300k
284,500
for
ICs.Leaders, but not for 235,930
250,739
225,344
208,020
200k
The number of crunch weeks worked in a 3 176,444
month period is a strong predictor of OTE.
165,403 170,267
157,493
150,400
The more crunch weeks Leaders work, the
higher their earnings.
100k
For each additional crunch week Leaders
work in a 7 week period, we see a $3.3K
increase in annual earnings.
Crunch weeks were not a significant predictor

of IC earnings.
0
OTE
Crunch weeks = Typical Number of Weeks Worked Over 55 hours in a 3

Never 1-2 3-4 5-10 11-13
Month Period Weeks Worked Over 55 Hours in 3 Months Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

B AC K TO TOP
In a typical 3 month period, how often do you need to work more than 55 hours in a week?
250 250
238
Presales Crunch Week (Cont’d) 200
Leaders report 1 more

crunch week than ICs in a 150 Leader Mean:
3 month period. 148
IC Mean:
2.5
1.5
About 21% of ICs said they worked more than 100
55 hours for at least 3-4 weeks, compared to 89 96
almost 36% of Leaders.
80
50
Generally, even in their crunch weeks,
Leaders and SEs are working fewer long hours
Frequency
24 22
21
than they reported in 2022. 8
6 5
0
0 Never 1-2 3-4 5-7 8-10 11-13
Weeks Over 55 Hours in 3 Months Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
Individual Contributors (IC): Count: 616 | Median: 1.5 | Mean: 1.51 | Min: 0
Leaders: Count: 371 | Median: 1.5 | Mean: 2.53 | Min: 0
© 2023 C ON SE N S U S SALES, I N C. | G O C ON SE N S U S.C O M 39

BA C K T O T OP
What is the maximum number of hours you’ve worked in a single week (seven day period)
over the past 12 months?

Presales Crunch Week (Cont’d) 200
Max hours have tapered 170
since last year, but 150

Leaders still log about 5
hours more than ICs 126
during crunch week.

120
100 IC Mean:
67 54
During crunch week 78
The average IC maxed out at 54 hours. 74
Leader Mean:
7% of ICs logged 70+ hours or more 62 60

The average Leader logged as many as 50
42 38
60 hours. 30
20% of Leaders worked 70+ hours.
23 26 28
20
9 10 10
Generally, even in their crunch weeks, 0 1
67
13 24 1
Leaders and ICs are working fewer long hours 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105
than they did in 2022.
Weeks Over 55 Hours in 3 Months Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
© 202 3 C ONSENSUS SA L ES , I N C. | G O C ONSENSUS .C O M 40

B A CK TO TOP
New and notable

Top Functions Ranked in Order of Time Spent vs. Order of Impact
Presales Activities
Top Functions by Time Spent Top Functions by Impact Difference
Too much time on Intro 1 Technical Demos Discovery 4-1=3
Demos; not enough on

Product Knowledge
developing product
2 Intro Demos 8-2=6
Improvement
expertise. 3 POCs Technical Demos 1 - 3 = -2
Planning/Architecting
4 Discovery
Solutions
5-4=1
Misallocation is a disconnect between how Leaders
and ICs actually spend their time and how they feel 5
Planning/Architecting
Consulting Calls 7-5=2
Solutions
their time should be spent.
Implement Presales
6 Consulting Calls 11 - 6 = 5
Tools
We find the difference between where they rank the
activity in terms of time spent and subtract where 7 RFPs POCs 3 - 7 = -4
respondents rank that same activity in terms of
order of impact.
Product Knowledge
8 Prospect Support 9 -8=1
Improvement
Intro Demos has the largest misallocation delta,

9 Prospect Support Other 10 - 9 =1
ranked 2nd in time spent and 10th in order of impact
on average.
10 Other Intro Demos 2 - 10 = -8
Product Knowledge has the next largest Implement Presales

11 RFPs 6 - 11 = -5
misallocation delta, signaling that respondents want Tools
more time to develop their product expertise.
This data suggests that Intro Demos and RFPs are Positive - respondents want to spend MORE time on the activity.
prime candidates for automation.
Negative - respondents want to spend LESS time on the activity.
Note: You will see this misallocation difference calculation referenced

throughout the report.
© 2023 C O N S E N S U S SALES, I N C. | G O C O N S E N S U S .C O M 41
B AC K TO TOP
What is the ratio of Account Executive to Sales Engineers?

100
95 87
84
80
IC Median:
AE:SE Ratio 4:1

60 61 . 61
ICs report a median ratio

of 4:1. 40
49 48 50
Leader Median:
Leaders report a median AE:SE ratio of about 3:1 35
3:1, whereas ICs who are not working in a 25 .

28 27
pooled assignment model report ratios of 4:1. 20 21
16 17
Frequency
11 12
6 6 6 7
5 4 5 4
0 0 12 1 3 1 2 1 0 02 00 00 01
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Ratio of AE:SE Individual Contributors (IC) (no Pooled)* Leaders
Individual Contributors (IC): Count: 415 | Median: 4 | Mean: 5.52 | Min: 1 | Max: 15+ *Removed ICs in a pooled assignment model from this analysis.
Leaders: Count: 369 | Median: 2.83 | Mean: 3.57 | Min: 0.2 | Max: 20
© 202 3 C ON SE N S U S SALES, I N C. | GO C ON SE N S U S.C O M 42

BAC K T O T OP
Stakeholders Per Deal How many stakeholders (including influencers and decisions makers)
are usually involved in the typical buying process for your product(s)?
There are nearly 5 150 149
stakeholders per deal.

