Janis Zech: Hi, and welcome to another episode of the RevOps Lab podcast. I'm here with Philipp, and our guest today is Dana Therrien. That's all names. What's your name, Dana?

Dana Therrien: It's very — it's Dana Therrien, but you're very close. It's good.

Janis Zech: You know what? Prophecy. You said you were gonna screw up my name, so — that's good. I tried to make my promise true, right? Like, we're very good at forecasting. So look. So thank you for joining. I mean, before this, I typically don't introduce people, but I scrolled through your LinkedIn profile. And what I found so interesting is that you were actually in operations and actually sales operations, revenue operations before that was a thing. And that was around two thousand. That's not me saying like you're old, right? Like, don't get me wrong, right? Like, you're very experienced, but like, I mean, yeah. Tell me a bit more about you.

Dana Therrien: It was. I had finished my MBA at Boston University and I didn't have any specific sales experience on my background. One of my peers had mentioned that to me. And I'm a former military officer. I've always gravitated towards strategy and planning. And I didn't really want — I kind of carried a bag in the past, but I didn't want to go back to carrying a bag. And there was an opening — back then it was with Lucent Technologies and they called it the chief operating officer for the Northeast region. So I thought that that sounds like a pretty cool title, COO. But it really was the beginning of sales operations, and I was responsible for strategy and planning and compensation design and territory and quota management and forecasting and the business end of sales. And I started in two thousand and one, and I've been there ever since.

Janis Zech: Yeah. And then what are some of the highlights of what you've been doing so far?

Dana Therrien: Well, I started at Lucent Technologies. We had spun off into a company called Avaya, which is still out there and kicking. But then I just started to move around through different companies, eventually ended up in a SaaS market. I think I sort of credit Akamai. That's where I did my first foray into SaaS based businesses. They really created a lot of the standards that I would consider to be used to run a SaaS based company. Akamai, you can think of them as being a superhighway for the Internet. You have all these different Internet service providers out there battling with one another and throttling each other's traffic all the time and playing games. And Akamai sits on top of that. And they sold a subscription to it. So as the Internet was starting to grow and you had retailers starting to get on there and huge bit pushers, they call them — like news organizations — they needed to assure the efficiency of their traffic. And then they were selling subscriptions to that. And they're still around — a multibillion dollar company. I still have a lot of friends over there. But from there, moved to a bunch of different companies. And then I got a little bit tired of that — I saw in sales and at the time revenue operations, you go in, you fix the compensation plan, you fix forecasts and you fix reporting. The CFO and the CSO hate each other. It seemed like repetitiveness to me. So I had an opportunity to go and work for a company called SiriusDecisions, where I was a researcher and an advisor on the profession that I just left. So I kind of felt like I get to be a college professor of my profession. And I did that for five years. At the time, revenue operations were starting to really evolve. And I was an evangelist for that. And then when I left, you have an opportunity to go to work for a lot of the different vendors that you are servicing in that capacity. And Anaplan was a platform. And I saw lots of companies spending money on individual point solutions. I thought it was a waste and they weren't really speaking to one another, so I came to Anaplan because I saw the value of the platform and working not just across sales, but also across the entire enterprise.

Janis Zech: And you've been there almost seven years and recently actually posted on LinkedIn your kids comp plan, and this is basically the topic for today. We're not gonna only talk about kids and comp, but we're definitely gonna talk a lot about comp. So what's the kids comp plan? I know it got like thirty thousand hits, so like, you know, tell us a bit more about that, and then we'll dive deep into comp planning today.

