Conference 7.286::digital

Are you for real? or are you just trying to raise people's ire?
With all thats being said about a certain Hawaiian B.d. you now ask
where the next one is going to be...

If sales reps really need a 'carrot' to do an excellent job then the least
they can do is to not rub the faces of those that dont have the perk into
the mud.

Besides given the stateof this company it appears that these sales reps 
are not doing such a great job as to earn such a perk anyway so it may
be moot.

- George

    My belief is that the blue piece of paper we get weekly (in the U.S.)
    should be a large enough carrot. 

    re: .3, .4
    
    I was unaware of the fact that top salespeople will have a difficult
    time finding employment should they leave the "safe haven" of Digital.
    
    Maybe it's tough finding a job in Massachusetts, but I doubt that most
    top salesfolks will have difficulty landing other high-paying sales
    jobs in a large portion of the US (don't know about elsewhere).
    
    Furthermore, top salespeople are rarely "confined" to looking for jobs
    in the computer industry.  Most good salesfolks I know could sell
    _anything_ given the chance -- and given a big enough commission!
    
    I wouldn't assume that good salespeople are "hard up" for a job.
    
    -- Russ

    RE.1
    
    I hope you are not a an important player at DEC. If you are than please
    read ".5". This guy is right on. If DEC wants to continue to have a 
    preponderance of mediocre sales reps while losing the best people to the 
    competition then they should listen to people like you.
    

RE: .6

B.S. Now I suggest that you reread .1....

I said that if they really need a carrot, then the least the originator
could do for us lowly, dime a dozen types, who couldn't survive without
DEC, and who do not deserve such perks, is to stop reminding us of the
fact that these prima donnas get such a nice perk.

Then I implied that in my opinion (I can have one, can I not?)
it appears that the subject is moot because obviously these super-salespersons
are not doing as great as needed in order to be considered for such perks.
For if they were DEC wouldn't be trying to rid itself of so many of us lowly
types.

Is it not apparent to everyone that there are alot of others working
behind the scenes. That it is these folks that make it possible for
sales people to sell? Why is it that all these folks get for recognition
is a 4-6% payraise every 15-21 months?

- George

    This is a little tongue-in-cheeck, but remember:
    
    You can have the best salespeople in the world, but if your products
    are uncompetitive, then it won't do an ounce of good.
    
    Don't blindly knock the salesforce; there are always two sides to the
    story. I'll give you a real life example. We have been hearing, for
    some time, that Digital has the best workstation price/performance
    ratio, right?
    
    Wrong. Internally, we tend to get caught up in the doublespeak. I just
    got through talking to an ex-Deccie in Viewlogic, who told me that when
    he configures a SUN and an equivalent DEC workstation, the SUN unit
    typically works out at about half the price.
    
    How can any salesperson beat that?
    
    So the ones who sell a lot deserve the motivational trip.
    
    Furthermore, it is normal, in the sales trade, to expect a yearly
    bang-up trip for the best performers. Every company worth its salt does
    it, and it helps attract the best people. If you tell our sales people
    "work 12 hours a day, only fly on your weekends or red-eyes,
    uncomplainingly accept the 30% increase in your sales budgets this
    year........oh, by the way, there are no bonuses or prizes, even for
    the top 5% of performers", what are they going to say?
    
    Bye-bye.
    
    Ray

I have a bold suggestion.

Instead of everyone knocking the work/rewards/etc of the other groups, let's
acknowledge that MOST of us (I hope, I hope) really try our best to do the best
job we can for Digital.  

I once had a manager who said to me, "Marvin, as I see it, you and I have a
common goal.  You work at parts of it and I work at other parts. But we're
going to succeed or fail together."  I was impressed by his comment. I succeed
when I make my manager look good. It's not a him vs. me situation, but a
mutual WIN-WIN.  Thanks makes a lot of sense to me.

We have engineers and salesfolks and support people, etc etc.  Let's stop this
stupid knocking "THEM" because they get something "WE" don't get.

Nobody said it's all supposed to be fair.

	/M

    re .1
    
    It's kind of interesting that your question has "irked" some people. I
    still would like to know the answer rather than read remarks from
    "some" people who have no concept of what it's like out in the field.
    
    I have heard a rumor it will be in Disneyworld for what it's worth.