142
124
ICs and Leaders report an average of 4.8
stakeholders per deal.
Mean:
4.8
100
97
Analysts consistently show enterprise B2B
buying groups are much larger, made up of 11 80
stakeholders on average*.
76 AEs report
11 stakeholders
The difference is a matter of who’s answering 53
the question and at which stage. AEs 50
generally report on buying group sizes to 34
36
analysts. As with our previous study, this 33 31
supports the sentiment that SEs are often less 20
Frequency
exposed to the complexity of the buying 14
18 18
13
process and buying group dynamics 3 2 2
10 8 12
2 3 3
because of how and when they’re utilized by 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Sales.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15+ Unknown
Stakeholders Per Deal Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

* According to Gartner, “An average of 11 individual stakeholders are
involved in a B2B purchase; that number can occasionally flex up to Individual Contributors (IC): Count: 594 | Median: 4 | Mean: 4.84 | Min: 1 | Max: 12
nearly 20. Leaders: Count: 360 | Median: 4 | Mean: 4.79 | Min: 1 | Max: 14
© 202 3 C ON SE N S U S SALES, I N C. | G O C ON SE N S U S.C O M 43

B AC K T O T O P
How many months does it take to fully onboard a Sales Engineer?

250
221
200
SE Onboarding Time Median:
6
Median time to ramp a 150
new SE continues to take 140
6 months. 100
111
29% of respondents report it takes 7 months or longer to onboard.
29% of respondents said it takes 7 months or

longer to onboard.
67 69
50 46 38 46
Average SE onboarding times are up 6% YOY. 42
Frequency
26 29
23 19
10 13 6 12 10 12 18
0 31 10 81 21 1 1 2 1 20 0 7 52 6 1
01 0 02 0 1 0 00 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24+
Months to Onboard Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
© 2023 CO N SE N S U S SA L ES , IN C. | G OCO N SE N S U S.COM 44

BACK TO TOP
Average Time to Onboard an SE by the Number of Demos Required per Typical Close/Win Deal
SE ramp time increases 10

11.24
exponentially with each 9.70
additional demo required

to close. 7.13
6.62 6.63
All else equal, it takes a little over 1 week 6.36
longer to onboard an SE going from deals 5

that take 1 demo to close compared to deals
that require 3 demos per close.
Months to Onboard
It takes about a month longer to onboard
when going from 3 to 5 demos per close.
0
<3 4-6 7+
Demos per Close Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

BACK TO TOP
Average Time to Onboard an SE by the Number of Products/SolutionsSupported by the Presales Team
10
8.92
8.33
8
7.55
6.54
More products/solutions
6.6
6.12 6.08 6.27 6.33
6
drive longer ramp times. 5.69
SEs who support more than 5 products have 4

a longer onboarding time.
Months to Onboard
2
0
1 2-3 4-5 6-10 11+
Products Supported Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

B A C K T O T OP
What percentage of your time is spent supporting Sales?

Supporting Different
150
Revenue Functions
Less than 3% of
ICs support sales

Median:
60% Less than 3% support
exclusively.
112
Sales exclusively.
100 99
96 94
Less than 3% of respondents reported 85 84
supporting Sales exclusively.
70
64
Client Success, Marketing, and even Business
Development are reaching out for Presales’ 50
46
time. 34
38 36 34
27
Sales: 58% (average time spent
Client Success: 15
Frequency
17 17
Marketing: 8 6 4 8 5 9
Business Development: 9 0 2
Channel: 6 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Other: 4% Percent of Presales Time Spent Supporting Sales Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
© 202 3 CO N S EN S U S S A L E S, IN C. | G OCO N S EN S U S.COM 47

BACK TO TOP
Which of the following best describes how SEs are assigned to fill requests
for presales resources (within a given segment, if applicable)?

400
AE assignment and pool

324
300
assignment models are
the most common
Presales deployment 200
212
strategies.
53% of SEs are assigned to specific AEs.
100
35% of SEs are placed into a shared pool for
AEs to engage as-needed.
Frequency
12 16 15 19
10
0 3
To AEs AE Choice Geography Manager Mix Pool Only 1 SE Specialization
SE Assignment Model

BACK TO TOP

(cont’d)
Average Percent of Time Spent on Large Firms
Average Percent of Time Spent on Small Firms
Customer size influences

IC Assignment models. 25%
23.2738
25%
25% more
20% 20% 19.6698
ICs working with larger customers are more
likely to be assigned directly to AEs.
17.4057 26% more
Avg. % Time Spent on Small Firms

Avg. % Time Spent on Large Firms
15% 15% 14.5833
On average, ICs directly assigned to AEs
spend 25% more time with larger customers 10% 10%
(+10K employees) compared to pooled ICs.
SEs working with smaller customers are more 5% 5%

likely assigned using a shared pooled model.
0 0
On average, SEs in a pooled model spend Pooled To AE Pooled To AE
26% more time with smaller customers (<150 SE Assignment Model SE Assignment Model
employees) compared to SEs directly
assigned to AEs.

