Tag: quota

Are You Coin Operated?

To date, I’ve heard so many people in sales use the phrase, “I’m coin-operated!” And, they are implying they are merely driven by cash–the cash which is provided by selling more. This saying has been bandied about so much that I don’t think those who say it really understand what they’re saying. As if cash were king for why they do what they do.

But, if you really sit back and think about it, the saying actually is the antithesis of what it is purporting.

“Coin-operated” really means if you put money in, you get something out. It really would be better aligned with doing some sort of piece-work labor, like sewing clothes or making shoes. Coin in, shoe out. Or making one of those children’s toy horses at the store front run–put coin in, horse goes, “Nay!”

In tech sales, that piece-work model really doesn’t make any money. If it was coin-operated, then I would be making more and more as I put more effort in. Sell more widgets, make more money. But compensation plans are still being crafted like they were at the turn of the century, last century, that is circa 1900.  If I set your quota at $1MM, then when you achieve that number you should make whatever was agreed to.  But if I achieve $1MM, and then you raise it to $1.2MM, I’m not coin-operated, I’m effort operated. I’m the reverse of the phrase.

In the end, it has been shown that incentive based compensation has limitations. If you want your reps to work for you instead of against your plan, then you need to compensate them in a way which recognizes what goes into the sale.

Strive to achieve that end. Don’t work at building hurdles and obstacles into a plan to make your reps work harder. If you build in disincentives, then you aren’t working at getting more business, you are working at getting rid of your rep.

In the end, the goal should be to make the sales rep successful. Moving target quotas, territories or account lists doesn’t enable that.

Think carefully when crafting a compensation plan about what behaviors you are trying to reward. Is it new logos? or renewals? or account penetration?

Many years ago I listened to a conversation between Jay Abraham and Tony Robbins. I remember my brain lighting up listening to Jay speak because he confirmed everything I had already deduced to be true in the connection between sales and marketing.

The specific tie to this post though, was in regard to customer acquisition versus customer retention. Currently, when I receive notices from recruiters, all of them say “looking for a HUNTER” (caps optional, depending on the recruiter). Now, when it is a new company with a new product which is reaching out into a new territory, the idea of a hunter sounds like just the ticket. Get some guy to go and bust down doors and beat the crap out of a customer so they buy.

Let me throw out an idea. Hire an established farmer.

What? Blasphemy! (That’s you talking, not me.)

Why would I propose that? Because if you hire a farmer who has a sizeable network of customers he’s dealt with over the years, then he has a much better shot of getting a meeting with a potential buyer than someone coming into the territory unknown.

It’s just a thought, but it might prove better than hiring a rep knowing that he is going to put A LOT of effort into finding prospects, only to probably not meet his quota. He’s going to put in a lot of coins before he gets operated.

So look at how you are approaching your market and how your rep is going to make money.

Because, if your rep is making money, then the company is making money.

Thinks, Inc. is a consulting firm which specializes in Smart Sales Operations. If you’d like for us to come and assess your chaos, drop us a line at contact@thinks-inc.com

Commissions – Fair Compensation

In the levels of Sales Operations, behind streamlining the selling of products and services and then getting paid, a perennial topic discussed with my peers is compensation. And, sadly, most of it is negative. The usual stories fall into similar categories: the comp plan is unreasonable, the territory unmanageable, the accounts duds, management doesn’t get it, etc. And while sometimes what they complain about really isn’t an issue, it is amazing to me HOW companies pay the people who actually provide the foundational cash to keep the business running and the lights on. It baffles me that leadership regularly declares it wants, no, demands excellence, and then strategically and negatively manipulates those very incentives which they believe lay out a path for the sales person to achieve that excellence.

Where am I going with this? First, let me back up and talk about balloons.

