4 ms·

And almost always these places pay their conference-calling-bullshitters top dollar. But it's like the apocalypse if you try to get more money for the people t

And almost always these places pay their conference-calling-bullshitters top dollar. But it's like the apocalypse if you try to get more money for the people that actually do things.

dsr_ 10y ago
The thing about salespeople is that you can objectively determine their value over any given time period. That's how they should be paid: a very small base salary that wouldn't cover their mortgage, coupled with a clear and unambiguous bonus structure that gives them a reasonable amount of money when they hit the targets that make the company profitable. Salespeople "actually do things". The problems come when you make a stupid compensation plan or don't fire the ones who consistently underperform.
- joncrocks 10y ago
  The counter-point is that without something to sell, the sales people wouldn't make any money. They don't make the company any money, they're middle-men. The value comes from the product. I would argue it's equally hard to objectively measure the value of a salesperson, but as there's already specific figures one can latch onto, it's easy to think it's easy.
  - arethuza 10y ago
    "The counter-point is that without something to sell" Never met a salesperson who was deterred from selling something by the trivial detail that it doesn't actually exist. ;-)
    - joncrocks 10y ago
      Heh, "But it could, theoretically exist right?"
    - FireBeyond 10y ago
      "Sir, I promised the client that it would have Feature X, and the developers are refusing, saying it will take too long!"
    - compactmani 10y ago
      This is consistent with my impression of how sales work. You sell a feature, product, capability, etc that won't be ready for at least 6 months (for example). Then you kindly encourage an engineer to build it.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    > The counter-point is that without something to sell, the sales people wouldn't make any money. > They don't make the company any money, they're middle-men. The value comes from the product. It is supposed to be a symbiotic relationship. Sales staff can't make money if they have nothing to sell, and engineers can't build product if they have no customers. The sales staff is just as critical as the product development staff for the company making money. Rare is the product that can sell itself.
    - DrJokepu 10y ago
      In fact, a great way to increase your reputation as an engineer at your job is to talk to the top sales people at the company and help them improve the product in ways that will help them selling more. It will open up very interesting career options that are normally not available to most engineers.
    - joncrocks 10y ago
      I agree, there's a balance. I don't personally think that sales people have no value. I think my point is that with sales people, there's usually actual numbers involved (that the salesperson has visibility of), which can help anchor perceived value. But it's still potentially hard to actually determine value.
    - beat 10y ago
      Sales staff are out there, talking to customers. Since no product is truly complete, they are the best source of information about what customers actually want. Too many programmers are smugly crossing their arms, saying they know what's best for customers without ever talking to them. Programmers are generally far more responsible than sales people for poor product quality.
      - jazzyk 10y ago
        True. But there are also many cases when sales people force the product development team to implement the most idiotic "feature", because "we think the client is ready to sign the check and this is really important to them". The bad side of commission-based compensation is that they want to close the sale, no matter how harmful (in the long term) it can be.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    Supply and demand are two sides to the same coin. Sales and marketing generate demand. Engineering and manufacturing generates supply. Both must exist for a product to be meaningful in the market. The labor theory of value, you see, is bunk. The product is worth only what the buyer will pay for it. And much of the time, a salescritter can convince someone to pay so much more for a product above cost that the difference pays for the salesperson's work, and still leaves some left over for R&D, or other nice things. Don't get me wrong. I still hate smarmy, schmoozing salesfolk with the passion of one ten-thousandth of a sun. But they aren't entirely useless. They do add value to a company in their own right. It is as a value multiplier, though. There still has to be some value added before you can multiply it.
- cobbzilla 10y ago
  it also helps attract the better salespeople if there are higher tiers of "somewhat unreasonable" payouts for spectacular results. but again, as you said, all targets must be clear & unambiguous. it should be extremely hard to hit top bonus tiers quarter over quarter. and if they do, your company should be on its way to an IPO. watch out for the ego on that account exec :)
- bphogan 10y ago
  When you tie someone's compensation to performance, you don't always get the results you're looking for. It seems to promote short-term gains over long term goals. See IMSAI in the 1970s for a great example of needing to hit goals at all costs.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Except those things they "actually do" tend to make my life miserable, as they overpromise to the client and then expect engineering to save their ass. It's never sales that has to sacrifice their time to meet deadlines. If we had a just world, any salesperson who did that would be forced to forfeit their commission to the engineering staff who's saving their ass.
- dccoolgai 10y ago
  For the sake of lucidity, I wasn't thinking of excluding (most) sales roles from "people that do things" - but as an engineer, you should still be looking for "basic" parity in remuneration between the top sales and the top engineers (even if it's structured differently.). If the two figures are completely untethered from each other, then it's a good sign the place either doesn't value business acumen (if engineers are paid highly and there are not good incentives for sales) or technical systems (if salespeople are all driving a Lexus' and they are stiffing developers). Both are deadly. I was merely pointing out that the latter fallacy tends to be indicated in mock conversation described.
dasil003 10y ago
If you don't recognize the value that good sales people bring, then you don't understand enough about business to make any determination of how much anyone should be paid.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
That's because from their frame of reference, conference-call BS is Real Work(TM).

