Philipp Stelzer: Hello, and welcome to another edition of the RevOps Lab podcast. Our guest today is Jeremy Donovan from Insight Partners. And with me, I also have Janis.

Janis Zech: Hello.

Jeremy Donovan: Hey there. Thanks so much for having me on.

Philipp Stelzer: Yeah. Great to have you. Great to have you both. Janis, a freaking guest on the show again recent times, so it's it's it's good it's good to have you.

Janis Zech: It feels good to be back. I love the multi person podcast also because then it it it's kinda more interesting, and I I listen to a lot of podcasts. So the ones with a small little party going on sometimes are more fun, often are more fun.

Philipp Stelzer: Yeah. Yeah. I I I fully agree. And I think particularly for today's topic, we wanna talk about territory planning. I I have to admit, I I haven't done a territory planning myself. Janis has. So I think it's good to have him on. Obviously, I can try to ask, like, the good questions and smart questions around it, but, ultimately, I will fall short. So, yeah, I'm I'm glad to have that backup.

Janis Zech: Yeah. A quick introduction maybe. So, Jeremy, actually, you have quite a, yeah, impressive resume, I think. Currently, you're executive VP of revenue operations and strategy at Insight Partners. You basically are on the advisory side helping founders and companies to succeed in building, like, a successful revenue engine. I think that's great. You're an adjunct professor, Chicago CRO program at the University of Chicago, I think that is to say. You do have a background in engineering and data science. I think your last data science degree you attained, actually, just very recently, which I thought was—

Jeremy Donovan: During — I got a little bored during COVID, so I did an online degree through the University of Virginia.

Janis Zech: Of course. Who doesn't? Who doesn't? With grown — you know, I'm I'm old. So with grown children, you gotta you gotta keep yourself occupied.

Jeremy Donovan: It's my my wife, three cats, and then I fish a lot. So when I'm not involved with family or cats or fishing, it's usually something sales or data related.

Janis Zech: Yeah. I I love that. I love that. Yeah. I think it's really good. And I think you also have a strong background. Right? So in the past, SVP revenue strategy at Salesloft, that's obviously like a big company everyone knows for sure. And then another big company, I think, sort of like where you came up professionally was Gartner where you spent more than sixteen years. And in the end, your last role there was group VP for marketing. Anything I forgot? Anything you wanna add to it?

Jeremy Donovan: You got the broad brushstrokes. Definitely, I think from that, you can glean that I tend to skew much more towards the analytical side of the types of job functions, and that sixteen years at Gartner afforded me the ability to go through every imaginable job, right, across product, marketing, sales, the delivery. So pricing, packaging, you name it. I got a chance to do little bits and pieces of a million things. So try to bring all that together for the latter part of my career here on revenue strategy and operations.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Perfect. Yeah. Must have been a super interesting journey for sure. But before we dive into today's topic, like, one other thing I spotted on your CV was actually, like, you have a degree in electrical engineering. So just curious about the transition from, like, university to Gartner, like, how that happens and how you, like, from electrical engineering, move into these marketing revenue roles?

Jeremy Donovan: Yeah. It is a great question. There's not too many of us floating around out there. Similarly, like, I do see some people who went to law school, right, who become sales leaders or revenue operations leaders. So I I thought I knew what I — I'll give you the fastest possible version, I guess, but I thought I knew what I wanted to do when I was ten years old, which was to be an electrical engineer. I didn't know any electrical engineers, so I have no idea how I got that in my head. I think I just like to take apart alarm clocks and train sets and stuff like that. So I went to school for electrical engineering, focused on semiconductor physics, worked in the semiconductor industry briefly before going over to Gartner. And I went through this progression of, I'll call it add a word, drop a word. So I went from being a semiconductor engineer, dropped engineer, and then semiconductor analyst, dropped the semiconductor piece. And I was more of a broad analyst, but also working on product development, dropped the analyst thing, product development, dropped development, product marketing, dropped product to corporate marketing, and then eventually dropped marketing and became — well, sales and marketing, dropped marketing, and then, you know, moved into just pure revenue strategy and operations. Because as one of the CROs I work for figured out about me, and I think he was right on. He said, hey. You love to work on the business, not in the business. The distinction being, like, on the business is what is the road map? What do we need to get done over the course of the next, whatever, twelve to twenty four months? And, yeah, there are some near term things, but it's really about planning and executing strategy. The in the business is the deals. And I I know plenty of reps who love the thrill of the deal and learn and get really smart and great on that. I don't have the passion, so therefore, I don't think I'm particularly good at the art of the deals.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Perfect. So much actually relate on that. I think as a founder, you always have this discussion around, like, working on the business versus in the business, and you are constantly oscillating between the two. Like, you go very deep, you know, very operational, and then you have to zoom out and actually think about the holistic thing you're building. And I think that's yeah. It feels like especially building the revenue factory, the revenue engine, however you wanna call it, right, is very similar. And I I love this description for RevOps, actually. Because I think that is so like, it's such a big debate. But it's not our topic today. I'll jump out here. Please continue. Otherwise, you know, this goes totally off track.

