SalesCompInsights

Ah . . . . sales comp, quotas and territories.  Three important legs of the productivity stool.  While sales compensation and quotas share time in the design process spotlight, many salespeople will tell you that their territory assignment has as much, if not more, impact on their success.  We recently had the opportunity to catch up with Ken Kramer, Director of Business Development at TerrAlign, a software and services company focused on sales resource optimization.  

Mike:  From your perspective, how important is territory management for increasing or maximizing sales productivity?

Ken:   While I might be a bit biased, territory management is critical for maximizing sales productivity and revenues.  But it might be helpful to first clarify the differences between Territory Management and Territory Alignment or Optimization.  I think of Territory Management as the broad umbrella term for all things related to territories – assignment, tracking, definition.  Or alternatively Territory Management can specifically relate to the tracking of who owns what and storage of the information in the system of record while integrating to CRM, ERP, ICM and similar systems.   Territory Alignment or Optimization is more focused on the design aspect; creating territories to optimize the utilization of the entire sales force.  TerrAlign focuses on territory optimization and is the reason for my first statement.  To maximize overall sales productivity, each sales rep needs to be leveraged to their fullest capacity.  Companies need to provide roughly the same amount of ‘work’ in each territory, while minimizing drive time and maximizing the number of accounts or prospects a rep can service.

Mike: Are there any examples you can share where companies have been able to quantify the impact?

Ken:  Our research, as well as that from other organizations, typically shows companies increasing revenues 5-15% without increasing headcount.  At the same time, they are able to reduce travel related sales costs up to 15%.  The results are incredibly strategic, typically producing ROI’s that are so big, they verge on unbelievable.  But, for companies doing millions of dollars in revenue, even a small increase in productivity can have a very significant impact.

Mike: Are there some guiding principles for organizations that want to evaluate the effectiveness of their current alignment approach?

Ken:  From an evaluation perspective, I’d recommend companies focus on a few things.  They might vary based on company and industry, but should include metrics related to work, opportunity, and revenue.  Ideally, you want to understand if each rep is making the same number of calls or producing a proportional amount of revenue for the number of accounts they are servicing.

As an example, one guideline we see in life sciences or consumer goods is to target 32-35 hours of work per week.  This allows for vacation or sick time, training, or other non-selling time.  When we talk about work or workload, we consider this to include the number of calls, duration of those calls and drive time to get to each call.  In high tech, companies typically look for a relatively similar number of prospect companies across territories that meet a particular profile.  We also recommend that variables used for balancing territories reflect those measures in sales comp plans; that is, design the territories around what you’re also paying for.

Mike: What are the characteristics of the most effective approaches versus ones that didn’t work so well?

Ken:  Where possible, build the territories based on a workload factor.  It will lead to better territories where customers will be better served for a longer period of time.  Don’t build territories around reps, they often don’t last as long your customers.  Also, build territories from the ground up, if you start at top and go down, the ability to create balanced territories is greatly reduced.

Mike: How has technology impacted the process?

Ken: While we have been applying technology to this issue for over 20 years, technology solutions for territory design are nowhere near as well-known, as say CRM or ERP.  However, technology has had a major impact on territory optimization.  Previously, and in many organizations today, alignment decisions are largely based one or two factors – neither of which is particularly desirable; 1) gut feel or  2) that’s way the it’s always been done.  The truth of the matter is that sales managers have largely driven the process based on what they think makes sense, an effort to not upset the over performers and their memory from when they were in the field.

Not too long ago, sales managers would generate complex spreadsheets and attempt to create some degree equity across the territories.  Then generic mapping tools arrived so they could plot accounts and visualize things.  Both tools helped, but didn’t reflect the combination of variables and algorithms that could balance each territory, allowing for a consistent workload across the team while minimizing drive time.

As an aside, our organization provides consulting in this area.  I remember one field session  in particular.  As we worked to  adjust and finalize the alignments I observed the field managers taking on a new perspective and focusing on alignments that would benefit both their teams and the company as a whole.  The managers realized they could communicate the changes to their teams and recognized the potential benefits of a more systematic approach.  Prior to that, I had mostly experienced sales managers in a land grab because they knew quotas wouldn’t keep up with
opportunity, so the more the better.  Also, by involving field managers and providing them an integrated tool to make changes, Sales Ops doesn’t become a bottleneck.  So, the technology helps to change thinking, validates (or negates) gut feel and provides better results in a shorter time
period.

