After two quarters using the prioritization approach, what percentage of effort did customers devote to in-market accounts, and what percentage of revenue did those accounts generate?

• A. 56% of effort toward in-market accounts and 79% of revenue from in-market accounts
• B. 40% of effort toward in-market accounts and 60% of revenue from in-market accounts
• C. 70% of effort toward in-market accounts and 85% of revenue from in-market accounts
• D. 30% of effort toward in-market accounts and 50% of revenue from in-market accounts

Answer: (A)

The point being tested is how prioritizing accounts shifts where you apply effort and how that allocation translates into revenue. When you focus on in-market accounts, you typically invest a bit more than half of your overall effort in them, while those targeted accounts generate the majority of revenue because they’re the ones most likely to convert and deliver larger deals.

The best-fitting result shows 56% of effort going to in-market accounts and 79% of revenue coming from them. This pattern—a little over half of the work concentrated on the high-potential group yielding the bulk of revenue—demonstrates the leverage of prioritization: targeted efforts produce outsized revenue relative to the effort spent.

The other options would imply either too little or too imbalanced a split between effort and revenue for a two-quarter horizon, which doesn’t align with the observed uplift you get from concentrating on in-market accounts.