I've experienced this in another side of the world--ad agencies. Very frequently accounts were sold on one thing and since the commissions were tied to closing the deal with the fattest margin possible and were completely divorced from the long-term success of the account, often times accounts ended up with lots of promises, and an understaffed, burnt-out team desperately trying to keep them happy because it was their asses if the account left.
When I got to a level where I played a major role in pitches, scoping, and staffing teams, it was definitely a struggle at times to make sure an account was staffed in a way where the fees would support the staffing that aligned with a client's expectations of the work and deliverables they would receive.
Ultimately we were able to get to a much better understanding of that through comparing the cost of retaining a client vs. the cost of new client acquisition, making our SOWs much more specific, and making sure people whose success was measured in the longevity of that relationship (ie. me and the people who would ultimately own the account) were involved in the scoping/pricing/contract part of the process with sales.
That didn't fully get rid of the friction or differing incentives, but it made sure that there was a healthy data-driven discussion around the potential outcomes of selling in one thing vs. another.
Unfortunately it took things getting worse before they got better to bring about that change, but it happened nonetheless. It does require buy-in from the top down though, and I'm not sure that is something that could realistically happen in a heavily-funded company with...optimistic...sales goals.
When I got to a level where I played a major role in pitches, scoping, and staffing teams, it was definitely a struggle at times to make sure an account was staffed in a way where the fees would support the staffing that aligned with a client's expectations of the work and deliverables they would receive.
Ultimately we were able to get to a much better understanding of that through comparing the cost of retaining a client vs. the cost of new client acquisition, making our SOWs much more specific, and making sure people whose success was measured in the longevity of that relationship (ie. me and the people who would ultimately own the account) were involved in the scoping/pricing/contract part of the process with sales.
That didn't fully get rid of the friction or differing incentives, but it made sure that there was a healthy data-driven discussion around the potential outcomes of selling in one thing vs. another.
Unfortunately it took things getting worse before they got better to bring about that change, but it happened nonetheless. It does require buy-in from the top down though, and I'm not sure that is something that could realistically happen in a heavily-funded company with...optimistic...sales goals.