Mike:  What lessons learned can you share around the connection between territory alignment and compensation planning and goal setting?

Ken:  Compensation can be a touchy subject.  While reps wait for their Territory, Quota and Comp Plan to be distributed at the sales kick off meetings it is easy to complain about their territory assignments – what accounts they’re going to lose or how little opportunity exists.  Most reps expect their quota to be similar to their colleagues, so they can commiserate about that.  And, they dissect their Comp Plan, figuring out how to ‘beat’ it.  What they often miss is that regardless of the comp plan design, the tie between their quota and territory is what will have the greatest impact on if and how much they will exceed their target.  A territory in the rural Midwest could have the same amount of workload as one in New Jersey, but significantly less opportunity, so the quota better reflect that.

As I mentioned earlier, comp plans and territories need to share common measures and these should also drive the quota setting process.  Quotas should reflect the opportunity per territory.  The impact of unbalanced territories on quota attainment distribution and the cost of incentive comp can be disastrous for a company.  Most comp plans have accelerators that far outweigh any decelerators associated with below quota performance.  When reps outperform their goal, the related expense is significantly higher than what a company ‘saves’ when a rep misses.

Mike:  Have you observed any trends or shifts in how companies approach this topic given the recent economic environment (e.g., entering the downturn, dealing the trough and now what appears to be a period of higher growth expectations)?

Ken:  Change is a trigger for products and services like ours.   The recent downturn forced many companies to figure out how to do more with less.  We recently worked with several companies charged with reducing headcount, but determined to maintain revenues and  effectively service their customers.  Aligning territories to allow each rep to visit the most number of accounts is critical to this effort.  Growth, which we prefer to see our clients enjoy, also forces the issue of how to realign territories – and how to do it in a way that the sales team doesn’t feel penalized.  Regardless of the change, companies want to minimize the level of disruption – the number accounts being reassigned from one rep to another.  Our technology can do that while also balancing the new territories and making them geographically compact.  One other point worth mentioning;  when things are good companies are less conscious about ”optimization” than when headcount is being cut.  We encourage our customers and prospects to continually focus on how to get the most from their sales headcount.

Mike:  Any final thoughts on what companies should be thinking about as they go into the 2012 planning process?

Ken:  Customer segmentation, sales force sizing, territory alignment, compensation plans and quota setting all part of the sales planning process – a new year represents an opportunity to revisit each piece of your sales coverage model and support programs.  Typically, the companies that come out of a downturn in the best shape are those that used their resources more effectively and invested while others pulled back.  Much like any other year, it’s critical to do the analysis, set the company strategy and then put your sales team in place to execute.  There are a lot of pieces to consider, but also an awful lot of upside when done well.

Ken can be reached at kramer@terralign.com

When it comes to sales compensation, business services firms pose a unique challenge.  By business services firms we mean companies that provide technology implementation, design, maintenance, printing, temporary personnel, etc., to other firms.   Unlike a product company that sells “widgets,” a services business essentially sells its people.   Similarly, the service is often an extension of the salesperson’s relationship with the customer.  Typically it’s more difficult for services firms to differentiate themselves, and these companies are less likely to experience the waves of business common to product firms, where the sales organization enjoys a growth cycle from the launch and subsequent momentum of a new product.

Maintaining and growing your existing client base is certainly going to have a lower cost of sale than acquiring new customers.  Significant time and attention should be paid to cultivating and maintaining existing relationships.  Unfortunately, the evil twin of relationship management can be  complacency; less focus on new services, limited ability to increase prices and insufficient acquisition of new clients.  We observe four key sales compensation issues within business services firms looking to re-ignite growth:  