BAC TO TO
K P
What Key Performance I I

ndicators (KP s) are used to judge your performance?
Select all that apply.
Closed Revenue / ARR 703
Feedback from Sales 512
Demo / POC Activities 415
Sales Quota 36 9
% of Deals Won vs Lost 351
Presales KPIs
Technical Win 312
No. of New Customers (Logos) 275
Revenue KPI is the most Feedback from Customers 257
used measure of IC &

Knowledge / Certifications 227
Peer Review 18 2
Leader performance. 160

Avg. Deal Size
Stage Movement 107
77% selected Revenue as top KPI followed by Sales Cycle Duration 95
56% who selected Feedback from Sales. Other 67
Ratio per $ of Revenue 4 7
Request Response Time 4 1
None 4 1
KPIs Prep Time 40
0 200 400 600 800

Frequency
© 2023 CON EN U
S S S S ALE , NC | GOCON EN U COM
S I . S S S. 50
BACK TO TOP
Performance Quota Do you carry a performance quota? Select all that apply.
Quotas are on the rise. 250

Personal quotas predict
246
higher base salaries for 204
ICs. 200
186
IC 150
64% had some kind of quota this year, up
from 61% last year.
14% only have a personal quota which is 114
up 1% YOY 100
50% have a team quotas 80
Personal quotas are correlated with higher
salaries.
50
Leader 36
67% had some kind of quota this year, up
Frequency
26
from 64% last year 17
55% have a team quota. 0
33% of Leaders have no quota Personal Quota Personal & Team No Quota Only Team
54% have only team quotas. Quota Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

BACK TO TOP
How is your personal quota measured?

Measuring Quota Other | 10%
Other | 21%
Technical Wins | 5%
ARR is the most popular
quota metric, irrespective
AAR | 35%
Individual
TCV | 17% AAR | 48% Leaders
of position and quota
Contributors TCV | 14%
(IC)
type. AAR & TCV | 10% AAR & TCV | 25% AAR & Other | 5%
AAR & Other | 10%
Approximately 66% of personal quotas for SEs
and Leaders are measured exclusively on, or
contain, the amount of Annual Recurring
Revenue (ARR) that they influenced. How is your team quota measured?
Weighing in at second is the Total Contract
Value (TCV) that they influenced.
Other | 10% Other | 10%

Technical Wins | 1% Technical Wins | 1%
Approximately 74% of team quotas for ICs
TCV | 15%
and Leaders are measured exclusively by
Individual TCV | 15%
AAR or contain AAR, again with Total Contract Contributors AAR | 56% Leaders AAR | 57%
Value coming second. AAR & TCV | 8% (IC)
AAR & TCV | 11%
AAR & Other | 10% AAR & Other | 6%

B AC K TO TO P
Presales vs. Sales Influence
Presales reports less Relative to Sales, how much influence and recognition does Presales have within your organization? (0-10)
influence & recognition 150
relative to Sales, YOY. 126
68% of Leaders say Presales influence is less 119
than Sales, up from 59% a year ago, an

increase of 15%.
100
91 90 89
63% of ICs say Presales influence is less than
Sales, up from 52% a year ago or 21%.
65
Macroeconomic factors may be shifting
focus toward Sales as firms struggle to 50 52
achieve their quarterly targets.
35
46 37
27
Respondents working at smaller firms report 23
higher Presales influence relative to Sales
Frequency
19 20
14 13 15
than those respondents working at larger 10
5 5 3 5
firms.
0
Much Less Less Same More Much More
Low AE:SE ratios and a lower percentage of Importance Relative to Sales Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
unqualified demos correspond to higher Individual Contributors (IC): Count: 566 | Median: 4 | Mean: 3.89 | Min: 0 | Max: 10
perceived influence and recognition related Leaders: Count: 343 | Median: 4 | Mean: 3.88 | Min: 0 | Max: 10
to Sales.
© 2 0 23 C ON SE N S U S SALES, I N C. | GO C ON SE N S U S.C O M 53
B AC K T O T O P
Does Presales have more or less influence at your organization compared to 1 year ago?
300
277
Presales Influence Over Time

200
Growth of Presales
86% of ICs/Leaders report the same or more influence YOY
influence slows compared

to a year ago. 120
100
Although 86% of ICs/Leaders report the same
79
or more influence year over year, this is down 64
74
from 90% in 2022. 59
Frequency
37
26 27
23
16 18 16
9 8 11 9 9 8 10
0 5 4
Much Less Less Same More Much More

Change in Influence Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
© 202 3 CO NSENSUS S AL ES , I N C. | G OCO NSENSUS .COM 54

BACK TO TOP
Average Presales Influence Compared to a Year Ago by Firm and Customer Size
6.1
6
Presales Influence Over Time 5.91
5.73
(Cont’d) 5.45
5.36 5.30
5.22
Presales influence in 4.83
smaller segments may

herald growing demand. 4
Respondents from smaller firms and those

who sell to smaller customers report a
More Presales Influence YOY

greater positive change in influence YOY than
those at larger firms or selling to larger 2
customers.
As Presales is traditionally more prevalent in

larger firms, this may be further evidence of
changing buyer demands which emphasize
more substantive interactions with sales 0
across every market segment.
Small firm,
Small firm,
Large firm,
Large firm,
Small customer Large customer Small customer Large customer
Firm and Customer Size Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

BACK TO TOP
Average Time at Current Position by Presales Influence Compared to a Year Ago
Presales Influence Over Time 6.97
(Cont’d)
6.08
6
Respondents who report

less influence YOY are 5.10
more likely to have been 4

in their position longer. 3.89
2.97
Time at Current Position

2.79
Respondents who report growing influence
have not been in their role very long. This 2
may suggest that ICs and Leaders are
leaving when they are not feeling valued.
Less Same More

