I've heard every incentive structure going. They all have their perks. But including some form of uncapped commission cannot be beaten.
That post got more engagement than almost anything else I've published on LinkedIn. 5,000+ impressions. The comments section was full of salespeople sharing the most unnecessarily complicated comp plans they'd ever been offered. It clearly struck a nerve.
The reason it resonated is simple. Compensation in building products sales is often where the disconnect between what companies offer and what top performers expect is widest. Get it right and you attract the best people, keep them, and align everyone's interests. Get it wrong and you lose candidates in the offer stage, or worse, you hire them and lose them within a year because the structure doesn't reward performance.
The base salary problem
Base salary is always the primary sticking point in building products sales hiring. Every time.
Candidates moving from a role they're comfortable in want to see an increase that justifies the move. That's reasonable. They're taking on risk. New company, new team, new product range, new relationships to build. If the base doesn't reflect that, they'll stay put.
The mistake I see most often from companies isn't offering a low base. It's assuming that market rate is enough.
Market rate gets you a market-rate candidate. If you want someone who's performing above average in their current role, someone who's delivering, who has relationships, who knows the sector, you need to offer above what they're already earning. Not dramatically. But enough that the move makes financial sense.
A candidate who's comfortable on $120K with strong commission isn't going to move for $120K at a new company where they have to rebuild everything from scratch. They need to see $130K or $135K to offset the risk. The maths has to work.
The wage structure trap
This is the most common compensation problem I see in building products, and it's rarely discussed openly.
A company has a senior salesperson who's been there for years. They're on a salary that was competitive when they started but hasn't kept pace with the market. Now the company wants to hire someone new at market rate, but that market rate is higher than what the existing person earns.
They don't want to upset the wage structure. So they lowball the new hire to keep internal parity.
This is exceptionally common. And it creates a lose-lose situation. The new hire starts on less than they're worth, which affects motivation from day one. Or the offer gets rejected and the role stays vacant. Meanwhile, the existing senior person is probably already underpaid and at risk of leaving.
The solution isn't to underpay the new hire. It's to address the internal pay gap. If your senior person is below market rate, fix that. It costs less than replacing them and far less than losing a good candidate because you couldn't offer a competitive package.
Uncapped commission is non-negotiable
I'll say it plainly. If you want to attract and retain the best salespeople in building products, your commission structure needs to be uncapped.
Here's why.
It's simple and transparent. You perform, you earn. No confusion. No fine print.
It removes the ceiling on effort. Why would anyone sprint past the finish line if there's nothing on the other side? A cap tells your best people that their effort has a limit. That's the opposite of what you want.
It attracts hunters. The salespeople who want to earn are drawn to uncapped structures. The ones who don't care about commission probably aren't the ones you want in a growth-focused role.
It aligns everyone's interests. Company wins, employee wins. Every dollar of commission paid is backed by revenue generated. It's not a cost. It's a share of the upside.
It retains top performers. The companies with uncapped commission are the ones giving their best people golden handcuffs. Why would a top rep leave a role where they're earning well above their base every month?
Some companies fear paying too much. But the truth is that if you're paying someone a lot in commission, they're earning you significantly more. That's how the maths works. A salesperson earning $60K in commission on top of their base is delivering multiples of that in revenue and margin.
Common commission structures in building products
There are two main approaches I see.
Commission on all sales from dollar one. A small percentage paid on every dollar of revenue. Simple. Predictable. The rep knows exactly what they'll earn based on what they sell. Works well for account management roles where the focus is maintaining and growing an existing book.
Commission on sales above budget. A target is set and commission kicks in once the rep exceeds it. The percentage above budget is usually higher than the dollar-one model. Works well for BDM and growth roles where the expectation is to build revenue beyond a baseline.
Both can work. What matters is that the structure is clear, the targets are realistic, and the commission is uncapped above the threshold.
Bonuses alongside commission. Quarterly and annual bonuses have their place. Team bonuses can encourage collaboration. Annual performance bonuses can reward consistency. But they should sit alongside commission, not replace it. Bonuses are a reward for outcomes. Commission is a driver for activity. You need both.
Don't overcomplicate it
The most common mistake companies make with compensation is complexity.
