By Beth Carroll, The Cygnal Group

What’s wrong with the traditional, “highly variable, straight commission on margin” approach for paying your employees? Nothing…if every employee has the same opportunity, the same skills, the same training, and all your freight is from the spot market where each day is a new day and no one knows for sure what’s coming their way.

However, as this industry matures, many transportation brokers are learning that the traditional approach is no longer working for them. This is especially true in organizations with substantial business from contracted or long-standing “house” accounts or those experimenting with non-traditional organization structures (such as using strategic account managers, strengthening the use of outside selling roles, and/or splitting their organization between teams of “freight finders” and “truck finders”, who may or may not be tied together in shared dependency).

The challenge that arises in these situations is to determine what is “fair”. If you use a highly variable plan delivered via a flat commission rate, is it fair to pay an employee the standard commission rate for moving freight for a large contracted account they didn’t land? What about for freight that is generated by an outside sales person – shouldn’t there be a reduced rate on these loads when it comes to paying the truck finder? What about if you are using a team approach that generates a shared pool, but now you need to add people to the team? Or you need to move your best team leader to another group that is substantially smaller because you know he/she will be able to grow it? It each case, if you stay wedded to using a highly variable commission-only approach, you will find yourself creating “special deals” where certain accounts are paid a lower (or higher) rate than others, where you are administering cumbersome calculations to deduct the “lead generation” fee before calculating the commission, and where you are creating temporary “deals” with employees as you re-organize your staff or your accounts. You may find yourself spending more time trying to remember the different compensation arrangements you have for Joe, Sally and Fred and what the rates are for accounts A, B and C than you are spending building your relationships with your customers.

Using the traditional highly-variable straight-commission approach for incentive compensation is appealing on many levels: it’s simple, easy to understand, it’s economically “pure” so you don’t have to worry that you’re going to spend all your profits on incentives, and it’s easy to administer (at least at first). For busy business leaders, this approach feels like it should be a “fix it and forget it” solution. In addition to these benefits, the commission mechanic (regardless of how much pay is at risk in the plan) is a powerful tool that creates an intensity of focus you generally don’t find with other compensation mechanics. For these reasons, using a highly variable pay plan, with a commission mechanic to calculate pay, is perfectly appropriate for some selling roles and in some selling situations, especially pure new business hunters in start-up companies or high growth divisions of established companies. These types of roles have what is called “high prominence” – which means, in plain language, that they have a high degree of control over the outcome of their sales efforts. (I would still suggest using an escalating or de-escalating commission mechanic for even these roles, however, as it’s rarely appropriate or advisable to base an entire incentive plan on a single, unchanging commission rate.)

Where the traditional highly-variable commission-based approach does NOT makes sense, however, is for companies that have developed a substantial book of regular business, are building strong brand awareness in the marketplace, and are using multiple internal resources to land and grow accounts. In these cases, most of the employees are “less prominent” in the sales process; they are a cog in a much larger wheel that includes marketing and advertising campaigns, outside sales resources, and long-standing company relationships with customers. Using the traditional approach can hinder management from making the right changes for their business (shifting customers or load volume around) because it would be “taking pay” away from one employee and “giving it” to another. In these circumstances, the better approach is to shift your pay mix more toward base salary (at least 50/50), and make at least part of the incentive plan dependent upon the attainment of defined goals.

What is a Goal-Based Incentive Mechanic (aka “Bonus”)?
Commissions pay for volume (“the more you sell, the more you make”). Goal-based bonuses pay for attainment of a pre-defined goal (“if you beat your goal, you make more money”). Using goal-based incentive mechanics can provide more flexibility for managers to run their business to meet customer needs, target strategic objectives beyond gross margin, and manage employee pay as a motivational tool.

An example might help illustrate the difference.

Joe, who has been given a large volume of mainly long standing accounts, generates $30,000 in a given month in margin. This is down 25% from what he did the last month.

Sally, who is still developing her book of accounts, generates $15,000 this month, which represents 150% growth over what she did the last month.