BA C K TO TOP
Which of the following language markets does your Presales team support?
1000
If you cover multiple language markets, how does Presales handle
884 the demands of different language markets in your organization?
800
Specific SEs | 48%
Multilingual Strategies Specific SEs an d Multilingual Prospects | 22%

Multilingual Prospects | 18%
Other | 7%
Multilingual support
600
Recordings | 5%
poses problems at scale.
400
Language specific ICs are still the most 358 356
popular strategy for covering multiple 289

language markets.
200 190
174
132
Frequency
119 119
113
91 80
57 54 54
36
0
English
French
Dutch
Japanese
Other
Mandarin
Korean
Turkish
Spanish German Italian Swedish Danish Polish Russian Icelandic
Language Markets Supported by Presales Team
© 2023 C ON SE N S U S S A LES , I N C. | GO C ON SE N S U S.C OM 57

BA K
C TO TOP
From where did your organization hire your last ten (10) SEs? Select all that apply.
Hiring Sales Engineers
510
Tight labor market is

500
476 21%
473
% 4%
forcing leaders to look 5
417
beyond recruiting ICs 400
10 %
from other companies in
their same industry.

300
285
While enticing ICs from other companies in
28%
the same industry is still the most common
source of new ICs, we are seeing the largest

200
increase in hiring from other departments
internally, followed by other professionals
within the same industry.
100
92
Frequency
“Presales in Our Industry” fell by 21% year over
10 6%
year. That percentage was distributed over
the other hiring sources with “Presales

0
9 19%
outside our Industry” increasing 10% and
Outside
Outside
Internal
Presales
Presales
Direct From
Boss’s
“Internal Hires” increasing 4% from last year. Presales

Presales
Hire
In Our
Outside Our
College
Family
But In
And
Industry
Industry
Customer
Customer
Industry Industry
Sales Engineer Hired From YOY Increase YOY Decrease
© 202 3 CO N EN U
S S S S ALE S, I N C. |G OCO N EN U
S S S.CO M 58
BACK TO TOP
Were you hired directly into your current role from outside the organization?
IC Professional Mobility
Leaders still report more

internal mobility than ICs.
Individual
Contributors Leader
78% of ICs report being hired directly into (IC)
their current role from outside the company,
compared to only 46% of Leaders. Yes
No
Yes
No
78% 22% 46% 54%

BA C K TO TOP
New and notable
Improving Presales Work Life
200
191
Quality of Work Life

165
ICs and Leaders want the 150
perks of Sales, less

repetition, and more help. 119
100
ICs and Leaders report that removing 86

80
repetition and adding sales perks would
65
most improve their work life.
62
56 56
50
72% of ICs and 76% of Leaders rank “removing 46
43
repetition” or “adding perks/incentives” or
Frequency
“more hiring” as the top steps to improve
18
their work life.
0
Make available
Reduce repetitive
Hire more people
Allocate
Publicly
Other
to presales the
tasks so that my team can
in my department
increased budget for
recognize my
same perks and

be more strategic and
to share the
tools/technology
department for our
incentives available
consultative/creative
workload.
to enable my
contribution to the
to sales. in my work. department. organization.
How Work Life Can Be Improved Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
© 2023 C ONSENSUS SA L ES, I N C. | GO C ONSENSUS .C OM 60

BACK TO TOP
Other than your CRM or virtual meeting tool (like Zoom or MS Teams),
which tools in your tech stack are most valuable to you in your Presales functions?
miro loopio
salesloft clari postman rfipo
demostack
camtasia
seismic asana looker confluence
trello calendly servicenow
dooly
vivun
jira
github
Most Valuable Tools in Tech Stack ombud reflector loom acrobat
tableau linkedin
consensus gong demopro
saleo vmware
highspot
slack
hubspot
chorus adobe aws obs
mindtickle walnut
lucidchart
zendesk onenote figmapowerbi
snagit
smartsheet quip notion vidyard

BACK TO TOP
What tools are you or your team considering?
gong airtable
consensus
gainsight asana io notion trello
demomonkey walnut demostack
navattic
sap
freshworks
avnio bubble
figma
Most Valuable Tools in Tech Stack
(cont’d) demostory
camtasia
dooly
homerun highspot saleo guru reprise demobuilder

salesforceinvision
rfpio fuel demoblox slack powerbi miro
hubspot concur dockify jira pendo
cplace
discernvivun
apollo
clari loopio seismic
confluence
tourial
askai
demopro

Demos

BACK TO TOP
Who Delivers Demos
AEs are pitching in with Who performs product demonstrations for prospective buyers of your product?
demos to reduce the time
customers need to wait. 67% of teams still own
SE
SE & AE
67% 21%
product demos exclusively,
SEs still do the lion’s share of demos at 67%, but demo support from teams
outside of Presales is up YOY. SE & Other | 4%

but we are seeing an increase in demo Who
AE, SE, & BDR/SDR | 4%
support from teams outside Presales.
Performs
Demos Other | 2%
SE & BDR/SDR | 1%
33% of teams reported demo support from Account Executive (AE) | 1%
outside of Presales, increasing by 6.5% from
last year.
Other teams could be pitching in with demo

support as a result of growing demo lag
times.