Jeremy Donovan: We can talk a lot about that topic also.

Janis Zech: Absolutely. Yeah. No. No. Good. I mean, let's kick it off with, like, I think, like, more like a broad approach, like, just to, like, maybe you could, in your own words, just describe what territory planning is to you and and why it is important, why it is relevant, why it's a thing RevOps should think about.

Jeremy Donovan: Yeah. I mean, I guess starting from the end to end goal and working backwards, territory planning matters because at the end of the day, you want the highest percentage of reps to meet or exceed quota. Because if they're not, you may have too much sales capacity. And, you know, these days, right, it's all about efficient growth, so you're gonna struggle with efficiency. If you go backwards from that, right, there's a whole bunch of steps that it takes and a whole bunch of decisions and philosophies that you need to follow in order to make sure that reps have — you know? And we're gonna talk about account — I'm gonna talk more about account based approaches here. There are certainly approaches to territory where you say, hey. You have these five ZIP codes, and you need to go after those like a geographic approach, or you have this vertical market. And we're not gonna tell you which accounts, but you go kind of find them. This is what I think we're gonna talk about — the more common thing here, which is account assignment. So that all starts with finding ICP accounts, and then we can work our way through to some of the more technical and analytical pieces as we go through.

Janis Zech: So is there a common territory planning approach or framework you can recommend, something you have in your mind and you can share with the audience?