Dana Therrien: Yeah, when I was at SiriusDecisions and we were selling our service into CSOs and CROs, compensation was always a topic, and I had a lot of experience in it. I've been writing compensation plans for a very long time, but I never really went back and got the theoretical knowledge. So I went to an organization called World at Work, and it's like becoming a certified public accountant. Became a certified sales compensation professional, backfilled all the theoretical knowledge in it. So I have a passion for compensation and then, you know, Anaplan sells a compensation solution. But there's only so much you can talk about the theoretical aspects of compensation. It starts to become kind of boring. But all the principles are sort of applicable just in kind of governing yourself, figuring out what motivates you, what also motivates other people. So my wife and I, we don't have kids, but we have a nephew that spends every summer with us. So he shows up, nine years old last year, he just wants to sit on the couch and play video games and sit on his iPad and watch TV and I'm a very active person. We're outdoors every single day. I got sick of fighting with him about getting him off the iPad. So I created a compensation plan for him. I said, look, whenever you do a certain amount of exercise, whenever you do a certain number of chores around the house, when you act in a certain way, I'm going to give you fifteen minutes of screen time. And we would write it down on a spreadsheet and it just didn't have the same meaning because you couldn't see it and touch and taste it. So I went out and bought a bunch of golf tees and said, look, every one of these golf tees is fifteen minutes of screen time. We did that last summer. By the end of the summer, he ran a 5K with me and he was completely active outdoors all the time, still struggling with wanting to watch TV. He came back this year, you know, I get him in the same shape, still addicted to the iPad and said, let's dust this thing off. So again, we did the same program as last year, but I added a trip at the end of it. And all of a sudden, all of his friends in the neighborhood wanted to get in on the plan, too. I said, if you guys could get two thousand steps between the three of you, I'll take you on a trip wherever you want to go. We'll go to an Airbnb. There'll be an indoor pool. You guys will have a fantastic time. He was all about it. And what changed from last year to this year was he got really stingy about spending the golf tees on any kind of screen time whatsoever. It kills him to even think about it. So he hasn't watched television, he hasn't spent any time on his iPad outside of family time in two months now. So it's taking sales motivation and applying it in a different way because I hate micromanagement. I don't want to be responsible for governing someone's day. I don't think we should be responsible for governing salespeople's days, telling them who to call, when to call, how to call, how to speak. If you put the right incentives in place, just do it on their own. And most people are self motivated if they can just track their progress and their success. And I think you guys are selling a solution that gives people the ability to see whether what they're doing is working or not, so that they can do more of what works and less of what doesn't work. But yeah, you're right, it has thirty thousand hits on it now and I think it's a struggle that most parents and guardians have with their kids. Like, you don't want to fight with them. You want them to motivate themselves. So it worked like a charm.

Janis Zech: It should turn it into a business, really. So I have two kids. I can definitely confirm that with the older one. I've not yet tried the kids comp plan yet, but maybe — and yes, I think there's a business. Let's maybe dive into — right? So the question today really is, like, what can RevOps do to make comp a strategic lever? And so, I mean, you already alluded to this. Right? Like, I really love this. Like, you know, I hate micromanagement. Right? Like, I think it's really about, like, you know, the framework you set up. Right? So but as we know, this is very, very complicated, right? Like this has a lot of nuance, you can do a lot of things wrong. So from your point of view, right? Like, why do you think comp can be a strategic lever?

Dana Therrien: Well, because it really appeals to human motivation. And look, everybody likes to oversimplify the behavior of salespeople. They like to say they're coin operated. And if you just pay them on something they'll do it — it's not true. They're really more — they like self sufficiency. They like being the guardians of their own destiny. They're in sales for a reason because they want the ability to go out there and do that. But to a certain degree, they're also a little bit — they're gamblers. They like to take big chances that have big payoffs. And as long as they know that what they're gambling on or what they're taking their chances on could potentially pay off, they'll invest in it and do it. But if they don't think that the gamble is worth it, if they think that the game is rigged, that it's stacked against them, they won't quit playing the game — they'll quit playing the game for you. So they'll eventually go and find a company, they'll find an opportunity that's going to reward them for the risk that they're taking. And the way to do that is to ensure that it's simple, it's measurable, the goals are believable. In sales and revenue operations, we need to be able to sell the quotas to them, which means that we've proven that we understand the territory, the quotas, the accounts that they've been assigned, the opportunity in there, we've demonstrated to them that they have the ability to go out and do it. And then we give them solutions and the platforms and the tools that they need to be out there and go out there and do it on their own.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Love that. I love that. I mean, I think you've probably seen many, many different versions of this. And I think one place to start is, like, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and especially the ugly. So, you know, what are the common pitfalls you observe when, you know, setting up systems like this? Right? Like, what are the not to dos?

