Conference 7.286::digital

    Dunno about the US but in the UK we have yet to hear about the FY94
    compensation program - but heck, its only Q2!
    
    Having worked for 8 years in a commission environment prior to Digital
    I see the pro's and cons of both. Digital's big problem to date is that
    management doesn't understand commission - it even refuses to call it
    that! The scheme used in the UK in FY93 was complex and linked to both
    individual and team performance and skewed by quarters etc. My personal
    preference is a straight percentage of revenue, ie 0.1% of every
    $100,000 (100k=$100 commission) or some such - but that's too simple
    for Digital!
    
    Paul 

    I have not seen any reports on performance.  I have heard that
    management has seen one.  Recently.  And, that report was torn and
    tossed because of inacuracy.
    
    Then I saw a message yesterday indicating that we would receive an
    "extra" draw check.  Reasoning was unclear.  Suspect that they just
    can't get the system to produce "real" performance reports, on which to
    base incentive pay.
    
    Not surprised.
    
    I've asked a few sales folks and the general opinion is that we have a
    "salary winback plan" not a commission plan.  Sure, there is upside
    potential that was not there before, but Budgets HAVE BEEN SET too high
    and or are getting higher everyday.  
    
    I guess some folks feel that Digital created this plan to SAVE MONEY,
    not incent sales.

    As a sales rep who has been in sales for over fifteen years and with 
    Digital for over 9, I will comment based on experience.  The current
    compensation program is a salary cut of 20% to start.  Then, if you
    make your budget (quota everywhere else) you will earn back the 20%
    cut.  First off, this is not a positive motivator - "the beatings will
    continue until morale improves".
    
    Once you achieve budget, you will receive a $2,000 bonus.  Then every %
    over budget additional dollars are added.
    
    What occurred in FY93 was the following:  You got your salary.  Upon
    achieving budget, you then received $220.00 for every % over budget.
    
    What has occurred is quite clear.  Sales have received a salary cut. 
    If you achieve budget, you get your former full salary back.  Anything
    over and above you receive bonus dollars.  The problem is that over the
    past year since this "incentive" program has been announced the company
    has yet to be able to track sales performance accurately.
    
    What would truely be simple and motivating is retention of your salary
    and provide for 1% of every dollar sold over and above your budget. 
    This program was introduced by Russ Guillotti for FY93 Q4 incentive and
    Digital sales did extremely well.
    
    Now we are done with Q1 under the new "incentive" program and are
    announcing a loss with Q2 not much better according to speculation on
    Wall Street.
    
    My question is with the success of the Q4 FY93 incentive program, why
    did Management delineate?  Save Money???  Simplicity is not an option.
    
    

    
    The new "Salary Take Back" program has had a great incentive effect on
    me.  Along with the "Car Plan Take Away", it could cost me as much as
    $20,452 in W-2 reportable compensation.  This would be the difference
    from my 1991 W-2 tax form and my 1994 W-2 if current trends continue.
    
    A $20,000 salary decrease is a very strong incentive.  I resigned last
    week and will be starting a new job as soon as I finish my notice here.
    
    I was at AT&T when they put their sales force on commissions.  The took
    three years to move us from 100% salary to 70% base/30% commission. 
    What they did is give us the ability to earn a 10% incremental
    increase over our salary the first year, a 20% increase the second
    year, and 30% the third year.  During that period, no one got merit or
    cost of living raises.  The sales force responded very positively, as
    every was getting more money, and the amount was determined by our
    personal effort and our territories.  They didn't change our
    territories every year, and our quota's remained reasonable, although
    aggressive. 
    
    Why Digital elected to take back salary, risking the resulting
    predictable behaviors is way beyond my understanding.  I have been here
    9 years and have won three DECathlons by blowing out my numbers by
    155%, 210% and 383%.  I am motivated by success and recognition, not
    solely by money.  But I can be demotivated by taking things away; and
    that is exactly what has happened. 

re: .4

One could probably make a case that Digital is going to evolve(*) much
faster than anticipated... via a mechanisim loosely termed 'Death Spiral'
[tip of hat to Dick Lennard]. Digital's best people are making tracks
to leave the company... who will be left to generate the revenue?

Lee

(*) from the 'traditional' full-service Sales/Software/Services vendor
into 'HotCpuChip/??/??' vendor that will require far less headcount than
we have today.

The most significant aspect of the new compensation (it's NOT commission!)
plan is the change from certs to revenue measurement.  Digital cannot (today)
accurately track revenue by sales rep.  Add to the confusion the almost
total reorganization of the sales force in Q1 and the weekly changes what 
we do and don't get credit for, and you get chaos.

Bob

    Yeah, I agree with most of the previously expressed sentiments...
    
    Phasing in an incentive compensation program (heck, I don't care what
    "they" call it;-) would have certainly motivated people to outperform,
    whereas taking away 20% (for me, at least) of my salary did't get me
    "pumped".
    
    I've worked straight commission, Base+ Commission, and (only here at
    Digital) straight salary (and of late, bonus opportunities along with
    salary).
    
    IMHO, Digital could have frozen sales salaries, and implemented a flat
    percentage of revenues program which would have been very motivating
    (aka FY93 Q4B program.
    
    Even when/if we get measurement systems in place (this is the only
    company I know of where you can't easily get, if not automatically
    receive in-depth order reports!), the system designed in the US isn't
    equitable. Ask a rep with a $5M budget what there upside is if they
    exceed their number by $2000k (it aint easy to do that, folks!). Than
    ask a rep with a $2M budget what THEIR upside is if THEY exceed their
    budget by that SAME $2000k.  The moral of the story, at Digital at the
    present time, seems to be the more responsibility of the assignment
    (ie, the size of a budget) has an inverse relationship to potential
    earnings on the upside (then ,as a Sales Manager what THEIR upside is
    if they make their number, and exceed it by a few ($2-4000k) with 6 or
    8 reps...).
    
    Sigh

    How can anyone think we, (peddlars), are on a commission plan? 20% of
    our salaries have been taken from us with very little upside. Our
    industry is shrinking beyond fast. HP is kicking our butts. "Openess"
    BS is killing VAX/VMS. Alpha needs to mature.
    
    The days of being 200/300% of budget is not reality for most of us.
    Hence no financial gains other than "earning" back our salary.
    
    No hot upstarts to jump to. Just hoping to get through this mess.
    
    What a company? I hope BP enjoys his 20% RAISE!     
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
     

    i'm selling all my stock tomorrow.

    .9  Gene, don't sell yet.  It can't get much worse.  I remember so well
    at a Sales Management Training Class at PKO in which the instructor
    (not a Digital employee) made one thing very clear when it came to
    managing successful sales people:  "It's not your job to
    motivate your sales people, it's your job to find ways to NOT
    DEMOTIVATE them.  Remember, they come to you motivated"
    
    The simple things in life are what are most easily overlooked...
    
