February 17, 2012 at 8:55 am
It appears to have gone away, but Spolsky did a great piece on pricing (and by example, sales staffing) of software. The title is "Camels and Rubber Duckies", I believe. Won't come up now. I read it when it first came out, and my recollection is that software pricing is highly bi-modal, $50 and $10,000 (or extreme along those lines). The point being that the same effort to create software can result in a commodity piece @$50 or a niche piece @$10,000, and nothing much in between. The high priced spread is almost entirely eaten up by sales pyramid.
February 17, 2012 at 8:58 am
One thing that needs to be recognized is that there is a difference between being a developer for a software company an developer for a company that uses software. For example, I started my career working for a pulp & paper company, as a developer I was not in one of the most important positions in the company. Chemical engineers, product development, paper-makers, and sales people were all probably more important than I was, and in most of those cases they made more money than I did. I didn't necessarily write software that made the company run, I wrote software to integrate data from disparate systems so that the people in the other positions could make better decisions.
In a software company, the developers become more important. If the product produced is junk then the sales people will have a harder time selling it. In this case I'd say salary-wise the developers should make more.
I think commissions for sales people is the best way to compensate them. You provide a lower guaranteed salary so the sales people can survive a "slump" and then commissions to provide incentive. It is a lot harder to provide commissions to developers since there's no real metric to determine who should get what part of a sale. In every environment I've been in there are always people who are more important than others to the success of the company so you handle that by salary, not commissions.
Jack Corbett
Consultant - Straight Path Solutions
Check out these links on how to get faster and more accurate answers:
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Need an Answer? Actually, No ... You Need a Question
February 17, 2012 at 9:30 am
If you don't have your data you don't have doodly squat. The DBA is the most important (and most under appreciated) person in any enterprise IMHO. He safeguards and caretakes your data, and that is the life blood of any enterprise in todays world. Salesman are important, but they don't administer the life blood. They may get it for you, but they don't hold on to it and ensure it is always online and available to the right people in the organization. The DBA does. 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
February 17, 2012 at 9:36 am
TravisDBA (2/17/2012)
If you don't have your data you don't have doodly squat. The DBA is most important (and most under appreciated) person in any enterprise IMHO. He safeguards and caretakes your data, and that is the life blood of any enterprise in todays world. Salesman are important, but they don't administer the life blood. They may get it for you, but they don't hold on to it. The DBA does. 😀
Yes, but the impact on a company of a stellar DBA vs a competent DBA is much less, in most cases, than the impact of a stellar salesperson vs a competent salesperson. Stellar vs competent exec makes an even bigger impact, of course, but that's not the discussion here.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
February 17, 2012 at 9:37 am
as a consultant for a small private company, the sales ppl are VERY valuable. if they do well, the company grows...and with growth comes promotions and job stability for us developers.
Data Enthusiast | @SQLbyoBI | www.opifexsolutions.com
February 17, 2012 at 9:39 am
shodgin (2/17/2012)
without a good product, there is nothing worth selling (for very long anyway).
Having purchased lots of software and seen lots of sales, I'm not sure I agree.
February 17, 2012 at 9:40 am
Jeff Moden (2/17/2012)
On the subject of the question of "which is easier to replace", both are difficult to replace for the same reason. Prior knowledge.
Perhaps. If they are really good at their jobs, I'd agree, though I think salespeople can translate their knowledge to a new product/industry easier than to bring a new developer online.
February 17, 2012 at 9:41 am
James Goodwin (2/17/2012)
I want to put a slightly different slant on my answer.From the point of view of "value to the company" OF THE SALARY, a salesperson who is out in the world visible to customers and competitors must LOOK successful. E must have a nice car, nice clothes, eat at nice restaurants, etc. E must do this because that appearance of success is valuable to the company, and that appearance costs some money. The programmers in the basement are much less recognized (by the public) as representing the company and thus, don't need to project that appearance.