BACK TO TOP
How many business days does a prospect typically wait from the time
they request a presales product demonstration to the time they get one?
412
400
353
Demo Lag Time

300 Average demo lag time:
~6 days
Prospects are waiting
longer for demos YOY.
200
43% of respondents reported that prospects
have to wait 6 days or more for a demo. This
is up more than 13% from last year.
137
100
7% of respondents reported that prospects
have to wait longer than 2 weeks.
Frequency
48
14
9 9
0 5
<1 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-30 31+

Business Days Wait for Demo Individual Contributors (IC) and Leaders
Count: 987 | Median: 4 | Mean: 5.98 | Min: 0 | Max: 35

BACK TO TOP

Average Demo Wait Times (Business Days) by Months to Onboard
Longer SE Onboarding 10
9.86
times predict longer

demo wait times.
8
7.46 .
7.04
Existing operational SEs on a team with
6.77
ramping SEs have to handle demo demand

6
until new hires are fully ramped which takes 6 5.89
5.94
5.70
months on average.
Demo Wait Time in Business Days

5
4.69 . 4.46
The addition of more work and a fixed

4
bandwidth drives up demo wait times,
elongates sales cycles, and likely decreases
win rates.
Leaders should perform a gap analysis to
estimate and account for projected
coverage.
<2 3-5 6-8 9-12 >12

To learn more about gap analysis, see
7 Immutable Strategies for Scaling Presales. Time to Onboard Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

BACK TO TOP
Lower demo lag times

predict higher Presales Average Demo Wait Times (Business Days) by the Change in Presales Influence Compared to a Year Ago
influence. 8
There appears to be a relationship between

6.72
lower demo wait times and a perception of
6.44 6.42
6.20
increased Presales influence over time. This
6
may suggest that ICs who are able to handle
demo demands feel relevant and valuable to 5.32
their sales teams while ICs hopelessly buried 4.94
by demo requests feel stressed and
mistreated.
Wait Time in Business Days

Longer demo wait times also represent an
opportunity for more responsive competitors
to preempt the initial demo, frame the

2
evaluation criteria, and deliver a better initial
customer experience.
Presales influence may decline when IC
calendars are seen as bottlenecks. 0
Less Same More

Consensus helped to dramatically reduce demo lag times
at Visma | Raet, adding capacity to Presales teams and
improving cooperation between Presales and Sales.
Read the case study.

C T T
BA K O OP
How many product demonstrations does a member of your presales team perform in a typical week?
150
Demos Per Week
ICs are delivering fewer
123
IC Median:
3 demos
demos per week YOY. 100
109
85
The reported median demos delivered per Leader Median:
4 demos
week is 3 for ICs and 4 for Leaders.
67
63 59 63 1
Regardless, ICs and Leaders report that ICs 50 52
are delivering one demo less per week than 50
last year.
40
34
29 30
This may be driven by the reported increase 20 21
25
Frequency
17
in the average work hours required per 12 14 0
demo. 0
10
33 11
13
6 1 12
0
13 9
3
0 1 20 1 1 00 1 00 1 1
0 <1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 21+
Weekly Demos Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
© 202 3 C ONSENSUS SA L ES , I N C. | GO C ONSENSUS .C O M 68

BA K O OP
C T T
For a single product demonstration, how many total staff hours are required for a typical demonstration?
(please include preparation time and standard follow up in addition to time spent during the demonstration itself.)
109
100
p
Leader and IC Median
3 hours er demo
81
80
Hours Per Demo
68
67
65
Work-hours per demo is 60

61
growing, and larger deals 54
47
predict more work-hours

40 41
40
per demo.
39
31
35
The reported work-hours per demo is up

24
21
20 20
approximately 20% or 30 minutes for ICs and 19
18
17
Frequency
16
15
Leaders compared to 2022. 15
10 10
9
7 7
7 7
5
3 2 3 2 2
2 3 2 1
0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11+
Work-hours Per Demo Individual Contributors (IC) Leader
© 2023 C ONSENSUS SA ES, N L I C. | GO ONSENSUS OC .C M 69

BACK TO TOP
Average Work-hours per Demo by TCV

6
5.72
5.48
5.36
4.85 4.84
4.71
4.21
Hours Per Demo (Cont’d)
4 3.93
As deal sizes increase 3.56 3.43
above $200K, the number

of work-hours per demo 2.872.91
plateaus. 2
Work-hours per Demo

0
<51k 51-100k 101-200k 201-500k 501k-1m 1m+
Total Contract Value Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

BA K T
C O T OP
How many Presales product demonstrations (either remote or in person) are required per typical closed/won deal?
Please include all repeat demonstrations required due to new stakeholders engaging, etc.
211
Demos Per Deal
200
191
It takes an average of 3
demos to close/win a deal.

:
150
Median
3 demos per deal

26% of respondents said 4 or more (and as
high as 15) demos are required.
121
101
Organizations define “demos'' differently, and 100
generally approach demos with an overly
generic strategy. Consensus researched 75

thousands of demos delivered by teams
60
across the globe and across every major 56
50
industry, and found that there are 6 different

39
34
types of demos, each serving a unique
28
Frequency
purpose for various stakeholders at various
buying stages. For more information on the 9 7 8

8 7 4 6 5 6
different demo types and where they’re 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 1
applicable, see The Definitive Guide to the 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Demo Types.
Demos Required per Close Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
Leaders: Count: 3 71 | Median: 3 | Mean: 3.23 | Min: 0 | Max: 20
© 0 3 2 2 CO NSENSUS SALES IN , C. | G OCO NSENSUS .COM 7 1

C T T
BA K O OP
What percentage of your product demonstrations would you classify as unqualified or under-qualified?
200
Unqualified Demos 163
30% of Presales demos 150
are unqualified.
30% of demos
are unqualified.
O ne quarter said 50% of
117 demos are unqualified.

