Conference ilbbak::us_sales_service

    Hi Brian,
    
         Let me see if I can help you with the multitude of issues raised
    in your note. As you are aware, your Account Group's sets have two
    types of customers. Those that you "blue-line" manage for an Industry
    Account Portfolio where you receive certs credit only for the orders
    your bring in from them.
         The other type of customer included in your sets are those that
    you manage blue-line AND red-line.  In other words you get the certs
    credit AS WELL AS the revenue. The revenue the sets receive from these
    types of customers is what effects the set P&Ls.
         The AMIDs you refer to as belonging to your sets should only be
    the type of customer that you receive both certs AND revenue for. The
    AMID reference file keeps track of AMID set assignment and yes we have
    99% of our existing customers assigned to AMIDs and 98% of AMIDs
    assigned to sets. Steve Carroll @264-0367 can provide you a copy of
    the AMID reference file which is updated weekly.  Steve will also take
    requests for AMID changes via an established procedure also available
    from Steve or the AVP Coordinator on staff to your AVP ( in your case
    it is Roy Wicklund).
         The Account Workbench utilizes the AMID reference file in most
    of the available applications. If you find a discrepancy in a report
    you may want to review the AMID refernce file to ensure the revenue
    you feel you should be receiving can get there through an accurate
    AMID reference file.
         You are also correct that the AMs should be forecasting their
    total business, both their certs only customers and their revenue and
    certs customers, but keep in mind that the workbench will today only
    give them performance reporting on their, revenue only, customers.
    
         I also applaud your efforts to keep the reps focused on selling,
    not internal reporting, but they should not even be concerned with
    the items discussed.  Sales reps are measured on certs only and the rep
    receives certs for both types of customers and shouldn't care which
    type of customer it is.
       
    The rep should not be concerned about their managers revenue metric,
    but should be focusing on customer satisfaction and bringing in as
    many orders as possible based on Digital offering the best solution
    to their needs. AMIDs and revenue verses certs only do not enter into
    a sales reps PPP.
         If you continue to have questions or need assistance in
    straightening out your sets AMIDs please call me and or Steve Carroll.
    
    Regards,
    Sue
    
    

Susan,

Thanks for the feedback.  With the implementation of the Zip + 5 and SIC
code tables the vast majority of our AMID problems have been solved.  The 
remainder are accounts that are in the wrong set within our group and the
few accounts we are waiting to have transferred to our group from another
group within the Eastern States.  I feel confident that Steve and our Finance
people will work this out.

Re: selling effort
Thanks once again and the sales reps are definitely focused here on certs
from all accounts.  However this does bring up an interesting question we
have regarding the Account Set Manager's PPP.  ;Here is the scenario...

One of our Account Set Managers has an account in his portfolio that has
locations in Illinois.  He has not given budget and/or expense targets
to anyone in Illinois for the purpose of covering that portion of his 
account.  Approx. one month ago, a rep in Illinois closed a piece of 
business with that account's Ill. location and certified an order.  It 
of course, showed up on the Account Set Manager's account workbench activity
both for certs and revenue (which is what we expected).  However, it hasn't
shown up on his SMR reports to date.  The question is "Should the local
Account Manager, because he owns the AMID number, get SMR credit for this 
sale?"

Our local SMR rep is pursuing an answer through that organization but I was
wondering if you could give me a sense of how NMS was designed to address this
issue?

Thanks,
bl

    re: 56.2
    
    Brian,
         No, the local AMs that "owns" the AMID for the business booked
    in Illinois does not and should not see the SMR credit for that sale.
    The local AMs should as you said, see the certs and revenue for that
    AMID  in the Account Workbench, but the Illinois sales rep and her
    manager should and will receive the SMR credit as that is where the
    business booked. NMS uses the eventual revenue from the Illinois
    booking to impact the local AMs set P&L.
         Please give me a call if you'd like to discuss further or
    enter additional questions here and I will be happy to address.
    