• Commission on margin:   In a business where the profitability of a deal or customer can vary so significantly there may be a strong desire to pay on margin.  The counter argument is that “delivery,” not sales really influences the profitability of the deal.  If the delivery team provides the contracted service for a lower cost than estimated the deal will be more profitable.  Less efficient, less profitable.   For us, the key considerations are the role of the sales person and how much pricing discretion is available.  Paying commissions, or bonuses, on margin will certainly engage the rep in the profitability discussion.  It also encourages them to stay close to the delivery of the service; potentially a good or a bad thing based on the priorities of the role.  From a pricing perspective, the more discretion, the stronger the argument for some kind of margin component.
• Revenue versus bookings:  Revenue proponents contend that the sales team shouldn’t get paid until the company is able to invoice the customer (or in some cases until the company receives payment) and paying on revenue encourages the salesperson to better manage the relationship.  Bookings advocates point to a similar rationale as not paying on margin and like to point out that bookings measures encourage both new clients and new business within existing relationships.  Once again we’re back to the question of role:  what is the sales person being asked to accomplish?  What are their priorities and if we’re asking them to change, why? 
• Quotas:  We observe many business services firms where quotas are used for performance management, but are not part of the sales compensation program.   Linking quotas to incentive pay is a significant tool available to drive growth.   These performance expectations directly tie the productivity of the sales team to the business plan.  Further, within sales organizations historically paid on revenue, new business quotas can represent a major cultural shift and drive additional changes across the organization.   One cautionary note; the potential change brought by the introduction of quotas, means getting the quotas “right” should not be trivialized.   Revenue based quotas have their own issues, but setting a bookings goal for the first time requires careful thought and preparation.  Unrealistic or unachievable quotas can have an incredibly negative impact on the organization.    
• Sales expectations for delivery teams:  Within many organizations the role of the deliver team is to provide a high quality service and ensure the client’s satisfaction; can the customer be used as a “reference.”   Maybe there is a referral bonus available or even a SPIFF.  But in other organizations, offering new services to the client is part of the satisfaction equation.  Scott’s recent experience with AAA is a perfect example (Sales is Service).  For companies that believe in the service they provide, we think it a mistake to not at least consider the role of sales incentives for the delivery teams.  The incentive might represent a smaller portion of total pay relative to other priorities, but its absence often represents a missed opportunity.  Organizations that introduce a sales incentive need to train team members on their role in the sales process, as well as how to identify opportunities.      

Beyond the question of sales compensation, role design and account assignments play critical roles in the management of a business services sales team.  Effective sales compensation plans are predicated on clear roles and selling priorities.  Questions about how services salespeople should spend their time must be answered before any sales compensation decisions are made.   In a recent survey of incentive plan participants within a services organization, over 30% of the field said their incentive plans are not aligned with their roles and over 40% said they weren’t sure or don’t believe the plan supports the priorities of the business.  As sales compensation designers, numbers like that are like a big red flare, regardless of what industry they represent.

Top Questions Answered

This season’s brutal weather hasn’t slowed the number of questions from incentive planners and sales leaders.  Team- and goal-based plans are common themes.  We’ve handpicked a number of related questions from our mailbag, and hope at least a few are on your list of open questions.

Q: What is the ideal mix of individual and team measurement?

A: The ideal mix is consistent with the mix or relative share of the job’s responsibilities that are individual versus team-based.  In our experience team-based measures often take the place of what should be individual measures because either the company cannot measure individual contribution or it wants to avoid internal competition.  Good use of team measures is when the job carries responsibility for a goal that cannot be executed exclusive of other team members.

Q: Can one plan do all?  If a company has both Key Account Reps and Territory Reps, how common is it to have different plans?

A: Not effectively if the company has dissimilar requirements across the jobs considered, and the market requires different cash targets.  It’s for this reason that most companies have different plans to serve a diverse set of sales jobs.

For example, the requirements for a Key Account Rep and Territory Rep could be the same.  That is, base salary and target incentive, performance measures and pay frequency could be identical.  While in our experience we find the performance measurement similar – sales volume in either absolute or relative to goal, the pay targets are not.  Key Account Reps typically have a more-defined pool from which to fish versus the Territory Reps where the variability across territories is higher.  This means the Territory Rep carries a higher risk/reward proposition (higher incentive target as a percent of target total cash, higher upside potential).