    (the poet in me)

    re.9 stock will go down  until the end of Q2 then start to rise.You
    heard it here first.Sell and get ready to buy back
    
    re.0 I am not in sales but am part of an incentive plan-and quite an
    amazing one too.Salaries are frozen basically.Your salary 'meets' level
    is pegged at 90% of market and you can get up to 15% more if
    Digital/Digital France/IBM etc make their numbers.Your salary can't be
    legally reduced so if you are paid above the calculated rate,you stay
    there.It is so damned complicated it could only have come from
    here.It's nett effect is a pay freeze and no hope of any job
    advancement since this implies some kind of raise at some time in the
    future,so nobody gets one.The only incentive now is a negative one-the
    dole queue-for most.
    I agree with the general view that a straight system would be better.I
    recently applied for a job internally and offered to do it for FREE if
    I could be paid by results alone.I didn't get it for the traditional
    reasons-wrong club.
    

	Re: .10

>    .9  Gene, don't sell yet.  It can't get much worse.

Bwahh ha h ha! Thanks, I needed that! I have some friends here who came
from Wang and clearly remember people saying the exact same thing when the
stock price was in the mid-30's. Believe me, it can get a WHOLE lot worse...
not that I necessarily believe it will. I agree with the sentiment that
things had better return to profitability in Q2 and Q3, or we'll need to
drag out the hip-boots because we'll be in so deep.

I *do* find it very intriguing that some people are so positive that things
are going to turn around in Q2. I don't understand this optimism at all,
although I'd like to believe it too. What makes people think things will
improve in Q2 and Q3, because Q2 has historically been a good quarter? Because
we're all going to "will it" to be a good quarter? What evidence leads you to
believe it will be better (i.e. where are the additional revenues going to
come from)? Surely you don't think the improvement will come from laying off
10k more people?

    If we are to take the temperature of this corporation as found in these
    notes and many of our colleagues, we are a very sick puppy.  Positive
    evidence is difficult to find, although I do like Lucente's attempts to
    provide clarity around which products we really have to sell that can
    give us industry leadership.
    
    

    re .12 The reason I am 'optimistic' that things will get better after
    q2 are simple.The market and stockholders just won't stand for it any
    longer.There will be massive layoffs most likely(which is why I am not
    *really* optimistic)-there will either be a company split(defacto or
    real) or a massive refocus of company efforts.(like dropping whole
    lines of business)All this combined with some senior role changes.
    So,as a stock market punter,I am reasonably optimistic.As an employee,
    I am not pessimistic,just sad that I am involved.
    I think Ed and Bob should job swap to be a salesguy for a month or
    two and then force ALL current managers to job swap for a field job for
    a month or two and then try a reorganisation...
    

    I made the mistake of sharing a few Digital realities with my better
    half last night, such as the 20-30% pay cut mentioned in previous
    notes.  A few minutes later, quite unintentionally, I also mentioned 
    BP's 20% ($150K) raise.  She went absolutely ballistic...

    I would expect that kind of reaction!!! This whole thing stinks!!
    
    My better/other half has expressed the same reaction to my NOT getting
    a raise in four and one half years and BP getting 20% in while the
    company is still failing...
    
    Why should they not be concerned..?
    
    Bob
    

    Hmmmm -- My humble assessment is that the creators of the Sales
    Compensation Plan don't understand the real purpose of a commission
    system.
    
    When I was a young peddler, I had a manager who I affectionately
    referred to as a "White Haired, floppy eared old bas#$%."  He had a
    baseline view of life -- If you wanted something -- You went out and
    bought it.  If you needed to pay for it, go out and sell something to
    get your commission.
    
    Sales folks in a commission world are there because they want to make
    money -- When I first came to Digital, I talked to someone who was
    talking about how good he had it in Digital sales.  He said the in
    1978, he made $20K.  I looked at him and said: "In 1978, I made $80K."
    
    So the message is that you can make a lot of money in a commission
    environment.  There's nothing wrong with that.  The problem with the
    current plan isn't that it's a take away.  The real problem is that it
    isn't a plan.  Uhh - In my humble opinion - doncha know.
    
    Fundamentally, you want to incent the sales organization to revel in
    the smell of a greenback dollar as opposed the the sweet smell of
    success.  For that to happen a plan has to be equitable.
    
    I'm concerned that the Main Digital offices are close to the Wannbe on
    Route 9.  I worked for Data General when they had a plan that you could
    get rich on.  Then they decided that the sales organization was making
    too much money.  Soooo, the inmates who were running that asylum
    changed the plan over 4 years to end up with a plan that has similar
    attributes as Digital's current plan:  "You are assigned a budget.  You
    earn 1% commission on that budget to 100%.  At 100% U went to 2% to
    120% of Budget.  Then you went to 3% money
    
    The net result is that all of the gun slingers rode off into the sunset
    to companies with more equitable commission plans.  I went to Digital
    to have a career in the business side of selling -- Figured I would
    make up the salary/commission difference in 5 years -
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Arrrrgggghhhhh!
    
    Anyway -- The first Data General Plan is THE PLAN:  1% on sales to X
    plateau; 2% on sales to Y plateau; 3% to sales on Z plateau.
    
    Point factors to incent specific sales behavior:  1.8 dollars for every
    dollar of booking if you sell within these parameters.  .5 dollars of
    booking if you sell within these other parameters.
    
    With that, you don't have a person carrying a $5Mil budget making the
    same Dollars that someone with a$2 Mil budget.  Further AND AS
    IMPORTANT, no one is exposed to the management syndrome of rewarding
    certain people by keeping budgets low and alternately penalizing other
    folks by passing out high budgets.
    
    Everyone has the same opportunity --- Now regarding Palmers salary
    increase -- Who cares!  Matter of fact, since I can't influence the
    compensation plan, my plan is to make as much money as I can with the
    rules that are in force.  If I can't I'm outta here.  And that is
    EXACTLY the attitude a commission sales person should have -- An
    allegiance to their W-2.
    
    IMHO
    
    Dennis

    	A number of years ago I worked with a salesman who had worked for
    IBM on a commission scheme - for just one month.
    
    	He joined IBM, was assigned his list of accounts, and within the
    first month one of these accounts cancelled a $20million order that had
    been taken by his predecessor. That meant he was owing IBM $200k
    commission. He left without paying them, and joined DEC. He was a very
    good salesman and won some of the standard DEC sales awards.
    
    	The IBM scheme of the time, with negative commission for cancelled
    orders was logical to prevent fraud. How else do you prevent a salesman
    doing a deal with a customer where the customer places a large order,
    cancels it later, and the salesman and customer split the
    commission?
    
    	It is my opinion that a commission scheme can only work if the
    lead to sale to delivery to payment cycle is short compared with the
    length of a salesperson's employment. Introduction of a commission
    scheme to me indicates that we are out of "relationship with the
    customer" long term sales, and in to "hit and run" short term sales.
    
    	Not that either is wrong. I have a couple of times been involved in
    highly profitable proposals where man-years of technical support would
    be required for the sale, but selling PCs on the phone can be
    profitable too.

    Response to .18:
    
    That horror story about the IBM salesperson can happen, but I believe
    it's remote.  Digital's Sales compensation plan pays on Revenue.  That
    says for a long term project, the sales person gets paid on "progress
    payments" or payments-to-date.  
    
    That's good news -- As a sales person builds the commission pipe line,
    he/she wants a steady stream of commission payments.  New deals augment
    the stream.
    
    A bad scenario is to have a big commission check in one month because
    typically the taxes are taken out at the computed earnings rate for the
    amount of the check.
    
    The other nice thing about "annuity" commissions is that you can, if
    done right, defer income from year-to-year.
    
    I don't believe a commission sales person would avoid long-term deals
    on the basis quick commission dollars.  A motivated commission sales
    person would chase every deal he/she thought they could bring in.
    
    I personally want a mix of annuity/opportunity commission stream of
    payments.
    
    
    My .02 cents.
    
    Dennis  

>>    The other nice thing about "annuity" commissions is that you can, if
>>    done right, defer income from year-to-year.
  
Of course, if management knows you have this revenue stream coming in, your
budget will be adjusted upwards accordingly.

I'm not directly affected by the commission plan but it seems to me
that the major problem with it is the goals that are set. Who sets
them? If they're anything like the projected sales numbers that find
the way to engineering, they have no more than a passing acquaintance
with reality....

    My first job in the computer industry was as a salesman for NCR. I was
    one of six people hired in the New England District as "Marketing
    Representatives," after jumping through a number of hoops (we were
    chosen out of 515 applicants, we all had MBAs, we were all highly
    motivated, etc.) The Marketing Rep was to be both a salesman for
    high-end equipment and a marketing resource for presentations, designing
    ad campaigns, working on corporate promotions, etc.
    
    After we were hired, we were all shipped to Dayton for 5 weeks of NCR
    "boot camp." I started having doubts when an instructor there berrated
    me for wearing green, since "green shows a customer you are insincere;
    don't you _ever_ wear green again!") We then got back to Boston -- just
    in time for the company to cut our commissions from 13% to 1 1/2% (you
    read this correctly). Then the company limited us to selling just cash
    registers -- the low end of the line. Combined with our big $211/week
    gross salaries, the 1 1/2% commission meant we were eligible for food 
    stamps -- not what we had planned when we beat 509 other people for 
    our jobs. 
    
    We all quit within a year. No employer can keep good people if it does
    not keep faith with its people.
    
    
    kbs
    

    re: .18
    
    Your view of the sales world is more accurate than you know.  We
    (Digital) are transitioning into a sell as many, as fast as you can
    mode.  Our installed base will support about 6-8 bil. in rev. We need 
    to get serious about pushing our boxes out the door and grabing back
    the desktop.  What do you think HP is doing? or IBM or (still) Sun?
    In sales of commodity type products (computers) volume is the critical.
    THe one with the volume is the "expert" and "standard". I think 
    Digital needs to get the sales people hitting and running.  This is 
    not bad, only bad when it is un-ethical.  I don't believe that our 
    sales people are un-ethical.  At least not compared to my competition.
    Ed Lucente was right when he said "sell product".  THat will increase 
    mindshare, marketshare and then the "pipeline" of annuity for product 
    will increase.  We are not a consulting company.  We can consult, but 
    we won't be a 14b co. with consulting, at least not the way we do it 
    today.  Do we really want to sell our Alpha boxes?  Then getthe
    applications on it now and REALLY incent the sales people to move them.
    Not by cutting 20% of pay.  Our competitors put bountys out for their 
    sales people.  If you beat the comp. you get a bounty. Why because you 
    are "taking " marketshare.  There is, believe it or not a finite amount 
    of desktop out there.  Sales people like to win.  That it what drives 
    them.  Have a good day!
    
    mp

    It' me again -- The point about budgets and business being in concert
    is definitely true.  Hence my observation that the first Data General
    Plan was THE PLAN.  
    
    A Personal War Story:  I ended up having my goal increased from 1.3 Mil
    to 3.9Mil in a period of 24 months -- This was not based on business in
    the pipeline; but rather on the fact that I hated my manager like he
    was from the old neighborhood and he didn't like me that much either.
    
    My career at Data General yielded nice commissions.  Then we moved from
    plateau based commissions (Prior note) to goal based.  That meant that
    this bone-head I had for a manager took me from being a 150-200%
    performer to (Had a bad year) to a 50% performer because of the 3.9Mil
    goal.  It made no difference that on a revenue basis I was one of the
    top folks in the patch.  On a % of budget, I was junk.  
    
    AND worse than being junk, this little Goal Kabookie dance hit my W-2
    -- Which is a real No-No.
    
    AND that is the problem with goal based compensation.
    
    A'nudder thing:  I don't see this leveraged salary as a pay decrease --
    You get it back.  If you make your numbers you are net-net even.  Now,
    if on the other hand -- If the message is that U aren't going to make
    your numbers, then we, as a company, need to figure out how to help U  do that.
    
    Regarding competition:  My personal belief -- They are scared!  I'm in
    the middle of a deal with H.P. and IBM and you cannot believe the crap
    being thrown at the customer regarding ALPHA and DEC as a company. 
    They are even trying to re-direct the focus away from the real business
    problem to a "Critical" need to have Network Management capabilities.
    
    The customer likes the ALPHA and I am fighting these other issues.  I
    believe that if I can manage the FUD, I'm going to win -- It's a big
    server!  Digital isn't even mentioned in the Server market -- 
    
    With this Client/Server push we have, I believe we are going to win
    deals with this little beast we call ALPHA --AND I agree -- A
    consulting company -we ain't!

    The only person "enthusiastic" about the new "commission" plan (YUK
    YUK) is my manager who always corrects me when I refer to it as a
    20% pay cut.  She obviously repeats the mantra from management levels
    above her.  She tells me, "It's a great plan with a tremendous upside"
    "It is competitve with the industry",  "I'm excited!", "opportunity
    to make lot's of money".  
    
    I am not a re-engineering expert, however, from what I have heard
    when a process or function needs to change, the shareholders need
    to be brought in so they can buy in to the changes.  Question:
    How many sales people carrying a bag in the real world were asked
    for input on how a new and effective pay plan could be developed
    and implemented? HHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!??????  Last comment:
    Based on the preceding replies and the sales reps which make up
    my unit and office, NO one is very excited about the new comp.
    plan.  The only exciting comp. plans I have heard about recently
    are the comp. plans at the new companies many of my ex-teamates
    will now be selling for. 

Correct me if I'm wrong please ...

I was under the impression that Digital sales reps were paid a good salary
given that they were not eligible for commissions. This is the way KO 
wanted since he didn't care for the commissions pressure to sell the customer
something he didn't want/need.

I also understood that sales reps for other corporations were paid a rather
small salary but made a good wage based on commissions.

Given these two statements to be relatively correct and given that DEC now
wants to move towards a commissioned based salary plan for the sales reps
would it be reasonable to expect that DEC would step the salarys down while
stepping the commissions in? Wouldn't this prevent the chaos that would
ensue if a full swing change was made?

Doug.

    Perhaps, if it were not for the fact that raises (for even DECathlon
    winners) have been slim to none for the past few years - what was a
    good salary in the 87/88/89 timeframe, is not that good today, if you
    haven't had raises that keep up with inflation in the interim.

>>Given these two statements to be relatively correct and given that DEC now
>>wants to move towards a commissioned based salary plan for the sales reps
>>would it be reasonable to expect that DEC would step the salarys down while
>>stepping the commissions in? Wouldn't this prevent the chaos that would
>>ensue if a full swing change was made?

First, let me stress once again that THIS AIN'T A COMMISSION PLAN!!

OK, flame off..

Well, nobody has articulated the long-range vision on sales compensation.
The short-term goal is to "reward" the over-achievers and "de-incent" the
under-achievers.  Good goals, lousy implementation.  The fact is the plan
is highly inequitable due to it's basis; salary and budget (which can be very
subjective).  And, we're already in Q2 and nobody even knows if and when the
plan will actually be implemented due to serious deficiencies in the reporting
systems.

Bob

    RE: 26
    
    You are under the mistaken impression that ALL Digital Sales reps
    are paid a high salary.  I would say the salary range for the average
    feet on the street is from 30K to 100K. (I happen to be closer to the 
    first figure).  If I had to guess the average salary of a Digital
    Sales rep. I would put it between 50K and 60K.  Anyone that thinks
    that is high pay for a sales professional is sadly mistaken.  KO
    implemented a non-commisioned sales force to ensure they did the
    right thing and were not unduly influenced by the lure of making
    a quick hit large commission and bugging out of the company soon
    after.  A great company and growing industry with a lot of SECURITY
    was one of the primary motivations of selling for Digital.  Many
    a sales rep who has worked here over the years has told me the
    stories of fellow sales folks who were told after complaining about
    their salary: "If you want to make lots of money you should go sell
    for another company."  I have recently been stunned to learn of 
    SEVERAL sales reps who are carrying multi-million dollar budgets
    who are now making UNDER 30K if you take into account the 20%
    pay cut!  One of theses folks informed me that some secretaries
    at the account they call on make more money than they do!!!
    The REALITY is pretty sad.    

    re:-1  Nuff said!  
    
    	Tis true.  I made more in 1985 than now.  Oh I can win it back.
    once I sell 3.0m 
    
    Will be a tough hoe !
    mp

    I'm kinda surprised that the thread of budgets hasn't been followed out
    a little further. After all, you have to be 100% of budget to earn back
    your pay...how many folks have had their budgets increased...even in
    the dim light of a business downturn? Oh, and what happens to Sally
    Superrep who was 180% of budget? Is her budget going to be 5% higher
    than last year? HAAAAAAAAA! Old Sal will be looking at numbers that
    will cause her blood pressure to soar to near-stroke levels.
    
    It's like Vegas. Yeah, you win this time, but here are a couple of
    plane tickets and a hotel key...wouldn't you like to try your hand at
    Blackjack sir...you were SO good last month!

   RE:  HHHEEELLLOOOOO!

  >  RE: 26
  >  
  >  You are under the mistaken impression that ALL Digital Sales reps
  >  are paid a high salary.  I would say the salary range for the average

   I never said anything about being HIGHLY paid. It's been known in
   the industry for decades that Digital sales was no place to make
   big money, but a steady secure income. 

   > If I had to guess the average salary of a Digital
   > Sales rep. I would put it between 50K and 60K.  Anyone that thinks
   
    That was my guess. The problem is that this is likely the same average
    as seen in the mid 80's. 

    And yes, I agree that the recent implementation is brain dead, but the
    concept may have merit.

    Doug.

    Now let's expand on this a little.
    
    Let's suppose a S/R gets a big hit that he/she's been working on all
    year.  It books in Q4.  His income in Q1 of the next FY is TOTALLY
    dependent on the quota he can negotiate for the next year.  Some one
    else selling the same thing could make more or less depending upon
    their quota assignment and revenue date.
    
    I mention this because if you make a big sale, your manager assumes you
    can handle a much larger budget (may or not be true) and should be
    assigned one due to your success.  But, in assigning the new budget, he
    penalizes you for the work you did last year.
    
     A lousy plan! 
    
    Ken

    Re: .31
    
>    your pay...how many folks have had their budgets increased...even in
>    the dim light of a business downturn? Oh, and what happens to Sally
    
    My SO got a -20% of salary along with a 28% budget boost; FAT CHANCE!
    Why 28%?  Because she did so good at closing a one-time multi-PC deal
    to close FY93 barely above budget.
    
    Regardless of the outcome of Digital's profitability the loyalty of our
    field people to the company and the will to 'do the right thing' has
    been
    
    
    
    			SERIOUSLY IMPUNED
    
    cw

    It was just about a year ago that we experienced a "false start"
    on this new compensation plan.  I happened to be in the audience
    when BP announced that he was postponing it until further research
    and planning could be done.  The audience (mostly Sales people)
    cheered and gave him a L-O-N-G standing ovation.
    
    Given this, it's difficult to see how we got into the mess we're in
    now.  Even after everything else that has happened over the past two
    years or so to deflate morale, I still find it hard to believe that
    upper management didn't do a better job of assessing what the impact 
    of this move would be on overall morale of the Sales force, and in 
    turn, what impact that would have on sales in general.  Didn't they
    bother to do a sanity check with anyone below a VP level?  
    
    It doesn't take rocket science to tell you that a demotivated Sales 
    force is one of the worst things a company can have (given relatively 
    good products, services, etc).  I haven't seen the morale of the 
    Sales people (and Service people, for that matter) like this since I 
    have been here, and it's not just because Digital in general isn't
    doing well.  It's because of the increased burdens on the individual
    contributors, i.e., higher budgets and 20% pay cuts for Sales and 
    increased account loads for Service).  Some Sales Reps have told me
    their budgets are so high, they feel "What's the use in putting 
    forth the 'extra' effort?  It's (budget) not attainable anyway."

    Hmmmm.
    
    I discussed this string with my wife over the weekend.  She believes
    that the Digital sales force is complacent because of the fact that the
    PRESSURE FOR COMMISSION wasn't there.  (She works for Digital).
    
    Hmmm -- I'd say that with all of the comments about decrease and so-on,
    we got pressure!!
    
    I believe noter .26 and .29 are on target.  Further, I believe  that
    the commission plan will be ratcheted down to a 65%/35%
    Commission/Salary split over time.
    
    Further, I believe that S/Rs will be hitting the road in droves during
    the remainder of FY94.  I believe that has to do with the Channels
    Strategy and lowering the overall cost  of sales.
    
    Having said that, I think it's time for the sales organization to come
    to the understanding that the Sales Position is changing from one of
    Security and Complacency to one of Pressure and W-2 performance.
    
    For those of us who feel that you can't be successful with this new
    spin on compensation, you should consider seeking other employment.
    
    Another war story:  In a prior life, I met with the V/P of Sales.  He
    said to me that he understood the sales world and wanted me to know
    that a Sales position wasn't forever  -- BUT -- for the time in my
    career that I was with his company, he wanted me to have fun and to
    make a lot of money.
    