Dana Therrien: Well, I'm trying to think of an analogy that's going to be relevant. I mean, if you — let's just talk about the whole experiment of the United States of America. Right? We've only been around for like two fifty years. But we left countries that have been established for a very long period of time, for thousands of years. Lots of rules have developed, lots of regulations have developed, lots of taxes have developed, lots of things that would constrain productivity and entrepreneurship. America started over two fifty years ago with a clean slate. Nothing. Go out there and be a pioneer and do whatever you want to do. That's the equivalent of a startup. So a startup, generally there's no rules. The world is your oyster. Go out there and sell whatever you can, sell it wherever you can, and do whatever you want to do. There's lots of salespeople who are attracted to that pioneer spirit. They love it. And they make lots of money. But as companies start to mature and they start to go through the cycles, rules, lawyers, government agencies, whatever it might be that's going to restrain that start to appear. And you get overly complicated compensation plans. You've got five different quotas in there, and there's ten different ways to retire the quota. You can do it this way, this way, this way, but not that way. It becomes overly complex. It becomes disconnected from the strategy of the company, becomes burdensome. It kills entrepreneurship and it kills the sales spirit. So those most mature companies, the ones that have been around for a very long period of time — you know who they are. They have very complicated compensation plans, over engineered, over complicated. And there are certain salespeople that are sort of happy being in that because for the most part, they get fifty percent of their salary and they'll just continue to show up and they start to view their sales commissions as a bonus. So it's a long winded answer to say keep it simple and don't overregulate. And you'll reinvigorate the sales spirit inside of your company, and your salespeople will feel more free.

Philipp Stelzer: Yeah, yeah. I think what you also said before, right, to actually build the trust with them. So you actually can convince them, you can convey to them, like, hey, look, in the past, these were our goals. This was the attainment. I think it's like lots of things that come together. You have to build that culture. It's also about the leads that you give them, how you share those leads. So there's lots of things that pay into this, like, trust bucket. RevOps building the trust of sales. So sales trusts RevOps. And then when, like, a new comp plan comes up, there is not, like, this immediate reaction of, like, oh, they are just trying to, you know, rip us off, essentially, which I think, you know, quite frankly, will destroy the growth of the organization.

Dana Therrien: Great point. Yeah. And leads is not a small issue. Right? Because when you've got a CRO or CSO and their leadership team that's responsible for developing a sales team and also achieving the number for the year, they have a tendency to gravitate towards those people who have proven themselves in the past. So if you look at the quota distribution in most sales organizations, it has what I call a double bubble. So just think about that standard bell curve. You've got a lot of low achievers and you've got a lot of high achievers, but you don't have a lot of people in the middle. And the high achievers tend to be the ones that have been there the longest, because success breeds success. Their managers will get a new lead that comes through the door, and they'll give it to the people who have already proven themselves. And when doing that, you're discounting the new people that have come into the company, and they never get a chance to try to prove themselves, so they have a tendency to churn out of there.

Janis Zech: Yeah. No. That's a great point. Yeah. Love that. And actually, let's maybe, like, make it more specific. Like, so I'm curious, like, how you think about, like, when it comes to comp planning. Right? Like, how do you segment that? Because I'm sure there's, like, a certain way of doing comp planning for more like the AE, AM role, versus, like, stuff like the BDR, SDR track where you typically have more junior people just because this is a typical postgraduate start job. So, yeah, how do you differentiate there?