	... but I don't think WDW would close off the park, hotels, etc. like 
the Hyatt did this year for DEC.  The surrounding community would pitch a fit 
if the tourist trade dried up for that long!

	What you may be hearing is "decentralization" plans, ie, cap travel 
costs by having several locations around the world set to receive CoE awardees 
closest to them.  Still can be cross-function, but less cross-cultural.

	FWIW

    RE .7
    
    The reality of the situation is that on a relative scale with the
    competitors (at least in terms of the way sales people are compensated),
    we are one chintzy operation.
      
    I have worked in computer sales in New York for about 10 years. 
    4.5 of which with Digital.  I have two close friends with similar
    skills who work for competitors. 4.5 years ago we were making
    approximately the same money. One friend works for a database
    company.  He made close to 200K last year.  Another works for a
    networks company, she made over 200K last year. For the past 2
    years I have been one of the areas top producers rewarded for my
    efforts with a couple of 5K trips and 8 plaques which I'm taxed
    for! (Suffice it to say my salary doesn't even approach theirs').
    Selling computers, especially in a major market, is a ridiculously
    stressful exercise.  I typically work 60 plus hours (8 hours per
    day with customer - another 4+ doing bureaucracy and research). 
    Remember, selling is a lot like a career in professional sports. 
    It's "what have you done for me lately" - ALL THE TIME!  In the
    4.5 years I've been here I've seen a 200% turnover in sales and
    software support. Nobody in New York really worries about layoffs! 
    Natural selection has always dealt with excess numbers. The
    reality of selling computers industry wide is that you have about
    a 3 year lifespan, so you make the money while you can.  After 3
    years you're probably completely burned out so you quit (usually
    because you're exhausted), then regroup and go somewhere else.  
    
    In the past year I have been rewarded for bringing in appoximately
    4.5 million in business for Digital.  At present I am doing
    project management for the project I sold at rate of $175 per 
    hour. (FIRST I HAD TO SELL IT, THEN I HAD TO INSTALL IT!) So in
    other words, you're telling me that for that 4.5 million in
    hardware plus the 340K I bring in as a yearly consulting fee, I
    don't deserve a 5K trip.  If I wasn't so outraged, I think I'd be
    insulted. 
                                                                    

   

    
    Re .13:
    
    Software engineering, especially in the Greater Maynard area, is a
    ridiculously stressful exercise. I typically work 60 hours a week
    (8 hours per day on software, another 4+ handling bureaucracy and
    doing research). Stress related to meeting a code freeze date recently
    sent me to the hospital.
    
    I'm currently working on software that will leverage hundreds of
    millions of dollars in sales and support services. So you're telling me
    you deserve a 5K trip, and I don't? If I wasn't so insulted, I think
    I'd be outraged.
    

Re: .13

>              He made close to 200K last year.  Another works for a
>    networks company, she made over 200K last year.

This just proves the stupidity of paying commissions; just because everyone else
does it does NOT make it right!!!! *everyone* is important in one way or another
to the business of the company, and it is plain wrong to give people who do the
same level of job in a different function vastly different (by which I mean 4 or
5 times) salaries.

outraged of Aldershot,
Simon

Re: .13

>              He made close to 200K last year.  Another works for a
>    networks company, she made over 200K last year.

I'm outraged that I just don't have the knack for sales and so am missing
out on this. Sigh, I'd have a hard time trying to give away free magazine
subscriptions. I guess I'll have to stick to engineering.

re: .15 (and others)

>This just proves the stupidity of paying commissions; just because everyone else
>does it does NOT make it right!!!! *everyone* is important in one way or another
>to the business of the company, and it is plain wrong to give people who do the

Repeat after me: this is CAPITALISM!  Not some commie-liberal fantasy world of
"everyone should be paid the same"! ;-)  If the only way to be competitive in
recruiting and retaining top-flight sales people is to give the top ones a trip,
then that's the reality you have to adjust to...there's nothing "wrong" about
it.

In Engineering you get plenty of other perks to compensate somewhat, flextime,
loose dress code, more toys to play with, employee interest NOTES;-), etc.--and
there are comparable perks in other companies across the industry for Engineers.
If you don't like those as much as you like the ones Sales gets, then give 'em
up and go get a Sales job.

As for all the paper-pushers, bean-counters, and other assorted folk "in the
background", let me know if you find another company of comparable size and
stability that provides some perks beyond what you get here.

