Hey DSSs! Give us the real deal on this "Relative Rank" incentive system!

Quote




It's complete bullshit. You mean to tell me you are going to pay a rep with 55% market share with Symbicort significantly less than someone with 38% market share because they were able to grow more? It punishes those who have worked their asses off to get market share where it's at.
 




Anonymous said:
It's complete bullshit. You mean to tell me you are going to pay a rep with 55% market share with Symbicort significantly less than someone with 38% market share because they were able to grow more? It punishes those who have worked their asses off to get market share where it's at.
Click to expand...

So really nothing has changed then. Territories with higher market share are always getting screwed with higher goals anyway while those with lower market share get rewarded with lower goals
 




Anonymous said:
So really nothing has changed then. Territories with higher market share are always getting screwed with higher goals anyway while those with lower market share get rewarded with lower goals
Click to expand...

Spot on. It's a shitty system. I have a high share and am getting smoked by cities who are -10 below me, but "grew more." God forbid you have a great quarter, that's now what you're measured against. That's your new normal. Slow and steady wins the race. What a way to conduct business and motivate people huh?
 




To win with this system, do not help on anyone on a different team out. Do not share what is working or best practices with different territories or your manager who will share what you are doing. Do not use speakers from different territories because that may increase market share for your competitors & you end up losing out on bonus $$. It fosters competition and sneakiness. If you transfer territories you end up competing against all the work you have done.
 




Ok, give me a break. I get the whole "harder to grow a big market share" argument but we all know that it has more to do with a lucky, local formulary win than your hard work. Shut the fuck up and let someone else enjoy those payouts for a change. You had your turn - unless you came in after it was already high and all you did was maintain it. Tsk tsk tsk. Aren't we in sales to grow market share? Lol.
 




Anonymous said:
Ok, give me a break. I get the whole "harder to grow a big market share" argument but we all know that it has more to do with a lucky, local formulary win than your hard work. Shut the fuck up and let someone else enjoy those payouts for a change. You had your turn - unless you came in after it was already high and all you did was maintain it. Tsk tsk tsk. Aren't we in sales to grow market share? Lol.
Click to expand...

Clearly you never achieved market leadership. Just because you can't achieve it doesn't mean you deserve a bonus handout, taken away from consistent top performers. This isn't the government.
 




I personally think it's fair to more heavily reward the highest performers at the expense of the lowest performers. In reality, its simply a way for management to identify exactly what their maximum bonus costs will be, knowing that through attrition and PIPs, they will save even more.

Relative rank also means no more surprises that require changing the rules mid-stream (ala Market Leadership).
 




Anonymous said:
It's complete bullshit. You mean to tell me you are going to pay a rep with 55% market share with Symbicort significantly less than someone with 38% market share because they were able to grow more? It punishes those who have worked their asses off to get market share where it's at.
Click to expand...

You get paid to grow. You were already paid for your share
 




Market share as an indicator of performance is flawed. We all know that. However, as salespeople that's what we are measured against. Let's take a drug like Crestor for example. Let's say it is on a state medicare formulary at for arguements sake $50 for 30 tabs. The rep should get credit for the sale of $50. Let's take another example where the rep gets a script through a managed care system where the drug is NOT of formulary. Let's say for the sake of discussion that cost is $150. That's what that rep deserves for credit. Instead of market share total up a reps sale in dollars. This evens things out from a managed care perspective. I believe those reps who sell product in a restricted formulary environment are doing better than the reps where the product is preferred. However on market share they get screwed. Take the car business...if a salesman sells a car for $20,000 they get more commission than a salesman who sells the same car for $18000. What I propose isn't rocket science and can be done easily. This will show who deserves to go to COE and who deserves a great bonus check. Your comments are welcome.
 




Anonymous said:
I personally think it's fair to more heavily reward the highest performers at the expense of the lowest performers. In reality, its simply a way for management to identify exactly what their maximum bonus costs will be, knowing that through attrition and PIPs, they will save even more.

Relative rank also means no more surprises that require changing the rules mid-stream (ala Market Leadership).
Click to expand...

Shared quotas, shared products, and shared customers, it is all one huge joke. Bonus is the beginning of the bigger joke COE. It is simply a lottery, nothing more nothing less. If you win, enjoy it but don't believe you had much to do with it. If you lose, you have a better chance next year. The more times you lose the better you odds of winning next year and vis versa.
 








Anonymous said:
Market share as an indicator of performance is flawed. We all know that. However, as salespeople that's what we are measured against. Let's take a drug like Crestor for example. Let's say it is on a state medicare formulary at for arguements sake $50 for 30 tabs. The rep should get credit for the sale of $50. Let's take another example where the rep gets a script through a managed care system where the drug is NOT of formulary. Let's say for the sake of discussion that cost is $150. That's what that rep deserves for credit. Instead of market share total up a reps sale in dollars. This evens things out from a managed care perspective. I believe those reps who sell product in a restricted formulary environment are doing better than the reps where the product is preferred. However on market share they get screwed. Take the car business...if a salesman sells a car for $20,000 they get more commission than a salesman who sells the same car for $18000. What I propose isn't rocket science and can be done easily. This will show who deserves to go to COE and who deserves a great bonus check. Your comments are welcome.
Click to expand...

This makes a lot of sense. I suppose AZ would never consider it. This is very fair and really represents what a rep can achieve. You get a script in a plan where you are not on formulary you deserve more sales "credit" than a script gained in a preferred formulary. Great post!
 




