• Have manufacturer requirements that their reps fill out CRM reports replaced the daily, weekly or monthly sales reports reps have faced for years? It appears so.
• Are these reports of any benefit to the rep or the manufacturer? Questionable.
• Do manufacturers read them? Questionable.
• Do they help reps sell better? Questionable.
• Do reps fill them out; should they fill them out? Debatable.
• What happens if/when a rep pushes back? Varied results.

As reps showed little reluctance to discuss this subject, these and other questions were asked and answered during the course of a MANAchat participated in by 31 MANA members earlier this year.

While the questions and answers that appear above are relatively simple, the answers that evolved from the three-day discussion beg some expansion and explanation.

By way of explanation, the subject for this MANAchat grew out of a number of communications to MANA concerning a growing trend among manufacturers who were requiring their reps to regularly fill out and submit information for the manufacturers’ CRM platforms. The tone of these communications with MANA is that such requirements represent a “growing trend and the percentage is hardly insignificant.” The primary question posed to MANA has been “What are other reps doing in the face of these requirements?”

Responses to that question varied, but a sampling follows:

“I recently had it out with another rep firm that gave in to these demands. I presently have five manufacturers that have signed up with Salesforce and created logins for reps. They have asked us to log in our opportunities and sales calls. I have taken a hard stance on this and have told them all ‘no.’ So far, I stay employed by all of them due to performance. In most cases, we report to our regional sales managers, and they input the data for us.

“My justification for following this path is time. My agency has a CRM (ZOHO) and I require my salespeople to keep it up to date, but I limit the extent to which we use the program. Companies get hung up on data entry and forget that our job is to get in front of the customers, establish relationships, find opportunities, qualify, and then close them. The more time we perform data entry, the less time we have to perform our primary job. If we add principal CRMs, which tend to be different software than ours, it reduces our time in front of customers.

“If you want to know my approach with my principals on this trend, it is simple — I tell them no, and explain what I have just laid out for you. Then I explain to them that if I am willing to update their CRM, I will also have to update my four other principals’ CRMs, along with mine. If they (meaning all principals) are willing to cut my quota in half and double my commission rate so I can stay in business, then I would gladly help them with their CRM. That request comes with silence as they think about how their demands will affect the bottom line.

“The other approach — which I have not used — is to bring these younger sales managers with their MBAs out into the field, where most of them have not spent much time, and show them what it takes to get them the sales that they need. I am sure that experience will prove effective also, but the companies that are requesting this information have not taken me up on that yet. No surprise. “

Losing Commissions

If that rep remains contracted with his principals, consider this from another rep: “I lost $100,000 in commissions because I wouldn’t provide the information my manufacturer wanted for his CRM platform. It was their requirement that their reps do that. They have since changed this policy, but in general, it all comes down to a need for more and better communication between reps and their principals.”

Then, there’s this from a rep who is a fan of CRM: “I have several manufacturers that use CRM platforms and I’ve got to admit that, in general, I’m in favor of communicating the information they’re looking for. What I’m not a fan of, however, is the sales manager busting your chops about regularly submitting that information.”

As an example, this rep described one situation he faces with some regularity. “I have one principal that I typically have orders totaling $2,000-$3,000. Now, this isn’t like you’re trying to track a $150,000 capital equipment order. He wants me to track multiple opportunities on these orders and it’s just not practical.

“I’ve got a number of customers with whom I have to renew their order every year. My process is that you send out the renewal notice and then you just have to chase them down. Naturally keeping track of these orders is beneficial to me. It allows me to see what’s coming up. But for these sized orders, it just doesn’t make any sense to put in every new opportunity.

“I think this all grew out of the fact that they contracted with a marketing company that put this process together. All together they’ve got about 32 columns of information that they’re looking for. I’m never going to use all this information that they’re looking to capture, and neither is the manufacturer. If it’s important, they’ve got to let me know what they and I are going to use it for.

“Now, they have told me that they use this information when they put together marketing information or email blasts, but when they conduct the next email blast, that will be the first one.

“My advice to other reps is simply to push back. Obviously, you need some sort of working relationships with your principals, but you’ve got to talk to each other before requiring the rep to put all this information in CRM. I know they’re looking for a more concrete relationship with their customers and for more sales. Yes, that’s what I want too. But we don’t need 32 columns of information to achieve that goal.”

The Time Concern

If these comments can serve as a starting point for a discussion about reps inputting to manufacturers’ CRM platforms, there’s more to the discussion according to what transpired in the course of the MANAchat.

The extent of reps’ concern was described by one rep this way: “Here’s the problem as I see it. Let’s say you have 10 lines and each one of them wants you to submit a call report or input to their CRM. Think about it for a moment: that leaves you with very little selling time. All it is is a nonrevenue-generating activity. My job as a rep is to concentrate on revenue-generating activity. At the end of the day, your salespeople tell your principals all they need to know about your activity level. What they’re looking for is some sort of an activity that shows them you’re working for them. I think it really serves as a magnet activity that lets them keep a finger on our pulse. Sales is more than enough to do that.”

As one rep already advised, reps should push back on what they consider as onerous requests. Basically, the situation was put into perspective by one rep who noted, “I’ve been repping four firms and over the years they’ve replaced their requests for call reports with the requirement that I input data into their CRM platform. They’re adamant about it and I simply don’t want to do it. I don’t get any value out of it. In addition, I’ve asked them what value they perceive, and they can’t answer me.”

When one of the rep chat participants heard that, he responded that when such a situation develops, the rep should go back to his original rep agreement. “Over the years I also have had several requests to fill out CRM reports. If I find that I agreed to that in the original rep agreement, then I’ll certainly comply. However, I’ve had luck in negotiating that out on the basis that the principal will receive needed information from me basically whenever they need it. But I’m not going to fill out a CRM for them. I have my own database that I always complete and depend upon.”

Adding to that advice, another rep said that whenever he receives such a request from the manufacturer, “I ask him for an employment contract because he’s asking for me to act as an employee, not an independent rep. (By the way, he can’t afford me as a direct employee). We’ve all got to be aware that there are clear boundaries between the status of being a direct employee and a rep — not to mention the possible repercussions with the IRS. Having said that, I’m always willing to provide my principals with needed information whether it’s by a text, email or phone call. But, in the end I’m not going to do the CRM work for them.”

Commission as Leverage

A slightly different approach was described by another rep who termed his response as “leverage.” “We have a fairly large portfolio of principals that we work with and some of them have asked for CRM input. We’ve been able to leverage that from a commission standpoint. We have some accounts that are high commission, but at the same time, they are high maintenance. If the manufacturer is adamant that we fill out the CRM reports for them, we’ll do it, but for a higher commission rate.”

Relying on the terms of the original rep agreement with the principal and using commission as leverage appear to be reasonable approaches when dealing with these CRM requirements. However, there can come a time — as already described by the rep who lost $100,000 in commission — when the rep could be at risk of termination for refusing to cooperate. According to chat participants, that’s when the wisdom of being proactive in terms of communication can prove to be effective.

“I have never been reluctant to share pertinent information about accounts with my principals. What I’ve found to be most productive is to simply communicate to them while I’m traveling from one call to another. Thankfully, advances in technology (e.g., text, email — not to mention the telephone) have made that very convenient. Having followed that practice, I’ve found that my principals have been very appreciative and as a result, they haven’t put any pressure on me to submit sales reports or data to their CRM platforms. It’s really just Backselling 101.”

In general, chat participants agreed that such a practice is effective and time-saving. It doesn’t detract from the rep’s face-to-face time with customers, while at the same time principals are kept up to date with customer interactions. According to one rep, “The time I spend being proactive and speaking with my sales manager discussing accounts is truly beneficial. So much more than filling out reports which I’ll never be convinced are read.”

