Omar Costa· Benefits Analyst, Halcyon Financial Group
Asked in Sales Compensation ·
Payments software company in London with a team of 24 sales development reps who book first meetings for 40 account executives. The reps are on 65/35 and variable pays a fixed amount per meeting held.
Meeting volume is excellent and quality is poor. Account executives say a third of meetings are with people who have no budget or no authority. We could pay on opportunities accepted by the account executive, or on pipeline value, or on closed revenue, but each step further away means a longer wait and less control for the rep.
Where did you settle, and how do you stop account executives rejecting meetings unfairly?
3 helpful · 1 insightful · 1 agree · 3 replies · 100 views · 5 following
Compensation Analyst, Cardinal Insurance
We pay 60% of variable on opportunities that pass a written qualification standard and are accepted within five working days, and 40% on a small percentage of closed revenue from those opportunities. If the account executive does not accept or reject in five days it counts as accepted. That deadline fixed the unfair rejection problem almost by itself.
Compensation Analyst, Kestrel Aerospace
I would avoid closed revenue for this role entirely. Our cycle is seven months. A development rep is typically in the seat for 14 to 18 months before promotion, so half of what they generate pays out after they have moved on. We pay on accepted opportunities and a quarterly bonus linked to how many of them reach the proposal stage.
Reward Partner, Larkspur Manufacturing
Who audits the rejections? We have sales operations review a sample of 10% of rejected meetings each month against the qualification standard. Account executives with a pattern of unjustified rejections get fewer meetings routed to them, which they care about far more than any policy.