								:^) paul

    RE.7
    I just did a DIR/AUTHOR=FULTI *.* for this notefile and came up with at
    least 50 entries by the author of .1 and .7. If people like this would
    spend more time doing their job and less time worrying about what
    others are doing, maybe DEC wouldn't be in the fix it is in.
    
    All I was looking for was for some info on something that pertains to
    my job, not everybodies opinion.
    
    After I sign off I am deleting this conference from my list. This is a
    gossip column for a bunch of lazy hens.

    re: .15
    
    Plain wrong?  Horse hockey!
    
    Let's get something straight:  People are only equal before God and the 
    law.  Everyone is not *equally* important in one way or another to the 
    business of the company.  The value of people is pretty effectively set 
    by the market; their compensation should be commensuate thereto.
    
    Paying commissions may or may not be a smart idea.  Certainly, there is
    nothing wrong with incentive based compensation if you believe Tom
    Peters.  A lot depends upon how it is implemented.  My problem with the
    commission proposals that occasionally come to light in Digital is that
    they are usually predicated upon the same old bullshit: That the reason 
    for poor product sales is due to a Sales problem and not a product 
    problem (I need only cite our workstation product history ca 1984-1988 
    as one ripe example).
    
    Good sales people are *much* harder to find than good engineers. $200K
    is certainly not an unusual amount to earn for a successful commissioned 
    salesperson with a competitor like Wang or Prime (think what they would 
    earn if they weren't selling dead products!).  Nevertheless, we are still 
    able to attract and keep people from those companies even though our
    compensation package is not nearly as good because eventually people
    decide they want careers and not just jobs.
    
    Does this have anything to do with the topic????
    
    Al
    

    I'm laughing so hard right now, wait just a minute while I catch my
    breath.
    
    There now, I'm back to my senses.  Let's see, what was the original
    question?  Where will C.O.E. be this year?  I also have heard good ol'
    Disney World.
    
    Boy, am I psyched up over going there.  Let's see, fly or drive 4 hours
    to middle Florida in October.  Some one tell me it's not true.
    
    Bo
    
    p.s. by the way, remember those of you "Sales Bashers", C.O.E. is for
    all of the Field, not just sales people.
    
    p.s.s. if you want to discuss the merits of some groups going to C.O.E.
    and others not having such "perks" (if you can call it that) go back to
    the C.O.E. "boondoggle" note. 

Re: .17

>Repeat after me: this is CAPITALISM!  Not some commie-liberal fantasy world of
>"everyone should be paid the same"! ;-)  

Hmmm; time to get some new specs; I didn't say *same* I said "not outrageously
more*.

>If you don't like those as much as you like the ones Sales gets, then give 'em
>up and go get a Sales job.

Ahh but, the point is I'd be no good at it; I'm already doing what I'm good at
(well, at least best at anyway).

>As for all the paper-pushers, bean-counters, and other assorted folk "in the
>background", let me know if you find another company of comparable size and
>stability that provides some perks beyond what you get here.

1. I wasn't talking about 'paper-pushers' or (most especially) bean counters,
   but the 'artisans' that actually produce things.

2. I agree that this is a great company to work for; one of the reasons
   being they dont pay commission (at least in theory) ;-)

Simon

Re: .20

>    Let's get something straight:  People are only equal before God and the 
>    law.  Everyone is not *equally* important in one way or another to the 
>    business of the company.  The value of people is pretty effectively set 
>    by the market; their compensation should be commensuate thereto.

But every link in the chain from customer to idea to solution back to customer
is needed (at least it is if you make for a moment the assumption that everyone
is doing a useful job). There's nothing new here, and we all know that it is a
chicken and egg scenario; no engineers, nothing to sell and no sales nothing to
engineer; my point is that BOTH groups are (at least approximately) equally
important to what we do. I don't care what anyone says, there ARE individuals
and some groups who do not earn or need their ludicrous salaries, and all they
are doing is pushing up the costs of the companies who pay them and ultimately
the consumer of whatever product the company produces.

>    Paying commissions may or may not be a smart idea.  Certainly, there is
>    nothing wrong with incentive based compensation if you believe Tom
>    Peters.  A lot depends upon how it is implemented.

