Remember the old light beer tagline: “Tastes Great, Less Filling”? It was a best of both world’s brand promise, and part of a hugely successful campaign.

There's another win-win value proposition that applies to outsourced tele-prospecting: “Costs Less. Generates More.” Outsourcing inside sales really does save you money while at the same time providing you the leads and revenue you need to be successful.

The fact is, insourcing tele-prospecting is harder, and more expensive, than most imagine. This link takes you to a paper that presents the hard numbers that show that whatever you call it—tele-prospecting, business development, inside sales or something else—outsourcing is your better bet.

The misconception that building an internal team gives you more control and costs less is widespread. What marketing and sales executives who object to partnering with a specialized firm fail to add up are all the costs of establishing an inside team. They account for labor, commissions and benefits, certainly. But usually they aren’t considering the bigger picture, one that’s full of hidden expenses: Equipment, software, G&A, management and administration are significant added costs.

Other costs not considered in the buy/build decision are those associated with turnover, including rehiring, retraining, and lack of productivity when a position is vacant.

Look at the numbers carefully. Even if you decide to insource (or already have an inside sales team), consider outsourcing as a way to benchmark internal results, test new markets, solutions and/or approaches and to cover vacant territories.