The East Coast sales director forwarded me an event sponsorship request: "We need to be at FinTech Summit in NYC. $35K. All our competitors will be there."
The West Coast director sent a similar email the same day: "DevOps Days Seattle is critical for us. $28K. We can't miss it."
The Midwest director: "Manufacturing Tech Chicago. $22K. This is our core market."
I had three sponsorship requests totaling $85K. My quarterly regional marketing budget was $45K.
Everyone thought their region deserved the most investment. Everyone had a compelling case. I had no framework to say yes or no.
So I did what most field marketers do: I split the budget roughly equally across regions and hoped for the best. East got $15K, West got $15K, Midwest got $15K.
Three months later, the results rolled in:
- East: $180K pipeline from $15K spend (12x ROI)
- West: $25K pipeline from $15K spend (1.7x ROI)
- Midwest: $8K pipeline from $15K spend (0.5x ROI)
I'd treated all regions equally when they clearly weren't equal. The East was crushing it and deserved more investment. The Midwest was struggling and needed a different approach entirely.
That's when I learned: Equal budget allocation across regions is the easiest political choice and the worst strategic choice.
Here's the framework I built to allocate field marketing budget based on potential, not politics.
Why Equal Budget Split Fails
Most companies split field marketing budget evenly across regions because it's politically safe.
The logic: "Every region has sales targets. Every region gets equal support."
The problem: Regions aren't equal in:
- Revenue potential
- Sales coverage
- Competitive intensity
- Event density
- Stage of market development
Giving each region $50K when one region has 3x the pipeline opportunity and 5x the competitive presence means you're dramatically under-investing in your highest-potential region.
After switching to performance-based allocation:
- East (highest potential): $65K → $480K pipeline (7.4x ROI)
- West (medium potential): $45K → $240K pipeline (5.3x ROI)
- Midwest (low potential): $20K → $90K pipeline (4.5x ROI)
- Southwest (emerging): $30K → $160K pipeline (5.3x ROI)
- Southeast (mature): $20K → $110K pipeline (5.5x ROI)
Total budget stayed at $180K. Total pipeline increased from $480K to $1.08M—a 125% increase—just from better allocation.
The Five-Factor Budget Allocation Framework
I score each region on five factors. The score determines budget allocation.
Factor 1: Pipeline Potential (30% weight)
What's the realistic pipeline opportunity in this region?
Scoring criteria:
- Total addressable accounts in region
- Average deal size by region
- Historical pipeline generation
- New account opportunity vs. expansion opportunity
Example:
- East Coast: 2,400 target accounts, $85K avg deal size, historical pipeline $2.1M/year
- Midwest: 600 target accounts, $45K avg deal size, historical pipeline $420K/year
East scores 10/10. Midwest scores 4/10. East gets more budget.
Factor 2: Sales Coverage (20% weight)
How many sales reps are in the region?
More reps = more capacity to work field-generated leads. Under-resourced regions can't convert leads effectively.
Scoring criteria:
- Number of sales reps in region
- Ratio of reps to target accounts
- Sales team tenure (new reps need more support)
Example:
- West Coast: 8 reps covering 1,800 accounts (1:225 ratio)
- Southeast: 2 reps covering 900 accounts (1:450 ratio)
West scores 8/10. Southeast scores 4/10. Southeast gets less budget because they can't handle the lead volume anyway.
Factor 3: Competitive Intensity (20% weight)
How competitive is this region?
High competitive intensity means you need more investment to win mindshare.
Scoring criteria:
- Number of key competitors with presence
- Competitor event/marketing activity
- Competitive win rate
- Urgency to respond to competitive threats
Example:
- East Coast: 4 major competitors, all have NY/Boston offices, very active at events
- Southwest: 1 major competitor, minimal local presence
East scores 9/10. Southwest scores 3/10. East needs more budget to counter competitive pressure.
Factor 4: Event Density (15% weight)
How many relevant events happen in this region?
More high-quality events = more opportunities to generate pipeline cost-effectively.
Scoring criteria:
- Number of Tier 1/2 events in region
- Quality of regional meetups and networking opportunities
- Local customer concentration
Example:
- West Coast (SF/Seattle): 12 major events annually, strong startup community, high event density
- Midwest: 3 major events annually, dispersed customer base
West scores 9/10. Midwest scores 4/10.
