Marketing Letters

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 589–602 | Cite as

Assessing sales contest effectiveness: the role of salesperson and sales district characteristics

  • Srinath Gopalakrishna
  • Jason Garrett
  • Murali K. Mantrala
  • Shrihari Sridhar


Sales contests are widely employed to improve short-term sales performance, but knowledge about their effectiveness at the individual salesperson level remains sparse. Proponents argue that contests increase sales by stimulating salespeople, while critics say that contests merely encourage strategic timing of sales efforts. The authors draw on the strategic sales timing literature and goal theory to hypothesize that in a consultative selling scenario, sales will dip below the baseline before the contest but increase above the baseline during and after the contest. They posit that sales district potential and salesperson ability moderate the pre-contest sales dip, contest sales boost, and post-contest sales. Results from a model based on individual-level data on 1180 salespeople in 78 sales districts are largely supportive of the hypotheses. They highlight the need for researchers to integrate the role of strategic timing, salesperson, and sales district characteristics to assess sales contest outcomes. For practitioners, the findings show that in consultative selling situations, contests can generate a net sales increase despite the occurrence of timing games, and the sales gain is higher in districts with lower sales potential and among salespeople with higher sales ability.


Sales contests Sales force management Marketing strategy Multilevel models 



The authors wish to thank the insurance company that provided access to several managers permitting extensive discussions and the sharing of proprietary agent-level data. They also thank the Forum for People Performance Management and Measurement at Northwestern University for their support of this research.


  1. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen, H., Ham, S. H., & Lim, N. (2011). Designing multiperson tournaments with asymmetric contestants: an experimental study. Management Science, 57(5), 864–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dodge, R. H. (1973). Field sales management: text and cases (pp. 284–289). Dallas: Business Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Duncan, C. S., Khattak, A. J., & Council, F. M. (2000). Applying the ordered probit model to injury severity in truck-passenger car rear-end collisions (pp. 65–71). Washington DC: Transportation Research Record, Paper No. 98–1237, TRB National Research Council.Google Scholar
  5. Fu, Q., & Jones, E. (2005). How quota setting policy influences salesperson risk behavior and effort level: sandbagging effect. Proceedings of the National Conference in Sales Management.Google Scholar
  6. Garrett, J., & Gopalakrishna, S. (2010). Customer value impact of sales contests. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(6), 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lim, N., Ahearne, M. J., & Ham, S. H. (2009). Designing sales contests: does prize structure matter? Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 356–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Marchetti, M. (2004). Why sales contests don’t work. Sales & Marketing Management, 156(1), 19.Google Scholar
  9. Murphy, W. H., & Dacin, P. A. (1998). Sales contests: a research agenda. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 18(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  10. Murphy, W. H., & Sohi, R. S. (1995). Salesperson’s perceptions about sales contests: towards a greater understanding. European Journal of Marketing, 29(13), 42–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Naik, P. A., Prasad, A., & Sethi, S. P. (2008). Building brand awareness in dynamic oligopoly markets. Management Science, 54(1), 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Oyer, P. (1998). Fiscal year ends and non-linear incentive contracts: the effect on business seasonality. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(1), 149–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ridlon, R., & Shin, J. (2013). Favoring the winner or loser in repeated contests. Marketing Science, 32(5), 768–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Sinha, P., & Zoltners, A. A. (2001). Sales-force decision models: insights from 25 years of implementation. Interfaces, 31(3), S8–S44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Steenburgh, T. (2008). Effort or timing: the effect of lump-sum bonuses. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 6(3), 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tosdal, H. R. (1924). The use of contests among salesmen. Harvard Business Review, 2(4), 480–489.Google Scholar
  18. White, H. (1982). Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica, 50(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wotruba, T. R., & Schoel, D. J. (1983). Evaluation of salesforce contest performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 3(1), 1–10.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Srinath Gopalakrishna
    • 1
  • Jason Garrett
    • 2
  • Murali K. Mantrala
    • 1
  • Shrihari Sridhar
    • 3
  1. 1.Trulaske College of BusinessUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Foster College of BusinessBradley UniversityPeoriaUSA
  3. 3.Smeal College of BusinessPenn State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations