Wednesday, 10 April 2019

Prevent gross margin erosion when increasing Sales targets.



Avoiding a sting in the tail of increased Sales targets.

From a credit management perspective, there are two particularly challenging periods for anyone involved in determining and setting appropriate credit lines to facilitate business.

The first is in the case of acquisition, where one has to review acquired clients and respective lines, more so when there is client overlap and the second, when Sales are faced with increased targets and it’s this latter one I focus on.

It merits focus because this is one area and activity that is often mismanaged with dire consequences to both risk and more importantly, diminished gross margin.

If you sell to either corporate or SMB clients, you will generally have a designated number of accounts to manage. Let’s assume you have some thirty accounts; some will trade erratically, some may not trade at all currently and only a handful, perhaps 6-10 deliver consistent orders. Not only this, the bulk of your sales, (perhaps as high as 70%), are achieved through just three accounts.

Invariably, major accounts that deliver most revenue are more demanding of you when you try to sell them more. I’ll wager they also provide the lowest gross margin but volume and corresponding Vendor discount generates just enough to keep such margin above water.

Salespeople, certainly in IT Distribution, a sector in which account manager changes are too frequent, are creatures of habit. When targets increase, the immediate response is to go to those that trade regularly. Faced, for example, with increasing sales by say 10%, first port of call are  major accounts, those currently perhaps delivering the lowest gross margin yield. They may already be pressured with restricted credit lines but this cuts no ice, targets have to be achieved.
Buyers meanwhile, are astute, more so those who happen to be principal clients. An approach to increase orders will invariably meet with the response of “sure, but I’ll need something in return, better pricing, higher marketing co-op funds or a more generous volume discount”. A hard pill to swallow perhaps, but concern gets buried by the pressing need to hit target. The net result may be an increase in sales but an overall damaging further decline in gross margin return.

It’s quite something for a Distributor to have to sit and wait for Vendor volume rebates in order to determine final profit or indeed visible above the line return in trading with major clients. Competition is fierce but this constant repetitive focus of trade with major clients has undoubtedly contributed to downward Distributor margins over years.

There is a solution, indeed there always has been a solution.

Many years ago, having tired of the constant barrage for increased credit lines from Account Managers faced with increased targets, I set about devoting time and effort into working with them to show how best to achieve targets, this time using the full breadth and scope of their managed accounts. Sales Managers sadly had reached a point where they had little time to sit with their team or indeed train them in basic simple rudimentary research and selling techniques. Their time was spent updating spreadsheets.

The very first time I did this, I picked the most onerous persistent Account Manager and made arrangements to have him sit with me for an hour or so. I had in the meanwhile obtained readily available information on performance across his database. This included current sales, year to date sales, cumulative sales, gross margin by account and average gross margin. I also researched his current non trading accounts, irregular buyers, those with no credit line and had his total credit availability matched to current debt level.

He had 20 accounts assigned to him with just four major accounts contributing 78% of his sales. Their limits were restrictive in terms of accommodating more and gross margin achieved against these three averaged just 2.5%.
 He also had 9 active accounts where balances were less than 50% of credit line capacity. Some of these had healthy credit lines but clearly underused. The average gross margin returned by this group was however 7%.
The remaining 7 accounts had no credit limit. Four of these had traded historically with cumulative sales and margin evidenced and three, had no transaction history at all.

I took the three with no trading history or credit line. I showed him that all three merited a credit line and asked him why they were not trading. He replied that he had not had the time to look at them. I showed him their websites, nature of business and the profile of products supplied. His interest heightened.

I looked at the four accounts that had clearly been regular buyers in the past but which became lapsed accounts. I asked if he had called any of them. He said that he had called two of them but they bought from others because we could not match price and account manager changes pushed them away. He said this without even blinking!
I again showed him their websites, cumulative sales that had been achieved along with gross margin return. I also told him that up to 100K of credit was available against this group.

I took issue with the 9 accounts that were utilising less than 50% of their combined credit. His response was typical, “My notes showed these accounts were specked by previous account managers and opportunity was limited” he said. I once more followed the routine of showing him their websites, product portfolio and better gross margin yield of these accounts. I advised him not only were they using less than 50% of credit availability, I could add another 200K of credit and as a salesman, he should know that no business stands still and constantly changes; what they may had done two years ago is not what they now do. He looked sheepish.

I finally touched on his four top clients and showed him why credit availability was strained. I also showed him a comparison of gross margin return of just these four compared to three years prior showing a decline from 4%.

I assured him that if he dedicated time to his under- utilised credit availability and made the calls, I would provide the credit necessary for him to not only hit his 10% sales target but smash it with the bonus of a better margin return against sales achieved. He surprised me in truth in doing just that and what is more, he shared his experience with others in his Sales Group who then similarly wanted to have their database usage reviewed in similar fashion.

It is a sad reflection nonetheless that basic research and analysis of client buying habits across databases is seemingly no longer a function that Sales people or their managers have time for. It does however demonstrate how Credit can be an incredibly valuable business development tool; quite why it does not yet appear in any Credit job specification is bewildering.

I recall a Sales visit to a major client as the Company wanted to pitch for more of their business. This was a major risk client where gross margins were perilously thin, almost zero, where credit was fully stretched and risk was high and worsening. The pitch was three months sales at cost and a slightly higher volume rebate. Even this offer was turned down as others ‘gave more’ apparently. Unsurprisingly, the 200m turnover Reseller went bust some 3-4 years later causing quite a stir.

Chasing existing revenue streams for more when capacity is limited or restricted is folly. Invariably, if you target such sales singularly or repetitively, client demands on you will guarantee lower gross margin return. Seeking the best possible return against a client database often provides more than ample headroom to not only increase sales but make significant inroad to better margin yield.
It’s a simple and rewarding way of avoiding the sting in the tail of increased targets.

No comments:

Post a Comment