Factor 5: Historical ROI (15% weight)
What ROI has this region generated from field marketing?
Invest more where it's working.
Scoring criteria:
- Pipeline generated per dollar spent (last 4 quarters)
- Event attendance and engagement rates
- Sales feedback on field marketing quality
Example:
- East Coast: $12 pipeline per $1 spent
- Midwest: $2 pipeline per $1 spent
East scores 10/10. Midwest scores 3/10.
The Scoring and Allocation Process
Step 1: Score each region (0-10) on each factor
| Region | Pipeline Potential (30%) | Sales Coverage (20%) | Competitive Intensity (20%) | Event Density (15%) | Historical ROI (15%) | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| East | 10 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 10 | 9.0 |
| West | 8 | 8 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 7.7 |
| Southwest | 7 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 5.9 |
| Southeast | 6 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 5.3 |
| Midwest | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4.0 |
Step 2: Allocate budget proportionally to weighted scores
Total budget: $180K Total weighted score: 32.0 (sum of all regional scores)
Budget allocation:
- East: (9.0 / 32.0) × $180K = $50.6K → $51K
- West: (7.7 / 32.0) × $180K = $43.3K → $43K
- Southwest: (5.9 / 32.0) × $180K = $33.2K → $33K
- Southeast: (5.3 / 32.0) × $180K = $29.8K → $30K
- Midwest: (4.0 / 32.0) × $180K = $22.5K → $23K
Step 3: Review for floors and ceilings
Even lowest-scoring regions need minimum investment to maintain presence.
My rules:
- Minimum: $20K per region (enough for 2-3 tactical events)
- Maximum: $60K per region (even top regions have diminishing returns)
This prevents one region from getting 70% of budget and others being starved.
How I Adjust for Regional Realities
The scoring framework is data-driven. But regional context matters.
Adjustment 1: Emerging vs. mature markets
Emerging markets need investment to build pipeline even if historical ROI is low.
Example: We were expanding into healthcare vertical. Historical ROI was low because we'd barely invested. But pipeline potential was high.
I manually boosted the healthcare-heavy region's score by 1 point to reflect strategic priority.
Adjustment 2: New sales leadership
When a region gets a new sales director, they need field marketing support to build momentum.
Example: Southeast got a new RVP in Q2. Historically low ROI. But new leadership needed wins quickly.
I allocated $30K (vs. $20K) to give new leader tools to succeed.
Adjustment 3: Competitive response
When a competitor makes a big move in a region, you sometimes need to respond even if ROI framework doesn't justify it.
Example: Major competitor opened an office in Midwest and started aggressively sponsoring local events. We increased Midwest budget by $8K to maintain presence.
The balance: Let the framework drive 80% of decisions. Use judgment for 20% based on strategic context.
The Territory-Specific Tactics That Work
Different regions need different field marketing approaches.
High-potential, high-competition regions (East, West):
Focus: Dominant presence at Tier 1 events + executive engagement
Tactics:
- 2-3 Tier 1 event sponsorships ($20-30K each)
- Executive dinners with top accounts ($8-12K)
- Competitive battle card programs
- Speaking opportunities at major conferences
Medium-potential regions (Southwest, Southeast):
Focus: Targeted Tier 2 events + regional campaigns
Tactics:
- 4-6 Tier 2 events ($5-8K each)
- Regional webinars co-hosted with local partners
- Local customer case studies
- Regional sales enablement
Lower-potential regions (Midwest):
Focus: Tactical presence + leverage virtual
Tactics:
- 1-2 Tier 2 events ($5-8K)
- Leverage virtual events (low cost, broad reach)
- Partner co-marketing to split costs
- Focus on customer retention events vs. new acquisition
This ensures each region gets the tactics that match their market dynamics.
The Quarterly Review That Keeps Allocation Optimized
Budget allocation isn't set-and-forget. I review quarterly.
Quarterly review process:
Step 1: Update regional scores based on latest data
- Pipeline generated last quarter
- Win rates
- Event ROI
- Competitive dynamics changes
Step 2: Reallocate next quarter's budget
If a region is crushing it (high ROI), increase budget 10-15%. If a region is underperforming (low ROI), decrease budget 10-15%.
