Is an agreement negotiated at headquarters actually implemented on the ground?
The agreement is signed. Priority items are negotiated with the distributor, objectives are shared, and the teams can move on to execution. A few months later, however, the expected volumes are not materializing.
For a Foodservice KAM, the question is immediate: are the agreed products actually present and sold in the relevant warehouses?
Between what was decided at headquarters and what actually happens at the warehouse level, several discrepancies can arise. Identifying them allows for concrete follow-up to negotiations, rather than waiting for the next annual review.
A negotiated national agreement does not guarantee sales in every warehouse
A product reference can be included in an agreement without generating the same level of activity everywhere. It may sell well in some warehouses and remain marginal in others. A product launch may also progress in one region while struggling to get off the ground elsewhere.
From the central perspective, the overall result may seem satisfactory. However, this total does not indicate whether the agreement is being implemented uniformly across the network, nor whether the strategic objectives are actually reaching the intended end customers.
The KAM therefore needs to go down a level: look at sales by reference, by warehouse and over time , within the scope covered by the agreement.
Compare commitments to observed sales
The first step in the analysis is to review the list of negotiated SKUs and the warehouses involved, then compare it with available sell-out data. Which SKUs are generating sales? In which warehouses? Since when? And what are the trends?
Let's take a hypothetical example. A range of four SKUs is negotiated for a network of warehouses. Three products generate regular sales, while the fourth is only sold in a few warehouses. The overall performance of the range improves, but the execution of the agreement remains uneven.
This review is not intended to lead to hasty conclusions that the distributor has failed to meet its commitments. It allows for the identification of discrepancies and the initiation of a detailed discussion regarding the warehouses and products involved.
It's crucial to maintain a key distinction: the absence of observed sell-outs does not, in itself, prove that a product is not listed or available. The warehouse may hold stock, demand may be low, or the period analyzed may be too short. This data points to an issue that needs to be verified with the field and the distributor.
Identify the nature of the discrepancy before taking action
Not all discrepancies require the same response. A product that never started selling in a warehouse raises a different question than a product that was selling regularly but whose volumes have dropped.
The first case suggests checking the operational launch: is the product properly launched, known to the teams, and offered to the relevant customers? The second case calls for examining availability, demand trends, competition, or the end of a commercial activation.
Comparing different warehouses can also be helpful. If a product performs well across comparable warehouses but remains weak in a single warehouse, the Key Account Manager (KAM) has a concrete starting point to prepare for discussions with local teams.
The objective is to move from the observation "this benchmark underperforms" to a verifiable hypothesis and appropriate action .
Establish a joint monitoring system with the distributor
Trade negotiations do not end with the signing. For an agreement to be effective, its results must be monitored and discussed throughout the year.
Regular meetings can be structured around a few simple questions: Which negotiated items are actually being sold? Which warehouses are progressing? Where are volumes remaining low? What actions have been taken since the last meeting and what do the subsequent sales show?
This factual basis facilitates discussions. It allows us to recognize what works, to focus efforts on significant gaps, and to measure whether the actions decided upon together are having an effect.
KaryonFood: linking negotiation to field execution
When data is scattered across multiple distributor files, tracking an agreement repository by repository quickly becomes time-consuming. References must be reconciled, information harmonized, and the same analyses rebuilt with each update.
KaryonFood centralizes sell-out data accessible to manufacturers , making sales more transparent by distributor, warehouse, SKU, and period. This allows Key Account Managers (KAMs) to identify trending negotiated products, those with low sales activity, and warehouses requiring priority review.
This visibility does not replace discussion with the distributor or field teams. It helps to prepare for it with specific facts and to follow up on decisions made after the meeting.
What are the key takeaways?
A centrally negotiated agreement is a starting point. Its value is also measured by sales observed across the network, item by item and warehouse by warehouse.
For a Key Account Manager (KAM), the best approach is to compare commitments with sell-out figures, analyze any discrepancies, and then monitor the actions taken. This is how a sales agreement becomes a managed execution plan that runs throughout the year.
Comments