I absolutely agree

>    My problem with the
>    commission proposals that occasionally come to light in Digital is that
>    they are usually predicated upon the same old bullshit: That the reason 
>    for poor product sales is due to a Sales problem and not a product 
>    problem (I need only cite our workstation product history ca 1984-1988 
>    as one ripe example).

Wake up! It's BOTH

>    
>    Good sales people are *much* harder to find than good engineers.

Well, I dont have any figures for this, but I would be very surprised if it were
true; just look how strapped everyone is for resource, and I dont just mean in
DEC. Of course, it is true in the sense that finding someone who is WORTH $200k
is pretty damm difficult:-)

>                                                                        $200K
>    is certainly not an unusual amount to earn for a successful commissioned 
>    salesperson with a competitor like Wang or Prime (think what they would 
>    earn if they weren't selling dead products!).

Nah; they'd get lower commissions if if was easy wouldn't they?

>    Does this have anything to do with the topic????

Probably not, but it's fun isn't it?

Simon

    re: .23
    
>But every link in the chain from customer to idea to solution back to customer
>is needed (at least it is if you make for a moment the assumption that everyone
>is doing a useful job). There's nothing new here, and we all know that it is a
>chicken and egg scenario; no engineers, nothing to sell and no sales nothing to
>engineer; my point is that BOTH groups are (at least approximately) equally
>important to what we do. 
    
    Equal importance does not translate into equal value.  Many people can
    drive trucks.  Few can solve problems.  Both are equally important to
    delivering products to our customers. I have faith in the marketplace.  
    Money flows to skills in proportion to their supply and demand.
    
    >I don't care what anyone says, there ARE individuals
>and some groups who do not earn or need their ludicrous salaries, and all they
>are doing is pushing up the costs of the companies who pay them and ultimately
>the consumer of whatever product the company produces.
    
    There is no question that this happens.  But it is a performance 
    management problem, not a marketplace problem.
    
>Wake up! It's BOTH
    
    Don't be so fast to judge.  I find that we have a very talented and
    motivated sales force whose biggest obstacle to success continues to be
    Digital.  Many problems have been solved over the past two years; 
    many more still exist.  The largest facing the sales force continue to 
    be internal bariers; poor cross-functional cooperation, an incoherent 
    product strategy (or at least one which nobody seems to articulate well, 
    though things HAVE gotten much better), and decision-making powers
    located far away from the business.
    
    Al
    

To the Sales Folks,

Please understand that this is with utmost sincerity - I mean no sarcasm and
there are no underlying implications.

After reading many replies in Hawaii B_D and in this conference, I get the 
feeling that Digital is not especially competitive either in salary or perks
for the Sales force, and, furthermore, the hours are long and frought with 
stress.  I cannot say much about the salary/perks, but since I work in a
Manufacturing Consulting Unit, I can surely say that the account managers we
work with indeed have gruelling/stressful jobs.  I can also say that the
stress of working with Customers is real (please don't jump on this, it's
part of how my question formed.  Yes, I worked in manufacturing for 13 years
and I surely know the stresses/long hours).

So, my question is:

	Why do Salespeople stay with Digital?  It sounds like they would
	do infinitely better at other companies.

Barb

    Having worked in sales, field service, support and engineering for DEC
    and some other major vendors, I have to say that the most stressful,
    and most difficult job is definitely sales (and sales support).  They
    are the ones who have to convince the customer to buy our stuff.  They
    are the ones who have to counter customers arguments that other vendors
    stuff is better/cheaper/more reliable than ours.  They are also the
    ones who take the flack (for us back in support & engineering)  when
    the stuff won't even load or won't work.  They are the ones who get 
    called on the carpet when WE take months to fix a problem.  Of all
    the environments I have worked in, this one is without a doubt the most
    laid-back.  We come to work when we want to, go home when we want to,
    work from home occasionally when we want to, don't have to talk to 
    irate customers.  It is a very shelterd world; I wish it was not so.
    Our quality may be better.
                                                                 

Well I guess its time that I enter thede 51st or so entry into this 
notesfile. (-:

Let me just say that I agree with the sentiment that sales and sales support
are tough stressful jobs. Although I do not work in such positions, I have had
the opportunity to function as a sales support person on occasion and have
had firsthand experience with the frustration and stress.

Yes, these people that do it and do it well most likely do deserve a perk
like a trip. That being said, I also believe that in these "stressful" times
when employees by the 1000's are being asked to leave this wonderful company
that it would be more prudent for those that are looking forward to trips
to keep them low key.