A pure commission mechanic would pay Joe twice as much as Sally, even though his business is shrinking and hers is growing. Arguably, Sally is doing a better job than Joe, even though, and I can hear many of you saying it, “Joe is still bringing more money into the company.” Yes, he is. But, once a company grows beyond the point of living hand-to-mouth in start-up mode, management needs to think strategically in terms of what behaviors and results should be rewarded for the long-term growth of the company. Sally could very well be a better long-term asset, but she may not stay around too much longer if her pay is below market competitive levels (and also very likely perceived by her as being “not fair” compared to what “that slouch, Joe” is making).

Using a pure bonus mechanic, Joe might be given a monthly goal of $35,000 per month in margin, and Sally given a goal of $12,500. Management would make this determination based on previous period performance, opportunities for growth, and the overall numbers which must be hit by the organization. At 100% of goal, each would make $1,000 for the month. A well-designed goal-based plan has a range around goal (called a performance range) which allows for payout both below and above goal, with different escalation rates. At $30,000, Joe would be at 85% ($30,000 / $35,000) of his goal, and he might be paid 77.5% of his target incentive or $775. At $15,000, Sally would be at 120% ($15,000 / $12,500) of her goal, and she might be paid 140% of her target incentive or $1,400. This provides a payout that is determined by the individual’s ability to meet and exceed the goal that management has set for him/her. Next month, when management decides that Sally might do a better job managing one of Joe’s accounts, Joe’s goal would be reduced and Sally’s would be increased, to reflect this shift in accounts. Each of their incentive targets would still be $1,000 for 100% of goal attainment. Management can make this decision purely based on what is in the best interest of the customer and the company, without fear that this kind of change is taking pay from Joe and “giving it” to Sally. Instead, the discussion is entirely about who is best suited to manage and grow this particular account.

For those of you who may feel that the pure goal-based approach is not quite right for your business, or it’s too much change to take in one step, there is the comforting fact that there are millions of different ways to design incentive plans. One of these options is to use a goal-based commission, where the commission rate increases when the individual’s goal is attained. This provides a blend of reward for volume and reward for goal-attainment. Another option is to divide the incentive into two (or three) elements, one of which is paid using a commission mechanic, and the other of which is paid using a goal-based mechanic. Some companies elect to transition by using the goal-based mechanic on a lesser-weighted team measure, and the commission mechanic on a more heavily weighted individual measure. The possibilities are truly endless, and companies that are moving beyond the traditional broker method for compensating their employees are finding the answers to some of their most vexing compensation problems.

Beth Carroll is a Principal with The Cygnal Group and can be reached at 815-485-4711 or beth.carroll@cygnalgroup.com

space

Business need: Profitable business

space

Business need: Growth in sales of new/strategic products/services, or targeted customer types (e.g., new customers or customers in specific industries)

space

Business need: Sales over goal/quota

space

Business need: Consistent sales performance

Finally, with all these measurement possibilities and linkages on display, we feel compelled to caution you that, when it comes to sales compensation plan design,

Simpler Is Better. Be careful. No Gratuitous Complexity.

Only include these types of components in support of strategic imperatives for the business. And remember that you only really get to "say" about three things with your compensation plan and be "heard." Just because you can, that doesn’t mean you should.

Question

In professional services, do you compensate differently in sales plans for “new” business vs. maintaining an account to incent the best “prospectors” to develop new business?

Answer

I’d say that the best course would depend on both the company strategy and the way the selling roles are defined. If the strategy is focused on penetration of existing accounts, then the most valuable sales might be those in current accounts (this tends to be true with mature companies who have some kind of relationship already with most of their key prospects).

But for the majority of our clients, new business is very important. You’ll have to be clear about what counts as “new” – a new “logo” (new company name…), a new buying entity (maybe a new division/location in an established customer could be counted as new), a new service offering (generally one that does not replace an older legacy service they have been buying). Generally “new” business (however you define it) takes more time and effort to win than renewal or penetration business, and for that reason you’ll need to reward for it at a higher level in order to keep sales people focused on it.

