PricingBrew

Insights & Tips

Already a subscriber? Login

Become a subscriber and unlock an information arsenal focused on making your pricing efforts more effective.

Wait…Don’t Change Sales Comp to Improve Prices?

In the PricingBrew Journal, we’ve highlighted again and again how sales compensation schemes based solely on top-line revenue can’t help but hurt pricing performance. We’ve talked at length about how a revenue-based sales comp plan acts as a sort of governor that restricts or dampens your pricing performance across the board— often by as much as 2-4%!

And at every possible turn, we’ve made the point that if your salespeople have any degree of pricing or discounting discretion whatsoever, you have no choice but to make tackling sales comp a top priority.

It’s that important. It’s so important, in fact, that I would put it in the Top 5 of the most powerful pricing improvements you can make—right up there with price segmentation, value estimation, and measuring price elasticity.

That said, changing a sales compensation scheme that has likely been in place for many, many years can seem like an incredibly daunting task, fraught with conflict and political risk. And I suspect that the magnitude of the “change” challenge is why some pricing teams have been putting it off or avoiding it altogether.

In many cases, however, these challenges can be mitigated to a great extent by taking a “parallel approach” rather than shooting for wholesale change.

You see, with the parallel approach you’re not actually changing the existing sales compensation scheme at all. Instead, you’re adding something new alongside the existing plan. And in practice, the existing plan continues to reward revenue production, while this parallel plan also rewards excellent pricing behavior.

The rewards in the parallel scheme could be any number of things—key bonuses for “closest to the pin” on price attainment, multipliers and accelerators based on relatively price realization, etc. And in the beginning, the parallel plan may only comprise a small part of the overall, increasing as the sales teams gets more comfortable with the approach.

Eventually, the parallel scheme would just fold into the core compensation plan, but without much fuss or fretting.

We’ve often said that one of the best ways to reduce change management headaches is to reduce the amount of perceived change involved. And with a parallel approach like this, you don’t have to change much of anything—until people are so used to it that it doesn’t seem like change at all.

Get Immediate Access To Everything In The PricingBrew Journal

Related Resources

  • When to Choose Profit, Revenue, or Both

    As pricing people in B2B, we all have to deal with the "corporate schizophrenia" around revenue versus profit. In this conversation with Lydia DiLiello, we discuss how pricing teams can best deal with this oftentimes frustrating dynamic.

    View This Interview
  • Making Sense of Pricing Technology

    Are pricing technologies all the same? Do the differences actually matter? What do we need? How do we choose? In this webinar, we cut thru the confusion to help you understand your options for technology-enabled pricing.

    View This Webinar
  • How to Price New Products

    In this on-demand webinar, learn about three common types of new products that pricing teams are likely to encounter, and explore the core strategies and processes for dealing with the realities associated with them. Hint: "Best practice" is not always realistic.

    View This Webinar
  • Boosting ASPs (Average Selling Prices) to Drive Profitability

    The use of averages are as common in business as they are in sports. Average selling prices (ASPs), however, can hide a lot of profitable truths. In this case study, Peter Maniscalco reveals how one building materials company dug deeper to find profitable opportunities.

    View This Case Study