Did the author of .0 do that? No, he/she boldly asks where the next one is
going to be. I believe that the sole intent of doing so was to declare that
he/she is more favored than the rest of us, for the answer to "where" could
be found in more discrete ways. Especially after reading about the 
Hawaiian B.D.

- George

P.S. Now I'm out of here, so that I can turn this "lazy hen" into a 
     "busy beaver". (-: You know .0 may have a point, did you notice
     that DEC's stock price has risen in the last couple of days?
     Well, I have worked a little harder the last couple of days, I
     wonder............., Yeah, thats it! Lets see if I can get it to
     to book value by the end of the day. (-:

re: .13

>              He made close to 200K last year.  Another works for a
>    networks company, she made over 200K last year.


Well, keep in mind that this is only the opinion of a humble engineering
type who's accustomed to putting in plenty of 60 and 70 hour weeks, and
who doesn't have any particularly nice "toys" either at work or home,
and who hasn't seen a stock option offered to the ranks in many a year,
but I'd say that those types of incomes, for anyone not having at least
a position of VP or better, are nothing short of obscene.

-Jack
 

..could I imagine spending a week at a tropical resort in a hotel full of
computer sales people  ;-)

    re: .28
    
    Jack,
    
    Once again, it's mot a matter of how hard you work, it's a question of
    how valuable the fruits of your labor are.  Before you condemn such
    salaries as 'obscene' (just for the record, no one in DEC doing direct
    sales is pulling down anywhere near those sort of bucks, even with SP2), 
    consider the following:
    
    Let's use the typical mythical end-user computer industry sales rep as
    an example. He or she consistently turns over somewhere around $2M-$2.5M
    of business per year covering an average territory of installed base and 
    prospect accounts and has something like 10 years of direct sales
    experience.  He or she is compensated somewhere in the neighborhood 
    of $55-75K per year, plus benefits.  Now, how much is a sales rep who can 
    consistently turn over $6-8M selling the same products in the same 
    territory worth?  A little linear algebra tells me it's somewhere around 
    $165-225K per year.  I think this sort of ratio of sales between typical 
    Digital and top-of-the-line competitor reps is not at all unusual. Many 
    commissioned sales people are not given benefits, so $200K sounds pretty 
    reasonable to me.
    
    Al
    

I know no one in sales is pulling down those kinda bucks at DEC, Al. .13 was
clear that it was "elsewhere". If DEC _was_ paying sales folks that kinda
money, it would be a good indicator to me that it was time to leave. (But
then I suppose if we ever start real layoffs DEC will be just like any other
company anyway - sorry - rathole.)

But I'm not sure this is a particularly good application for linear algebra,
either, Al. I don't pay engineers three times as much as others based on
the comparative value of what they produce. Surely they're compensated
accordingly, but not on a simple linear scale. I doubt that you compensate
specialists on such a linear scale, either. I understand that commissions
remunerate based on sales, but $200K for a sales person is still obscene
in my opinion.

-Jack

    re: .31
    
    Jack,
    
    If you believe in pay for performance, then linear algebra IS
    appropriate.  If person A produces twice as much as person B, person A
    should be compensated twice as much.  If not, what incentive is there
    to overachieve? I recognize that it's rarely easy to quantify work in terms
    as simple as those above, but if you establish a linkage at least in
    principle (i.e. "pay for performance") and then make the rewards
    disproportional with respect to the performance, you've done nothing but 
    set limits on the output of your employees.  People will work in the linear
    part of the curve, because they're smart and realize that it's not
    worth working outside those bounds.
    
    $200K sounds like a lot of money (it is!) when you consider it in the
    context of a typical job in a big corporation.  In reality it's
    capitalism at it's best.  The success of the salespeople who earn 
    those dollars is limited only by their ability.  Every businessman in
    the world recognizes that increased sales means increased cost of sales
    and that putting some of that increased cost  directly into the pockets of
    your salesforce is a very efficient way of accomplishing your goal.
    
    Now, this is not a commercial for commissions.  I've observed that time
    and again, successful commissioned salespeople want to come to work for
    Digital.  I think they eventually get tired of living out on the edge
    and having the relationship between performance and food on the table
    manifest itself every minute of every working day.  They are willing to
    trade some of their compensation potential for some security and the
    kind of nurturing and structure you can get in a corporation like
    Digital.  In short, they want careers not jobs.  
    