Jeremy Donovan: Yeah. Well, I mean, I've been historically pretty DIY about this partly because territory planning is an intensive but intermittent thing. Right? You might do that once a year for enterprise. You might do that usually no more than twice a year every six months for SMB. So therefore, like, you know, strategy is people process and technology. I think since this is intermittent and doable, right, on a spreadsheet or using a little bit of code, which has been my approach, I think you could — I don't necessarily think you need software to be able to do this. So, you know, for me, the whole thing starts with figuring out what your ICP is. And I take a super — given my background in engineering statistics, I take a super analytical approach to that, which is the following. I wanna — for any given account — so let's say, you know, I have a universe of accounts, however many it is, a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand, whatever. Like, you can get a list of accounts with great data. That's not a problem. What I'm gonna then do is — assuming I'm not super early stage and just don't have any data — what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna look at of the accounts that are in our CRM, what's the probability that that account became an opportunity? I'm not even gonna look at wins because wins may be less signal, but just to even become an opportunity is significant. So that gives me a bigger sample size, to figure out whether they've become an opportunity or not. There's a bunch of both. I'll call them more static — if I say static, I'll sometimes say that — but I'll call it more static and then more dynamic types of things. So the more static things are — I'm gonna look at firmographics, right — is the probability that we get an opportunity with an account a function of company size, a function of geography, of industry, of whether they're public or private or federal or state and local or whatever. So there's maybe other firmographic factors, but those things obviously tend to be a little bit more static. Right? Companies may grow, and they may move from different size bands to the other, but the headquarters geography is not changing. The industry is not changing. Maybe they go from private to public, but that stuff tends to not change. So that's kind of the most common piece. I also like to look at technographic pieces, especially for SaaS, the SaaS industry, and there could be both positive and negative factors. So by way of example, at the last place I was at, we sold sales software to salespeople. It's a bit of a tongue twister. And there were positive technographic factors, like, do they have a certain CRM like Salesforce, right, or Microsoft Dynamics or HubSpot or whatever. Right? And then there also turned out to be negative factors as well. I recall from that if a company had a consumer grade web host, like a GoDaddy or a HostGator or one on one, if they had one of those consumer grade hosts, that was actually a negative factor for us because it was obviously correlated with size, but it was a signal that they wouldn't be a fit. Or if they had more retail, like if they had Shopify, right, probably at that time, not a great fit. That might have changed in years. But so the technographic factors I would also describe as more stable. The stuff then — you know, the rest of the stuff tends to be a little bit more dynamic. Right? So two categories of dynamic factors that can go into your account score about whether or not you're able to get an opportunity with a particular account. So one is intent, and then the other one is, I'll call it triggers. On the intent side, people are most familiar with first party and third party intent. So first party is stuff like they came to your website, and they visited, and you're able to resolve their identity, or they did a demo request, or they downloaded content. They attended a webinar. Right? Like, any of that is, to me, first party intent. Some better than others. Obviously, a demo request much better than a content download. And third party is they're bouncing around on review sites, right, searching, visiting third party other third party websites, the usual dark funnel stuff. There's also a second party, which is maybe they're engaging with one of your reseller or referral partners, and, you know, you have a system that's able to link those. So that could be quite dynamic, and therefore, your score could change. And I think some of the companies — there are a handful of companies out there who have dynamic scoring for accounts. It tends to be you do the account assignment in a batch, right, like whatever that is annually for enterprise or every six months for SMB. But maybe within a rep's territory, you can rebalance the territory based on intent. So you're not moving accounts in and out necessarily, but you're elevating the priority of the account for that rep on that day based on the intent. And the other — and I'll pause in a second — is triggers. And, you know, triggers are quite popular right now. I'll give you a side story in a second, but that's stuff like job changes or M&A or funding or hiring. On the trigger side, this week, actually, I got an email from somebody because my title doesn't exactly say what I do. My title implies I work in revenue strategy and operations for a regular SaaS company. But in actuality, I'm now an adviser to our portfolio companies. But I give reps the benefit of the doubt when they prospect me. My title says otherwise. So I got an email from somebody that said, like, hey, Jeremy. You know, given that — insert trigger — and it was one of our portfolio companies acquired a company. Are you interested in whatever it was, like, sales compensation software? And I was like, what in the world does one of our portfolio companies acquiring a company have anything to do with compensation management software? So I think the trigger stuff can go wrong. And I asked them — and I really rarely mention company names, but I asked them what tool they were using. They did tell me what tool, and it's one of the popular, like, AI sales prospecting tools. So you can't — it's just a reminder that with the trigger stuff, you need to use it to augment and not replace the human. Right? Like, you gotta look at that and ask yourself, does this actually make sense? Because if it doesn't, you're damaging your brand.

Janis Zech: Okay. So this was quite a lot. So static, dynamic. Right? Firmographic, technographic, and then on the dynamic side, basically, the intent data and then also triggers. I mean, you experience — you know — any of those being superior. I mean, I understand that probably the most advanced company in the maturity, they'll combine all of those. Right? But what would you say is, like, table stakes, and what should you start with? And then what are the things that really have a big impact?

Jeremy Donovan: Yeah. If I had to narrow down from both the dynamic and the static stuff, on the static side, in my experience, like, probably company size is number one and maybe geo number two. The technographic is a nice to have. I don't think it's, like, a critical need to have it. That's polished. And then on the more dynamic side, maybe it's obvious, but I think first party intent and very specifically demo request. Like, to me, people talk about inbound and outbound. To me, the only real inbound is a demo request. I don't really think about anything else as being inbound. Like, a content downloader or a webinar attendee, to me, is, like, light intent. It's not an inbound and is then suitable — you could almost view it as a trigger in and of itself — as, like, suitable for outbound prospecting to those people, but they're not ready. So I I wanna nurture everybody until — whether it's one to one or one to many — I wanna nurture them with the call to action being to ultimately take a demo request assuming that they're qualified.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Triggers. I was gonna say that the jury's out on the triggers. Like, I I think yeah. I'm super skeptical about the triggers. Yeah. Yeah. I think it's also a lot like, right, I I think there's, like, inbound versus outbound. Right? If somebody books a demo, and to your point, if somebody downloads a gated content piece, right, like, they can also go to your website and book a demo. Why didn't they book a demo? Probably are not in market accounts actively looking. If you have an urgent problem, assume that you have a good positioning and messaging that people actually understand what you do, which sometimes can be an issue I heard. But let's say they nailed that. Right? Then they would come to your website, book a demo, and really try to solve it. And so I think there's a huge difference here, right, in terms of how you also plan your capacity against, you know, those different aspects. Yeah. Trigger — I mean, I'm super curious what you think. I mean, you're skeptical. But if you had to choose, what would you think — what trigger are you most excited about?