Another approach successfully employed by companies with enough sales people to do this is to separate “Account Management” from “New Business Sales” so that different people/teams are responsible for those different selling activities. This may not be practical in a small sales force – but once a company achieves enough scale to operate this way it allows the focus of those who love the new business hunt to be where they do their best work, and those who love the longer-term relationships and more nurturing selling role can focus on managing and growing existing accounts. If you do end up splitting the role into Account Managers and New Business Hunters (sometimes called Sale Executives), you will probably want to have different pay plans for those two roles (e.g., quota bonus with a threshold and significant acceleration for over-quota performance for Account Managers; first dollar commission with lower quotas and less acceleration for New Business Sales).

Question

I need benchmark data on what percentage of annual gross revenue should come from new business and should be allocated to sales force compensation. For example, if in insurance or other annuities there is a commission on first year premiums only and not on renewal business or a reduced rate on renewals. I assume that the 1st year budget for acquisition is higher than maintaining existing customers, but I am curious is that is really the case or if there are any good benchmarks to use as a reference.

Answer

I believe your question is about sales roles with a new business focus when the acquired business generally turns into a long-term annuity type relationship. Examples from my experience include insurance policies, ASP software offerings, software leasing, online test delivery contracts, EDI services, data and voice communication subscriptions. In all these cases, the company most values the acquisition of new business, and counts on the quality of the service delivered to retain it.

In these business models, new business sold earlier in the year contributes more to in-year revenue than that sold later in the year as the revenue is generally recognized monthly. For this reason, much of the incentive design effort may be aimed at rewarding those who acquire significant new business early in the year by measuring “in-year new revenue.” Retention is sometimes the job of the new business sales person, but is often assigned to a different Account Manager or Client Services role. If the same person is doing both new business and account management, the total revenue from new business may be very small compared to the total revenue from the existing assigned book (5% – 20% of the total). Often the new business is commissioned (based on new in-year revenue or total contract value), and the retained business is handled more as a quota bonus, with the weight on each component proportional to the expected time allocation.

But to get to your specific question, the budgeted sales comp % revenue is likely all over the place, depending on industry and company stage of growth. In very high margin businesses (software, data services), you are likely to see a higher comp % revenue. Similarly, large deal sellers (deals in the millions, tens of millions and more) would see a smaller percent of revenue as their comp; and small deal sellers (I’ve seen deal sizes in the thousands of dollars) would earn a larger percent of revenue. And in earlier stage companies you are also likely to see higher comp % revenue. The right comp % revenue is really based on the market value of the job (numerator) and the selling model, which generates a reasonable sales productivity expectation per person (denominator).

If the role to which you refer is more of an account manager who lands the business only to manage the account and grow the relationship over time, then the ideal measure is recognized margin (the margin value of the revenue recognized). If margin is controversial or hard to measure or calculate on an account by account basis, then revenue may be the better measure (and it is certainly the more common measure for this reason). In this case, the person may be paid based on attainment of a quota customized for their book, or based on growth in the value of the assigned book over prior years (through more volume to existing accounts or addition of new accounts).

1. They may take more time and effort on the part of the sales person, so should pay more as a percent of sales to make them worth that time investment
2. They may pull sales people out of a comfort zone, and so should be more attractive to help them focus on new behaviors
3. They may be more difficult from a goal/quota setting point of view, with little/no history to use as a basis, and so goals/productivity expectations may have serious accuracy challenges compared to the base business.

Here are the typical comp mechanics to recognize these challenges:

Characteristic of the sale: Takes more effort

Comp mechanics: Pay a slightly higher rate – 15% to 50% more than base business is about right, depending on the degree of difficulty

If the “more effort” is only a startup challenge, make it clear that in the future it will revert to a lower rate – so they have every incentive to get these sales going quickly (for new products); if it will always take more effort, the rate should probably not revert (new customers)

Characteristic of the sale: New / out of comfort zone

Comp mechanics: Pay a higher rate on the new stuff and a lower rate on the old stuff – to provide “carrots” and “sticks” – so ignoring the new stuff would mean less earnings than last year for the same results as last year; and meeting expectations on both old and new would result in slightly higher earnings

Again, make it clear that rates will not stay this high on the new stuff forever, so it will be in the sales person’s best interest to get a fast start

Characteristic of the sale: Difficult to set goals

Comp mechanics: Pay on the new stuff (products/customers) from first dollar, without a lot of dramatic acceleration or bonuses around quota/productivity expectation. If you know your goals are rough, don’t make attainment of them a high-stakes event for the company or the sales person. In fact, a straight commission (at an attractive rate) without any acceleration is a reasonable arrangement in the first year.