Example: West Coast went from 7.7 score to 8.4 after strong Q2 performance. Budget increased from $43K to $47K for Q3.
Step 3: Regional retrospective
Meet with each regional sales leader:
- What worked?
- What didn't?
- What should we start/stop/continue?
- What events should we add/remove?
This keeps allocation tied to results and prevents political budget battles.
How to Defend Unequal Budget Allocation
The hardest part of performance-based allocation: telling a regional sales leader their budget is decreasing.
The old way (political):
Sales Director: "Why is East getting $51K and I'm only getting $23K?" Me: "Um, we thought East had more opportunity..." Sales Director: "That's BS. I have just as many accounts." Me: (scrambling to justify)
The new way (framework-driven):
Sales Director: "Why is East getting $51K and I'm only getting $23K?" Me: "Let me show you the scoring framework."
[Share spreadsheet showing the five factors and how each region scored]
Me: "East scored 9.0 overall—higher pipeline potential, more sales coverage, higher competitive intensity, better historical ROI. Your region scored 4.0. The budget allocation is proportional to opportunity. Here's the good news: your region improved from 3.2 last quarter to 4.0 this quarter. If you keep improving, your budget will increase. Want to talk about how we can drive higher ROI to justify more investment next quarter?"
The difference: The first conversation is defensive. The second is data-driven and forward-looking.
Sales directors might not love the answer, but they can't argue with transparent criteria.
The ROI Improvement That Justified Budget Increase
Year 1 with equal budget split:
- Total budget: $180K (split equally, $45K per region across 4 regions)
- Total pipeline: $480K
- Overall ROI: 2.7x
Year 2 with framework-based allocation:
- Total budget: $180K (allocated by weighted scores)
- Total pipeline: $1.08M
- Overall ROI: 6.0x
Same budget. Better allocation. 125% more pipeline.
I showed this to my CMO. They increased field marketing budget to $240K for Year 3.
With $240K allocated using the framework:
- Total pipeline: $1.6M
- Overall ROI: 6.7x
Better allocation drove better results which justified more budget which drove even better results.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Regional Field Marketing
Most companies treat regional field marketing as a political exercise.
Every regional sales leader lobbies for more budget. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Budget allocation becomes about who complains the loudest, not where the opportunity is highest.
This is terrible strategy.
The hard truth: Not all regions are equal. Not all regions deserve equal investment.
Some regions have:
- 3x the pipeline potential
- 5x more events to leverage
- Stronger sales coverage to convert leads
- Higher competitive intensity requiring more investment
Giving them the same budget as low-potential regions means you're:
- Under-investing in your biggest opportunities
- Over-investing in regions that can't generate strong ROI
- Missing the chance to 2-3x your field marketing impact
The framework I built isn't perfect. But it's transparent, data-driven, and defensible.
What doesn't work:
- Splitting budget equally across regions to avoid political battles
- Allocating based on who complains loudest
- Ignoring historical ROI in budget decisions
- Never adjusting allocation based on performance
- Treating emerging and mature markets the same
What works:
- Scoring regions on pipeline potential, sales coverage, competitive intensity, event density, and historical ROI
- Allocating budget proportionally to weighted scores
- Setting floors ($20K minimum) and ceilings ($60K maximum)
- Reviewing quarterly and adjusting based on performance
- Using transparent framework to defend allocation decisions
The best regional field marketing strategies:
- Allocate 60-70% of budget to top 2 highest-scoring regions
- Set minimum thresholds so no region is completely starved
- Adjust quarterly based on performance
- Use different tactics per region (Tier 1 events for high-potential, virtual for low-potential)
- Defend allocation with data, not politics
If you're splitting field marketing budget equally across regions, you're leaving 50-100% of potential pipeline on the table.
Build the framework. Score the regions. Allocate based on opportunity.
Your ROI will double. Your CFO will approve budget increases. Your regional sales leaders might grumble, but they can't argue with results.
The goal isn't to make everyone happy. The goal is to maximize pipeline.
Choose strategy over politics.