Many years ago, one of my brothers had a drinking buddy who did well financially. He pulled in great money and had a nice lifestyle. People were always chiding him that he made his living off a bunch of clowns. When I probed why they would say this, I was told he sold balloons and was one of the top sales people in the region. As usual, this sets my thoughts turning about sales and the processes of sales, and I realize 1) people are needed to sell anything–from balloons, to computer hardware to fake vomit. For every product, there is someone out there selling it. And 2) there is someone who is doing it well and getting compensated well for it.

Back to the story…the rep had been successfully selling balloons for years. New management came in decided they paid their sales people too much, so they changed his compensation plan. After deflating his metaphorical balloon, unsurprisingly to an outside observer, management sees he was suddenly no longer selling as many balloons. Management decides this is a sales performance issue, and eventually the two part ways. The company’s onetime top rep is now no longer with the company, and, again unsurprisingly, soon afterwards the company was struggling financially.

What happened? While I don’t actually have the skinny from inside the company, my guess is a newly hired executive looked at the rep and thought he made too much money. Or maybe, because I have seen it happen, didn’t like that the rep made more than him. So, to stop this egregiousness, the company structured his plan so they captured more profit and paid the rep less. In essence, they dis-incented the rep.

Story number two. Top rep in the company year over year. The rep continues to sell more, and the company continues to pay more. This continues year-over-year for his tenure. At one point, the sales rep’s revenues represent over 10% of the companies annual revenues, almost $100MM, which on his own would make him a medium sized company. In his last year he is paid exceptionally well on his sales of $100MM, and then a management change occurs. The previous year, the rep’s quota had been set at $75MM, and even he will admit, because of external circumstances, two of his customers represented about 80% of his number. The other 13 customers represented the other 20% of the $100MM. He hit and exceeded the accelerators the company had put in place. He literally “cleaned up”. So, begin this year, with new management and a new plan and what did they do? They raised his quota to $100MM, and (!) cut his On-Target-Earnings (OTE) by half. They have actually dis-incented the rep to work harder–essentially saying his effort was worth less this year than last.

Companies are in business to make a profit, and they need to compensate their salespeople to sell more, not less. Capping plans, creating barriers to success through complex percentages on sales, negative compensation on not meeting minimums do nothing but create bad blood among the people the company relies upon to provide revenue.

Sell more? Get paid more. That’s incentive. No fine print, no caps.

One more story to hammer this home…My wife’s grandfather sold for a paper company starting back in the 1930’s. He was old when I met him–88 and not as spry–but he was a legend among his friends for his salesmanship and his golf game, and there were some pretty legendary stories about him. Being an incredible salesman, it is said he sold ten times what his nearest peer did, and also made A LOT of money. A LOT. (Apparently at one point he belonged to three country clubs being the avid golfer he was.) One day, after a particularly good month, the president of the company came to him to personally deliver his commission check.

The president was apparently fidgeting with an envelope in his hand. He leaned over in a very patriarchal way and said, “George, I just want you to know that this is A LOT of money.”

George laughed while removing the check from the president’s hand and politely responded right back, “Sir, that means I sold A LOT of paper.”

And he was right. He sold a lot of paper, and he should be paid for it. Unless I’m misunderstanding it, the more paper he sold, the more profit the company made. The president shuffling over to tell George how much money he was “giving” him implied that he was somehow doing George a favor. And really, it was George who had performed the favor for the company.

What’s the takeaway from all this? Pay your reps–if you practice incentive based compensation, then don’t forget the more they make, the more the company makes.

As Smart Sales Operations go, setting quota is important, and I will be covering that topic periodically, but the reason for a quota is not to set expectations on how your reps will be paid, but to set expectations on how much money the company should make.

Look at how you compensate your sales people and earnestly evaluate if you are compensating them in the company’s interest, or theirs. There is a delicious, soft chewy center for both.

And remember: If the sales rep is making money, then the company is making money.

Thinks, Inc. is a consulting firm which specializes in Smart Sales Operations. If you’d like for us to come and assess your chaos, drop us a line at contact@thinks-inc.com