To successfully implement a hunter / farmer strategy, I’ve found that it’s really important to build 2 frameworks to help in effecting the change. The first framework is for net new clients. The second framework is for existing clients that are getting migrated to the new model.nnEach framework considers the needs of the major stakeholders–client or prospective client, the sales organization, the account management organization, the contracts organization, the professional services organization etc…nnLet’s start with first framework. The one I’ve used in the past maps out all of the major stages of the sale–from cold call to close, and close to cash. From the stages, clear expectations (SLA’s if you will) are set for each hand-off and, importantly, these hand-off points are shared very transparently with each new client and they are well understood by the broader, cross functional GTM team. As a deal processes through the sales cycle, front line sales management and the sales professional are constantly foreshadowing the next step, including the hand-off points to the client. nnThe second framework is similar, but differs in that it’s more of a migratory effort to the new model. The second framework is silent on cold call to close, and close to cash handoff mapping. But, again starting with the most important stakeholder (the client), it’s heavy on transparently sharing how their account will be managed, to what SLA’s, when and how business reviews will be delivered, at what frequency, what metrics will be discussed, etc…nnWith each of the frameworks built, then the compensation plans need to be re-written. The sales compensation plans need to reward the right behaviors to drive net new revenue and not reward (or significantly discount) revenue retention or farming activities. It’s common to significantly increase commission rates to the net new sales hunters as you shift their behavior using the compensation plan as a tool to help in this effort.nnnThe account management plan needs to reward both revenue retention and revenue growth. As a percentage of total variable compensation, determine what percentage you want to invest or allocate towards revenue retention versus revenue growth and adjust the rates appropriately as the annual budget dictates.nnnWith the compensation plans built, the messaging outlining the reason for the change needs to be written. Messaging is a key component here and should focus on the benefits of the account management change while mitigating the perceived shortcomings of the change–a different message should be delivered to the different stakeholders outlined above. For example, the message to the client essentially outlines that they can expect a better outcome through improved intimacy, metrics orientation, etc… Once the message is built, the right messenger needs to deliver it (again, for each of the stakeholders this will be different). nnnThere are a ton of other nuances to plan for as this shift is made, but at a high level our role is to ensure that folks understand the shift, why the shift is better for them, why it’s better for the business, and why it’s better for the client. As revenue grows faster, more of that revenue falls to EBITDA, and these earnings are reinvested in the business to continue to innovate and deliver an even better outcome to customers–which can become a virtuous cycle for all of the stakeholders above.

A timely question.nnThis strategy creates an opportunity for both management and, most importantly, the client, to see how the business development cycle flows through this organization. Think input-throughput-output, or a 4 x 100m relay race. nnMy area of the sales universe focuses on innovation and collaborationnwhile selling to, or working with and for, technically-intensive companies. Innthis area of the galaxy, the model often is one of hunters-farmers, with longernsales cycles involved in technical selling, and a defined hand-off between salesnhunters and technical farmers. nnWhat concerns me in this proposed hunter-farmer model is that sales and engineering (or any form of hunters-farmers model) start to live two, separate, silo-ed lives. That cuts down on the potential for collaboration and achieving a far better solution than the hunter killing the saber tooth tiger and dropping it off at the door of the company so the farmers can harvest the kill (input). nnFarmers often sit at the cross-roads of business development opportunities. However, they are so busy u201cdoingu201d that they donu2019t learn how to listen for those opportunities. Is management prepared to teach them how to listen and, if so, is the hunter team prepared to do the teaching? Root causes can have really large contexts; that one contract can end up representing long-term cash flow for your organization. How will the company take advantage of this new potential for business growth? This strategy offers more to Hunters and Farmersnin terms of professional development as well. Farmers identifying growth opportunities need to earn commission.nnHunters can grow their expertise by understanding how the context of the project changes once the farmers start implementing it, in-house (throughput). Are the farmers prepared to have a monthly meeting with sales hunters discussingnthe business cases developed for each project, as more contracts are closed duento the shortened sales cycle? (more throughput)nnIn the proposed strategy, while there is greater separation between the hunter and farmer roles, thereu2019s also the potential for greater synergy and collaboration or throughput of knowledge in the organization as that baton is handed off to implementers at each leg of the race. With Hunter-Farmer teams involved in cross-functional collaboration within the proposed silos, compensation should be addressed which rewards both hunters and farmers for using more of the left and right sides of their brains, respectively. Everyone in the organization becomes more involved in business development and revenue generation; commission needs to be re-thought and re-distributed on both sides of the table. nnThe clients/customers are on the receiving end of this strategy, which is perceived as offering relevant and valuable output to their organization. What is the value of the output from the Hunter-Farmer model if it doesnu2019t assist in making your customers more globally competitive, and more loyal in the process?

First, I would express my concern to management and go on record as thinking that this may not be the best sales structure. After that, I would dive in and work hard to develop a strategy to prove myself wrong.nA lot of the planning would depend on type of business, personalities of individuals etc, but for general purposes I would start by having the farmers report to the hunters. If things have been going well, the hunters are probably a big part of the reason so you do not want to alienate them. nI would work out a compensation plan and goals that rewarded both hunters and farmers, so they understand that they are co-dependent.

The new manager first must be empathetic in a “sincere” way with how they felt about Jack and start the process of building their trust. Then the new manager must exhibit the he or she has their professional success and best interests as priority one in managing the team. Third, the new manager needs to help the younger members of the team that may have not been exposed to these types of changes in the past get through their mixed emotions while at the same time expressing the need to move forward. Lastly, the new manager if possible needs to have individual conversations with the team members to get to know them personally, their concerns, their aspirations in their professional career and how he or she can help that person reach their goals and be successful. Unfortunately, there is no doubt that after meeting with and observiing every team member it will be evident which members contributed to Jack’s failure and those team members will have to be replaced. How that is handled will greatly affect how the rest of the team will react and perform moving forward.

This IS a challenge! Communication will be critical to success in this case; communication with reps and communication with customers.nnIu2019d start with the sales team. In any type of restructuring like this, success will be dependent on getting buy-in from the sales force. You also want to make sure you have the right people in the right roles. I would have an initial meeting announcing the change and the underlying reasoning for the change. Next I would collaborate with the sales team to delineate the hunter and farmer roles, and then work withneach team member to ensure he or she was in the right role and comfortable in that role. Additional training should be available to support team members in their new roles.nnAs several people have noted, hunters may perceive that role as lower in status, particularly since the firm is relationship-oriented. The compensation plan would need to be structured so that hunters and farmers have a stake in one anotheru2019snactivities. I would recommend a compensation plan based on combination of activities and outcomes as a means to achieve desired goals and encourage cooperation between the hunter and farmer. The hunter and farmer should work together as a team, with a clear hand-off process identified.nnOnce the sales team is ready, I would roll this out to the existing customers. In some cases, customers will continue with the same rep if that rep is serving in the farmer role. If the rep is moving to a hunter role, the hunter should accompany the new farmer on a joint call to the customer to make the introduction; together the team can explain the new process and ease the transition. In the meantime, hunters should also be targeting new customers; presumably we will have developed a new strategy for this process as well.nnTurnover is probable, most likely in the hunter role given the company history. Structural and cultural changes take time and commitment, so patience is required. The new compensation plan should be monitored carefully to ensure it is having the desired effect.

Very common scenario. Getting down to business, I would accomplish the following things:n1)How much revenue do we get from the installed Base?n2)How much revenue can a single Installed Base rep handle?n3) How often, and in what situations, do we get “new” business, i.e. a new department, or new application from our installed base accounts.n4) How many new accounts has the team gotten in the past 3 years?n5) Do we already have any good hunters?n6) establish a quota for each type of sales rep.n7) develop a compensation plan for both that is an equal amount at 100%.n8) Included in this compensation is specific bonuses for each new account.n9) New accounts within Installed Base accounts is a team responsibility. When a deal is closed, the New rep gets the new account bonus and so does the installed base rep.nThis is done to encourage teamwork and a better focus on new business within the installed base.n10) Team morale is established by a fair compensation plan. Even though the quotas are very different, you should be able to develop a plan, with sales rep influence, that everyone can buy into. They may not be happy, but it is fair. Also, as in the story, once the assignments are established you should be able to interchange the assignments with the reps. Test how well the assignments are balanced by how much they scream. Then, fill the assignments with the best people, i.e. good skill match, to achieve goal.nnnThis will get you started. Monitor the results, and keep a open forum for suggested improvements. Be prepared to make adjustments to the plan if necessary after 6 months.

Ron LaVine, MBA u2022 Excellent question. nnFrom my biased perspective as a sales trainer, and since sales training is often the precursor to sales results, I would train the Hunters on a strategy involving how to hunt properly, efficiently and effectively. For the Farmers I set up a Pro-Active Customer Service strategy. nnRon LaVine, MBA and President of:nnAccelerated Cold Call Training, Inc. – Live Cold Call Training

I think when one initially may look at this they may be looking at the “body count” and how can I manage it. The fact is that in my arena the check signers are becoming a smaller group – the influencers are having less influence and the goal is to try and find the “core to the apple” – that small group who can influence the check signers. I read one thread here which talked about cost of sales and totally agree with him.nnThat all said – my opinion would be to utilize the age of technology. The first thing one needs to do is create a database. Sounds crazy but I am amazed at how many companies do not have a database or that they shrill at the fact that time needs to be taken to keep this database up to date.nnSecondly – make certain that you have the right tools for the database. In our company we have what we call a library. In the libray I store all my videos and brochures. I do very little printing as it is very expensive and much of it simply sits on a desk or goes into the trash. Instead – I make a master brochure “handout” for my reps so they can show the customer the material. Once a conversation is complete we put together a catalog that has evrything the customer wants – brochures and video. I then create a link which they can access. This eliminates the email from being rejected due to its size as mine are rather large files. I also get a email back when the link has been opened such that I know they looked at the material and send them a follow up email asking if that may have any further questions.nnThe point is – let technology be your Hunter or at least your head Hunter. Hire a technology person to set up communications with prosepctive – potential and current users. Make certain your people get emails – addresses – and record “all” and I mean “all” conversations with their contacts. Then use your Farmer individual to follow up on the top 20%.nnIt is also important to challenge potential customers. That is set criteria of interest. Again – we have a device that many are willing to try – the fact is some may not have the influence to purchase – the check signer may not have the funds. So check out those people who want to buy the corn and make certain they have the interest and funds to buy that corn.nnMy model would be to use technology as your Hunter and all people would become a Hunter Assitant when needed. I truly believe that more emphasis needs to be placed on the back end today. That is to service the account. The Farmer is key so everyone needs to learn this skill set.

Today the best new customers arenmy current ones by locating and/or creating new buying centers with the currentncustomers. This is not done well by those with the “servicing”nskills. So if servicing the existing accounts is bogging down the salesperson,nI agree with Sarah that a team approach with people of different skill setsnwould be appropriate. I think the Hunter/Farmer concept that was groundbreakingnwhen implemented in the insurance industry a century or more ago, is notnapplicable as such today. I do not use these terms any more, as it sends thenwrong message to the teams assigned to current accounts and new logo business.

The best way to implement this would be to have teams. Identify the hunters and farmers then put the teams together so in essence you have 4 people (2 hunters and 2 farmers) servicing the client. This also gives a better chance to see who is strong in what areas of the sales process and who needs help and where sales are falling through the cracks. Commissions would be shared as a team ongoing and the fact that each member knows both sides of the process you have built in redundancy program if someone quits which saves you time and money in retraining costs. To keep up the morale I would start with a test program for 6 months to show the effectiveness and raise in compensation to the group. I would also share the story of world record 400 meter runner Michael Johnson who ran 400 meters in 43.18 seconds! Impressive yes but did you know that the womens 4 x 100 world record relay team did it in 40.38 seconds! This goes to show you that teams tend to win, why? Because the team holds each other accountable. Top performers don’t want to be the weak link on the team but we still run where we are strongest. What we tend to find in team environments is that people will rise up to the level of the team. People will work harder for the team than they will for themselves, that is why when a person makes the decision to start working out their chance of success goes up by 66% if they start working out with 2-3 other people as a group.nnAnother advantage of the team is the fact that people can take time off and not feel their customers aren’t being serviced. Now you have 24/7 coverage for your customers. Added value win, win, win! Company wins because higher revenue and customer retention. Customer wins because of 24/7 coverage and needs being met and able to work with a team so less chance of personality conflict. Sales team wins because each person is working with their strengths and maximizing sales opportunity.

Given that outline? Run away like there is no tomorrow. Been there, done that, twice. The environments were similar, but not exactly the same as above. The more niche and specialized and technical the product is, the LESS this strategy should be used. I would strenuously argue against until it were clear that experience was not going to prevail. Then, I would then do it in small pieces. nnChoose one person good at the hunting and train the heck out of them and give them a transitional territory with guarantees. That guinea pig has to be in it for the long run, so give her/him a lot of reasons to tough it out for a while. Then do another, then another. Focus on the hunters. Farmers are easier to find. If your first two are successful, others will want to follow, and then you can start moving faster.