Dana Therrien: Well, there are rules to compensation design. The first rule is keep it simple. And the ways that you keep it simple is never have more than three performance measures, we call them, or quotas. Because people just can't focus on more than three things. And then when you're weighting those, typically you have a target incentive, which is the amount of at risk compensation a salesperson has. Never weight any of those three measures less than fifteen percent, because they just don't care what's less than fifteen percent. They'll write it off. And then keep the rules to all three of them very simple, because if you don't, they'll gravitate towards the one that has the highest chance of success, the one that's most simple. Now when it comes to designing compensation plans for different roles, you've got BDRs. Let's say you've got account executives, which are your hunters, and your account managers, which are your farmers. There's five different inflection points — actually six different inflection points — that happen during any sales process. The first one is opportunity identification, and then the second one is opportunity qualification. Those are the BDRs that are going out there and trying to figure out who's interested. The rule is that you want to pay salespeople at the point you want them to disengage from the process and move on to the next thing. So for an SDR or BDR, once they qualify that opportunity, pay them. Hey, you've got a qualified meeting with the person we've been trying to talk to. Compensate them for that so that they'll go out there and do that. Now there's schools of thought that say, well, they're quality meetings, maybe they should have some skin in the game, and pay them seventy five percent on the meeting, and twenty five percent if this thing turns into something. So that's a rational explanation. And then you have order creation, which is basically a booking. And then you have order realization, which is revenue recognition. And then you have cash collection, which is, you know, an accounting function. And then for the customer success, that's really about engagement. So for a BDR, you want to pay them on the meeting. For an account manager or an account executive, you probably want to pay them on the booking. But weight it differently for an account manager versus an account executive. You want your account executives to be higher risk tolerance. So you weight their target incentive between their base salary more like fifty-fifty. And the account manager, you want them to be more relationship oriented. You don't want them to always be selling. You want them to help engage. So maybe their compensation plan is seventy percent base and thirty percent variable. And then for the customer success rep, it's about engagement metrics. You know, how often are they using the platform? Have they been trained? Have they been certified? Do they continue to have conversation and dialogue with us? So when you get an opportunity to explain it in these simple terms, you don't need to go out there and spend a million dollars on a comp consultant. It really works that way.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Yeah. I love this — I mean, first of all, heuristics. Right? This is what I have to think of. Like when you say people can't think about more than three things and keep it simple and so on, right? This is what people do. This is how we are genetically fit to operate, I would say, for the majority since the world was created. And so one thing that I've been sort of wondering — how do you think about negative incentives? So one thing that we're doing a lot is activity capture. And some of the customers that we work with, they work with sort of positive incentives, and then some work with negative incentives when it comes to keeping good track of the activities that you're creating. So we do a lot of that automatically. But then sometimes you have to, like, manually log some of those activities. And then, again, some customers sort of, like, say, like, okay, if you don't do it, then you're gonna subtract this and this and this. And others are more like, oh, if you do all of it, right, if you achieve, like, one hundred percent logging of activities, then you get, like, I don't know, five hundred dollars bonus at the end of the quarter or something like this. Like, how do you think about this?

Dana Therrien: So it's a classic carrot or stick conversation, right — which is more effective. I tend to gravitate more towards the carrot than I do the stick. An example would be for the carrot — if you within these performance measures, these separate quotas that I mentioned, there could be incentives for achieving certain things. If you go out and sell five new logos, I'm going to give you ten thousand dollars. Or you could say, if you don't sell five new logos, you're not eligible for accelerators on any of your other performance measures. That's the stick. The stick gets people's short term attention, it gets them excited and moving in a positive direction, but they never really last for a long period of time. Like you're taking something away from me, it feels like a penalty. So I always gravitate towards the carrot method. And then you bring up another interesting point — what should be eligible for compensation and what should not be. I'll go back to the kid compensation plan. With my nephew, he has certain expectations. You're to take the garbage out. You're to make your bed every single day. You're going to act like a polite little human being while you're living in my house. Those are expectations. And within sales, there's expectations. You're going to log your activity. You're going to keep your pipeline updated, you're going to forecast accurately. You shouldn't compensate people for doing the right thing. But when you start talking about activity tracking, that's just laborious. It's stupid that we ask people to do it manually when there's so many automated ways of doing it. So you shouldn't have to compensate people for logging their activity, but you shouldn't also make them do it manually because there's technologies out there that will do it for you.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think that resonates a lot with me. It's like, I mean, if you wanna keep it simple, you don't wanna throw in, like, nitty gritty things that are just normal parts of the job description. I think the good thing is that, you know, obviously, all the tools in the space, including us, are automating a lot of the annoying stuff, which keeps people from selling, which I think used to be a lot more work than it is today. But I think the reality is — like, you should, you know, keep it simple. What I'm really interested in is, like, let's assume I'm an AE. I have a fifty-fifty comp plan. And then there's a strategic direction towards like, hey, we want to sell longer term deals and we want to have higher ASPs or ACVs. Right? Like, how would you do that from a comp perspective?