111
26% of respondents say that more than 50% 100

of demos are unqualified.
81 82
For a breakdown of the costs associated with 65
each demo check out Cost of Demo 50

56
54
59
Calculator. 37 36
Frequency
23 23 25
20
16
11
0 8
<10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of Demos Unqualified Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
ndividual Contributors (IC): Count: 616 | Median: 30 | Mean: 33.125 | Min: 5
I a
| M x: 90
eaders: Count: 371 | Median: 30 | Mean: 34.78 | Min: 5 | Max: 90
L
Consensus reduced unqualified demos by 89% at Trintech.
© 202 3 C ONSENSUS SALES, IN C. | GO C ONSENSUS .C OM 72

B AC K TO TOP
New and notable
Unqualified Demos (cont’d)
The average misallocation of time spent on

More unqualified demos
The average misallocation of time spent on
Presales activities by percentage of Intro Demos by percentage of unqualified
demos.
predict greater
unqualified demos.
misallocation of time 25
23.55
24.54 24.05 24.40
3
2.70 .
2.88
spent on Intro Demos. 21.64

21.14
21.59
20
19.42 2.52 2.53
2.34
Greater Misallocation of Time Spent

Teams that report more unqualified demos 2 1.99
1.80
also report a greater discrepancy between 15
1.63
the impact of Intro Demos and the time they
demand of the team.
10
1
While Intro Demos are rated as low impact

5
generally, unqualified demos are particularly
egregious as they waste precious resources
that could be better allocated to higher 0 0
impact activities such as discovery, technical <10% 20-30 40-50 60+ <10% 20-30 40-50 60+
demos, and POCs.
% Demos Unqualified ICs Leaders % Demos Unqualified ICs Leaders
Note: See Presales Activities to review misallocation and how it is

calculated.
© 2023 CO N S E N S U S SA L E S, I N C. | G OCO N S E N S U S.CO M 73

BACK TO TOP

Average % Demos Unqualified by
Average % Demos Unqualified by
Change in Influence of Presales Relation to Sales

ICs overburdened with
unqualified demos report
42
40% 40%
lower influence and 36 36 36

35 35 34
33 33
recognition relative to
31
30% 30 30% 28
Sales.
20% 20%
ICs confronted with more unqualified demos
% Unqualified Demos
% Unqualified Demos
are more likely to report that Presales has
less influence in their organization than they 10% 10%
did one year ago.
Similarly, ICs confronted with more 0 0

unqualified demos also report less influence Less Same More Less Same More
and recognition relative to Sales. Change in Influence of Presales ICs Leaders Relation to Sales ICs Leaders

Burnout

BACK TO TOP
Overall, based on your definition of burnout, how would you rate your level of burnout?
400
347
300
Costs of Burnout Nearly 22% of ICs and 31%
of Leaders report Burnout.
Nearly 22% of ICs and 31% 200

206
of Leaders report feeling

at least some symptoms
of burnout. 100 135
89 93
48
Frequency
31
17 14 4
0
Never
Occasionally
Feeling Some
Persistent
Burned Out
Stressed Symptoms Symptoms

Experience Burnout Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

BACK TO TOP
BURNO
Key Drivers UT
Low Work / Life Balance
The many causes of Hours worke

Crunch weeks Intent to Leave
burnout.
Low Quality / Low Impact Activities
The causes of burnout can be placed broadly
Lack of Influence and Recognitio
into two categories: Lack of Work/Life Misallocation of Time and Resource
Balance, and Low Quality/Impact Activities Contract Siz
Unqualified Demos

BACK TO TOP
New and notable
Misallocation of Time & Resources

Average Squared Misallocation of Time Spent by Burnout
109
Misallocating time and 100 100
resources fuels burnout, 87

91
draining productivity and

perpetuating a cycle of 76 76
inefficiency and
frustration.
50
Misallocation is a disconnect between how
Average Squared Misallocation

Leaders and ICs actually spend their time
and how they feel their time should be spent.
We find the difference between where they

rank the activity in terms of time spent and
subtract where respondents rank that same
activity in terms of “Moving the Needle.”
0
Squaring this difference exaggerates
extreme mismatches and gives a measure of Less Same More
total misallocation which is correlated with Burnout Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
burnout.

calculated.