Jeremy Donovan: They're just — they're just so — well, part of it is that the triggers are so — like, job changes or M&A or whatever is so intermittent. That's kinda problem one. Job change is probably the best trigger, but how often is there gonna be a new CMO or CRO or CPO or CFO or whatever, whoever you're selling to? Like, I think it's intermittent. I think the other issue is — like, whether you could argue whether or not people can detect whether something was generated by an AI, but humans devalue repetition. So if every prospecting email you get references a job change, then you know that no effort was being put in even if you don't know that a machine could do that, and you're gonna ignore. Like, you ignore the common patterns. So that's the issue with triggers to me — is that it's not, like, unique enough. It's not valuable. There's no — someone reminding me that, you know, whatever. Imagine our — I worked for a regular SaaS company and our CRO was replaced. Like, someone reminding me of that has no value. Whereas if someone prospects me with a good idea that I could implement whether or not I buy their software, that's valuable, or shares really, really high quality benchmark data. I mean, I had someone prospect me recently, and they, you know, they offered to give me this, like, exclusive benchmark report. And then I — you know, I said, yeah. Sure. I'd love to see it. So I was excited, and then I opened it up, and all it was was a marketing fluff piece with no real benchmark data. I mean, you — that's not okay. Right? So yeah. They got me interested, but then they blew it with garbage content.

Janis Zech: Yeah. That's actually one of the things we do. We also have a salary benchmark report on revenue operations salaries, which we put a lot of work into getting with worldwide data and, like, more than one thousand entries. So if you're interested, ping me on LinkedIn.

Jeremy Donovan: I would love that. Yeah. I would like that too. I mean, there's no end of demand. You know, we we get a lot of demand for benchmarks of three kinds — operational benchmarks. So, like, regular KPIs, staffing benchmarks, what's the ratio of RevOps people to salespeople, and then compensation benchmarks — all super valuable.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Yeah. I fully agree. Yeah. So I think with, like, these different factors that you have to build, like, a proper scoring model, it probably heavily depends on the kinda like what kind of company you are. Right? Like, so for example, tech stack for us, super relevant because we develop, like, a Salesforce solution. So if a company doesn't have Salesforce, it's kind of like a hard pass. So probably massively depends, but really helpful with sort of, like, your prioritization. Once you then have, like, a model that you kinda think works, like, how do you then actually proceed to the next stage? What would be the next stage for you?