There is an age-old debate around what constitutes a different plan.  This is a communication and administrative issue.  We say, if a sales manager can explain the plan to both audiences simultaneously, your one plan for different jobs passes the test.   Or if you can use an identical set of requirements in your system for paying both jobs, with only differences on your rate tables, your one plan passes the test.

Q: Given sales reps often have “unequal” opportunity with respect to their existing customer base, number of customers, type of customers, markets, etc., how do you effectively “level” the playing field among various reps?  

A:  This scenario is one of the strongest arguments for a goal-based incentive program.   With a goal-based approach you set a target incentive commensurate with the role and skill level.  Let’s say Scott and I both have a target incentive of $25,000.  Our goals might be very different, taking into consideration the factors your reference in your question.   If we both meet our goals we earn our $25,000, regardless of what our goals are.   The transition from a commission program to a goal-based incentive approach is one of the more challenging that we observe given the financial and cultural implications, but long-term it can be one of the most productive.

Q: What is the preferred approach for allocating quotas?   Is this typically a process of mutual agreement between the sales rep and management, or is it something that management enforces unilaterally? 

A: Goal setting approaches vary by industry based on the availability of data, go-to-market model and selling roles.  That said, we find that the most effective approaches use a combination of bottom-up and top-down input.   It is common for there to be a gap between what the salesperson says she can do and what the company requires in terms of performance.  While not a negotiation, there should be a clear and equitable set of logic used to close the gap.   Perhaps the most important characteristic is that the salesperson understands their quota, how the gap was closed and how it ties to the overall success of the organization.  Regardless of which approach is used, if the sales manager can’t explain it to their team, the goals will be viewed as arbitrary and unrealistic. 

Q: For goal based incentive plans, would you expect a normal distribution of performance, or a bi-modal distribution?

A:  When the goals are set correctly we would expect to see a normal distribution of performance.  The range of performance varies somewhat by industry, business model and selling role.  The company’s approach to goal setting – promote a culture of winners, 100% is stretch — also play a role.  The rule of thumb we use is to strive for a bell-shaped curve with approximately 60% – 70% of the plan participants achieving their objective.   With this type of distribution, the field force typically views the goals challenging, but realistic – a key characteristic from our perspective.    What varies then is the spread of the curve.   Consider a consumer product goods (CPG) manufacturer and software company.  We expect a narrower range of performance outcomes for salespeople in the CPG organization..  Most software firms have greater variability in the business, and software salespeople experience a broader range of quota-achievement outcomes versus those in CPG.    A final point, we recommend accelerators and thresholds, if included, be set with a goal of 90% percent of the population earning “some” incentive dollars and 10% earning a significant payout, in line with your industry’s pay benchmarks. 

Q: With goal based incentives, do you advocate setting annual performance goals, or goals with shorter time-frames?

A: In general we observe shorter performance cycles (e.g., monthly) as more effective for promoting line of sight and urgency.  However, in businesses with complex, long sales cycles and infrequent but huge deal values, each month in isolation says little about performance success.  In such circumstances annual goals are typical.  To gain the benefit of more frequent performance periods, management will often tie quarterly milestones and cumulative performance to annual goals.  Rarely do we see performance cycles beyond one year due to fiscal reporting norms.

Top Questions — Answered!

We get a lot of questions through this blog and during the course of our consulting work.  Sure, we try to answer all of them in a timely and concise manner.  But this time of year, with Black Friday, plan redesign deadlines and the like, some questions fall through the cracks.  While a few are random (“Is that Tom Cruise pictured on your ‘Show Me the Money’ blog?”), most are quite common, so we’ll attempt to answer the short list of most frequently-asked questions.

1. Team-based incentives — when are they appropriate?

When one individual alone cannot achieve the objective.  Now this oversimplifies things a bit, but it’s a good rule of thumb.  We see instances where a company pays individuals based on team outcomes when it’s really the individual’s contribution that matters.  Yet the company uses a team measure because it can’t measure individual rep influence.  Unfortunate, but necessary in some cases.

In our line of work, the most common application of team-based measures is for global account teams that cover multiple buying influences.  One member of the team can only get the ball so far before having to pass it to a team member.  The company may use MBOs for measuring milestone achievement of each individual rep, but ultimately its the sale that matters and the team must work together to make it happen.