    The nature of sales is that it ain't forever in one company --
    Shouldn't feel bad about that.
    
    My .02 Cents
    
    
    Dennis
    
    

    re: Note 2728.36 by GLDOA::DBOSAK
    
    > For those of us who feel that you can't be successful with this new
    > spin on compensation, you should consider seeking other employment.

    I'm wondering if anyone has stopped to think that this consequence may
    be a goal of the new compensation plan (i.e. it would save the corporation
    a bundle in TFSO funds).

    Ken....

    re-1:  
    
    If getting rid of reps is the purpose of the system, it's a backass way
    to do it.  Most of the reps that it is intended to rid us of could have
    been laid off in July, thus actually saving the corporation many $$. 
    Keeping them employed for well beyond the term of TFSO kills morale
    even more, creates enmity and distrust of senior management, and
    perpetuates the death spiral that keeps going on and on and on.  
    
    I believe it is in everyone's interest that they succeed.  The fact
    that they didn't succeed in Q1 led to yet another reorg, with the CBU's
    now reporting to Ed Lucente.
    
    Or am I missing something?
    

Getting rid of sales people was likely not the purpose of the plan (and the
very idea seems ridiculous!).

It's purpose is to use the power of $$$ to motivate sales folks to SELL.
It's implementation may be flawed, but it's purpose is not.

The people in sales that can't make a decent wage unless they are salaried 
are likely in the wrong profession, and perhaps these folks may be weeded out 
over time as a result of these and future compensation changes. This may
also have the effect of making the sales force that much stronger. I know this
is not a pleasent thought but it may well be reality.

Scheduling the commissions against a budget may have been an attempt at
fairness, such that those persons in high-volume sales positions, while
getting a good commission, don't run away with all the cash while putting
in the same effort as people in lower-volume areas who aren't able to
generate the larger sales do to logistics, but deserve a reasonable
commission for a similar efforts.

It is not unusual for a plan to have good intentions but to miss it's mark.

Doug.

>>Scheduling the commissions against a budget may have been an attempt at
>>fairness, such that those persons in high-volume sales positions, while
>>getting a good commission, don't run away with all the cash while putting
>>in the same effort as people in lower-volume areas who aren't able to
>>generate the larger sales do to logistics, but deserve a reasonable
>>commission for a similar efforts.

Perhaps we need to re-evaluate territories that don't generate sufficient
business.  Rather than complicate the system in the name of "fairness"
we should siomplify it and make sure each rep's territory can generate
enough business to support him/her.  We should be rewarding results, not
effort.

I envision a Digital with very few direct sales reps (more relationship
managers for accounts and large territories) and most of the actual
business handled by channels.

Bob (sales exec who sees the writing on the wall)

PS - I define commission as percent of revenue.  This comp plan sure ain't
commission.  (my pet peeve)

    This plan is flawed as I think we all agree.  But, to couple that with
    a reorganization (forming of CBU's) and moving us to revenue versus
    Certs has created a devastating morale problem.
    
    I know people in our office who worked very hard on an account and
    booked it last year only to have it turned over to another rep for the
    install.  The other rep will get all the dollars associated. 
    
    The plan should at least be allowed to ride until we all have our
    accounts and goals straightened out.  (I got my goal sheet 2 weeks ago
    and am still fighting over some accounts.) It also should be allowed to
    ride until management gets an opportunity to find out if the
    distribution of the accounts to the reps was done equitabley.  There is
    a lot of discussion about that one.
    
    I believe the remarks about S/R's leaving because they have been put on
    a plan and can't cut it are really out of line.  I find these remarks
    usually come from someone whose income will not be affected by this
    so-called comp plan.
    
    Ken (16 yrs on commission with Sperry/Unisys before this job)
    
        

 
    >I believe the remarks about S/R's leaving because they have been put on
    >a plan and can't cut it are really out of line.  I find these remarks
    >usually come from someone whose income will not be affected by this
    >so-called comp plan.
    
    Assuming this is directed at my previous note ...

    This is speculation only and I have no knowledge of anyone in sales
    who 'can't cut it'. What I am witnessing is a change in the competetive
    nature of sales which will have a direct impact on sales reps salary.
    Since there is no longer a guarantee of the same salary on a steady
    basis, those in sales who prefer a steady salary may leave due to the
    lack of it, and for those that represent a steady clientel and are not used
    to drumming up new business and sales to survive, may also decide to leave.
    (perhaps 'weed out' was the wrong term).

    The nature of sales in Digital is changing, and the workforce will 
    change with it.

    And, although my salary is not directly affected by these changes, my salary
    is affected by the performance of the sales reps (if they don't sell, there
    is no money for salaries), so their well being, and performance, is of 
    considerable concern to me.

    RE: .38
    
    	You aren't missing much. Your comments are worthy of consideration.
    
    RE: .39 - "Getting rid of sales people was likely not the purpose of the
    plan and the very idea seems ridiculous!"
    
    	You are missing something, The Boat. And you have been doing alot
    of "swimming" in this notesfile recently!
    
    	Of course one purpose of the plan was to get rid of sales reps.
    that cannot cut the mustard! For Digital to succeed, that is essential
    and we will probably find few if any in this notesfile to question
    that. The issue here is the compensation plan and its implementation. 
    
    	It would seem to me that their are two keys to the success of this
    comp. plan:
    
    	1. The Budgets - It will be very difficult to make up one's lost
    salary let alone any extra money where a budget is too high. And it was
    mighty difficult to set proper budgets when the account mapping process
    was so tough.
    
    	2. The Admin. Systems - It may be crazy to believe that Digital's
    admin. systems in their sad state can accurately track and fairly report
    data essential to ones income.
    
    
    	Having considered these, ask yourself-- 
    "Will Digital lose sales reps that can't hack it or sales reps. who
    believe that this is a "no win" scenario?  
    	

    To motivate a sales force, you need an attainable goal which results in
    a desired reward.  Simple stuff.
    At Digital, most of us got budgets based on previous year's certs,
    which never match up with revenue (generally 60-70%). Therefore the
    goals were set on average at least 30-50% too high to be attained.
    	My personal feeling is this was intentional.  The "commission plan"
    was simply designed to reduce salary costs, and I don't believe it was
    designed to incent anyone.  Of course, you could get really paranoid
    and argue that it was designed to get rid of the entire Digital sales
    force and replace us with rookie college grads who will work for
    peanuts.
    	Another interesting point... no one other than sales has any "skin
    in the game."  When they take a look at who to blame for losing $80
    million, the only part of the organization with quantifiable,
    measureable goals is the sales force.  In short, the only possible
    target to blame is sales... so guess where the next cuts are.  And
    guess what, that means you lower the SG & A expenses dramatically for
    Q2, and probably lead to a profit in Q2 ?  Do you suppose it was
    designed this way ??
    	They should scrap all this garbage, and go back to SP2 and the 1%
    NOR kicker in Q4.  It worked great.  No one in their right mind views
    this 20 % salary cut as part of an incentive program.
    