Dana Therrien: Yeah, it's a question that used to come up quite a bit when I was at SiriusDecisions guiding people. I've got large strategic accounts that I want to break into, but it's going to take me longer than twelve months. What should I do? I researched a lot. I tried a lot of different methods. The one that I think is the most effective is to remember those six different inflection points that I mentioned — the opportunity identification and the opportunity qualification? It feels very good to pay a BDR for those types of things, because it's sort of transactional. It doesn't feel very good to pay somebody who's making half a million dollars a year — two hundred and fifty thousand dollars base and two hundred and fifty thousand dollars target incentive — because they've got a background in healthcare and they can get you into the largest healthcare companies in the world, but it's going to take them two years to do it. And the equivalent of opportunity identification, opportunity qualification could be, I now have a relationship with the CEO of the company, and I'm having quarterly sit downs with them, and I've played golf with them five times. It feels very bad to pay someone two hundred and fifty thousand dollars for playing golf with the CEO. But that's the answer to the problem — to pay them for those leading indicators that are gonna eventually wrap yourself into a relationship. And it's just the way it goes.

Janis Zech: That is a — yeah. I mean, I totally get it. And I can see how many people now basically, you know, like, they're preempting the, you know, turning in the grave. I gotta take that, you know, today. Hold on. Okay. Great. So, I mean, do you think that's, like, realistic that companies do it? I mean, do you know companies doing it?

Dana Therrien: I've done it. You know, and I've guided other companies that have done it. So they do it. And you know what — a lot of big companies, and maybe it's the same in all countries throughout the world, are investing tens of millions of dollars in lobbyists just to go hang around in Washington DC and influence legislation. It probably happens in Germany.

Janis Zech: Sure. Yeah. Definitely it definitely, unfortunately, does. And, I mean, I think obviously, right, like, it's always in context of kind of segment and ASPs. Right? So I think what we are talking here is obviously enterprise. Right? And, you know, you don't do that for a deal that's maybe a hundred k. But if the deal is like, you know, two, three, four, five, ten, twenty, fifty million, right? Then certainly that is an approach which makes a lot of sense. Right? Would you agree? Or is that like not in context of any kind of deal size?

Dana Therrien: I think it really depends on the industry, it depends on the company, it depends on what your philosophy is. I mean, there's a reason why people spend tens of millions of dollars on lobbyists, because it pays off. It's a longer term payoff, but it also lasts for a long period of time.

Janis Zech: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, speaking about these types of work that sometimes are very hard to judge — how do you think about compensation planning for leadership roles? Sort of like the VP, director, CRO level. So you have a heuristic model for that as well?

Dana Therrien: Yeah, well, finance people always hate paying salespeople on deals that they view as less than profitable, or that don't meet certain profitability metrics. The higher up the chain you go, the larger the expectation is that the executive will be more aligned with longer term goals for the company. So the CRO of a company is probably not going to be on a pure compensation plan. They're going to have metrics that are tied to EBITDA and profitability and long term growth and maybe other metrics that the rest of the C suite is tied to. There's a desire often for finance to want to drive profitability metrics down to individual salespeople. But as they're going through sales cycles, especially the larger the deal, people — including the CFO of the company — start to focus less on the profitability, more towards the top line growth because they just want to land a three million dollar deal. But in the end, they want to go back and reconcile it to the compensation plan and say, look, the margin on this thing's only eight percent and we expect twelve. So we're going to ding you on the deal. Nobody was talking about dinging them on it when they were trying to get the big deal landed, but then they go back and reconcile it. So one of the rules is never pay somebody on something that they can't affect, or that you're going to take responsibility for as you're going through the sales process. So it's a bad idea to pay salespeople on margin, unless you can tell them what the consequences are of the pricing decision as you're going through the deal process. And the way companies have done that is they build these models with certain systems. And Anaplan is something that can accommodate this. You go in and look at all the discounts of all the deals that have been closed in the last five years, and you figure out what the discount ranges are. And then you start to grade them A, B, C, D or F. And A would be like a quarter point better than what you've done in the past. And then as you're going through the pricing cycle — if I can get another quarter point out of this thing, I can get a kicker in my compensation plan. That works like magic. When it doesn't work is when they don't know how much they get paid on margin until after the fact. So I would say the higher up the chain you go, the more strategic the compensation plan. The lower you go down, the more tactical it is — like pure comp.

