# Account Segmentation & Tiering Rubric

> A weighted scoring rubric: revenue potential, strategic fit, effort-to-serve, growth trajectory: for sorting every account into Enterprise, Mid-Market, SMB, or Long-tail consistently, instead of by rep gut-feel.

Free scorecard/rubric for sales managers. Topic: [Comp, Quota, Territory & Capacity Planning](https://www.peerlab.ai/library/topic/comp-quota-territory-capacity-planning/). Published by PeerLab in the [Sales Enablement Resource Library](https://www.peerlab.ai/library/). Source: https://www.peerlab.ai/library/account-segmentation-tiering-rubric/

## How to use it

Score each account 1–5 on all four criteria, apply the weights to get a Tier Score out of 40, and use the cutoff table to assign a tier and coverage model.

## What's inside

- Revenue Potential criterion, weight ×3, 1–5 scale with $ bands
- Strategic Fit criterion, weight ×2
- Effort-to-Serve criterion, weight ×2 (inverse scale)
- Growth Trajectory criterion, weight ×1
- Tier Score formula (max 40 points)
- Tier cutoff table mapping score to Enterprise/Mid-Market/SMB/Long-tail and coverage model
- Worked example scoring a real account
- Governance notes on re-scoring cadence and trigger events

Score every account on four weighted criteria to sort consistently into Enterprise / Mid-Market / SMB tiers, removing gut-feel and rep-by-rep inconsistency from segmentation.

## Scoring Criteria (1–5 scale each)

### 1. Revenue Potential, Weight ×3
Realistic total addressable spend across all product lines within 3 years.
- 1 = Under $10k TAM
- 2 = $10k–$50k TAM
- 3 = $50k–$150k TAM
- 4 = $150k–$500k TAM
- 5 = $500k+ TAM

### 2. Strategic Fit: Weight ×2
How closely the account matches your ideal customer profile (industry, use case, logo value, reference potential).
- 1 = Poor fit, opportunistic only
- 3 = Reasonable fit, mainstream ICP match
- 5 = Ideal fit, potential marquee/reference logo

### 3. Effort-to-Serve: Weight ×2 (inverse: low effort scores high)
- 1 = Extremely high-touch (custom integration, heavy procurement/legal, multi-stakeholder committee, long implementation)
- 3 = Moderate touch, standard sales cycle
- 5 = Low-touch, product-led, minimal custom work

### 4. Growth Trajectory: Weight ×1
Signals of expansion (headcount growth, funding, new markets, tech-stack investment).
- 1 = Flat or declining
- 3 = Stable, modest growth
- 5 = Rapid growth, clear expansion signal

## Calculating the Tier Score

```
Tier Score = (Revenue Potential × 3) + (Strategic Fit × 2) + (Effort-to-Serve × 2) + (Growth Trajectory × 1)
```
Maximum possible score: **40**

| Tier Score | Tier | Coverage Model |
|---|---|---|
| 30–40 | **Enterprise** | Named-account AE, multi-threaded, dedicated CS |
| 18–29 | **Mid-Market** | Territory AE, standard playbook, pooled CS |
| 8–17 | **SMB** | Inside sales / velocity motion |
| Under 8 | **Long-tail / Self-serve** | Product-led / no dedicated rep |

## Worked Example

**Account: Northwind Logistics**
- Revenue Potential: 4 (× 3 = 12)
- Strategic Fit: 4 (× 2 = 8)
- Effort-to-Serve: 2 (× 2 = 4): heavy procurement process
- Growth Trajectory: 5 (× 1 = 5)
- **Total: 29 → Mid-Market**, high-priority within tier due to growth signal

## Governance Notes
- Re-score every account at least **annually**, or on trigger events (funding round, M&A, major expansion/contraction).
- Tier assignment should drive **coverage model**, not just quota credit: an Enterprise-tier account worked by an SMB rep is a coverage failure, not a compensation nuance.
- Keep the rubric criteria visible to reps, segmentation disputes are far less common when the scoring logic is transparent.