    I'm not sure where I'm going with this.  I guess I feel strongly about
    paying people what they are worth and dislike setting artificial limits
    on pay, because I believe it sets an artificial limit on their ability
    to contribute to the company.
    
    Al
    
    
    

    That's easy enough when you're comparing apples with apples, or
    salesmen with salesmen.
    
    Now, if you're paying a salesman $200K, what job value do you put
    on the person who created the thing that the salesman's selling?
    

>    Now, if you're paying a salesman $200K, what job value do you put
>    on the person who created the thing that the salesman's selling?

    Sort of depends on how hard the product is to sell doesn't it? If the
    product is a piece of junk that only a really incredible salesperson
    could get someone to buy perhaps the sales person is really worth
    the money. If on the other hand the product is so good that it "sells
    itself" the engineer should be worth more money.

    Once upon a time Digital salespeople were widely regarded as "order
    takers". I knew salesmen who left other companies suffering from
    burnout to come to work for DEC. It was regarded as a sort of R & R
    before going back to make a "good" living again. Now our salespeople
    have to work harder. I wonder if its more a case of our products
    getting worse or just the competitions products getting better. Or
    both. But Digital products don't just sell themselves anymore. We've
    lost some of the edge.

    			Alfred

    I wonder who is worth more? The untrained SWS guy we sell as an 
    expert for $175/hour or the guy who gets someone to pay that? Rhetorical
    question and I know that we do have quite a few SWS people worth that
    money. (I like to think I was when I was in SWS) but everyone knows
    we once in a while "over sell" a warm body. Or used to. I'm sure we
    don't anymore but still the salespeople have to overcome that
    perception.

    (...back to the original question....)
    
    I was told by a friend in GIA that they were told COE would be held by
    each subsidiary (US, Europe, GIA) would hold a COE within the geography
    of the subsidiary.  GIA's was forecasted to be held in the orient.
    

    For those who think $200k/annum is obscene, consider that Michael
    Milken used to make that much in a minute or so!
    
    -dave

    Let's get this all into context. Yes indeed, some salespeople can earn
    $200K in a year. But that person may have suffered a previous year, in
    this highly commission leveraged earning structure, on $50K or less.
    
    Often, salespeople are putting themselves at significant risk of
    earning little in a year, in the personal expectation that their
    talents will win out in the long run.
    
    I've owned businesses of my own, and been a sales rep myself for a
    number of companies internationally, and I've never met anyone selling
    high technology who could earn that kind of money consistently.
    
    But to attract the best people, the POTENTIAL rewards have to be
    available to compensate for the risks inherent in selling (like bad
    products, support, economic downturns, etc). Imagine, for example,
    spending two years at a low income, with only one account, on a really
    big deal, to find the company has a major downturn and cancels the
    order at the last minute?
    
    I know ther are frustrations in engineering, but nothing compares with
    that.
    
    Ray

�    products, support, economic downturns, etc). Imagine, for example,
�    spending two years at a low income, with only one account, on a really
�    big deal, to find the company has a major downturn and cancels the
�    order at the last minute?
    
    Imagine spending two years developing an important new product only to
    have it cancelled at the last minute. 
    
�    I know ther are frustrations in engineering, but nothing compares with
�    that.
    
    It's been a long time since I met an engineer who actually got to
    finish a project and see it ship.  If it's as uncommon for salespeople
    to actually sell something as it is for engineers to actually build
    something to sell, Digital is in worse shape than I thought.
    
    Ray

    RE:36
    
    I just thought what you said was funny. Mr. Miliken is obscene and is
    going to jail for it. A lot of people were ruined by him and he
    deserves what he gets. He shouldn't worry, he won't serve the entire
    sentence, they never do nowadays.
    

RE: .37

>    Often, salespeople are putting themselves at significant risk of
>    earning little in a year, in the personal expectation that their
>    talents will win out in the long run.
>    

This is just the flip side of the stupidity of commission; why notpay
salespersons a straight salry just like everyone else? I also think that the
above paragraph is a major reason for why people distrust salespersons in
general; one knows that a major reason for the person trying to sell you
something is to make his targets and therefore take home a living wage, rather
than trying to sell you something that is actually useful!