And almost always these places pay their conference-calling-bullshitters top dollar. But it's like the apocalypse if you try to get more money for the people that actually do things.

dsr_ 10y ago

The thing about salespeople is that you can objectively determine their value over any given time period. That's how they should be paid: a very small base salary that wouldn't cover their mortgage, coupled with a clear and unambiguous bonus structure that gives them a reasonable amount of money when they hit the targets that make the company profitable. Salespeople "actually do things". The problems come when you make a stupid compensation plan or don't fire the ones who consistently underperform.

joncrocks 10y ago
The counter-point is that without something to sell, the sales people wouldn't make any money. They don't make the company any money, they're middle-men. The value comes from the product. I would argue it's equally hard to objectively measure the value of a salesperson, but as there's already specific figures one can latch onto, it's easy to think it's easy.
- arethuza 10y ago
  "The counter-point is that without something to sell" Never met a salesperson who was deterred from selling something by the trivial detail that it doesn't actually exist. ;-)
  - joncrocks 10y ago
    Heh, "But it could, theoretically exist right?"
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    "Sir, I promised the client that it would have Feature X, and the developers are refusing, saying it will take too long!"
  - compactmani 10y ago
    This is consistent with my impression of how sales work. You sell a feature, product, capability, etc that won't be ready for at least 6 months (for example). Then you kindly encourage an engineer to build it.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  > The counter-point is that without something to sell, the sales people wouldn't make any money. > They don't make the company any money, they're middle-men. The value comes from the product. It is supposed to be a symbiotic relationship. Sales staff can't make money if they have nothing to sell, and engineers can't build product if they have no customers. The sales staff is just as critical as the product development staff for the company making money. Rare is the product that can sell itself.
  - DrJokepu 10y ago
    In fact, a great way to increase your reputation as an engineer at your job is to talk to the top sales people at the company and help them improve the product in ways that will help them selling more. It will open up very interesting career options that are normally not available to most engineers.
  - joncrocks 10y ago
    I agree, there's a balance. I don't personally think that sales people have no value. I think my point is that with sales people, there's usually actual numbers involved (that the salesperson has visibility of), which can help anchor perceived value. But it's still potentially hard to actually determine value.
  - beat 10y ago
    Sales staff are out there, talking to customers. Since no product is truly complete, they are the best source of information about what customers actually want. Too many programmers are smugly crossing their arms, saying they know what's best for customers without ever talking to them. Programmers are generally far more responsible than sales people for poor product quality.
    - jazzyk 10y ago
      True. But there are also many cases when sales people force the product development team to implement the most idiotic "feature", because "we think the client is ready to sign the check and this is really important to them". The bad side of commission-based compensation is that they want to close the sale, no matter how harmful (in the long term) it can be.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Supply and demand are two sides to the same coin. Sales and marketing generate demand. Engineering and manufacturing generates supply. Both must exist for a product to be meaningful in the market. The labor theory of value, you see, is bunk. The product is worth only what the buyer will pay for it. And much of the time, a salescritter can convince someone to pay so much more for a product above cost that the difference pays for the salesperson's work, and still leaves some left over for R&D, or other nice things. Don't get me wrong. I still hate smarmy, schmoozing salesfolk with the passion of one ten-thousandth of a sun. But they aren't entirely useless. They do add value to a company in their own right. It is as a value multiplier, though. There still has to be some value added before you can multiply it.
cobbzilla 10y ago
it also helps attract the better salespeople if there are higher tiers of "somewhat unreasonable" payouts for spectacular results. but again, as you said, all targets must be clear & unambiguous. it should be extremely hard to hit top bonus tiers quarter over quarter. and if they do, your company should be on its way to an IPO. watch out for the ego on that account exec :)
bphogan 10y ago
When you tie someone's compensation to performance, you don't always get the results you're looking for. It seems to promote short-term gains over long term goals. See IMSAI in the 1970s for a great example of needing to hit goals at all costs.
st3v3r 10y ago
Except those things they "actually do" tend to make my life miserable, as they overpromise to the client and then expect engineering to save their ass. It's never sales that has to sacrifice their time to meet deadlines. If we had a just world, any salesperson who did that would be forced to forfeit their commission to the engineering staff who's saving their ass.
dccoolgai 10y ago
For the sake of lucidity, I wasn't thinking of excluding (most) sales roles from "people that do things" - but as an engineer, you should still be looking for "basic" parity in remuneration between the top sales and the top engineers (even if it's structured differently.). If the two figures are completely untethered from each other, then it's a good sign the place either doesn't value business acumen (if engineers are paid highly and there are not good incentives for sales) or technical systems (if salespeople are all driving a Lexus' and they are stiffing developers). Both are deadly. I was merely pointing out that the latter fallacy tends to be indicated in mock conversation described.

dasil003 10y ago

If you don't recognize the value that good sales people bring, then you don't understand enough about business to make any determination of how much anyone should be paid.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

That's because from their frame of reference, conference-call BS is Real Work(TM).