Anonymous said:
This makes a lot of sense. I suppose AZ would never consider it. This is very fair and really represents what a rep can achieve. You get a script in a plan where you are not on formulary you deserve more sales "credit" than a script gained in a preferred formulary. Great post!
Click to expand...

Sounds like a lot of wasted effort on potentially so little business. If your area has bad mange care the new neighborhood system should straighten that out and make it fair.
 




Anonymous said:
Ok, give me a break. I get the whole "harder to grow a big market share" argument but we all know that it has more to do with a lucky, local formulary win than your hard work. Shut the fuck up and let someone else enjoy those payouts for a change. You had your turn - unless you came in after it was already high and all you did was maintain it. Tsk tsk tsk. Aren't we in sales to grow market share? Lol.
Click to expand...

Where in sales to generate profitability. Working your ass off might be saving a script, say Caremark. Companies make their long term monies on refills. It's not that hard to figure out what they are doing. What they underestimate is the good reps that carry higher market share and volume drive profitability. You will eventually run these people off due to the de motivation and force ranking at the end of the year.

Finally, this system created is a lazy one. What you produce in 3rd quarter is carried over to 4th quarter. So if you go from 40 to 50%, great pay-out for 3rd quarter, but you will work off a 50 share 4th quarter. Let's hope you don't have a big physician move or lose managed care. This system does not take into consideration things out of your control.

They will tell you "like" neighborhoods and put fancy spins on it. It's all bullshit and I'm fairly close to the situation. In the end, leaders look at the big pie. You are the rats and they will give you some nibbles, but you must fight your other rat friends to get a piece. Not very "filling" is it?
 




Anonymous said:
Where in sales to generate profitability. Working your ass off might be saving a script, say Caremark. Companies make their long term monies on refills. It's not that hard to figure out what they are doing. What they underestimate is the good reps that carry higher market share and volume drive profitability. You will eventually run these people off due to the de motivation and force ranking at the end of the year.

Finally, this system created is a lazy one. What you produce in 3rd quarter is carried over to 4th quarter. So if you go from 40 to 50%, great pay-out for 3rd quarter, but you will work off a 50 share 4th quarter. Let's hope you don't have a big physician move or lose managed care. This system does not take into consideration things out of your control.

They will tell you "like" neighborhoods and put fancy spins on it. It's all bullshit and I'm fairly close to the situation. In the end, leaders look at the big pie. You are the rats and they will give you some nibbles, but you must fight your other rat friends to get a piece. Not very "filling" is it?
Click to expand...

OMG! As a person w/ 20+ yrs here, I couldn't agree more. 100% spot on.
 




Anonymous said:
Where in sales to generate profitability. Working your ass off might be saving a script, say Caremark. Companies make their long term monies on refills. It's not that hard to figure out what they are doing. What they underestimate is the good reps that carry higher market share and volume drive profitability. You will eventually run these people off due to the de motivation and force ranking at the end of the year.

Finally, this system created is a lazy one. What you produce in 3rd quarter is carried over to 4th quarter. So if you go from 40 to 50%, great pay-out for 3rd quarter, but you will work off a 50 share 4th quarter. Let's hope you don't have a big physician move or lose managed care. This system does not take into consideration things out of your control.

They will tell you "like" neighborhoods and put fancy spins on it. It's all bullshit and I'm fairly close to the situation. In the end, leaders look at the big pie. You are the rats and they will give you some nibbles, but you must fight your other rat friends to get a piece. Not very "filling" is it?
Click to expand...
Good post. Least someone in this company still pays attention.
 




The key. Have a good quarter. Just a bit better than the last. But not too good. Blow it out and that's your new baseline. Ever blew it out quarter, after quarter, after quarter? Eventually you reach the end of the line and get paid chicken scratch because your goal is far too high. That's your reward for performing too well, for too long. The best reps eventually get screwed, and consider other opportunities. It's a great way to retain, and promote losers while losing top talent.
 




Anonymous said:
Market share as an indicator of performance is flawed. We all know that. However, as salespeople that's what we are measured against. Let's take a drug like Crestor for example. Let's say it is on a state medicare formulary at for arguements sake $50 for 30 tabs. The rep should get credit for the sale of $50. Let's take another example where the rep gets a script through a managed care system where the drug is NOT of formulary. Let's say for the sake of discussion that cost is $150. That's what that rep deserves for credit. Instead of market share total up a reps sale in dollars. This evens things out from a managed care perspective. I believe those reps who sell product in a restricted formulary environment are doing better than the reps where the product is preferred. However on market share they get screwed. Take the car business...if a salesman sells a car for $20,000 they get more commission than a salesman who sells the same car for $18000. What I propose isn't rocket science and can be done easily. This will show who deserves to go to COE and who deserves a great bonus check. Your comments are welcome.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with what you say here!! AZ should hire a thousand CPA's to follow each and every script so you can make an extra $200 dollars on your quarterly bonus. Really?? You're territory is doing so well that it's worth it. Where do these people come from? We haven't become this stupid or have we?
 




anonymous said:
Totally agree with what you say here!! AZ should hire a thousand CPA's to follow each and every script so you can make an extra $200 dollars on your quarterly bonus. Really?? You're territory is doing so well that it's worth it. Where do these people come from? We haven't become this stupid or have we?
Click to expand...

Funny we get Seroquel dollars sold. Not aware of 1000 CPA's being hired.
 




Top Bottom
Back
Quote