One of the final comments from the MANAchat came from one rep who admitted that these requests are certainly growing in number and “as manufacturers become more and more sophisticated in their ability to communicate, these requests are going to proliferate. When it comes to CRMs, I’ve found that I have to take a firm stance on what I’m willing to do. In order to take control of the discussion I have to say ‘Mr. Manufacturer, what information is it that you actually want and need to capture from me? If you answer that question, I can facilitate the effort.’

“I’ve found that this approach changes the situation to one of truly understanding what it is that they want. Then in response when I make a proposal to the manufacturer, I let him know that I’m more than happy to export data on a spreadsheet from my CRM to his side. From there, he can import it to his site. Out of my 10 principals, I’ve had two take advantage of this offer. With the others, the subject has become a nonissue.”

Putting a cap on this discussion one chat participant advised, “To come to terms with this issue, there’s got to be open communication between reps and principals. Rep councils could play a role in facilitating this type of communication. “The rep council could conceivably identify reps’ needs on this subject and introduce a group approach to implement a procedure that works for both sides.”

This isn’t the first time CRMs have been discussed in Agency Sales magazine — and it won’t be the last. For additional information on this subject of CRMs, readers can find articles on the subject in the October 2021 issue (“CRM — Friend or Foe?”) and the October 2020 issue (“Aw, If Only This Software Had This Feature”).

MANA welcomes your comments on this article. Write to us at [email protected].

---

List of MANAchat Participants

MANA wants to thank the following members for their contributions to the “Dealing With the CRM Challenge” Agency Sales magazine article. These online virtual meetings create a platform where members exchange information on how to successfully operate their manufacturers’ representative businesses. Jack Foster, Agency Sales magazine editor, wrote the article using the information and knowledge these members provided during the MANAchats.

Thank you! We sincerely appreciate the time you took to participate in the MANAchats and particularly the information and knowledge you shared.

Keynae Agnew
Agnew Pacific Enterprises, LLC
Aliso Viejo, CA

Jason Goldis
Alexander Assocs., Inc.
Bloomfield Hills, MI

Bruce Howard
B. E. Howard Industrial Sales, Inc.
Chandler, AZ

Barry Brewis
Brewis Group, Inc.
Lake Oswego, OR

John Dincher
Design Components, Inc.
Palatine, IL

Jeff Jacobs
Industrial Products Sales, LLC
Cincinnati, OH

Rich Deering
Industrial Sales Associates
Indianapolis, IN

Keith Dennis
KeDen Industrial Sales & Marketing, Inc.
San Diego, CA

Tom Kitchin
Kitchin & Sons, Inc.
Richmond, IN

Sam Knight
Knight Sales Group
Bozeman, MT

Alan Lupton
Lupton Associates
Canandaigua, NY

Jeff Busse
OEM Associates, Inc.
Buffalo Grove, IL

Rick Pierce
Pierce Marketing, LLC
Dayton, OH

Tom Hoarty
Process Control Products
Burlington, MA

Stephen Fowler
Process Equipment Resources & Consulting
Bridgewater, NJ

Sid Ragona
Ragona Scientific
Pittsford, NY

Eric Farst
Rep Com International
Venice, FL

Justin Butler
Ride the Ridge, Inc.
San Marcos, CA

Owen Swift
Swift Scientific, LLC
Coventry, CT

Brian Bachman
Technical Metal Solutions, Inc.
Myerstown, PA

John Schneiderhan
Tempus Marketing, LLC
Clinton, NJ

Jennifer Jambrosek
The Whittemore Co.
Addison, IL

Ed Sweeney
Today’s Technologies
Dresher, PA

Jeff Gammage
Torero Industrial Sales
Mesa, AZ

Ryan Christian
Vic Myers Associates Corp
Albuquerque, NM

Russ Blanco
Viper Mechanical Marketing, Inc.
Winnipeg, MB