The fact that production and sales are both necessary is a bit irrelevant. The fact is that paying the sales people more brings more revenue to the company than paying the programmers more.
--
JimFive
(E is my suggestion for a 3rd person gender-neutral personal pronoun)
Highly depends on the sales position. Not all salespeople go to visit customers, or work in an environment that requires high levels of entertainment. For example, at Red Gate, that's not the case.
February 17, 2012 at 9:44 am
RobertYoung (2/17/2012)
It appears to have gone away, but Spolsky did a great piece on pricing (and by example, sales staffing) of software. The title is "Camels and Rubber Duckies", I believe. Won't come up now. I read it when it first came out, and my recollection is that software pricing is highly bi-modal, $50 and $10,000 (or extreme along those lines). The point being that the same effort to create software can result in a commodity piece @$50 or a niche piece @$10,000, and nothing much in between. The high priced spread is almost entirely eaten up by sales pyramid.
For a software product like PeopleSoft, the $$$,$$$ price can be accounted for by sales, support, and implementation. The actual development may have ended many years ago.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
February 17, 2012 at 9:45 am
Jack Corbett (2/17/2012)
I think commissions for sales people is the best way to compensate them. You provide a lower guaranteed salary so the sales people can survive a "slump" and then commissions to provide incentive. It is a lot harder to provide commissions to developers since there's no real metric to determine who should get what part of a sale. In every environment I've been in there are always people who are more important than others to the success of the company so you handle that by salary, not commissions.
I think I might argue that salespeople sometimes get commissions out of line with the work they've done, and distorted in relation to the work of others. Bonuses provided to more people, IMHO, make more sense for the entire company rather than an extremely high commission to 1-2 people.
February 17, 2012 at 9:52 am
GSquared (2/17/2012)
TravisDBA (2/17/2012)
If you don't have your data you don't have doodly squat. The DBA is most important (and most under appreciated) person in any enterprise IMHO. He safeguards and caretakes your data, and that is the life blood of any enterprise in todays world. Salesman are important, but they don't administer the life blood. They may get it for you, but they don't hold on to it. The DBA does. 😀Yes, but the impact on a company of a stellar DBA vs a competent DBA is much less, in most cases, than the impact of a stellar salesperson vs a competent salesperson. Stellar vs competent exec makes an even bigger impact, of course, but that's not the discussion here.
Ok, but think about the impact on the company if your online Internet Ordering process database was down for even a couple of hours during the business day? Do you think that impact would impress or be felt by the CEO a little more than than his best sales person on the force being out for a day? Or even a couple? 😀
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
February 17, 2012 at 9:55 am
As mentioned a few times, it is a chicken & egg situation, but even the first chicken hatched from an egg laying critter that was close to but not quite a chicken, so it is not a completely self referencing munged up loop.
Sales is a skill that is developed over the years, but it is also part personality and I don't believe that it can just objectively taught. Like a musician, they can become technically proficient but that does not mean that they are expressive or a good performer. They know what they were taught, but did not have the "right stuff" to make that final transition. (I have a cousin that went from sales to development back to sales. Our family used to joke that he could sell refrigerators to people in the polar regions.)
I started developing systems back in '80, and have been a DBA for almost 2 decades now. Development is also part skill and part inspired expression. That is the difference between a code monkey and someone with the passion and inspiration to try new ideas or improve on existing ones.
Both are good and needed.
That said, I am against commissions. I believe in salaries honestly linked to value and skill. (This is probably why I also dislike the huge salaries, bonus' and the like paid to many of the C level executives in the USA.)
The sales group CAN sell items that do not exist. (Vaporware anyone?) But the product could not get out there without the necessary sales group.
A good person on both sides would be difficult to replace, bad and mediocre ones would be much easier to replace.
That said, I do not believe that one group really deserves to be paid much more than the other. A vendor's product is more than just code. The product is also the people that created the code. When you buy you also need to look forward and think about where the vendor and their product may be in a few years. They may have a good product now, but do they have the skilled, inspired staff to build on what they have or will they just give in to entropy and become obsolete?