    Regards,
    Sue

    
    I've run into an issue that I believe is a problem with NMS, and this
    seems to be an appropriate place to try to get it resolved.  However,
    let me state up front that everyone involved is trying to do the right
    thing for both the customer and Digital.  
    
    I sell to a large "blue line" account in AZ.  I recently closed a sale
    for a 6430 that had been sitting in my Account Set's (nee Unit's) Rotcon
    inventory.  I decided to sell the Rotcon because the customer needed it, 
    and I was trying to help get rid of some of our Rotcon.  For this my 
    Account Set and Account Group Managers were quite happy.  
    
    When we were trying to price the system, we used a price from one of the 
    OMS systems.  Apparently the listed price of 64XX systems has been rising
    recently, especially compared to 65XX or 66XX technology or used
    systems purchased through theRefurbished Equip.Group (REG).  For example, 
    the minimumly configured 6430's price was listed at approx. $600K.  A 
    6620, which is 2-3 times more powerful goes for about $400K, and a 
    6430 through REG goes for about $200K.
    
    The problem is that Operations is forced to use the listed price
    ($600K) as the base price, and allowance from that.  Since that price
    is not close to market price, we must allowance the price of our system
    to get it down to a fair market price.  Needless to say, a $400K
    allowance does not sit well with several people.  To make matters
    worse, the allowance shows up on my Blue Line manager's P&L, when the
    system was never in his account.  
    
    We need someone to direct the product group that sets the pricing for
    these essentially retired 6XXX systems  (61XX,62XX,63XX, and 64XX) to 
    realistically price them, so we don't hold the different sales 
    organizations hostage to this allowance issue.  I would not be surprised 
    to find out that some Rotcon is NOT being sold, because the cost centers 
    don't want to get hit with the allowance charges.  
    
    If anyone wants to talk to me about further details, send mail or call
    me at DTN 566-4867.
    
    Bruce     
     

    re. 56.4  Pricing for 6430 systems
    
    This is NOT a product management issue.  This is an Area Operations
    issue.  The US area did not raise the price of these older systems
    they simply did not LOWER these prices when new models of the
    VAX 6000 hardware were announced.  Their rationale was that they
    wanted to encourage customers to move to the newer equipment.
    
    I believe that the Area also sets your allowance policies.  Therefore
    I would recommend that you discuss this situation with your area
    operations contacts.
    
    Richard Raymond
    VAX 6000 Product Manager

    re: .4, .5
    
    I believe the concerns raised in .4 are very legitimate.  And
    .5's explanation - older technology prices not lowered in
    order to make newer technology even more attractive - are
    also legitimate.  But it is not clear that Area Ops is going
    to be able to change the situation via allowance policy.
    
    The same problem may very well exist with other product lines
    as well.  If so, a broader solution is called for.
    
    The sticking point seems to be the potential negative effect
    of doing very large (percentage) allowances.  If this is in
    fact a problem it will manifest itself in all cases when 
    our CLP is very high in relation to true market value.  Older
    technology pricing can be handled via refurbished equipment.
    A new model number with a lower CLP is established.  
    
    This pricing technique does not work for equipment being sold
    in the field.  And so I would be curious to know what objections
    would be raised to establishing a "field refurb" program in which,
    after appropriate refurbishment work in the field, a field refurbished
    model number could then be assigned to the equipment we would like
    to sell?
    
    I can actually imagine a number of problems associated with
    asset management accounting.  But I wonder if such problems
    would be insurmountable.
    
    If a field refurbished model number could be established for
    a piece of equipment, it would allow Digital to sell product
    that might remain unsold due to constraints which (it is alleged)
    exist under the current system.
    
    Joel
    

    This is a real problem out here with rotational workstations. I have
    had several pieces of rotation "sold" only to find out the account set
    manager would rather sell the newer model new rather than rotation (at
    exactly the same net price) because it looks better in NMS. 
    
    It doesn't help that we carry the rotation in a different cost center
    from the NMS P&L manager so they don't feel the pain of NOT selling the
    rotation.
    
    This issue does need to be addressed or we will end up with lots of
    old rotational equipment out here in the feild and no way of getting
    revenue for it.