Dana Therrien: You bring up a good point, Philipp, about the whole, like, let's just say manual tasks that we ask salespeople to go through. There was a guy at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, I was a big fan of his research — Maximilien Dvorakin was his name. He created a model, the classic four block grid, where you've got manual labor on the x axis, and then you've got cognitive on the y axis. So in the lower left, it would be like, let's just say manual routine. So that would be logging activity inside of a CRM system. You should be able to automate something like that. And then on the right hand side, it would be non routine but cognitive. So having conversations with people, your prospects, trying to figure out what's going on inside their business politically, culturally, where the funding is going to come from. That's where salespeople need to spend their time. So non routine cognitive — automate the routine manual stuff. And we've gotten pretty good at automating that stuff. What's changed in the last year, I think, is AI. Because AI is starting to encroach now on that non routine cognitive piece of it. And I don't know where that's going to end. You know, I grew up in a small paper mill town in Maine in the US. That paper mill is gone. It's all been automated and offshored — routine manual low cost. I don't know what's gonna happen to some of these professions where it's cognitive, non routine, and AI is encroaching on some of this.

Janis Zech: Yeah. I mean, obviously, we spend a lot of time thinking about that given that we're building Weflow. I think, you know, our view in the next two, three years, what's gonna happen is all these routine repetitive tasks that are happening will be fully automated and not just for the efficiency, but also being more effective. Right? So I think that's basically what's already happening. And to me, in my experience, that is dearly needed because, yes, you open LinkedIn and everybody's talking about AI SDRs and how great that works. But the reality is, like, you talk to the real people behind the scenes and it's actually not working that great. And so I think, you know, it's a question like, you know, is it a human in the loop experience, or is it an experience where it's just fully automated? Right? I don't think that there's a robot playing golf with the CEO of a pharma company in the next two or three years.

Dana Therrien: Yeah. And the pharma company CEO says, oh, man, you're gonna buy your software, you know?

Janis Zech: Yeah. So I think there's, you know, basically, you know, all the annoying stuff. And that is a lot broader if you think about the entire operating cadence a go-to-market team is going through than most think. And, I mean, comp is just one area, but there's many other areas. But maybe going back to the comp side. Right? Like, what I'm really curious about is — there's always this, like, okay, this is your quota. Right? Like, but how do you know what the right quota is? Like, sometimes, like, I wonder, like, you know, okay, what is your quota? So are you more like — do you think it should be just fully based on commissions? Or, you know, should there be, like, a fixed quota? Or what is the best practice model in your mind?

Dana Therrien: Well, the art of quota calculation, territory quota calculation and creation has gotten more sophisticated since I started way back in the early 2000s, right? It used to be last year's number plus growth. Now we have the ability to get a lot more sophisticated in what we do. And that's really what Anaplan helps to enable companies do. There's all this source system information that's available in all these separate places, like your CRM and your ERP and your workflow, or your marketing automation platform. We have the ability to consolidate and collaborate all that information to a single place. And then we start to build models on top of that. So we're looking for ideal customer profile, propensity to buy, wallet share, the opportunity, the buying signals, things that are going to happen within the next twelve months, and using all that data science to try to predict what's going to happen within these accounts. And then if you can do it at the account level, you can do it at a group of accounts, and then that becomes a territory. And then you have a productivity model that says a salesperson can do this much. So you take opportunity with capacity, and you match those two things together. And the salesperson has an expectation that you've done your due diligence on that, and that you're going to give them a realistic opportunity to hit that. So it's not as simplistic as it used to be. Salespeople's expectation is that you'll put the same level of due diligence into creating the compensation plan, their territory and their quota and account assignments as you did with the CRO of the company. So you need more calculations, more capacity, more calculation engines like Anaplan to help you do it.

Janis Zech: Yeah. And then basically, I mean, going back to this example — I think, Philipp, you brought up, right, with the lead and the kind of double bell curve where managers prioritize, right, like, the longest tenure, maybe highest win rate reps to give them kind of this thing. Right? Like, what's your view on territory planning then? Right? Because, obviously, that has a huge impact on the comp potential, the behavior of the reps. So, like, you know, are you into, like, equal territories, or do you think they should be kind of weighted based on past performance? Is there a common view or best practice you think is the right thing to do?

Dana Therrien: Yeah, so the way people would like to think of compensation is as a commission based programme, where you sell a certain amount and we give you five percent of everything that you sell. And that will work in the startup because you don't really know the value of the market, the value of the territories — the world is your oyster. And certain salespeople really like that. So you go off and do that. But when you get to a larger type of company where the market is known, the