    

In my opinion there is one MAJOR flaw in the new (and old) compensation plan. 
All measurements and budgets are based upon revenue (previously certs) which has
absolutely no ties to PROFIT.  There is no incentive or reward to a rep for
selling at a profit.  In fact most reps have no idea if the sale was profitable
to the corporation or was a loss.  This systems encourages people to sell the
"easy" products such as hardware and avoid the more difficult, but extremely
profitable, software and services sales.  How can the company ever expect to
return to profitability when reps are not measured on it?  It is feasable for a 
rep to sell a multimillion dollar sale which has 0$ of profit to the corporation
and the rep will be highly rewarded and recognized.  

All of the distributors and software houses that I have dealt with operate 
strictly on PROFIT.  They go into every sale knowing exactly what their 
acceptable profit margins are and how profitable each and every product is.
They are only paid for selling profitable solutions.  No doubt there are 
times when you need to "give away" the sale to leverage future business but
at some point you need to make a profit.  I would realy like to see this issue
addressed.  

gary

re: .45

I think part of the problem is that I'm not sure that Digital knows how to tell
if a sale will produce any profit.


IMHO,

Bob

>> <<< Note 2728.45 by MKOTS3::COUTURE "Gary Couture - NH Consultant - Sales" >>>
>>                           -< flaw in the system... >-


How right you are.  I've been saying the same thing for a couple of years.  The
sad thing is that we have absolutely NO WAY under the current systems to 
accurately determine P&L on any given sale.  That's why the "New management
system" failed a couple of years ago.

Bob

    
    This plan is not intended to get rid of under-performers.  It is
    intended to cut costs.  An underperforming sales rep at Digital can
    afford to stay right where he is for as long as he likes.  He will
    continue to acquire larger and larger sales opportunities as
    territories around him come open (as the less risk averse among us
    leave for higher salaries).
    
    The people who leave will be the ones who realize the following
    economic reality:
       I used to get a straight salary of (let's say) $65,000
    
       Now I get a base of $52,000 and I can make $13,000 in compensation
    and a $2,000 bonus if I make my budget (which is now $2.2 million, last
    year it was $1.6 million).  My total pay at 100% of budget is $67,000.
    
    If I go to Sequent, Sun, HP, Oracle, or any number of other computer
    products vendors, my base will be $50,000 and my target at 100% of
    quota will be at least $100,000.  My quota will be between $1 and 2
    million.  When I was making $65,000 straight salary, I couldn't afford 
    to take a $15,000 pay cut (by leaving to go on commission) while I 
    waited for the commissions to come rolling in.  Now, Digital has made 
    it simple for me!  On top of that, my offer letter says I will get a
    non-recoverable draw for six months which brings me up to $70,000 a
    year!  More than I made before the new compensation plan!
    		

    
    re: .48  My reply about the economics of reality.
    
    The analysis I described in .48 is exactly the thought process I went
    through in deciding to leave Digital.  Tomorrow morning I have my exit
    interview.  My new job pays about 35% more than my current one at
    DEC.  The base is substantially higher than my current one, too.  And I
    get a car allowance, too, unlike my current situation here at DEC.
    
    Thank you, new compensation plan, for forcing me to deal with this!

Re -1

This, unfortunately, will be the norm rather than the exception, unless we get
our act together.  Company loyalty went out the window with the first TFSO.  
It's now a matter of who has the guts and incentive to look elsewhere, and 
the better performers will find it easier to find more lucrative jobs on the
outside.

At least under Ken's comp plan, as flawed as it was, we knew where we stood.


Bob

    I am in the same situation as note.48 .  Today, I sent my letter of
    resignation to my manager. In our discussions, he asked me what was the
    main reason for leaving.  I expressed to him, the offer was a salary
    equal to what I was making after the 20% taken away. 50K plus a monthly
    commission guarentee for 3000/mo for 6 months, this will continue until
    they meet my requested offer in excess of 80k.  The commission plan is
    based upon revenue quota, which is 1.5 million, 700k less than my
    Digital budget.
    
    A review of the Plan
    
		    Digital          Competitor
    
    Budget            2.2 Million      1.5 million
    Salary            50k               48k plus guarentee of 18k,no payback
    Commission        13k plus 2k if    2.04% , target 36k if I hit target
                      I meet budget      budget,plus increases and
                                         bonuses for new account 3k bonus
                                         for 150k unix , and 1x or 2x %
                                           rate if unix or new account 
    Income 100% Budget   65k                84k, plus bonuses for new
                                            accounts, Unix sales and % increases                  
    
    
    Thought this might be interesting material
    
    
    
    

    
    -1,-2
    
    Ah yes.  Simple logic. Sad truth.  This is reality.

    
    >Income 100% Budget   65k                84k, plus bonuses for new
    >                                        accounts, Unix sales and % increases                  
    
    gee wiz, that is goood money there. may be i should go work in sales
    too ?

    i always thought that the sales/marketing DECeees are loaded, now .0 
    confirms it to me.

    \nasser
          

    Another angle:
    
    I jsut finished the best year of my nine year Digital career; total 
    sales were up 160%, services were up 166%, resellers were up 143%, 
    opened three new accounts for over $1 mil., sold over 10,000 hours 
    of consulting.  I finished #1 in my group at 240%.
    
    Yet I made 2-4 times LESS than my "success peers" at the competition.
    
    My contacts at Sequent, SGI, IBM, Interleaf, and Oracle tell me you
    make over $100K if you just make quota there.  The Upside cover story on
    Palmer mentioned HP reps making $150K and Sun reps making $500K.
    
    I am profitable, too: averaged 14.5% discount on $5 mil. of sales; no
    seed systems; only one allowance (for $800 to satisfy a customer when
    we screwed up a Motif free offer), used resources wisely.
    
    I mention all this not to brag but to make the point that Digital does
    not have anyway to reward and recognize this, other than the
    performance reviews every 18 months, and by then it's too late.
    
    Under the new comp plan I would only make $9K more this year.  Not 
    believing the math, I re-did it three times, and then checked with HR.
    Unfortunatley, the math was correct.
    
    Last week I found myself in the awkward and dubious position of telling
    Mr. Palmer at COE these things.  (He asked, so I told him.)
    
    I come back from second consecutive COE, fired up, to this:
    	* three good reps have resigned this month to go sell for the
    	  competition. 
    	* a fellow rep suffered a stroke.
    	* two weeks ago a fellow worker died of a heart attack.
    	* an ex-employee TFSO'd awhile back commited suicide.
    	* My sales report shows 1/8 of what I've sold.
    	* I'm told I will only get 50% credit this year for a program I sold
    	  $3.2 mil. of last year.
    
    This week my morale and motivation is down.
    
    
    
    
    

    After reviewing this string some things occurred to me:
    
    1. Any comments made about sales compensation by NON-salespeople,
       or anyone else not affected, are IRRELEVANT.  In NO WAY can they
       enter in to seeing a 20% decrease in base salary.  In NO WAY can
       they appreciate the pressure of representing this company to an
       increasingly hostile buying audience on a daily basis.  
    
