SThree doing well !!

[abc]

At the risk of generalising, is this "company policy" not the whole purpose of business? You obtain a series of products/services at the lowest prices you can, and sell a product/service derived from those at the highest price you can.

If anything, I would accuse S3 of nothing worse than being good businessmen/women. If they were as bad as everybody says, they would no longer be in business. I don't see anybody suggesting that the Marks and Spencer practice of buying a load of cheap bread, tuna and salad, and selling it for £1.50 more than the independent sandwich shop down the road, is an unethical practice.

Without deliberately wishing to sound like Denny or DA, most of us are Limited Company owners at the end of the day, and should therefore conduct ourselves as such. Agents play games to maximise their earnings from us; we can play our own games to counter these tactics. Business often boils down to little more than a game - the most successful businessmen/women are those that learn to play this game.

Fundamentally, the clients are not out there looking to give high margins to agencies.

Clients quite rightly want and expect that their money is going to be used correctly, to get them the most skilled person available for the amount of money that they can afford to spend.

Agencies promise to provide this service, so that is exactly what they should be doing. No more, no less. It is what they are being paid for.

The agency company policy that oraclesmith described above encourages
individual agents to believe that somehow the contractor is a just commodity item, like a tin of beans, that can be traded in a fashion that most benefits the margin of the agency company.

This quite clearly acts to the disadvantage of both the contractor and the agents paying customer, the client.

I've been doing this for a while and I have never ever met a client who thought that this sort of exploitation was "good business", as you put it.

[DodgyAgent]

The agency company policy that oraclesmith described above encourages
individual agents to believe that somehow the contractor is a just commodity item, like a tin of beans,
.

but without the personality

[senditback]

I've been doing this for a while and I have never ever met a client who thought that this sort of exploitation was "good business", as you put it.

Is it silly season or something? another crap point made. Of course the client won't think it is good business if they thought they were getting ripped off! The agent will though, because they have generated a large margin, thats the business of the agent not the client.

Ultimately the clients business is to get the right person on board. Their major priority will be either the quality of the contractor, how quickly we can start for them or how much they can spend. As long as they get what they want within those parameters they will be happy. Also at the end of the day they are never going to pay more than they want for someone.

[chicane]

I agree with you that the current model can work against the interests of the client and the contractor. However, if the current model didn't work, agencies would go out of business. Unreasonably high as the contractor/client may percieve margins to be, they are clearly sustainable in the current market conditions, in a similar way to the seemingly bizarre conditions of the current housing market.

If agencies were able to get the most skilled person available for the amount of money they can afford to spend, there would be zero margin for the agency, which is something of an unlikely situation. Therefore, a margin must be set in a range above zero, and it is market forces that dictate this margin.

In addition to the above, it is highly likely that the client will in turn be marking up the services of the contractor to their client. I know that my current client does, by a considerably more significant margin than the agent receives.

Don't be so naive as to suggest that "agency = bad guys, everyone else = good guys". We all have to make a living regardless of our position in the food chain, and there is nothing unethical about doing so.

[abc]

but without the personality

Contractors can be as colorful as anyone else, potentially, given enough beer.

[DodgyAgent]

Contractors can be as colorful as anyone else, potentially, given enough beer.

just between you and I they are much more appealing than oily recruitment agents, but do not tell bluebottle or Denshe I said that.

[abc]

I agree with you that the current model can work against the interests of the client and the contractor. However, if the current model didn't work, agencies would go out of business. Unreasonably high as the contractor/client may percieve margins to be, they are clearly sustainable in the current market conditions, in a similar way to the seemingly bizarre conditions of the current housing market.

If agencies were able to get the most skilled person available for the amount of money they can afford to spend, there would be zero margin for the agency, which is something of an unlikely situation. Therefore, a margin must be set in a range above zero, and it is market forces that dictate this margin.

In addition to the above, it is highly likely that the client will in turn be marking up the services of the contractor to their client. I know that my current client does, by a considerably more significant margin than the agent receives.

Don't be so naive as to suggest that "agency = bad guys, everyone else = good guys". We all have to make a living regardless of our position in the food chain, and there is nothing unethical about doing so.

You are perhaps putting words into my mouth there. I never said that "agency = bad guys" for all agencies. That is a naive statement that I would not make.

If you remember how this part of the thread kicked off, oraclesmith was commenting on the company policy in S3, not in all agencies. And my comments followed on from that.

But of course different agencies have different policies. And of course even within one agency (even S3), individuals can choose to apply it in their own individual way, or ignore it. So you can get fair agents in otherwise unfair agencies. Note that I am repeatedly using the word "fair" here because I know from past experience that it pisses off member dodgyagent

In my experience of individual agents (not agencies), the good agents that I have dealt with would (more or less) agree with me. They don't like the cowboys either, because those guys give all agents a bad name.

I would also say that there are many of these good agents out there. It's not like searching for the yetti or something, there's plenty.

[oraclesmith]

At the risk of generalising, is this "company policy" not the whole purpose of business? You obtain a series of products/services at the lowest prices you can, and sell a product/service derived from those at the highest price you can.

Of course. I'm not saying SThree aren't just doing what businesses do - it's just that there can be (and are) a number of approaches which an employment business can bring to bear to make good profits and they will each receive varying levels of respect from clients and contractors.

SThree's business model is effective, but they and others like them shouldn't be surprised to learn that some of their sales and recruitment techniques don't win them too much sentiment on the client or supply-side. Businesses differentiate themselves in all sorts of ways, so there's no one business model that works for every customer in a diverse market. eg. the finance companies dealing with the sub-prime market have a very different style to those dealing with well-heeled clients.

As for the customers view - it's perfectly good business for a supplier to buy in Tesco Value beans, relabel them and flog them as Taste the Difference, but they won't endear themselves to customers who open the tin and find out they're not quite the beans they think they've paid for !

Professional standards of conduct and profit-making don't always go hand in hand.

For example, I used to be called up by several brands in the SThree group. I'd be talking to a recruiter from Y brand and mention that I was already sourcing people through X brand, and he would never declare that we were already dealing with their organisation through X brand but would happily let us carry on believing these two brands were competitors. I don't believe that is professional good conduct as far as I am concerned. It's probably not the guys fault as such, he's probably been told by his bosses never to reveal the links.

[chicane]

...Of course. I'm not saying SThree aren't just doing what businesses do...

I agree with everything you've written, but I think you and many others overstate the effect on individual agents that "company policy" has. Each of us is an individual driven by our own goals and desires, and will first and foremost set out to satisfy those desires.

Every single agent will have a slightly different approach - some think short term and go for the high commission quick buck. Others aim to develop long term relationships with a number of good contractors, thus giving them a more reliable income stream over the long term.

I doubt that many of these allow their goals and desires to be swayed unduly by company policy except where strong incentives are put in place to counter this - which I doubt occurs in S3 agencies unless they have some kind of radical diversion from the standard agency business model.

Enough ranting and back to my original point. Agents are agents. Some are good and some are bad. Don't judge the agent by the agency.

[BlasterBates]

If you're think of buying shares, don't.

They have done well over the last year, but the research info I have predicts a 10% drop.

There are much better shares around.

If you have them sell profit take and find something more promising.