The 90% Problem: Why Your Sales Training Isn't Sticking

American companies spent an estimated $83 billion on corporate training in 2019. Here's the uncomfortable truth: within 90 days, 84-90% of that training is forgotten.

That's not a training problem. That's a cognitive science problem. And until we understand why it happens, we'll keep wasting billions on programs that feel productive but produce nothing.

The Ebbinghaus Forgetting Curve

In the 1880s, German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus conducted a series of experiments on memory retention. His findings, now known as the "forgetting curve," are still uncomfortably relevant:

• After 20 minutes: We retain only 60% of new information
• After 1 hour: 50% is gone
• After 24 hours: 70% is forgotten
• After 1 week: Up to 90% has disappeared

Richardson Sales Performance confirms this applies directly to sales: "Nearly 70% of the information provided in sales training is very likely forgotten within a day."

Why Traditional Training Fails

Think about your last sales training program. It probably looked something like this:

1. Two-day intensive workshop or SKO session
2. Experienced trainer delivers methodology
3. Role plays and exercises during the session
4. Everyone feels energized and committed
5. Back to selling on Monday
6. Nothing changes

The problem isn't the content. It's the delivery model. One-time learning events—no matter how well-designed—fight against how human memory actually works.

The Real-World Reversion

Here's what happens in practice: A rep learns a new objection-handling technique in training. They understand it. They can demonstrate it in a role play. But the first time they face a real objection, under pressure, with quota on the line—they revert to whatever they did before.

This isn't weakness. It's neuroscience. Under stress, we default to established neural pathways. New knowledge requires repetition and reinforcement to become automatic behavior.

What Actually Works: The Science of Retention

Ebbinghaus didn't just identify the problem—he found the solution. When learners are presented with information repeatedly over progressively longer intervals, the forgetting curve flattens and long-term memories form.

This is called spaced repetition, and it's been validated by over a century of research. Here's what the data shows:

• Microlearning: Breaking training into small segments improves retention by up to 50%
• Just-in-time learning: Training delivered at the moment of need has 31% higher application rates
• Spaced repetition: Strategic review intervals can improve retention by up to 178%

From Event-Based to Continuous Learning

The implications are clear: sales training shouldn't be an event. It should be a daily practice.

Consider the difference:

Event-Based Training	Continuous Learning
2-day annual workshop	5-10 minutes daily
Generic curriculum for everyone	Personalized to each rep's gaps
Disconnected from actual deals	Linked to live opportunities
84-90% forgotten in 90 days	60-70% retained long-term

The Mentorship Model

There's a reason the world's best performers—athletes, musicians, surgeons—don't learn their craft in two-day workshops. They have mentors who provide continuous guidance, daily feedback, and consistent reinforcement.

Sales reps deserve the same. Not a training catalog they'll browse once and forget, but a mentor who keeps them centered on proven methodology deal-by-deal, day-by-day.

The best training a rep can receive isn't the one with the best content. It's the one that shows up again tomorrow—and the day after that—reinforcing the right behaviors until they become automatic.

Practical Application: Building Retention Into Your Stack

If you're evaluating training solutions, here are the questions that matter:

1. Is it continuous? Daily touchpoints beat quarterly workshops.
2. Is it personalized? Generic training wastes time on things reps already know.
3. Is it contextual? Training tied to real deals has higher application rates.
4. Does it use spaced repetition? The same concepts should resurface strategically.
5. Does it adapt? As reps improve, does the system recognize it?