    2. Some replies make it seem as if 65K is a tremendous amount of
       money.  Based on being in sales for several years I can say
       for a surety IT IS NOT! (The average school teacher in my
       locality makes 60K for running out the same teaching plan
       year after year.)
    
    3. LAST but not LEAST, I had the opportunity to ask the V.P.
       for my CBU this question: What impact is the new compensation
       plan having on Digital's performance? His answer: "That's a
       good question.  I am not sure."  This new compensation plan
       was rolled out with much fanfare and training.  If this plan
       is a good one.  If it were designed to increase sales by true
       motivation then why are we in week 4 of Q2 and no one can
       articulate the positive effect this new plan is having on
       Digital.  You say, we need to give it more time.  I say,
       How much time?  Will we be in Q3 or Q4 before we know if
       it is working?  Will it take a few years?  
      
    4. If you don't no where your going you will have no problem
       getting there.   
       

    
    
    	Re -.1  I agree with all but the slam on teachers!  My wife has
    	taught for 22 years and the most shw has gotten is $31K.  do to
    	a forced DIGITAL move last hse she was a full time substitute and
    	earned $8500 and this year she was hired, placed on 1st year scale
    	at $20K.  Now, what I want to know is WHERE the AVERAGE teachers
    	pay is $60!  Don't want to go down a rat hole with this but surely
    	am curious as to where you live.  Reminds me of a humorous button
    	I sometimes wear on my lapel that says: "You're not from earth are
    	you?"	8^)

    according to node registration info, GRANPA:: is in (or around)
    Washington D.C., so your comment may be on-the-nose

    
    I'd certainly like to see the locale where the *average* teacher
    is pulling in $60K.  I left teaching 13 years ago for many
    reasons, among which, the money was no good.  $60K is more
    than I make NOW.  
    
    Steve
    

    re: 59
        Try the northwest suburbs of Philly.  AVERAGE
    teacher in the schools is earning $54K, not just one
    district, but many.  In fact, in Bucks County, average
    is close to $60K.
    
    In my own district, 20 jobs were opened this past year,
    and 2,300 applications were received.  
    
    By the way, the average includes no medical copayment (yet)
    and seniority pay increases guarenteed.  I would term our
    neighborhood to be affluent either, mainly made up of middle-class.
    
    john

    re: GRANPA locale..
    
    Yeah GRANPA is suppose to be in Washington, DC, it's really now in
    Atlanta, but Doug the writer (GRANPA::DMITCHELL) is based in Blue
    Bell, PA like me.  I know him and he's telling the truth.  See .60
    for details.
    
    john

re .56
    
    
    1. Any comments made about sales compensation by NON-salespeople,
       or anyone else not affected, are IRRELEVANT.  In NO WAY can they
       enter in to seeing a 20% decrease in base salary.  In NO WAY can
       they appreciate the pressure of representing this company to an
       increasingly hostile buying audience on a daily basis.  
    
	I disagree with this statement.  I am a not a salesperson but
	I am called upon to interface with customers.  I do understand
	the pressure and I am capable of making comments about it including
	the compensation system.

    2. Some replies make it seem as if 65K is a tremendous amount of
       money.  Based on being in sales for several years I can say
       for a surety IT IS NOT! (The average school teacher in my
       locality makes 60K for running out the same teaching plan
       year after year.)
 
	My wife is a local school teacher with 8 years experience
	and earns $23K/year.  The average in her system is in the
	low $30's K/year.  Not a lot for a job that requires a 4 year
	college degree plus state certification plus periodic recertification.
  
   
      
   
       

    We all know teachers are underpaid. Comparing teachers pay to salesreps
    pay is irrelavant. Try some other occupation that starts anew each year
    and previous performance means nothing.
    

    Sales skills are very valuable, Sales Skills and a technical background
    are even more valuable.
    
    As a young tech in the early 80 I apprenticed to some of the finest 
    salespeople I've ever met working in Digital's OEM markets. 
    
    Learned one or two things from these folks about selling  and 
    helped them understand the markets they were selling into, it
    was a mutually enriching experiance.  The one thing I learned 
    and I still feel is continual rejection the best salespeople 
    undergo on a daily basis.
    
    Sales people live with pain, problems, issues, money, promises and 
    lies, subterfuge and loss -- And that's just what's heaped upon 
    them just by customers...
    
    I respect the folks who carry a bag for living and I don't begrudge
    them commission or salary and have always thought that salespeople
    who bring in new business at Digital have never been appriciated
    or paid enough.
    
    But sales is a rough business perhaps the roughest that I've ever 
    seen and while I respect anyone who is successfull at sales  I would
    also add, FIRE whoever isn't successful at sales and let them find 
    another line of work.
    
    Before TFSO we were training secretaries to become salespeople... You 
    can't turn a secretary into a salesperson for a technical product 
    like Digital carries without a technical background..
    
    With great risk should come great reward and I know that I would not
    want to sell for Digital given the compensation program currently in 
    place.
    
    I've earned the right to comment on sales people not because I am
    or have been a saleperson but because I've listened to their stories, 
    answered their phones, fixed their problems, cried, laughed, plotted, 
    carried, mended, kicked, loved and respected them when no one else does 
    
    -- You see I'm in Sales Support, and that's what I do for a living...
    
    Good Hunting Salespeople...
    
    John Wisniewski

>    Before TFSO we were training secretaries to become salespeople... You 
>    can't turn a secretary into a salesperson for a technical product 
>    like Digital carries without a technical background..

One of the finest sales people (finest=technically competent, consistently 
sucessful) I know was once a secretary.

Al

    
    
    
    RE:56
    
    I am amazed that no one has responed to the fact that I asked
    a SENIOR level V.P. for my CBU what impact the new compensation
    plan was having on sales performance and he could only offer 
    after a very long pause an " I don't know.  That's a good question."
    I submit that if this company called the 20% cut in salary, just that,
    a CUT, deal with it because that's the way it is, we would deal with
    it.  Those that did not like it would leave.  Those that accepted it
    would stay and work under the new rules.  HOWEVER, this company
    touts this as a commission pay plan with tremendous upside opportunity
    for sales.  If this plan is so great, and just the motivation needed
    to propel our salespeople to great years, again I ask, why a member of
    senior management at Digital, with sales reporting to him, doesn't know
    what kind of impact it is having.
    
    Oh yeah.
         
    (I had no intention of opening a can of worms concerning teacher
    salaries.  However, If 60K so astounds people try to imagine
    this; In Bucks County, PA, where I live, average teacher salaries
    for some of our school districts will top out at over 70K, some
    even approaching 80K, when present contracts are fulfilled.  By
    the way, most of these contracts are up in 1995.  LOOK IT UP!!!
    The school districts are CENNTENIAL, COUNCIL ROCK, CENTRAL BUCKS,
    and PENNSBURY.  Another thing, the extremely generous health
    benefits etc. which teachers are eligible for in these districts
    have been pegged at about an additional 15K in value.  I won't
    even comment on SAT scores.(Hint: Performance of Digital stock
    of late.))
    