Jeremy Donovan: I I think now here comes a philosophical question, which is, do I wanna build equal potential territories, or do I wanna stack the deck? And the net net is, I think, you wanna build equal potential territories within a segment. And I'll define a segment as however you've segmented your Salesforce. Let's assume it's SMB, mid market, and enterprise. Like, all SMB reps would get equal potential SMB account territory, all mid market equal potential account territory, all enterprise. There's, like, an extreme version of Moneyball that one can play. I I think it's playable in SMB, but not mid market or enterprise. And my example of this is a few years ago — and I I presume they still do it, but I'm not sure — I was talking to the head of revenue strategy and ops over at ZoomInfo, and they blew my mind with this philosophy of basically, we're gonna give the best — most of — they were very heavy inbound. So we're basically gonna give the best quality inbound leads to the best reps. And every quarter, they tiered the reps into A, B, and C. And if you were in the bottom — I'm gonna — this is rough. Right? It's been a couple of years. I don't remember exactly. But if you were in the bottom twenty percent of tier A, then you move down for the next quarter into tier B. And if you were in the top twenty percent of tier B for a given quarter, you'd move up. So from quarter to quarter, you could move up and down. So that philosophy of, like, I'm gonna give the best accounts to the best reps — you don't see a ton of that, but it definitely — there is, like, proof of life there. On that same philosophy, I was listening to a podcast earlier this week. It was Sam Blond on — I think it's called, like, the Go to Market Show or Go to Market Fund. Can't remember exactly what the name of the podcast was, but he talked about the fact that hiring incremental reps in a demand limited market can actually lower revenue. And that's a bit of a surprise, right, because even if the marginal return is zero, it shouldn't lower the amount of bookings that you generate. But the problem is this thing about equal potential territories, right, is like I've got a new rep and a tenured rep. And if I spread out the accounts equally, I'm gonna give a bunch of accounts to a less tenured rep. And as a consequence, I'm gonna have a lower win rate on an ICP or a non ICP account. So it is actually mathematically — I went and built a spreadsheet around this because that's what I do. And mathematically, it's true. Like, you actually could generate less bookings by doing this. But, again, let's suspend disbelief. And philosophically, I think the best thing to do is, like, build equal potential territories and then just manage your reps accordingly. And, you know, when you're — oftentimes, there's already assigned account assignments. So one of the things I learned when I was first doing this, I I called a bunch of people and said, hey. Like, what are some of the best practices? And one of the best practices they said was reps are gonna want to hold back a certain number of accounts where they have great opportunities, great relationships, even if there's not an opportunity, like, whatever reason. And the advice was give them a certain number of accounts, maybe somewhere between five and ten, that you just don't ask questions about, that they are allowed to keep those accounts no matter what. So I did do that. I followed that advice, and I thought that was, you know, super, super useful. Then there's a question about whether or not you keep an account with a rep based on whether they have an open opportunity at a certain stage, whether they've had significant activity. Right? Because if they haven't had a meeting in, I don't know, two weeks, certainly, or one on the calendar, or certainly no meeting in the last four weeks, like, probably that op is dead. So, you know, you just have to come up with a set of hard and fast rules that you can apply to then figure out which accounts to give out. And then the next bit — there's other bits and pieces to it — but the next bit is then, like, okay. I'm gonna — if I've got ten reps, I'm gonna pick a rep, give them the best available account, cycle through that. Now I'm gonna look at the whole base of reps. What's their sort of aggregate account score? And, you know, probably the last — you're probably snaking back and forth. Like, the last person who got assigned an account in one wave is probably the first person who gets assigned in the next wave so that you can continue to maintain equal potential territories for those reps.

Janis Zech: When would you say you would reassign an account? I mean, you just mentioned, like, two weeks, four weeks. I mean, what are the rules, and how does this differ by segment — SMB, mid market, enterprise?

Jeremy Donovan: Yeah. There's the bigger thing, and I spoke to it a little bit before, which is I don't love to move accounts because there's so many but this, but that. Right? So many exceptions of why maybe an op has lost momentum, but it's not that the rep isn't doing anything in the account. So for me, I would say enterprise once a year, you're gonna shuffle accounts. And for SMB, the maximum you could do it is quarterly. That's assuming you have a less than ninety day sales cycle pretty consistently. I I don't like to move accounts more than once every six months. I I will say, and I learned this also from one of the people I worked with, shuffling accounts does energize the — you know, does juice bookings in two ways. One is obvious, right, which is if reps know that they're gonna lose the accounts, right, they're gonna get way more aggressive on pipe gen. And the second bit, though, is the mere act of shuffling forces everyone to take a second look at the accounts. And, you know, as a human, we're subject to irrational biases. So we may just say, ah, this account is a bad account, but someone else gets it, and they don't come in with that bias. And, sure, some of them are legit bad accounts, but maybe the account you thought was bad wasn't. So I've definitely seen significant changes in bookings as a result of just the reshuffling.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Like, on that note on, like, stuff, like, energizing also, like, the sales team, like, in a maybe, like, on a more tactical level, then how how would you actually go about, like, rolling that out? With whom would you partner? Right? So, like, RevOps from the perspective of a RevOps person, basically, like, would you do it then sort of, like, with the sales managers? Would it be part of, like, after the QBR? Or, you know, when is a good time and with whom do you do it?