Multiple tiers. Accelerators and decelerators. Product-specific rates. Team multipliers. Quarterly resets. Thresholds that change mid-year.
If a salesperson can't work out what they'll earn on a good month without a spreadsheet, the structure is too complicated. And if they can't calculate it, they can't be motivated by it. The whole point of commission is to drive behaviour. If nobody understands how it works, it drives nothing.
The other sin is moving the goalposts. Changing targets mid-year. Restructuring the commission plan after a strong quarter. Capping a structure that was advertised as uncapped. These things destroy trust faster than almost anything else in a sales organisation. Word travels in building products. A company that moves the goalposts gets a reputation, and that reputation makes the next hire harder.
Keep it simple. Keep it clear. Keep it consistent. Then leave it alone.
The total package matters
Commission is the headline, but the total package determines whether a candidate accepts or declines.
Car allowance. Standard in building products is around $20K. A good allowance is $25K. If you're offering below standard, you need to compensate elsewhere or you'll lose candidates who are getting more in their current role.
Fuel card and tolls. Increasingly expected. If your reps are driving 30,000+ kilometres a year visiting sites and customers, covering fuel and tolls is a basic cost of doing business. If you don't offer it, factor it into the car allowance or the base. Either way, the candidate is doing the maths.
Phone and equipment. Give your staff what they need to be successful. Laptop, phone, apps, CRM access. If you're providing the phone, you keep the number and data when they leave. If you'd rather they use their own, provide a phone allowance. Both approaches work. The more flexible you can be, the wider the net you cast.
Tools and technology. This is a growing expectation. A good CRM. Access to AI tools. Route planning software. Data subscriptions. Anything that makes their role easier and more efficient. The companies that invest in their salespeople's tools tend to retain them longer.
The flexibility principle. With any part of a package, the more flexible an employer can be, the higher the likelihood they'll attract a broader range of candidates. Not everyone values the same things. Some want maximum base. Some want maximum commission potential. Some want the car sorted. Some want flexibility on work location.
Where you can flex without breaking the budget, flex. It widens the net.
What happens when you lowball
Two things.
Most of the time, the candidate rejects the offer. You've spent weeks on the process, you've found someone good, and you lose them over $10K or $15K. Then you start again. The cost of restarting a search almost always exceeds the cost of offering a competitive package in the first place.
When a lowball offer does get accepted, it's never a good way to start a working relationship. The candidate knows they're being underpaid. They accepted because they needed the move, not because they felt valued. That resentment sits there. And when a better offer comes along six months later, they're gone.
If a candidate is choosing between two roles, a lowball makes the decision easy. For the other company.
Pay fairly. Start the relationship right. It's cheaper in the long run.
Salary benchmarking
Most companies in building products have a rough idea of market rates. But "rough" isn't always enough.
The common gap is that companies know what they've historically paid for a role but don't know whether the market has moved. Salary expectations shift. What was competitive two years ago might be below market today.
If you're hiring for a sales role and you're not sure where the market sits, ask your recruiter. That's part of what a specialist recruiter does. I can tell you what candidates at a given experience level are expecting for base, commission, and total package across Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane. That data is based on real conversations with real candidates, not salary survey averages from two years ago.
Going into a hiring process without current salary data is like going into a negotiation without knowing the other side's position. You'll either overpay or, more commonly, offer too low and lose the candidate you want.
Quick checklist for hiring managers
- Expect to pay above current market rate if you want someone who's performing well in their current role. Market rate gets market-rate candidates.
- Address internal wage gaps before they force you to lowball external hires. Fix the structure, don't compromise the new hire.
- Uncapped commission. Simple, clear, aligned with performance. Don't cap effort.
- Keep commission structures simple enough that a rep can calculate their earnings on a good month without a spreadsheet.
- Don't move the goalposts. Changing targets mid-year destroys trust and reputation.
- Car allowance of $20-25K is standard. Cover fuel and tolls if reps are on the road. Provide the tools they need.
- Be flexible where you can. Different candidates value different components. Flexibility widens the net.
- Don't lowball. It either loses the candidate or starts the relationship on the wrong foot.
- Benchmark salaries before you go to market. Ask your recruiter. Use current data, not historical assumptions.