We’ll leave a lot of that to your other advisors and focus here on the compensation piece. Here are the basic steps you need to complete to arrive at the right comp plan for your new hire:

1. Your first step is to determine a reasonable level of total compensation for a sales person in your business — that’s what their W-2 says at the end of the year. This is undoubtedly tied, in the thoughts of company management at least, to how much the person should be able to sell in that first year — the cost needs to be associated with a reasonable return. You’ll get better at that as time goes by, but you’ll have to start with some kind of working assumption based on others in your industry, leadership’s experience in selling your products or services, even to a certain degree the perspective of your top candidates for the role and/or a recruiter who may be helping you to fill it.
2. Next you need to decide how the risk will be shared — how much of that target total compensation will be in a fixed base salary and how much in the incentive at target. For early stage companies, the fixed portion may be relatively low, even 30% to 50% of the target total compensation. However, if you are trying to attract a well-established resource to bring their network, skills and experience to your company, you may have to offer a higher base since their choices include many with less risk.
3. Now you know how much the incentive at target will be, so your next step is to be very clear about WHAT you expect your new sales person to PRODUCE per year. This is usually measured in revenue dollars, but may be measured in units sold or even gross margin dollars in some industries. Whatever the measure(s), you need to design a plan that delivers the target incentive amount for getting to the productivity goal. This is most typically communicated as a commission (to calculate the rate, divide the target incentive by the productivity expectation). There’s more to consider in designing the payout table than this article can address, such as threshold levels of performance (below which no incentive is earne), acceleration and deceleration in payout rates at over-goal levels of achievement, etc. You will also need to be clear about payout timing (monthly, quarterly, etc.), and measurement periods (independent or year-to-date).
4. Your last design step is to check the plan’s appropriateness across a broad range of possible levels of productivity, and be sure you’re comfortable with both the cost to the company as it relates to results and the income level for the sales person. You will very likely make some kind of adjustment after this review, which should probably involve someone from your Finance group or the company’s owner.
5. Once you feel you have the right design, your next step is to carefully document the plan in a Plan Document to be signed by both the sales person’s manager and the sales person. Here, you should probably ask for a review by your legal counsel.
6. And finally, determine how you will administer the plan – where the data will reside, what reports will be run, who will do the initial calculation, who will review and approve it, and how the information will be communicated to your payroll processors.

Then after you’ve been living with the plan for a few months or quarters, have a look again to see if it’s meeting your needs. Always include a clause in the plan document claiming the right to adjust as needed, then don’t adjust during the plan year unless you’ve got a BIG problem. But do consider adjustments each new plan year. As your business grows and changes, the perfect sales comp plan will also change.

1. Pay mix and upside: Selling to new clients generally relies more on the initiative, skill and creativity of the sales person than does managing existing clients. Existing clients continue to buy partly because sales people do their jobs well, and also very much because the company has delivered value to them in the past. What this means for comp plan design is that the business developer generally has more at-risk pay as a percent of Target Total Compensation than the account manager. The business developer also generally has more upside (more acceleration above target performance) than the account manager.
2. Measures: For account managers, measures typically include both revenue and some measure of account (/territory) profit contribution – maybe gross margin or gross profit. For business developers, it is less common to emphasize a measure of profitability as long as it is within acceptable bounds. The message is that the business developer gets the new customers in, then the account manager works over time to grow the value of the relationship to both your company and the customer.
3. Incentive form: Depending on the industry you’re in, the market position of the company, and your compensation philosophy, you may be using a commission type incentive (percent of sales, percent of margin, etc.) or a bonus-type incentive (fixed dollar payout for achieving the assigned goal, less for less, more for more). Bonus type incentives are more common in account management roles, and commission type incentives are more common in business development roles.
4. Payout frequency: Because the business developer has less fixed pay and is more personally and immediately accountable for results, they are often paid more frequently than the account manager. The business developer may be paid monthly, for example, while the account manager is paid quarterly.