In an operating model where the sales team is not divided by region, establishing an effective customer attribution protection mechanism is crucial. In the current market environment, sales personnel may simultaneously engage with multiple interrelated medical institutions, and purchasing decisions often involve multiple campuses or affiliated organizations, which can lead to overlapping customer ownership. For example, a hospital that a salesperson has been following up with for a long time may decide to place an order for another affiliated institution managed by a different salesperson, thereby triggering ownership disputes.

To address such situations, companies need to formulate clear rules to define customer ownership. It is recommended to consider the following dimensions:

I. Core Principles for Determining Customer Ownership

First, the scope of the definition of "customer" should be clarified. In the healthcare industry, a customer may be a hospital group, multiple campuses, or an independent legal entity. It is recommended to use the "final purchasing decision unit" as the basis for ownership determination, rather than relying solely on an individual contact. If a purchase is initiated by a customer maintained by one salesperson, but the actual beneficiaries include institutions covered by other sales personnel, this should be handled through negotiation or preset rules.

Second, establish a customer relationship registration system. Sales personnel should regularly update their assigned customer lists and key contacts and enter them into the system. When cross-institutional purchases occur, the system can automatically alert relevant sales personnel for timely coordination.

II. Handling Mechanism for Cross-Institutional Purchases

When a hospital decides to make a purchase for an affiliated institution that belongs to another salesperson's customer, it is recommended to adopt one of the following two approaches:

  • Primary Responsibility Attribution Method:Credit the entire order to the salesperson who initiated the purchase, but require them to pay a certain percentage of referral commission or collaboration fee to the salesperson responsible for the affiliated institution. This method is simple and direct but may lead to internal conflicts.
  • Commission Splitting Method:Distribute the commission proportionally based on each party's contribution to closing the deal. For example, the initiating party receives 60%, and the affiliated party receives 40%. This method is fairer but requires clear evaluation criteria.

Which specific approach to adopt should be aligned with the company's sales strategy and team culture. It is recommended to specify this in advance in the sales policy to avoid post-hoc disputes.

III. Strategies for Handling Overlapping Leads from Trade Shows

In trade show scenarios, a common situation is: a customer hosted by one salesperson has colleagues within the same hospital who are already in communication with other sales personnel. In this case, how should ownership be determined?

One feasible approach is to use "first valid contact" as the basis for ownership. If the contact at the trade show is the first time establishing a relationship, it belongs to that salesperson; if the customer is already on another salesperson's follow-up list, the trade show salesperson should transfer the lead to the original responsible person and may receive a certain percentage of "lead referral reward."

Another approach is: after the trade show ends, consolidate all leads and have the sales supervisor allocate them based on the customer's historical interaction records. If duplicates are found, priority is given to the salesperson who established the relationship earliest, but the trade show salesperson may participate in commission sharing, with the ratio recommended at 10% to 20%, to be determined through team negotiation.

IV. Policy Implementation and Communication

Regardless of the rules adopted, transparency and consistency are key. It is recommended to incorporate the above rules into the sales manual and communicate them at team meetings. Additionally, establish a dispute arbitration mechanism, with the sales director or designated personnel responsible for adjudication.

Furthermore, regularly review the effectiveness of the rules and adjust them based on actual cases. For example, if cross-institutional purchases are frequent, consider introducing the concept of "customer groups," treating affiliated institutions as a single customer managed by one sales manager, with others serving in support roles.

Ultimately, a sales team without regional divisions needs to rely on clear rules and a collaborative culture to balance individual interests with team goals. Commission splitting and lead referral mechanisms are common and effective tools, but it is essential to ensure that all sales personnel understand and accept these rules.

In summary, by establishing customer ownership registration, clarifying cross-institutional purchase handling processes, formulating trade show lead allocation rules, and supplementing them with commission splitting mechanisms, companies can effectively reduce internal conflicts and enhance the overall efficiency and satisfaction of the sales team.