Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 351

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Salesforce Compensation: An Empirical Investigation of Factors Related to Use of Salary versus Incentive Compensation

John, George, Weitz, Barton·1989·Journal of Marketing Research

Abstract

The transaction cost analysis framework is integrated with prescriptions from the sales management literature to develop a model that indicates the role of salary in a sales compensation plan for industrial firms. The descriptive power of the model is examined by surveying compensation practices in 161 firms. The results indicate that the transaction cost framework is somewhat useful in describing the use of salary, but the framework does not consider some important aspects guiding salary versus incentive compensation decisions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/002224378902600101

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 351

Metadata

Authors
John, G., & Weitz, B.
Venue
Journal of Marketing Research
Published
1989-02
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
1-14
ISSN
  • 0022-2437 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-7193
OpenAlex
W2131317552
Cited by
351
References
0
FWCI
9.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Salesforce Compensation: An Empirical Investigation of Factors Related to Use of Salary versus Incentive Compensation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/002224378902600101
The paper
John, G., & Weitz, B. (1989). Salesforce Compensation: An Empirical Investigation of Factors Related to Use of Salary versus Incentive Compensation. Journal of Marketing Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378902600101

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.