Simon

Good salespeople are the ultimate pump primer.  They really do constitute
the bottom line.  200K for a GOOD salesperson is just plain worth it if he
attracts that level of business.  I'm not asute enough about the field to
argue the commissions/versus straight pay, or perks vs salary increases issues. 
I'm throwing my 2 cents in because sometimes people away from the customer lose
sight about how hard it really is to get the customer to put down his 2 dollars.  
Unless the customer buys our products, all our support, engineering etc. are
just wasted.

		Bob Cohen

    Re .38:
    
    Ray, I would agree with your response to .37 if it were the case that
    engineers lived with lower salaries in anticipation of bonuses tied to
    the sales of their ultimate product.  Commissioned sales people often
    live with FAR lower salaries (possibly even negative when they draw
    against future commisions for living expenses) anticipating a sale.
    
    Re commissions:
    
    There are many opinions about the result of a commisioning a sales force
    and many variations on how this is done; pure commission, base +
    comm...  Many think that part of Digital's problem is that we do not
    incentivise our sales force sufficiently.  That they are not hungry
    enough (NY Times, Wall Street Journal...).  IBM has recently modified
    its compensation structure, but it is still base + commission. 
    Having talked with people who have lived in a commission only
    environment I don't think that would be a good system for Digital but I
    do think there needs to be a more direct 'pay for performance'
    relationship.
    
    The nature of the incentive (a trip, plaque, stock options, raise
    differentials, perks, choice assignments...) and a particular
    incentive's effects can be debated but incentives for higher
    performance have to be exist.
                                                                
    
    
    Peter Dillard

    FWIW, I heard an article on WGBH today that cited a recent study. 
    Basically, the average CEO in California makes less than 200K. 
    Northern California was something around $150K and Southern California
    was something like $170K.  
    
    I'm torn on this issue of $200K for a computer salesperson.  On the one
    hand, we need to make salespeople heroes of the company since they
    are on the front lines.  On the other, is it worth paying more to a
    salesperson than to the average CEO?  Of course, it might be argued
    that the average CEO is also a salesperson ...  ;)
    
    Steve 

    1272.102 says it very well. 

    A person is paid what the free market sets for his  job.  If  we
    paid  sales  reps  the  same as engineers, but a competitor paid
    their engineers much more than we, but  their  sales  reps  much
    less,  we  would  suddenly  be hearing echoes in our engineering
    areas, while the other company would have no one  left  to  sell
    anything.  I a firm believer in salary being just one part of an
    overall compensation package. If the intangibles  (environmental
    stuff  like dress codes, flex time, etc.) and the like are there
    and of sufficient degree, some salary concessions can  be  made,
    but  this  does  have  its  limits.  We  have  to  pay  salaries
    competitive  to  those  in  the  rest  of  the  industry  *on  a
    per-job-code  basis*,  or  we will be unable to attract and keep
    people of sufficient calibre in each discipline  to  make  us  a
    viable company.

    This relates to things like housing. Here in Texas, I can buy  a
    2500  square  foot  house on a large lot for something less than
    $135,000. In other areas of the country, that same house may  go
    for  twice  that  or  more.  Does  that  mean there is something
    inherently unfair? In a word, no;  it  means  that  there  is  a
    recognizable  difference  in  the  value of two houses differing
    only with regard to location.

    Now consider the engineer/sales rep controversy. Let's  say  both
    are identical twins, the only difference being one is a sales rep
    and the other is an engineer. The salary paid to  each  of  these
    individuals  is  driven  solely  by what the market dictates. The
    engineer may well consider a salary of $50,000 to  be  more  than
    adequate to secure his services, primarily because everybody else
    has offered him a lower salary. Now the sales rep twin  may  very
    well  consider  the  $50,000  salary  a  joke,  primarily because
    everybody else offered him salaries in excess of $125,000.

    The sales rep twin is like the 2500  square  foot  house  in  New
    England.  His value is greater simply because the free market has
    dictated it, not because of any inherent difference.


    d who_is_neither_a_sales_rep_nor_an_engineer

    I have spent half of my 20 years in Engineering and half in Sales
    and Sales Support. It is my considered, and I mean much considered,
    opinion that a commissioned sales force is a higher motivated sales
    force period!.
    