2. Thresholds — when should they be used, and how best to set?

When there is a minimum level of sales required for some level of incentive pay.   How best to set?  The exercise is similar to setting quotas.  After all, a threshold is nothing more than a type of goal.  Difference being, the threshold goal can really rile emotions if set such that too many salespeople fall below the goal.

From an academic perspective, thresholds are part of the payment slope designed to manage the pay distribution.  That is, you’d like there to be a competitive and meaningful difference in pay between a high performer, an average performer and a low performer, assuming all three have a place in your organization.

We see thresholds commonly used in plans for jobs covering accounts or territories with recurring revenue.  Management wants to motivate growth, and avoid sales complacency for earning variable pay on “guaranteed” sales, so it sets a threshold based on this recurring revenue.

An extension of this approach is to set a threshold, but use it as a point to change the rate slope.  That is, pay a discounted rate for the first sale, and all sales up to a threshold performance level, beyond which you apply an accelerated rate up to quota.  The purpose is like an accelerator but below the goal.  Get your reps motivated to push to the next level, and reduce the sting for performance below threshold.

A related question is how best to use a threshold on a cumulative, year-to-date measurement approach (this one’s for you, D.W.).  There is an approach for this, but to adequately explain would exceed my 800-word limit.  And herein lies the problem associated with using thresholds.  The company’s efforts to explain fall short of the salespeople’s capacity to understand.  The simpler approach is to manage performance such that those falling below the threshold earn nothing — no incentive, no base (as Donald Trump would say, “You’re fired”).    Often sales leaders say they’ll do this but do not, thus the logic of a threshold.  And so it goes.

3. Trailers — when and how to use on monthly recurring revenue?

Use only when your competitors do and limit the trail period to (if you can) two years.  Consider using thresholds when you can accurately predict the renewal rate.

We’ve seen a number of SaaS companies pay reps a flat commission rate on 100% of the monthly recurring revenue (MRR).   There’s no trailer, just an annuity so long as customers renew.  After Year 1 or 2 the company discovers it can no longer grow the business with the size sales force in place because reps are making plenty of money off of the annuity stream — they have no incentive to grow the business.

Trailers require the rep to sell new business as the MRR credit from old business trails off.  Simple enough.  Insurance companies have been doing it for years.

It’s a seemingly unfair transition though for people expecting a flat rate on an annuity stream.   And probably tough to fathom for early-stage companies with hungry reps that can and want to double their earnings every year.   Yet at some point the hunger goes away, and the company struggles to grow with its existing sales force.  The longer a company waits to institute a trailer, the more compounded the problem becomes, and the longer the trailer period, the more difficult to align rep and company growth expectations.

Stay tuned for more insights on FAQs.  If we missed one of yours, please let us know.

Large-scale disasters, like those we’ve witness this week in the Gulf Coast and southern U.S., remind us about the importance of being prepared.  When it comes to quota-setting, being prepared includes having an adjustment policy for large-scale, unexpected events.

Monday morning in Nashville (photo courtesy of The Tennessean / Zuma Press)

Years ago we were asked by a global shipping company to help develop a quota-adjustment policy for its worldwide sales force.  The company had no objective, consistent policy for quota-adjustments, but on a global scale it often experienced major disruptions to its business due to fires, floods, tsunamis, political strife and other natural and man-made disasters.  Cultural norms seemed to play the greatest influence in whether and to what degree management adjusted sales quotas.   Regional finance and sales teams often quarreled about the appropriate balance between shareholder and salespeople interests.

In Japan, for example, management would not adjust quotas for any event other than territory remapping.   So when a regional airport closed for three weeks because of earthquake damage, all the region’s salespeople missed quota for the quarter, and their opportunity to participate in the annual club trip.  Management reasoned that because shareholders and customers suffered from the closure, the sales team must also.

In France, after a flood wiped out two of a salesperson’s major accounts, management adjusted his quota to neutralize the impact.  Here management’s rationale was it needed to keep this salesperson “in the game” to achieve its annual, regional quota.