    RE:62
    
    As far as the CAPABILITY to comment on the new compensation
    system for sales.  The janitor at our facility has the same
    capability to comment.  However, if you are still making 100%
    of your salary and have not had your pay CUT 20%, its hard to
    believe you can really appreciate the impact it has had on sales
    folks.  By the way, our receptionist interfaces with customers
    every day.  Our receptionist does not do presentations, close
    sales, ask for purchase orders, or get hammered on a daily basis 
    because of issues she has no control over. ( I must add that my
    buddies in sales support, who bail me out of problems regularly
    and have taken shots for the cause, know what it is like on a
    daily basis to sell.)
    
    
    
     
    

    re: .65
    
    
    A single exception does not prove the rule and before I would train
    someone in a field for a sales job I would ask that they have some 
    type of track record that disposes them to real sales.
    
    Digital should not be providing ENTRY level sales skills to it's 
    sales forces.  If they are not sales people they should not be
    hired/promoted into those positions.  
    
    Fortune 500 sales is much too complex to bet that we can train
    sales people instead of locating sales people for the job at hand.
    
    If you start out as a secretary or some other position natural 
    sales skills may win out and provide you great success... But in
    a complex situation (both technically and with business) it helps
    to have some background in the industry.
    
    No slur against any career but sales isn't something to just pick
    up and even the best sales people without a background in their
    products or the business can become lost in a sales cycle and cost 
    the company money.
    
    I've held some 15-20 different type of jobs along the way and all
    of them have continued to prepare me for what I do today. With 
    that said someone who would take a secretarial job (unless 
    it's a sales secretary (which isn't a position at Digital) is not 
    what I would consider a qualifier to become a salesman as the next
    step in their career.
    
    Just MHO...
    
    John Wisniewski
    
    

    re: .66
    
    Why has no one commented on the answer you got from the VP?  Everyone
    knows our admin systems are useless.
    
    Bob

    re:66, re:-1
    >>>Why has no one commented on the answer you got from the VP?
    
    Isn't it *UNREAL* that a person can get away with an answer like
    "I don't know". Where is the accountability. What value do you provide
    someone with "I don't know".
    
    Gee, "I don't know", well FIND out, point me in the right direction,
    get out of the way, fix something, hold someone accountable, fire
    someone, go over someones head, do SOMETHING!
    
    Uggh, just unreal what is happening to this company. 
    
    -Mike Z.

    RE:66,68,69
    
    I forgot to add this additional bit of hilarity in this VP's
    answer.  After stunning me with the answer: "I don't know.
    That's a good question.", this same VP asked with a straight face
    "What is your issue?"  I replied that several of the best sales
    reps. in my office thought it was so bad they decided to go 
    sell elsewhere.  I also mentioned that using best guesstimates
    on where one would finish against budget it was simple to figure
    out what kind of money one would make.  Taking into account the
    budgets, most of which have no basis in reality, it is pretty clear
    that the much ballyhooed "upside" potential will not be attainable.
    I was just starting to roll when he cut me off and said, "Hey, I'm
    really interested in this feedback BUT, I want to hear what the
    next presenter has to say.  Let's follow-up later."  IN OTHER WORDS,
    Sounds like the plan sucks.  Too bad.  You can waste some more 
    breath if you want.  It won't change a thing.  In what I knew would
    be a futile effort to follow-up, I made myself present in some other
    conversations he was having and SSUUURRRPPPRRRIIIIIIISSSSSSSEEE the
    opportunity to follow-up never occurred.  He wouldn't even look
    my way.  
    
    Repeat after me:  We have industry leading open client/server
                      technology.
    AGAIN          :  We have industry leading open client/server
                      technology.
    AGAIN          :  We have industry............................
    
    
    
                        

    re .70
    
    And therein lies the problem.  It's not that he didn't know, but that
    he DIDN'T WANT TO KNOW, that I find disturbing.  I would have expected
    him to be all over you with questions, asking for more information, trying
    to understand what is going on.  In fact, I can't fathom why he
    wouldn't want to know.  If people leave, it impacts his ability to make
    budget.  
    
    Was he as disinterested as your note suggests?    
    
    

    RE:70,71
    
    I don't think it was a lack of interest on his part.  I think he 
    has no answer and working on an answer is not one of his priorities.
    Somehow it has been determined that a non-commissioned salesforce
    is a big reason for Digitals poor performance.  It has been determined,
    at a level above this VP, that tinkering with the way we pay sales
    will improve things.  This VP, who mostly likely became a VP by
    towing the line as set forth by his superiors, is not going to
    make himself too VISIBLE by standing up and saying that the new
    compensation plan seems to be causing more problems than it is 
    solving.  An illustration:  A man is busily examining a plan for
    the arrangement of deck chairs on the TITANIC.   After it strikes
    the iceberg, someone tells him the ship is going down and he 
    replies; Oh?..OK...GREAT...Thanks for the input.  He simply turns
    and returns to his task of arranging the deck chairs.  You see...
    it is not HIS responsibility that the ship is going down. 

    What did you expect as an answer?  Personally, I think "I don't know"
    is a fairly honest answer.  Being a V.P. doesn't make one omniscient. 
    Nor does he owe anyone an immediate solution.  Nor is your argument, in
    itself, compelling.  It's enough if each and everyone you ask that
    question say's "I don't know" and begins to think about the problem.  
    
    I'm no fan of this package.  In fact, I , like most people, have only
    25% of my pay as disposable income.  So you could say I just seen an
    80% cut in disposable income.    So if my life style is to remain
    similar, a bunch of what I'm used to must go.  It has, more will. 
    Remember, 1995 is supposed to 70/30.
    
    /bob
     

    1993 is 70/30 for some of us in sales.  60/40 for others...
    
    

    re:.72
    
    	 An illustration:  A man is busily examining a plan for    the
        arrangement of deck chairs on the TITANIC.   After it strikes   
        the iceberg, someone tells him the ship is going down and he    
        replies; Oh?..OK...GREAT...Thanks for the input.  He simply turns   
        and returns to his task of arranging the deck chairs.  You see...
        
        
    I guess I expect more out of VP's.  We're talking about a plan whose
    impact could effect this company's profitabiity.  VP's in my book
    should care deeply about the company they work for and make sure that
    mission critical issues are brought to the attention of their
    respective superiors.  "Not my job" is a totally unacceptable answer. 
    This compensation plan, as these notes attest, is not achieving its
    intended results.  Therefore, something needs to be done.
    
    
        

    RE: .75  by ICS::DONNELLAN 
    
    	>An illustration:  A man is busily examining a plan for    the
        >arrangement of deck chairs on the TITANIC.   After it strikes   
        >the iceberg, someone tells him the ship is going down and he    
        >replies; Oh?..OK...GREAT...Thanks for the input.  He simply turns   
        >and returns to his task of arranging the deck chairs.  You see...
        
    I'd get some rope and lash those deck chairs together.  Make a nice raft.