    The "Extra mile" that these people go is impressive to see. The
    way that they look after people around them, the way that they
    follow through, the way that they really ensure their clients are
    pampered etc, is outstanding. They invest a lot of themselves to
    ensure that they get the return.
                 
    It is silly to compare the needs and motivations of Engineers and
    sales people. The environments needed for and by both types of careers
    are worlds apart. What is common, however, is that they depend upon
    each other in the well known "Chicken and egg" loop. Engineers are
    incredible in their ability to keep going at a problem until it
    is resolved. They are amazingly creative and WILL find a way.
    
    Doesn't it strike you that all the qualities that I have singled
    out are actually applicable to both?. What is different is what
    motivates. It is this motivation that has to be provided by a company
    not an equivalent pay scheme.
    
    What I do not see written is that Sales and Engineering are the main 
    towers of the suspension bridge that constitutes a Company. They both 
    have major importance and have to be well supported and cared for or 
    else the bridge will fail. It is of no concern to me what either earns 
    as long as it is what they need to perform well and retains them in 
    our employ.                                          
                                                  
    The issues of excellence are how we ensure that they both value
    each other. The synergy and respect that is needed to make us all,
    (Digital), successful is what is most difficult to obtain. We have
    too many critics and not enough facilitators of excellence. We can
    change that. 
    
    Make your manager into a "Facilitator of Excelence" today!.
    
    We must keep asking ourselves what we have done today to get more
    business and make a better product. I know what I am going to do
    today, do you?.
    
    regards
    
    Eric H.
                                                                      

    Regarding .42:
    
    I'm a conscientious objector in any sales vs. engineering war, but it
    still seems to me that we're more alike than different.  Promotions in
    engineering (particularly at the higher levels) are dependent on making
    a noticeable financial contribution to Digital.  When one's project is
    cancelled, one has not made a financial contribution.  I've honestly
    heard lots of people worry about their career path due to this fact.
    
    And, as we both know, field software people (particularly unit and
    district managers) are judged by the amount of money they can bring in,
    which depends on our sales force, their own people, corporate support,
    AND those wacky customers.  They therefore have even less warning about
    impending problems and less control over their futures than salespeople
    or engineers.
    
    Personally, I don't think salespeople are overpaid (or at least not
    appreciably more than I'm overpaid), but we all have to go through
    similar stresses.
    
    Ray
    
    P.S. -- How you doing, Peter?  (: >,)
    

    
    RE:45
    
    
    Though a commissioned sales force certainly has some advantages, there
    is something about the concept that's frightful to Digital.
    
    What's frightful is the salesperson will sell a product or service to a
    customer that's not really what the customer needs, It would be sold to
    simply make a sale for the commission.
    
    Though times are changing at DEC as I see some forms of commission
    being placed.
    
    Can anyone expand or define a City-Manager?
    

    Every time the subject of commissions comes up, someone drags out the
    old red herring about selling the customer something they don't really
    need just to make a buck.
    
    Instead, we give a sales rep a quota and tell him, "Make your numbers
    or you're history."  This presumably makes him much less likely to push
    unnecessary product on the customer ;^)
    
    Get real!  Any time you push sales for short-term performance, either
    via commissions or simply driving sales quotas down to a monthly
    number, you will get product stuffed down the customer's throat.  If,
    instead of just talking about partnership, you set up sales metrics
    that REWARD long-term approaches and stable customer relationships,
    then you'll get the bahavior you desire.
    
    Funny ain't it?  You get exactly the kind of behavior you reward.
    
    -dave

re .44

very well said.

    Anent .45: Eric, you metaphor of Sales and Engineering being the towers
    that hold up the Corporation is excellent.  Hear hear!

    
    I believe people are missing some facts regarding COE.  Each group
    (Sales, Eng., Mfg.) receives a "pot" of compensation money each year,
    and distributes it as it wishes.  Most groups distribute it totally as
    a salary compensation.  Sales, however, has taken a different tack. 
    They have split their pot into 3 sections:  salary, SP2, and COE.  SP2
    and COE are only given to those reps who have met certain metrics.  
    
    The fact that sales people go on trips to Hawaii is a function of how
    they decided to compensate their people.  It should, therefore, not be
    looked as a perk that one organization gets at the expense of another.  
    If another group decided to start rewarding their people the same way, 
    they would have to reduce its salaries, as the size of the total 
    compensation pot for each group is fixed.
    
    
    Bruce