A lower base and higher upside gets pitched, too often, as a concession. The line goes something like, “we can’t match the big guys on salary, so here’s more commission instead,” and it lands exactly as flat as it sounds. Positioned that way, it’s not an offer, it’s an apology with a number attached.
It doesn’t have to be that. A lower base and higher upside can be a genuine win-win, not a workaround, if you’re honest about what it actually offers both sides.
The win for the business isn’t just cheaper, it’s fairer
The appeal of a lower base isn’t only that it costs less. It’s that it ties more of the cost to the outcome. A big base paid regardless of results is a bet the business makes on a person before they’ve proven anything. A lower base with real upside shares that bet. The business isn’t betting alone, and neither is the salesperson.
There is also an important difference between a smaller company and an MNC when it comes to what that upside can look like. An established business may have carefully defined salary bands, commission structures and OTEs that have evolved over many years. A smaller business has more freedom to create something around the person and the opportunity.
That means it can potentially afford to pay very well when things go right. The ceiling on a low-base, high-upside plan should be higher than anything an MNC would typically offer for an equivalent role. That’s not a consolation prize.
The win for the salesperson is a faster path, not just a bigger number
Here’s the part that gets undersold.
For an ambitious salesperson, the attraction isn’t necessarily just the headline OTE. It’s how quickly they can get there, and what they have to do to get there.
In a larger organisation, progression can be tied to salary bands, annual reviews, internal promotion cycles and tenure. A salesperson may have a very good year, but still find themselves waiting for the next step in the structure.
A smaller business can be different. If the role is genuinely about building a market, opening new accounts or creating a new revenue stream, there can be a much more direct relationship between performance and earnings.
The honest pitch isn’t, “we can’t pay you as much as an MNC.” It’s, “we can’t guarantee you as much as an MNC, but we can give you the opportunity to earn more than an MNC would typically let you earn, if you deliver.”
That’s a genuinely different offer, not simply a cheaper version of the same one.
How to actually position it as a win-win, not a sell
Show the maths, don’t just describe it.
A candidate considering a lower base needs to see, in real numbers, what a mid-performer and a top-performer could earn under the plan. Put that alongside what the equivalent MNC role pays.
If the upside case doesn’t clearly beat the MNC number at a realistic level of performance, don’t pitch it as a win, because it isn’t one yet.
Build in a runway, not just a promise.
Nobody can live on pure upside for six months while a long commercial interiors sales cycle plays out. A short draw or guarantee period in the first few months isn’t a concession. It’s what makes the structure workable.
It gives the salesperson time to build a pipeline without taking all of the early-stage risk themselves.
Say the quiet part about risk out loud.
If the upside depends on things outside the salesperson’s control, be clear about it. If commission depends on project margins, collections or company cash flow, the candidate should know that before they accept the role.
The proposition only works if both sides understand what they’re actually betting on.
Pay for what the salesperson can influence.
This is particularly important in commercial interiors and Design & Build. If a salesperson wins the project but their commission is only paid when the project is completed and the client has paid in full, they are carrying some of the operational and financial risk of the business.
That may be a perfectly legitimate structure, but it needs to be reflected in the overall proposition.
The closer the link between what the salesperson actually controls and what they get paid, the more credible the “higher upside” argument becomes.
Where it breaks down
It stops being a win-win the moment the upside is theoretical rather than real.
If nobody has actually hit the top of the commission curve, say so. If the targets move every quarter, say so. If the milestones are vague, or the commission plan can effectively be changed at the company’s discretion, don’t pretend the candidate is being offered something they aren’t.
There is nothing wrong with asking someone to take a bigger bet. In fact, some of the best salespeople I know are very comfortable taking one.
But they need to know exactly what they’re betting on.
Seeing it in two sectors
Commercial Interior Manufacturers or Dealers.
A smaller brand or startup competing against an established MNC is unlikely to win a sales candidate purely on base salary. But it may be able to offer something much more interesting: the opportunity to define a category locally, build a new territory or team, or develop a proposition that doesn’t yet have an established customer base.
Acoustic solutions, modular products, collaborative workplace furniture, or a new category altogether could provide the salesperson with a much bigger or interesting opportunity than simply inheriting an established territory.
The commission structure then becomes part of the proposition. The salesperson isn’t just being paid to maintain existing revenue; they’re being rewarded for creating something that wasn’t there before.
Commercial Design & Build.
Here the long sales cycle makes the structure more challenging, but potentially more interesting too.
A salesperson may spend months developing a relationship before the first project is signed, followed by an even longer period before the project is completed and paid for. A commission plan that pays everything at the very end puts a lot of risk on the salesperson.
A milestone-based structure can change that. A first signed LOI, first contract, first repeat client or project delivered at the agreed margin could each trigger part of the reward, with the larger upside building as the commercial relationship develops.
The business retains cash discipline, while the salesperson can see that progress is being recognised along the way.
The honest version wins
A lower base and higher upside is a real win-win when the business can show the maths, build in a runway and be honest about what the upside actually depends on.
It’s a disguised pay cut when none of that is true.
For smaller businesses competing with MNCs for sales talent, I think that’s an important distinction. They don’t necessarily need to match the big companies on base salary. In many cases, they can’t.
But they can potentially offer something the big companies can’t: greater ownership, a more direct link between performance and reward, and a much higher ceiling for someone who can genuinely make a difference.
