Agents commissions

[pmeswani]

How do you know that?

I seen sales people wake up from under their tables when I come into the office. ;-).

[Another Dodgy Agent]

Sales people work a lot harder than recruitment consultants.

Really? Yes I can see it now, it all becomes perfectly clear and of course you would know as you have never been a recruitment consultant so you can speak from a position of non-experience and no knowledge.

When selling something be it a piece of hardware, CRM system, printer, car, house, cuddly toy then you have one sale. That one sale is selling the "product" to the buyer.

Within recruitment you have two sales. One sale is the end client, the person with the requirement. The second sale is the candidate. That candidate has got to want to work for the client at the agreed rate and for the agreed time scale.

How many sales person's have to convince the CRM system that it really wants to be used by the buyer? How many sales people, gently put an arm around the wingmirror of a car they are selling and promise that car that the new owner won't rag it down the road?

Did you hear about the sales man who couldn't sell his server product because it refused to work on site? Of the photocopier guy that had to explain to the board the photocopier decided to go elsewhere and they lost the deal.

[DodgyAgent]

I seen sales people wake up from under their tables when I come into the office. ;-).

That tells me that you have a bunch of sales people that go out for lunch and are not seen again until they crawl out from under their desks the following morning

[expat]

What never fails to amaze me is why this is such a hot topic of debate when the actual reality of the situation is very simple.

The agent works for the client and the contractor works for the client. The agent is paid for finding a suitable candidate for a position the client has and the contractor is paid for providing the skillset required for that position. In other words the money we both get is from the client. Clear so far?
.....

Worse, the agent works for the client and the contractor works for the agent. That's a Client-Main Contractor-Subcontractor model. However (unlike say the construction industry where this model works) the agent doesn't know squat about the project, so the contractor has a direct responsibility to the client as far as the work is concerned, though only to the agent as far as the money is concerned.

It is the agents' (who are the "Main Contractor", in this model) weakness that they are subcontracting all the work without understanding any of it. This is unusual in other fields where the Client-Main Contractor-Subcontractor model applies.

Hence the feeling that, unlike say a software house that would actually run the project work, agents are shirking the work but taking a large cut of the money. Hence also the (sub)contractor's legitimate concern that the client may feel he is paying for more than the contractor feels that he is being paid for.

[DodgyAgent]

Worse, the agent works for the client and the contractor works for the agent. That's a Client-Main Contractor-Subcontractor model. However (unlike say the construction industry where this model works) the agent doesn't know squat about the project, so the contractor has a direct responsibility to the client as far as the work is concerned, though only to the agent as far as the money is concerned.

It is the agents' (main contractor, in this model) weakness that they are subcontracting all the work without understanding any of it. This is unusual in other fields where the Client-Main Contractor-subcontractor model applies.

Hence the feeling that, unlike say a software house that would actually run the project work, agents are shirking the work but taking a large cut. Hence also the (sub)contractor's legitimate concern that the client may feel he is paying for more than the contractor feels that he is being paid for.

Why do we need to understand the project?

What I find so pathetic is how so many of you personalise what is essentially business. It is also quite pathetic that you think that you can make a moral judgement as to how to measure someone's "worth". We can all play that game and there is no better example than the perception held by most permies as to the value of contractors.

If you need me to remind you of what those are then please just ask.

[expat]

Why do we need to understand the project?

What I find so pathetic is how so many of you personalise what is essentially business. It is also quite pathetic that you think that you can make a moral judgement as to how to measure someone's "worth". We can all play that game and there is no better example than the perception held by most permies as to the value of contractors.

If you need me to remind you of what those are then please just ask.

I am not doing that (I make no mention of worth, or any other moral judgements), I am merely pointing out that it is unusual, and occasionally problematic, that agents sit in the place of Main Contractor in a tried-and-tested model, but do not perform the rôle fully.

Or to put it back in Another DA's words, it would be quite different if, as he said happens, the client paid the agent and the client paid the contractor. I would much prefer it that way, and that would be an honest implementation of the model that you claim to practise. It would also remove all the concerns of contractors who worry about it.

Yes I know they worry about it too much. As a contractor, you've got a deal available, that somebody else set up. Take it or leave it, or find another.

[DodgyAgent]

Worse, the agent works for the client and the contractor works for the agent. That's a Client-Main Contractor-Subcontractor model. However (unlike say the construction industry where this model works) the agent doesn't know squat about the project, so the contractor has a direct responsibility to the client as far as the work is concerned, though only to the agent as far as the money is concerned.

It is the agents' (who are the "Main Contractor", in this model) weakness that they are subcontracting all the work without understanding any of it. This is unusual in other fields where the Client-Main Contractor-Subcontractor model applies.

Hence the feeling that, unlike say a software house that would actually run the project work, agents are shirking the work but taking a large cut of the money. Hence also the (sub)contractor's legitimate concern that the client may feel he is paying for more than the contractor feels that he is being paid for.

We may not fit into your neat idea of how a model of a relationship between a sales/client and supply should be but we are not selling business solutions,. We are selling temporary workers. If we were selling solutions in IT then we would all be working for Indian software companies.

[expat]

We may not fit into your neat idea of how a model of a relationship between a sales/client and supply should be but we are not selling business solutions,. We are selling temporary workers. If we were selling solutions in IT then we would all be working for Indian software companies.

Yes and I can guess what their cut would be like!

But would you do it this way? Sell me to a client, take your well-earned reward from the client, but let the client pay me directly? That would be selling temporary workers. What you are doing is leasing them.

Incidentally isn't that exactly what happens when an agency places a body in a country that requires local employment/payroll company/etc? (except that it will be the payroll co and not the client who splits the fees to contractor and agent).

[the_duderama]

Who cares what they get? If you thin you can get more elsewhere then go elsewhere, if you're happy with the rate then take it.

If you don't like the idea of a middleman then get rid of the middleman. You'll then have to do all the tulipty sales/marketing stuff yourself, getting contacts, networking, cold calling, etc etc.

I've a few friends who work in sales and they all have to do that crappy stuff to get the one lead that pays off, but more often than not all that effort is wasted when the client goes elsewhere or the purchase is pulled. I know that untill i build up a base of clients that keep on wanting me to come back there is no way I'm doing all that tulip.

[DodgyAgent]

I am not doing that (I make no mention of worth, or any other moral judgements), I am merely pointing out that it is unusual, and occasionally problematic, that agents sit in the place of Main Contractor in a tried-and-tested model, but do not perform the rôle fully.

Or to put it back in Another DA's words, it would be quite different if, as he said happens, the client paid the agent and the client paid the contractor. I would much prefer it that way, and that would be an honest implementation of the model that you claim to practise. It would also remove all the concerns of contractors who worry about it.

Yes I know they worry about it too much. As a contractor, you've got a deal available, that somebody else set up. Take it or leave it, or find another.

I cannot see any explanation for you to make any sort of judgement on how much an agent earns unless that judgement is made on "what is negotiated" or "what is morally fair". If someone makes a judgement on the basis of "what is fair" then I will ask what is the concept of "fairness" based upon?

As I said in my previous post we are not selling a typical business model, we are placing temps. If the business model is "not right" then the market would simply determine a different model.

I always invite critics of the current model to offer an alternative and then prove that it works (Denny ).

If you want agencies to merely do the introduction and then step away and leave the contractors to be paid directly by the client, first of all try and imagine the problems that this would create, with every Tom Dick contractor wanting to argue the toss over every piece of minutiae of his contract.
And would contractors and clients be prepared to sign up to legally underpinned clauses that would ensure that we would indeed receive our commission?