BACK TO TOP
Average Burnout by
Average Burnout by
Hours Worked Weekly Weeks Over 55 Hours in 3 Months

3 3 3
2.83
Long Hours 2.74
2.62 2.67
2.43 2.44 2.46
2.33 2.30 .
Long hours
2.27 2.18
2.08 . 2.11 .
2.05 . 2.06 2.06
2 1.97 . 2 2
predict burnout. 1.92 .
The data shows that the total hours worked

1 1
weekly and the number of crunch weeks in a
3 month period contribute to burnout.
More Burnout
More Burnout
0 0
<35 36-40 41-45 45+ Never 1-2 3-4 5-7 8-10 11-13
Hours Worked Weekly ICs Leaders Weeks Over 55 Hours in 3 Months ICs Leaders

BACK TO TOP
New and notable
Burnout by Percentage of Unqualified Demos
2.58
2.5
2.39 . .
2.32
2.26
Unqualified Demos 2.19
2.14
2 1.97
Unqualified demos are 1.83 .
comparable to long work

hours in predicting 1.5
burnout.
In the context of burnout, a 10% increase in 1
unqualified demos is equivalent to

permanently adding 4 hours to the work
week.
.5
More Burnout
<10% 20-30 40-50 60+
Percentage of Unqualified Demos Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
Consensus helped free Blackbaud SEs from repetitive Intro

Demos, allowing them to refocus on higher impact
activities and improving their overall wellbeing and work-
life balance. Read the case study.
© 2 0 23 CO N SE N S U S SA L ES, I N C. | G OCO N SE N S U S.CO M 80

BACK TO TOP
Average Presales Influence Relative to Sales by Burnout Level

4
Perceived Lack of Influence
& Recognition
ICs want recognition for 3
the value they bring to the

4.05 4.07
3.74
sales cycle. 2
3.63
More Influence Relative to Sales

Those experiencing the highest levels of 2.70
burnout consistently reported that they have
the least amount of influence relative to sales 2.17
than any other group. 1
0
Less Same More
Consensus helped a Fortune 100 work management

Burnout Level Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
company transform the sales process, harmonize the
Sales and Presales relationship, and exceed revenue goals
even in an uncertain market. Read the case study.

BACK TO TOP
Average Total Contract Value by Burnout Level

High Stakes Deals
1,500,000
The pressure of large high 1,400,000
stakes deals predicts

burnout.
1,000,000
All else equal, there appears to be an 891,952
862,090
increasing relationship between burnout and
deal size.
This may be due to the fact that larger deals

have more stakeholders. Identifying, 500,000
527,007
understanding the needs of, and connecting 474,318
Total Contract Value

with the many stakeholders of larger deals to
305,313
effectively position your solution can be
challenging and frustrating. Each additional
stakeholder is a potential veto to any closed
deal. 0
Low Moderate High
Burnout Level Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

Demo Automation

BACK TO TOP
Adoption of Demo Automation Does your organization automate any portion of the demo process
(eg. through videos, webinars, etc)?

The majority of
organizations are No
44%
Yes
56%
No
48%
Yes
52%
automating some demo
processes. Individual
Contributors Leaders
(IC)
56% of ICs report automating at least some
portion of the demo process.
52% of Leaders report automating any

portion of the demo process.

BACK TO TOP
AE:SE Ratio by Organizations Who Do or Do Not Utilize Automation

8
6.84
Scaling Presales Resources 6

5.84
Demo automation helps

support higher AE:SE 4.52 4.59
ratios. 4
On average, ICs that use automation report

17% higher AE:SE ratios. 2
AE:SE Ratio
0
With Automation Without Automation
Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders
Consensus helped Coupa scale their Presales team equal

to having 4 additional full-time SEs. Read the case study.

BACK TO TOP
Average Demos Required per Deal by Number Stakeholders per Deal
Scaling Presales Resources for Organizations Who Do or Do Not Utilize Automation 4.33
(cont’d) 4.17 .
4
Automation helps shave

3.75
3.52 .
off the number of 3.25
required demos to close/ 3

3.16 .
win.
2.80
2.64
2.51 . 2.51 .
2.25
Firms who use automation report a lower 2 2.06 .
number of demos required to close/win a
deal regardless of the size of the buying
group.
This suggests that demo automation is likely 1

satisfying the demand for live Intro Demos
Demos per Deal

and thereby reducing the total number of
demos needed to close.
0
<3 3 4 5 6-8 9+
Stakeholders per Deal Automation No Automation
Consensus helped Access use digital demos to scale
Presales while growing company revenue by over $20K.
© 202 3 CO NSENSUS S A LES, I N C. | G OCO NSENSUS .CO M 86

BACK TO TOP
Average Work-hours per Demo by Automation
5
Scaling Presales Resources
(Cont’d) 4.53
Automation frees up ICs

4.22
4
to focus on more 3.70

3.75
customized in-depth
demos. 3
Firms who use automation report higher 2

work-hours per demo than those who do not
use automation.
Work-hours per Demo

This is likely because automation handles the 1
repetitive Intro Demos for ICs so they can
spend more time on higher impact activities.
0
Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

BACK TO TOP
New and notable
The Probability a Firm Utilizes Automation by Burnout
Reduce Burnout
0.6
0.57 0.57
Firms who automate a 0.53

0.52
portion of the demo 0.46 0.48
process report less

burnout. 0.4
Probability a Firm Utilizes Automation

Automation allows ICs to offload the
repetitive low impact activities and instead
spend their time focused on skilled high
impact work.
0.2
70% of all IC teams ranked “Removing

Repetition” in the top 3 improvements that
would create a positive impact on their work
life.
0
ICs reporting High levels of Burnout are 24%
None Moderate High
less likely to automate.
Burnout Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

BACK TO TOP
New and notable
Average Total Misallocation of Time Spent by Automation
25
24.68
22.11
22.94
Reduce Burnout (Cont’d) 20.81
20
Automation helps shift IC

time to higher-impact 15
activities.