While Japan’s regional management was adamant about the no-adjustment policy, many reps across the country felt they should receive a goal increase in order to level the playing field with those who suffered a business setback.  Most of the regional managers in France felt they could not attract, motivate and retain sales talent without a flexible goal-adjustment policy.  Germany sided with Japan on the position to leave goals intact, though its reps did not believe in sharing the pain.  Most U.K. regions fell somewhere in the middle, based on each circumstance.

Cultural norms aside, corporate leadership required some definition of “large-scale.”  Historical analysis found that 97% of the quota-adjustment requests were for five percent or less of a reduction.  In the remaining 3% of cases, management requested a quota reduction of between 6% and 30%.  Granted, not all business disruptions resulted in quota-adjustment requests; we felt available data were representative of the frequency and magnitude of events, though we needed to account for differences between developed and under-developed countries.

From this analysis and subsequent management interviews we were not able to identify any system or formula for forecasting business loss, and the appropriate relationship between the expected amount of business loss and the requested quota relief.  Perceptions ranged from 3:1 to 1:1.

After much consideration and debate, leadership established that any event forecast to reduce a territory’s sales by 20% or more would result in that territory’s quota being reduced by at least 10%, with a non-linear scale such that larger events would receive greater proportional adjustment, and a forecast of 50%+ in lost sales would result in a 50%+ (1:1) quota reduction.

As one approach seldom fits all regional practices, leadership was sensitive to forcing this global policy on all regional teams.  It required instead that regional management follow the adjust guidelines when it chose to adjust; regional management could elect to leave quotas in place following a large-scale event.  If it planned to adjust a salesperson’s quota, it needed to follow the guidelines.  Events considered smaller in scale – i.e., those forecast to have less than a 20% impact on the business – could not be adjusted, on the principle of “you win some, you lose some.”

This “opt-out” approach for large-scale events pleased the Japanese management.  The hard line of no adjustments for smaller-scale events was, as you’d expect, very controversial in regions having a history of frequent adjustments.  France, in particular, felt the policy would drive away its sales talent.  Yet leadership argued that regional management needed a mechanism to bring incentive costs more in line with global standards, as a percent of revenue.  Seems many of the adjustments were to get a salesperson to the next, higher bracket of the incentive rate table.

In October of 2005, about six months after the company adopted the global policy, I spoke to the head of sales operations for North America.  He was pleased when, two months earlier, they had systematic way for adjusting quotas of salespeople based in New Orleans.  Apparently some of those salespeople suffered significant material loss following Katrina, but did not have to fret about how the disaster would impact their earnings ability in the near term.

I recently had the opportunity to partner with Ted Briggs and Clinton Gott of Better Sales Comp Consultants (BSCC) on the inaugural Sales Operations Trends & Practices Survey. 

Ted and Clinton are both recognized leaders in the sales compensation/sales effectiveness arena and I am appreciative of being able to work with them on this effort.  This survey was the first in a series that will be conducted on a quarterly basis, with a primary focus on sales operations and sales compensation practices in the technology and communications sectors. The survey ran during the first quarter 2010.  The original goal was to recruit 30 participants and we were very pleased 43 technology and communications companies chose to respond.  The questions focused on high level practices in five key areas: 

• Sales Planning
• Account and Territory Assignment
• Quota Setting
• Incentive Plan Design
• Incentive Plan Administration

With these initial questions serving as a baseline, future versions of the survey will assess more detailed practices and trends in each of the five key areas, as well as address specific topics requested by the participants.   A key goal for the survey series is to provide BSCC clients and other members of the sales operations and sales compensation community data and benchmarks that can help them better assess and enhance their organization’s performance.

While several cuts of the data were available (e.g., company size, sector, technologies used), the most interesting results were those comparing the practices of higher performing organizations against the rest of the group.   