Hrm... I think I need some caffeine it appears that my ADHD was expressing itself... that was all just one big piece of babble.
Bottom line: reward good people but do not go overboard.
-----------------
Larry
(What color is your database?)
February 17, 2012 at 10:07 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (2/17/2012)
shodgin (2/17/2012)
without a good product, there is nothing worth selling (for very long anyway).Having purchased lots of software and seen lots of sales, I'm not sure I agree.
Why does your observation give me the creeps? You're condoning giving lots o dough to lowlifes and liars who can sell crap to the uninformed? Or was your implication something else?
February 17, 2012 at 10:18 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (2/17/2012)
Jack Corbett (2/17/2012)
I think commissions for sales people is the best way to compensate them. You provide a lower guaranteed salary so the sales people can survive a "slump" and then commissions to provide incentive. It is a lot harder to provide commissions to developers since there's no real metric to determine who should get what part of a sale. In every environment I've been in there are always people who are more important than others to the success of the company so you handle that by salary, not commissions.I think I might argue that salespeople sometimes get commissions out of line with the work they've done, and distorted in relation to the work of others. Bonuses provided to more people, IMHO, make more sense for the entire company rather than an extremely high commission to 1-2 people.
For some sales people (like life insurance or IT recruiting), they may get a large commission upfront when the sale is completed or account opened. However, if the customer subsequently terminates the contract, there can be a "charge back", meaning that the salesperson owes a signigicant part of the commission back to the company. So the salesperson isn't just out there making sales; in addition to paperwork and multiple meetings with the customer before the contract, a big part of what they do after the sale is made is manage the account and keep the relationship going. There are actually some salespeople who know how to work like crazy and get customers to sign on the dotted line, but then for whatever reason can't keep their accounts open.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
February 17, 2012 at 10:36 am
TravisDBA (2/17/2012)
GSquared (2/17/2012)
TravisDBA (2/17/2012)
If you don't have your data you don't have doodly squat. The DBA is most important (and most under appreciated) person in any enterprise IMHO. He safeguards and caretakes your data, and that is the life blood of any enterprise in todays world. Salesman are important, but they don't administer the life blood. They may get it for you, but they don't hold on to it. The DBA does. 😀Yes, but the impact on a company of a stellar DBA vs a competent DBA is much less, in most cases, than the impact of a stellar salesperson vs a competent salesperson. Stellar vs competent exec makes an even bigger impact, of course, but that's not the discussion here.
Ok, but think about the impact on the company if your online Internet Ordering process database was down for even a couple of hours during the business day? Do you think that impact would impress or be felt by the CEO a little more than than his best sales person on the force being out for a day? Or even a couple? 😀
For the vast majority of companies, a competent DBA won't allow that to happen. It doesn't take a stellar DBA to keep most online ordering systems online. It just takes competent.
I wasn't even what I'd call a competent DBA when I had my first accidental DBA job ten years ago, but I kept the databases and servers online. At the same time, we had a stellar salesperson, two competent salespeople, and a few commodity salespeople. The rest of the sales team generated about $5-million that year, the stellar guy came up with an innovative product line (within our line of business), worked out some exclusive deals on it with some very-hard-to-please customers, and generated $7.5-million in sales by himself, that same year. If I'd been a stellar DBA, or even a competent DBA, instead of "a guy who's good with computers so he's in charge of the server", we still wouldn't have had anything near that kind of impact because of our tech.
Most business don't need stellar personnel in any position. They need "good enough". But given the choice between a stellar DBA, stellar software dev, or stellar salesperson, most businesses would be better off taking the salesperson and leaving "good enough" on the other two jobs.
Also, a salesperson taking a few days off isn't comparable to a server being down for several days. More comparable would be a salesperson who caused you to be hit by an expensive false-advertising lawsuit, or breach of contract lawsuit, by being disasterously incompetent. What you're citing isn't the same order of magnitude.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 119 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply