Janis Zech: Hello, and welcome to another episode of the RevOps Lab podcast. I'm here with Philip, and our guest today is Ryan Milligan. Ryan, hey. How's it going?

Ryan Milligan: Good. Thanks for having me. I'm really excited for this.

Janis Zech: Yeah. So you're back. You've been here before. Unfortunately, I couldn't join the last one, but I'm super excited to talk to you about, you know, like, all things compensation today. But before we dive in, you just became CRO at QuotaPath. Congrats. You have a RevOps background. So, yeah, I think we don't see that as often as we would love to, but, yeah, just curious, like, how — what was, like, the path to CRO as someone who started out in RevOps?

Ryan Milligan: Yeah. So thank you. It's been a fun journey. I've been here for four years now. Was originally hired to lead RevOps here, and then roles expanded taking on sales leadership and marketing leadership position for a CRO change earlier this year, which has been a lot of fun. I think, you know, my take on that is very fun to debate with people — is that RevOps leaders are well suited to be CROs. And I think particularly why they're well suited is because they are agnostic to department and really focused on the needs of the business. And so the CRO role is not an amplified sales leadership role. It's a "what is the best, most durable, sustainable revenue for the business" role. And so a CRO's responsibility is to say, okay, where are we gonna invest our energy that has the best return from a healthy revenue perspective for the business? Is that in marketing? Is that in sales? Is that in customer success or account management? And so the job is orchestrating where the business should spend the bulk of its time to get the most return and solve pain points for the business. And so RevOps as a role already has that ability to be organizationally neutral and operates kind of organizationally neutral to break down some of those potential political barriers within an organization. And so that's where that systems architecture process and building a well oiled machine really steps in really well in the CRO role. Now, I think there's an interesting question — a lot of CROs are VPs of sales who've risen up through sales ranks who enter a CRO versus RevOps leaders who go that route. Both have to learn something. Right? So a VP of sales stepping into a CRO role has great selling experience and great knack for how to get a deal across the line, and then has to learn systems architecture process post sale. How do I build a humming engine and how do I message that to a board? That's what a VP of sales has to learn. And then a RevOps leader has to learn all of the closing. I never carried a quota. So has to learn how to close a deal, the art of the mechanics, the art of selling alongside a team. My take is that if you have a sales team that is strong and performing really well, you can supplement their closing skill set as a RevOps leader moving into CRO with some of the systems architecture to build for scale and durability. And so not to say both aren't great paths — I wanna be very clear on that — but I do think RevOps leadership is one that can step into a CRO very effectively.

Janis Zech: One follow-up question here. What about hiring? Right? Like, RevOps teams are typically small, go to market teams, sales, customer success, a lot larger. You know, how do you become great at hiring from a RevOps perspective? Is that something that gets learned?

Ryan Milligan: It's very interesting. So my team in the past four years has grown from one to almost twenty. Right? So that's an interesting developmental change for me. I think what you have to think about is what are the skill sets you see within a great seller that you work with already? And how do you test for that acumen in the hiring process? So you've been a RevOps leader observing what is great about reps — they're asking great discovery, quantitatively sharp. We're a technical sale, right? So understanding the mechanics of every single org's comp plan and asking really probing questions to see what they're trying to do with their plan. I, in the hiring process, build tests for those things. Right? So an example is if you're selling QuotaPath, you're getting five to ten new comp plans every week from people who are looking to use QuotaPath, and they wanna see a technical proof of concept of their compensation plan in QuotaPath. So I am testing a rep for their acumen to see a comp plan, understand it, understand the drivers, and then build that in the product. And so we send them basically an Excel case process of calculate commissions for a team of forty in Excel. Like, do that in Excel, know the pain, know what the buyer's coming from, show me that you know how to do it, show me you know how to understand the mechanics of the comp plan — that will build empathy for you to be able to sell QuotaPath, and it makes sure that you understand the mechanics of how comp plans work altogether.

Janis Zech: Awesome. Awesome. Well, congrats. It's awesome. I think Philip and I were happy to see you, you know, taking on this role, and I hope many of you out there will have a similar path. So that would be awesome. So today, our topic is — I mean, you're an expert in compensation. And before we started to hit record, we talked about how you can use compensation planning as a tool to drive company performance. So maybe explain what you mean with that, and then we're gonna go into the nitty gritty details as always.

Ryan Milligan: Yeah, let's do it. So basically the old way that I think about was that you design a revenue plan for your business, you figure out your capacity, you figure out the reps and the territories and all that sort of stuff, and you're ready for the next year. And then on December eighteenth through twenty first, you realize, oh, I need a comp plan. And so you've done all this upfront work as a business to figure out how twenty twenty six is gonna be a super successful year. And then all of a sudden, you take the comp plan and kind of add it on in the sidecar at the end. That's like the old kind of historic way of doing things. And frankly, I've talked to a lot of teams who are still operating in that model. Our push and our hypothesis — what we've seen in action — is that your compensation plan should be way at the forefront of how you're planning for next year. And simply put, your compensation plan is the best tool you have to drive your go to market teams to deliver the right revenue for your business. And maybe the right revenue is longer term contracts. Maybe it's a move into the enterprise. Maybe it's selling these three products at the same time. You should be able to use your comp plan to tell your go to market team what great looks like and reward them for great. So they focus their energy on closing more durable, sustainable revenue for your business. And that's the ultimate goal. And so our push — in our product, we automate the process of calculating commissions — and we help you use your comp plan to show a seller, hey, here are three deals in my pipeline. I'm gonna make the most money on deal three, even though it might be a little smaller from a revenue perspective, because it's a three year multiproduct deal that's great for the business. And so the business is rewarding me. So it's the one time in which I win in my wallet, the business wins, CFO's happy because we have less churn and durable revenue, and CRO's happy and everyone's happy. And so that's the thesis — use your comp plan to drive sellers to close better revenue for your business and bring the comp plan way earlier into your planning than this sidecar attachment in late December.

Janis Zech: Yeah. I mean, something that we also went through at Weflow is — when you first start out, like, hire your first salespeople, right, you have a different incentive. Like, you start with the first salespeople, you may be a bit more generous on the compensation, you don't really know how it's going. Then you start thinking about, okay, should I add an accelerator at some point? And then, basically, my point is, as the company progresses, as it matures, you constantly have to actually adjust your comp plan. And we know of some of our customers, they actually adjust their comp plan every quarter. And really, to recalculate at least a few things. Maybe not fully, right, but in some specific areas. Because of course, as the company matures, we actually do have different strategic goals. It might not be growth at all costs like a younger, early stage company might have, but it might be something like you said — the multi year plan. How do we get to stable, long lasting revenue? How do we reduce attrition? So I think that's just a super interesting perspective to not look at a compensation plan as this static thing that you kind of set and it is what it is for a full year, but to look at it from a very dynamic perspective and to treat it as such.

Ryan Milligan: Yeah. I mean, you think about — you do call coaching consistently, you do enablement consistently, you should be using your comp plan at the same level of consistency to change what you want from the team. Now you gotta be a little careful with whiplash. Right? So you gotta make sure that you're very clearly communicating what's different. What I tend to advise is, hey, the core way in which you're earning your OTE, paying for healthcare, supporting your family — your core comp plan should be pretty static throughout the course of the year. These accelerators, kickers, things that you can earn on top of that — you should feel much more comfortable changing monthly or quarterly as the business needs change. Right? So the reason I think about changing those more consistently is, hey, that's not detracting from my ability to support my family. Right? You don't want people to feel a lot of whiplash on this. But if you're saying, hey, this quarter we're really focused on testimonials, so I'm gonna spiff you on testimonials, and next quarter we're really focused on selling product B — you should be able to do that, no problem. And ultimately, I think the goal is to bring a business on its journey. Right? And so when I joined QuotaPath four years ago, we had a lot of month to month contracts. We don't sell month to month contracts anymore. We had a lot of month to month contracts because we were an earlier stage business and we were trying to drive customer growth and get people to adopt the product. It was a much different revenue maturity than we are today. And so our main focus was let's convert month to month contracts from people who see a lot of value to annual commitments so we can invest more from a support perspective and give them more of what they need to be successful long term. So we went through that journey. And then we went through a journey about two years ago — hey, annual contracts don't give us the ability to give them as much upfront value from an implementation and support perspective that we want to. Let's create the value over multi year contracts. We've shifted the business that way. And so you're basically using the comp plan to change the revenue for what your org needs at that point in time, and that becomes super important.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Like, how do you think about compensation planning in general? I think we had a few episodes here on, like, SKO magic and things like this. But where do you see a compensation plan — when do you start in the year, when should it be ready? I think it's worth taking a step back and helping our audience give them some kind of framework on how to actually operate with a compensation plan.

Ryan Milligan: Yeah. So I think you have a couple really interesting moments in time. I think about a calendar in this way. One is you're coming up to H2. Before you know it, you're gonna be in the second half of the year. So one thing you should be doing now is thinking through — in the, like, the Feb March timeline — how well is the comp plan doing within Q1 at driving the behaviors we're looking for, and can we build towards any sort of change in H2? So what's our attainment looking like? Are we closing the right types of deals? What percentage of our deals that we're closing both on new business and renewals are ideal customers, or are in longer term contracts, or are above an average contract value of thirty k or whatever? You have to go back to what you told the board. This is how the revenue plan's gonna go, and here are the drivers of why we're gonna succeed. We're gonna double our average contract value this year. Okay. Have you doubled your average contract value in Q1? Yes or no? And if not, now you're thinking about, okay, how do I make it more lucrative for reps to close better revenue for the business, whether it's larger deals or whatever the business needs. So you have a moment now to start planning for H2. We see a lot of orgs changing their comp plan in that July, August time frame. Then in terms of twenty twenty seven planning — which is kind of crazy to say — typically the sticker shock is like August. August, September is the kind of time where you're starting to do a couple things. One is you're interviewing your team. I think this is the biggest thing that people miss. You're interviewing your reps, your SDRs, your marketing team, your AMs. What do you like about the comp plan? What do you not like about the comp plan? And the most damning question: explain it to me. So, you know, RevOps thinks they built this beautiful mechanical system, and then they go to an account manager and say, hey, just explain your comp plan to me. Like, what are you motivated by? And the amount of jaw dropping — they have no idea what we're trying to motivate them to do. You know that's a problem. So you're doing kind of informational interviewing upfront August, September. You're really trying to learn from them some nuggets on what they like and don't like about the plan. Because naturally, when you change a plan, there's gonna be some gives and some gets. You wanna understand what those gives should be or what would make a team excited. Maybe it's quota vacation relief for a quarter, two weeks off of a quota, or maybe it's switching from monthly to quarterly, whatever. You wanna have those in your pocket. So you're doing informational interviewing late summer. Then in early fall, you're starting to think through your revenue plan for next year. And you're working — if you're in a RevOps seat — you're working with your CFO and your CRO to understand what the business needs to be successful next year. And how does the revenue have to change? Are we launching a new product? Do we need high attach rate there? Do we have to move into enterprise? And you're figuring out what the business needs and then you're coming up with, okay, what are the levers of the comp plan? How much coverage do I need from a quota perspective? You're doing a lot of that work in like September, October. And then ideally come November, December, you're actually rolling out the plan to the team, getting them enabled, answering questions, having feedback so that when they show up on the door on January fifth, they have their comp plan in hand. They're ready to run. They're not waiting till January twenty third to get the plan and floating for three weeks, which is just wasted time. The one thing I will say that's helpful in this is if you're a RevOps leader listening — RevOps leaders always say, I wanna be more strategic, and I wanna work on larger, meatier problems. There is no better problem to take with both hands than comp planning. It is cross functional. The CEO cares about it. The CFO cares about it. The CRO cares about it. It's mathematical. It's a very packaged problem. You can present it to the board very cleanly. If you're looking for this strategic thing to show that you do more strategic work than systems admin work, raise your hand and say, I want to captain alongside these other people the comp planning process, and I wanna take the lead on that ultimately.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's great for internal exposure as well. Because you actually talk with people across the entire organization. So if you do a good job — and I think that's the requirement here — but if you do a good job, I think people will look at you differently because ultimately you touch the office of the CEO, you talk with the individual reps, you touch the CRO, the frontline managers, the finance team. I mean, great touch points in general.

Ryan Milligan: And now is the time to say, is the comp plan doing what we want it to do? The thing about this RevOps being strategic that people forget is it's not like the CEO sitting there saying, okay, how do I get Beth to be more strategic? It's Beth's responsibility to say, is the comp plan doing what we want? That's a really good packaged problem today — to say, is the comp plan doing what we want it to do? If not, go to your CRO, CFO, CEO and say, hey, I was doing some analysis of the comp plan. Looks like we're trying to motivate this, doesn't look like we're doing it super well. Would you be open to some ideas about how we can make some changes? Maybe talk to some teams in the market for what they're doing. Let me come back to you with some proposals. Like, that's a really packaged project you can do really well.

Janis Zech: Yeah. I mean, I think board reporting, comp planning, annual planning — all these touch points where you have multiple stakeholders, C-levels, VPs cross functionally in a room — once you do this regularly, whether this is reactive or proactive, you'll earn that seat at the table. Nobody will give it to you. You have to earn it, and you have to basically deliver on things that really change the business, and comp planning encompasses one of those. I'm curious before we jump into some specifics on what behavior comp can drive — obviously there's this whole discussion around quota attainment and then also what's the gap to the revenue goal. Right? So typically there's a gap. What are the typical numbers you see, and what do you think are best practices there?

Ryan Milligan: So the tried and true message was eighty percent blended dollar attainment for your revenue plan. That's what was the message for a very long time. I personally like to have a narrower gap than eighty percent. My thesis is I wanna run the smallest, most high performing teams possible that are rewarded for what they're doing. So I tend to like to be closer to ninety percent personally. Now that puts you at a little bit of risk if team members leave, you know, some attrition or what have you. But my message always in that regard is you have some team members leave, so you have more of an opportunity. I mean, there are quarters where we as a business have had to be a hundred to a hundred and twenty percent quota attainment to hit our revenue plan. And I'm fine with that because my reps are making a lot of money. They're happy. We've been as a business a hundred percent blended quota attainment eight of the past nine quarters. And so I've been very focused on keeping teams really small. But I tend to advise, like, ninety percent gives you a little bit of coverage. I like a tighter gap because I wanna keep reps engaged and happy. And I really think that you're gonna start to see more orgs with smaller and smaller sales teams closing more and more revenue on a per person basis. I mean, that's the whole promise of AI — it's how do we automate all the non-selling stuff so reps can close more and more deals. We've seen that in our own business. We've tripled our ARR per rep over the past three years, and it's basically been, hey, we've raised our attainment pretty dramatically, we have had a narrower team, and it makes the comp plan even more important because you have less people to spread the comp plan over. So you have to be very laser focused on what your comp plan is trying to get these people to do. And then if you think about a lot of these AI startups, they're talking ten, fifteen x quota to OTE ratios where a rep making two hundred grand is closing three million a year. You know, that's where you even get more compressed in the importance of your comp plan as well.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think obviously we are kind of with Weflow on a journey to automate all non-selling activities and then provide deeper insights and AI workflow orchestration. So we see this across the board — that there's a focus on less but more productive salespeople. I think that would have been my next question. Harry Stebbings had, I think, an eleven laps CRO on the podcast talking about — I think it was like a ten x or twenty x comp to quota ratio, right? Like two million to like two hundred k or something. Like, I think it was ten x. Is that something you're seeing more and more of?

Philipp Stelzer: Sorry, sorry to jump in. Like, because there's this world, and then there's the world of RepVue that has, I think, quota attainment tracking on forty five percent attainment right now or forty six percent. Right? So the majority of companies are actually not in that eleven laps world. Right? And I think that is the reality in SaaS today. But I'm just curious what you're seeing because you see so many different data points there.

Ryan Milligan: Yeah. We're starting to see two things. I think we're starting to see more orgs understand that fifty to sixty percent blended attainment is doing nobody any favors. Right? It's not doing the reps any favors. It's not doing the business any favors. You're paying overhead costs for a bunch of people who are not performing. They're not happy. And so we're starting to see more and more businesses right size their team size and start to build around the smaller group of people who are driving the revenue for the business, and they're starting to bring that into their planning. Right? And I think this has just been the reaction to the ZIRP era where sales teams — it was basically, we're gonna grow infinitely by dragging eighty percent attainment across all the cells and revenue will grow and grow and revenues will grow and be like, no problem at all. And so I think we're starting to see that correction. I think that paired with the superstar quota to OTE numbers — I think I'm seeing more teams say, let's just get our attainment in a really healthy spot, and let's just make sure that we're feeling good about blended team attainment. And then let's layer in AI to try to make these teams more efficient. We're on that second part of that journey internally at QuotaPath and a number of our customers are. But I'm also, to your point, still talking to some orgs who have forty two percent blended attainment. And so it's like, okay, well, let's just get the right number of people and the right people in the seats to be successful for you. Let's get some wins under the belt there, and then we can layer on how do we make a per rep even more efficient.

Janis Zech: Like from a behavior perspective — what are the key behaviors you wanna drive with a comp plan? What are things that you see have the most impact on a business?

Ryan Milligan: This tends to be pretty business dependent, I will say. I think the first thing you need to know is what does the business need to do to be successful this year? I think in terms of the shape of the plan, you want a core quota with — it's a piece of topping rule — two, maybe three things. I tend to like two. Deal level mechanics that accelerate what a rep can earn on a particular deal. So you have a quota and you have accelerators for blowing out your number. Right? That's great. So you want a very clear "here's your quota." I typically recommend the quota period be the shortest time in which someone can reasonably close five deals, because that's enough variance. If you're closing five deals a year, put them on an annual quota. If you're closing ten a quarter, put them on a quarterly, so on and so forth. So you have a core quota, and that quota has accelerators for over attainment, uncapped. Right? So you don't wanna cap commissions. You never wanna make it so that someone doesn't have a reason to close the deal today. They should always wanna close the deal. What are the accelerators? So typically we tend to see orgs — zero to a hundred percent attainment, they tend to pay one rate. Sometimes they'll pay — you have to get over some sort of hurdle to earn your full rate. So maybe zero to fifty percent attainment, you earn half your rate. And then once you're at fifty percent, you earn your full rate, typically applied retroactively — like fifty one to a hundred percent. What I don't like is cliffs. I'm not a fan of cliffs — zero to fifty percent, you earn nothing — because you could be at fifteen percent at the end of the quarter and have a deal that gets you to forty seven and a half percent. And that's a big deal for the business, but you have no incentive to close it because you're gonna earn no money on it. And realistically, I think if you have a rep who's sub fifty percent attainment for multiple quarters, you're probably exiting them from the business. And so the comp plan shouldn't be the mechanic to exit someone from the business in my opinion. So you have zero to fifty percent, maybe a half rate or maybe full rate, fifty to a hundred percent their full rate as well. And then typically we see like two, maybe three accelerator bands. So like a hundred to a hundred and twenty five percent, one twenty five to one fifty, one fifty plus. What you wanna be careful of is you wanna make those accelerating bands — and you typically accelerate your rate like twenty percent from a hundred to one twenty five, accelerate your rate to like thirty, forty percent for one twenty five to one fifty, and then something similar on the upper band. The one thing you wanna make sure is those bands of acceleration have to be actually achievable. So there's nothing more demotivating than everybody's at sixty four percent, but if you hit two hundred percent of your number, you're earning some crazy rate. It's like, that's just insulting to your team. Right? So make them bands that at least somebody's hitting every quarter, so it's reasonable and stretch achievable. So that's kind of the core mechanics. And then you wanna have typically two deal level accelerators that tell a person this deal is better than this deal for the business. And they tend to be the things that the business really cares about. So let's say I wanna move into the enterprise. We've been at a ten k average contract value across our customers, and we need to get to twenty five k average contract value by the end of the year. We want the same number of customers, but we want them to be bigger. Cool. With that in mind, your marketing plan should accelerate for large pipeline. So if they book a demo that is fifty k or more, they should get extra percentage on that. If a rep closes a deal that's fifty k or more, they should get a deal accelerator. Because what people forget is that closing one fifty thousand dollar deal is markedly, markedly harder than closing ten five thousand dollar deals. There's more mechanics, there's more interpolitik, there's a lot of stuff that happens. And so you want an oversized emphasis on the value to the business of closing that one fifty thousand dollar deal. So that's an example. And then maybe you give your account management team an accelerated rate for renewing larger customers. And so everybody is rowing in the same direction. Your BDRs, your marketing team, your AEs, your AMs all care about closing larger deals. And that will shift the average contract value of your business up because everybody will be spending more of their energy closing these larger deals. That's an example that I would say.

Philipp Stelzer: Yep. Yep. So, like, I don't have a lot of experience with building comp plans — Janis has a lot more experience. So I'm just gonna recap this from my perspective as a complete newcomer, and you can just correct me if I got anything completely wrong. So, okay, some core principles. Right? You basically wanna tie the pay — so the compensation plan — to the strategic outcome that the business is actually going for, not to direct activity. That's maybe more an SDR topic. Okay. So then you wanna keep it simple. So reps should be able to calculate their own compensation. Right? So if you basically present them the comp plan, they should be able to do a kind of clueless test — they should be able to tell it back to you. Really understand it. Right? It should be transparent. Then third, you should basically consider it a dynamic thing. The core fundamentals, those should be clear, easy to understand, but then accelerators, kickers, and stuff like this — be open minded to change them at least on a quarterly basis. I think starting out with changing the comp plan monthly is probably not a good idea, but yeah. Okay. And then typically, right, what you wanna do is you wanna reward a mix of growth and retention. But really, if they have to make a choice, then you wanna have one clear outcome. Like, for example, your last example of the fifty k deal. Right? Like, hey, you have five k deals or ten k deals, you have one fifty k deal — you kind of wanna incentivize towards the fifty k deal that is more strategically important. Yeah. Those were like the four summaries so far.

Ryan Milligan: Those are the major mechanics. I mean, ultimately, you have a board meeting and you say, this is what we're gonna do to be successful this year. And so when you've had that board meeting, you should be able to go back to each member of your team and say, this is what we told the board. We're moving to the enterprise, and here's why each of you are gonna be motivated to make that move with us. BDRs are gonna get more for booking enterprise deals. AEs are gonna get more for closing enterprise deals. AMs are gonna get more for renewing enterprise deals. This is the shift. And so you have to figure out — is it larger contracts? Is it longer term? We see a lot of people think about longer term. We see multi year versus single year, for example. We see a lot of people think about testimonials — if they agree to doing a case study or a testimonial, maybe you're trying to build your brand in a new market. We see a lot on product adoption. So if they buy product B or they bundle both together, we'll give you a rate. It's basically what is the thing that the business really needs that is the narrative, so that they feel aligned to that narrative. The other thing I will say is make your accelerator — if you're testing your ability to change behavior — way larger than you think. Right? So the fallacy that I tend to see is I earn ten percent on a one year deal and eleven percent on a two year deal. Right? And basically, that is not enough of a rate bump to have me overcome the objection challenge of a two year deal versus a one year deal. And you'll see a lot of people actually earning less on a dollar because maybe they discount a two year deal on average like twenty percent. So I'm earning ten percent more on something I'm discounting twenty percent. So I'm actually earning less in my pocket on a two year deal than I am on a one year deal. I see people running those kinds of challenges all the time. So the reason I like to narrow the number of accelerators is spike the accelerator — grow the rate fifty percent just to see if you can actually change the behavior — and you can run these experiments. So an example is when I took over the sales team here at QuotaPath, we were primarily in one year contracts. And it was important for us from a revenue retention perspective because we spend a lot of time in implementation with our customers and it's packaged into our pricing, and so we give a lot of value upfront. And so we were having margin challenges by giving a lot to customers for one year deals where mechanics are changing their business and they leave us after a year. And so we said, hey, for us to be able to deliver this more durable value, we need these to be in two year contracts. And so my reps were like, I don't know if people are gonna be able to buy these for two years — push back, what have you. I said, cool. I'm gonna grow your rate for a quarter. I will bump your rate seventy five percent if you close two year deals, and all for one quarter. And I went to our CEO and I said, hey, I wanna do this test. Here's the budget. Here's the math of how much we're gonna spend on this test. If it's like worst case cost scenario, but here's what would happen. We went the next quarter from fifteen percent to eighty percent of our deals in two year deals. They stopped offering one year. They didn't present it. They didn't show side by side. And now we are a two year deal business. It's a two year contract. And so we ran that spike, and I told them, look, take a bunch of money from the business — you beat the comp plan, kinda thing. I told them this is a short period thing. Let's see if it can change your behavior. Run a short spike, price it. We ran that. It totally changed the shape of the revenue for a quarter. And then we said, okay, now we're gonna taper this down to a more durable cost perspective for the business. And so run these spikes to see if you can change the behavior. And if you can, then you can roll it into the core mechanics of the plan. But the worst thing to do is run an accelerator, have it not change behavior, and now you're just paying more money for the same behavior you have.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Yeah. No. I really like it. I mean, I think also — I don't know what your experience is — but I think if you communicate that to the team, hey, look, this is what we want, we're gonna change the comp plan accordingly, we're gonna limit this for, let's say, one quarter, you have the opportunity, this is uncapped or whatever the setup is there. And then people know. Right? And they understand, okay, this is an opportunity for me if I actually change my behavior to earn a lot more money. So am I gonna tap into that opportunity or not? But I think that's sort of how I understand you.

Ryan Milligan: Yeah. Absolutely.

Philipp Stelzer: Yeah. I think it's fair. Right? Like, you