The data suggests that high performing sale operations teams help drive superior overall results. Some of the highlights:

• 100% of the respondents who view their operations function as a “competitive differentiator” reported outperforming peer organizations in total results
• 50% of respondents who could point to “clear positive impact” from their sales operations function outperformed peer organizations in total results
• For territory and account assignment, 77% of higher performing organizations started the process at least four months prior to the fiscal year start
• For quota setting, 79% of higher performing organizations began setting quotas 2-3 months prior to the fiscal year start
• For new sales compensation plans, 43% of higher performers communicate within the first two weeks of the new fiscal year, while 60% of lower performers communicate new plans prior to the fiscal year start

If you have any questions about the data, the results or participating, let me know.  Also feel free to reach out to Ted or Clinton directly, or to receive a copy of the executive summary, at:  

Ted Briggs, briggs@bettersalescomp.com

Clinton Gott, gott@bettersalescomp.com

 
About Better Sales Comp Consultants

With well over 50 years of combined sales management consulting experience, the BSCC network offers clients a high degree of sales effectiveness and sales compensation expertise in combination with a flexible and cost effective consulting approach that leverages and enhances their internal resources. 

BSCC provides high impact, tested, and implementable solutions designed to motivate sales teams and drive growth through this emerging new market.  BSCC can help develop better solutions that shift the sales team’s focus back onto growth and achievement, while balancing some of the cost savings efforts that were required over the last four or five quarters. 

BSCC offer sales compensation solutions that:  better align with changing strategies and sales job assignments; better motivate sales people to achieve and exceed their numbers; create better retention and attraction of critical talent; and help to drive better returns on sales compensation spend!  http://www.bettersalescomp.com/

Scott and I were recently interviewed by Marci Reynolds at The Sales Operations Blog;    http://salesoperationsblog.com/2010/04/12/5-burning-questions-sales-compensation/

Marci started the blog in 2009 with a goal of sharing sales operations related ideas, trends, opinions and best practices.    It is one of the only sites dedicated to the sales operations community and we are pleased to have the opportunity to collaborate with her.  If you are a sales operations professional or interested in the kinds of topics listed below we would encourage you to check out her site.

 Sales Strategy: Design, Planning, Execution
• Reporting, Analytics, Trending
• CRM, Sales Technology, Sales 2.0
• Sales Communication
• Sales Territory Design
• Sales Data
• Sales Training, Sales Readiness
• Sales Contests and Spiffs
• Project Management, Process Improvement
• Lead Generation, Sales Programs
• Sales Policy
• Sales Quotas
• Sales Compensation

Better Sales Comp Consultants, a sales management consulting firm founded Ted Briggs and Clinton Gott, is hosting a Sales Operations Practices survey.  Scott and I were asked to help develop and facilitate the survey.  We’re excited about the information being collected, and the list of companies participating.  

This is the first in a series of surveys targeted specifically at the sales operations teams in the technology and communications sectors.  While there are several surveys that focus on pay levels, quotas and related information, this is the first ongoing survey focused on the organization approaches, processes and tools used by sales operations professionals. 

This introductory survey examines high level practices in five key areas:  Sales Planning; Account and Territory Assignment; Quota Setting; Incentive Plan Design and Incentive Plan Administration.  The surveys will be conducted every quarter and will assess more detailed practices and trends in each of the five key areas as well as address specific topics requested by survey participants.   The goal of the survey is to provide BSCC clients and other members of the sales operations and sales compensation community data and benchmarks that can help them better assess and enhance their organization’s performance.

So far the responses have been very good.  Several leading technology/telecommunication companies of different sizes.  The survey is going to run through February 3^rd.   If you’re interested in taking the survey you can access it through the link below:

http://bettersalescomp.salesopsssurvey.sgizmo.com

Once the survey is complete we’ll post some of the more interesting results.

Welcome to our blog. 

SalesCompInsights was created by Scott Barton and Mike Meisenheimer.  In our 30+ combined years of working on sales compensation design and management, we’ve collected a lot of  intellectual capital and developed a few opinions on the subject.  So it’s time to share.  This includes reliable information on sales compensation principles, as well as current trends and research. 

Over time SalesCompInsights will continue to evolve based on feedback we receive, specific requests and changes in the broader sales compensation world.  

From time to time, we’ll ask our clients — professionals in sales, HR, finance and sales ops — to comment on industry trends and news that impacts sales compensation policy and administration.

We’d like to hear from you.  Please let us know if there are specific topics you’d like us to cover or comment on posts you find of interest.  Share with us your own sales compensation insights as they pertain to plan design, implementation and administration – things that worked, things that didn’t or questions you’d like to get answered.  We also appreciate a good story. 

We hope you find this site of value.  If you don’t, let us know that, too!