Automation lowers the degree of
10
misallocation, between how Leaders and ICs
actually spend their time and how they feel
their time should be spent, which is
associated with burnout.

calculated.
Automation Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

BACK TO TOP
Too often, B2B sales cycles are centered on the G2 and Aragon Research have recently recognized
vendor. Buyers typically have to juggle multiple Demo Automation as an official Presales tech
meetings with sales reps before even experiencing category to showcase the growing market of
the product. They have to play along with vendor- solutions that automate the creation and
driven buying processes and drawn-out sales distribution of demos.
cycles just to gather the information they need to
assess - “Is this the right solution for our business?”
There must be a better way – and there is:
Demo Automation.
The Rise of Demo Both G2 and Aragon Research have identified Introducing G2’s
Automation Demo Automation as a major factor in removing

friction from the sales funnel. Demo automation
Demo Automation Category
solutions allow buyers to see and understand a
product’s key feature set and value earlier in the
sales process, often without engaging the sales
team. This can accelerate sales cycles, provide
more qualified leads, and delight buyers by
empowering them to self-educate and chart their
own enablement course.
The Rise of Demo Automation
Digitizing the Last Mile of the Customer
Acquisition Process

BACK TO TOP
PREMIUM PRESALES CONTENT
Consensus offers the #1 hub for premium Presales content and insights.
In addition to this research, we’ve published a number of guides, eBooks and templates. Consensus has also
launched the industry’s first publicly available all-Presales virtual conference called DEMOFEST. We host the
Scaling Presales webinar series with two events each month, and we recently launched the Burning Presales
Podcast.
Explore a few of our most impactful resources here or check out our full library of Presales content at
www.goconsensus.com under Resources.
Visit the Resource Center

Version History
version 1.
Updated page 3 Executive Summary: Added Licensing term
Added pages 4-5 Advance Prais
Updated page 10 About The Sample | Number of Solutions insights
Updated pages 13-14 Compensation | OTE At A Glance insight
Updated page 41 Workload | Presales Activities insights and char
Updated page 66 Demos | Demo Lag Time (Cont’d) insight
Updated page 67 Demos | Demo Lag Time (Cont’d) insight
Updated page 71 Demos | Demos Per Deal insight
Updated page 72 Demos | Unqualified Demos insight
Updated page 80 Burnout | Unqualified Demos insight
Updated page 81 Burnout | Perceived Lack of Influence & Recognition insight
Scaling page 85 Demo Automation | Scaling Presales Resources insight
Scaling page 86 Demo Automation | Scaling Presales Resources (Cont’d) insights

Consensus - 2023 SE Report - V1.4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consensus - 2023 SE Report - V1.4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

<10% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% <1 day 1-2 3-5

<1 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20

2023 Compensation & Workload Report

© 2023 CONSENSUS SALES, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

We researched these trends – which led to our first

workload and comp study – and found that, rather

Presales research has come to mean more to us

than just serving as an avenue for thought

leadership. It has literally shaped our business.

Several years ago, we found a glaring problem in

B2B that nobody was solving successfully: how to

from the data that “sellers can’t close deals, only

There were, and are, waves of disruption in B2B –

and pulling them into conversations later in the

process. But when they did engage, they preferred

Automation Platform. We use patented interactive

video demos along with a stakeholder discovery

This led to a surge in demand for Presales

resources across the customer lifecycle that has

only grown. But there’s a gap between that demand

and the availability of Presales talent to deliver it,

creating bottlenecks that delay and can even kill

© 2023 CONSENSUS SALES, INC. | GOCONSENSUS.COM 1

Unqualified Demos (Cont’d)

Generalist vs. Specialist

High Stakes Deals

62 Most Valuable Tools in Tech Stack (Cont’d)

The Rise of Demo Automation

© 2023 CONSENSUS SALES , INC. | GOCONSENSUS.COM 2

A Note On Leaders and Individual Contributors

This report is governed by the licensing terms found here.

© 2023 CONSENSUS SALES, INC. | GOCONSENSUS.COM 3

Global VP Solution Engineering,

Q Branch | Salesforce Performance Sales Training

Owner & Founder

Team Sales D e v elo p men t I nc . G rea t D emo !

and discovery.” Trainer & Coach

Mastering Technical Sales

Founder & President

© 2023 CO N S EN S U S SA LE S , IN C . | G OCO N S EN S U S . COM 5

New and Notable

Findings repetition, and more help.

© 2023 CO N SE N SUS S A LES, I N C. | G OCO N SE N SUS.COM 6

We gathered about 1000 responses* from 15

© 2023 CONSENSUS SALES, INC. | GOCONSENSUS.COM 7

Software | 53% Software & Prof. Services | 37%

151 to 500 | 19%

Logistics & Supply Chain | 2%

Computer Software | 43% Human Resources | 3%

How many years of experience do you have in your current role?

© 2023 C ON SE N S U S SALES , I N C. | GO C ON SE N S U S.C O M 9

ICs support more than 6 solutions on average.

ICs support 4-5

Products Supported Individual Contributors (IC) Leaders

Leaders: Count: 371 | Median: 5 | Mean: 9.24 | Min: 1 | Max: 46

© 2023 CO NSENSUS S LES, IN . G A C | OCO NSENSUS. COM 1 0

Would you classify yourself as more of a “generalist” or “specialist”?

About the sample:

Generalist vs. Specialist Individual

30% of Leaders are specialists and 68% are

© 2023 CONSENSUS SALES, INC. | GOCONSENSUS.COM 11

© 2023 CONSENSUS SALES, INC. | GOCONSENSUS.COM 12

Median On Target Earnings