Sales operations teams designing sales incentive plans often struggle with questions around crediting revenue or deals—especially in group selling scenarios. A common (yet faulty) solution has been to double bubble every team member that touched the deal. While popular due to its simplicity and motivational appeal, the double bubble approach almost always backfires, resulting in: huge payout inflation, demotivated team members, and misaligned business goals. In this article, we’ll explore the 5 best reasons sales operations should avoid the traditional double bubble approach and move to smarter alternatives for group credit distribution.

What is the Double Bubble Approach?

Double bubbling is when multiple sellers receive full credit for the same revenue.

Example:

Rep A and Rep B are each credited for the full $100,000 of a closed deal.

Commission rate is 5%.

Rep A earns $5,000

Rep B earns $5,000

The same deal of $100,000 therefore costs the business $10,000 in commission payouts.

While this may feel intuitively fair to sellers, it results in a phenomenon we call payout inflation (paying more in incentives than a given deal brought in). When multiplied by thousands of deals, it can have a huge impact on sales budgets, without any connection to the contributions made or roles played.

The Key Problems with Double Bubbling

There are 4 core issues that result from this double bubbling approach to group credit distribution.

a. Payout Inflation and Financial Risk

Overpayment. The most obvious problem is just paying more. Adding multiple full credits to a deal results in a total incentive cost that’s higher than the revenue in that deal. If you have 10 reps double-bubbling a $1 million deal at 5%, you pay out $500,000 in incentives. The danger here is that you’re blowing way past your selling costs and diminishing your margin. This problem is especially dangerous with larger or recurring revenue deals.

b. Misaligned Behavior

Gaming the system. The double-bubbling approach can lead to toxic, gaming behavior and outright untrustworthiness. When you allow everyone to claim full credit, it incentivizes people to “take a ride” on each others’ deals just for the payout. Team members begin collaborating very inefficiently, if at all, because the primary focus becomes just getting credited. This also results in a hyper-competitive environment where rep against rep trust and morale suffer.

c. Performance Analysis Problems

If you allow several reps to take credit for the same closed deal, it’s very difficult to analyze who the top performers are. If everyone gets full credit, there’s no way to distinguish one rep from another. If you’re trying to find patterns to understand top performers and who requires more coaching, it will be impossible for sales operations teams to do any predictive analysis with multiple credits on deals.

d. Fairness Perception

Finally, with so much subjectivity and overpayment built in, reps will eventually feel like the system isn’t fair to them. If some of their contributions are not recognized while others are over-inflated, they will simply stop trying and/or look for greener pastures. This has a huge effect on attrition and, in team selling situations, on engagement as well.

The Alternative Approaches to Group Credit Distribution

Sales operations leaders have developed several modern approaches that result in more fairness, motivation, and controlled costs. Below are some of the best alternatives to double bubbling in sales compensation.

a. Weighted Credit Allocation

The first alternative is to move away from full credits and allocate credit based on some weighted distribution.

Example:

Rep A (primary closers) – 70% of the credit

Rep B (support or lead generation) – 30% of the credit

In this case, for a $100,000 closed deal with a 5% commission rate:

Rep A earns $3,500

Rep B earns $1,500

This can encourage much better collaboration and ensure that incentive payouts more accurately reflect contribution and effort.

b. Role-Based Credit Assignments

Team selling is common, and different roles have different influence and impact on closing the deal. Sales operations leaders can segment credits based on predefined roles. For example, a typical set of roles may look like:

a.Account Owner: 60–70%
b.Solution Engineer/Technical Support: 10–20%
c.Marketing or SDR Contribution: 10–20%

Approach reduces ambiguity and ensures that your incentive plans align with your business’s strategic goals.

c. Deal-Based Split Caps

Deal-based split caps are an alternative where the total commission payout for the deal is split between multiple reps. Even though more than one rep can be on a deal, there is a maximum total pool of commission for the deal, and it is split between the various reps that are involved.

Example:

Total commission pool for a $100,000 = $5,000

Now, split that pool into $3,000 (Rep A) and $2,000 (Rep B) based on contribution

Max payout per deal = $5,000

Total payout never exceeds the budget

d. Point-Based Contribution Systems

In a point-based contribution system, contributions get rated and assigned points based on their value. At the end of the deal, those points are converted to payouts for each team member.

Example:

Lead generation = 20 points

Deal closure = 50 points

Technical support = 30 points

Total points for this deal: 100

If the commission pool for this deal is $5,000:

Lead generator earns $1,000

Closer earns $2,500

Technical support earns $1,500

The approach is quite transparent and easy to follow. You can easily start building a point system on your existing Salesforce or CRM system in a few days.

e. Team Bonus Pools

Team bonus pools are a popular way to approach incentive payouts for a group of sellers. Instead of individual-level payouts, organizations create a bonus pool at the team level based on performance metrics.

Payouts are then distributed based on a formula that is agreed upon beforehand and that reflects contribution and effort.

Benefits:

Encourages collaboration

Budget control

Reduces finger-pointing over individual contribution

Implementing a Smarter Group Credit Strategy

To successfully stop double bubbling, here are some steps to follow:

a. Define the Roles Clearly: Identify everyone who contributes and their role in a typical deal.

b. Quantify Contribution: Use weighted %’s, points, or roles to assign a fair share.

c. Cap Total Payouts: Apply a split cap for deals to control costs.

d. Communicate: It is important that sellers completely understand how crediting works.

Use the Right Tools: Automate calculations and enforce credit rules with a good sales compensation platform.

By following the above practices, you can drive accurate and fair payouts.

Conclusion

The double bubble approach has been a favorite since its inception many decades ago, but with its numerous drawbacks—payout inflation, misaligned behavior, and lack of perceived fairness—it’s not the right approach to group credit distribution. Alternatives such as weighted allocation, role-based crediting, deal-based split caps, point systems, and team bonus pools align contributions and rewards better. Sales operations leaders who switch away from double bubbling can drive collaboration and motivation while creating predictable revenue growth and protecting their margins.

Moving away from double bubbling is not just a technical decision—it’s a strategic choice to build a smarter, more accountable sales organization.