Jeremy Donovan: Yeah. It is definitely a communicate early and often. Your RevOps leader is super involved. If you're a big enough company, you have someone who's solely responsible for territory. Really big companies have armies of people responsible for territory. But, like, you know, probably it's a RevOps leader. And then, yeah, to your point, you're working with — there's probably a first wave, which is working with the CRO and the CMO to make sure that you figure out what's the tier one target account list and that everyone's aligned on that. That doesn't happen enough, by the way, and sales ends up going after certain accounts and marketing ends up spending their ABX dollars on partially overlapping, but not completely overlapping accounts. So I think that's, you know, a critical thing. And then, yeah, there is the just the communication in regular team meetings with sales managers and even the reps. One thing, especially when you're developing an account scoring model, because I think that's the most sensitive, in some ways, piece of all this. When I've done this in the past, if a scoring model didn't exist and it wasn't just refining, we piloted first. So we took, like, a group of reps and built an algorithm to score the accounts and then showed the result to the reps and said, hey. Does this make sense? And, inevitably, they're gonna say, well, yeah, this is good, or this one is scoring high, but it shouldn't, or this one's low, and it should be high — false positives and false negatives. And then you ask them, okay. Well, why is it that that account, you know, should be higher or lower? And in the course of doing that with account scoring, the last time I did it, we found that one thing was — since we were selling sales software to salespeople — quite obviously, the count of salespeople or the count of SDRs, right, the count of people in those types of roles really mattered. And, you know, four or five years ago, that stuff didn't exist. And I don't even know that it's super easy to come by even now. So we paid a third party to run queries on LinkedIn, like, Boolean search queries to figure out how many of each type of role was in the account. So once we added that data in and maybe a few other things, then the account scoring was — there was like a breakthrough. Right? And they're like, that one, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. So that pilot phase to gain confidence with people who are — it's classic change management, right — who are looked at by others as, you know, the beacons in the organization is really, really valuable.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Super interesting. Makes a lot of sense. Can definitely relate to that running Weflow. But another question. So you roll out the plan. How do you know that it's a good territory plan? I mean, what do you track? And you already alluded to this a bit, but yeah. And how do you know that it's not good?

Jeremy Donovan: Yeah. Yeah. It's hard to know, and I'm trying to think — there must — I I have this vague sense in the back of my mind where, like, one time we rolled out a significant change and then rolled it back within, I don't know, two or three weeks because it was pretty obvious pretty fast. I mean, I I think you're gonna get — you're gonna get the salespeople. Oh, and now I remember what it was. It was we we decided to split the the US into three pieces into west, central, and east. And the reps in the central part of the country immediately, like, got upset and justifiably so because we were selling a B2B SaaS solution to mostly tech companies, and people who, you know, are in the middle of the country are gonna be disadvantaged even if they have, like, multiple states. Right? So way, way — so we went back to just splitting the country east and west down the middle. And so that was one where we knew it was bad, and we knew it was bad because the reps, you know, the reps told us. I think that's probably the canary in the coal mine. The data could tell you also — like pipe gen and win rates — but that takes a long time to actually be able to detect.

Janis Zech: Yeah. I think it's really hard to — I mean, it's probably easy to find out that you were absolutely wrong because then kind of your frontline will tell you very directly. But, you know, obviously super interesting because you're essentially focusing the whole organization on specific areas. And so understanding whether the focus area is the right area is extremely interesting in my point of view. It's it's I think it's really challenging to measure this quantifiably. Right?

Jeremy Donovan: Yeah. I I'd also add the other change that's more complicated is as an organization grows by necessity, the number of accounts per rep is gonna shrink, right? So at last count, I can't remember the exact number, but if you guys sell to people who have Salesforce, I think Salesforce has, call it, three hundred thousand plus or minus accounts. Like, that is the universe. So if you have one rep, they have three hundred thousand accounts. If you have two reps, they have a hundred and fifty thousand and on and on and on. Right? So I've worked in organizations where, you know, reps started with a thousand. They moved into the hundreds of accounts. They moved down to tens of accounts ultimately. And then we had some strategic account reps who might have one or two accounts, right, where those accounts were a five or a ten million dollar account. And you could even go to the next extreme, which is, you know, if you have a ten million dollar account, you probably don't just have one rep. You have a team focused on that account assuming that there's significant expansion. So that's one where every time you cut territories to have fewer accounts, the reps are definitely gonna grumble. They're definitely gonna be upset, and you have to — you know, like that one, you have to persevere through. And there can absolutely be a point where you've cut the territories too small. And I I think that that mistake has to be at some point made no matter what. Like, eventually, you've sliced it too small. And but the only way I think you can really figure that out is to cut and cut and cut because generally smaller territories — for a period — it's like the same thing, the diminishing marginal return and then the reverse, right, is like, as you cut, you actually — the early part is gains. Right? Like, it's incremental gains as you cut to smaller and smaller territories because of focus. So, yeah, it's that's a tricky thing to manage.

Ja