Ask the agent. The Good, the bad and the ugly

[Cenobite]

Contractor/client/agency relations

Howdy,

This was intended to be a balanced argument after reading what I regard as an agent's legitimate attempt to clear the air but as I've started typing this it's turned into a bit or a rant!

I've been pondering this for a while and wondered how we can all get along better. I almost think the agency model is beset with the same systematic incentive problems which plague the banking industry.

Clients think agents are earning their money by screening CVs but in my experience this has often not been the case. One of the permies at a previous contract was sharing the contractor candidate CVs with me and there was no evidence of screening whatsoever.

This has tempted me to set up my own agency that did real technical screening. On second thoughts though if you really did screen people you'd never place anyone. Also, the two approaches of screening or not screening would probably pay the same so eventually most would settle on the latter.

Many agents do not truly take the risk of a client not paying on time and instead shift the risk on to the contractor. They'll be many contractors on here who've heard pleas from their agent that they haven't been paid so they can't pay you. If agents were there to smooth out the waves of client payment then they would be a performing me a service.

I read a post on this forum once, and it could have even been from this post's initiator that contractors are mistaken in thinking that an agent takes a cut of their money: in their view it is in fact the contractor---who does the real work---that is taking a cut out of the business the agent has won. I was absolutely livid when I read this.

If agents were such slick sales people that they could get contractors in without the contractor having to take a day off for interview, and be sold on the strength of their CV alone I would think the agent had done me a service. It's the contractor's performance at interview that gets the agent the money. There's no getting away from that.

To say that an agent won the contract and not the contractor is ridiculous. Agents don't even put the effort in to differentiate their advert on JobServe: you can recognise which agents are trying to fill an individual contract by the level of copy-and-paste that's going on from the client's original requirement. It's a small thing but agents don't even take the time to put any effort into that.

I feel better now...

[d000hg]

Two questions:

1. Do agents invariably agree the price with the client before they actually advertise the role, or is there give and take after applications come in?
2. If you agreed £500/day with a client but got a genuinely good candidate asking for £250/day, and everyone else applying was asking much more, what would you do?

[malvolio]

Howdy,

This was intended to be a balanced argument after reading what I regard as an agent's legitimate attempt to clear the air but as I've started typing this it's turned into a bit or a rant!


...snip...

I feel better now...

Seems you are not alone. Perhaps you should read this: http://www.contractoraccountants.com...€™s-an-expert/

[The Agents View]

Two questions:

1. Do agents invariably agree the price with the client before they actually advertise the role, or is there give and take after applications come in?
2. If you agreed £500/day with a client but got a genuinely good candidate asking for £250/day, and everyone else applying was asking much more, what would you do?

1) Yes is the short answer to this. Although i wouldn't necessarily say it was "agreeing a price". Most clients think they know best, so will take what they perceive to be market rate, and knock a bit off to make it a bit more challenging. My question is never "what are you going to pay me", rather what sort of budget have we got to play with. From here, if my agreements on margin are fixed, it's simple maths - if they're not, I'll work out what I'd be happy with, and squeeze it to give the "top end" rate before advertising or networking for it.

2) Now you're never going to believe the end outcome of this answer, but here you go:

My first question would be "why so cheap?", I might even try and educate that person on their market worth (that is after all part of our job - not that you'd know it the way some agents act). If they can satisfy me that there's no skeleton in the closet, etc etc, then I would look to put them forward - why wouldn't I?

I think I know what you're getting at here though, so in the event that the candidate doesn't WANT the extra money, I would, if I'm genuinely honest, add the amount I would have made at the top end of the rate (lets say for arguments sake, £50 per day), to their rate to give me the charge. I still make the same amount of money, the client still saves £220 odd per day, and the contractor has (despite my protestations) decided that is his or her rate. That does mean my "cut" in percentage terms is higher however.

Just so you know, if I was to pocket that £250 p.d. - where I am right now, I'd be lobbed out on the street and told never to come back!!

[d000hg]

In your opinion, is your answer to 2) the norm in your industry, or the exception?

[The Agents View]

Howdy,

This was intended to be a balanced argument after reading what I regard as an agent's legitimate attempt to clear the air but as I've started typing this it's turned into a bit or a rant!

I've been pondering this for a while and wondered how we can all get along better. I almost think the agency model is beset with the same systematic incentive problems which plague the banking industry.

Clients think agents are earning their money by screening CVs but in my experience this has often not been the case. One of the permies at a previous contract was sharing the contractor candidate CVs with me and there was no evidence of screening whatsoever.

This has tempted me to set up my own agency that did real technical screening. On second thoughts though if you really did screen people you'd never place anyone. Also, the two approaches of screening or not screening would probably pay the same so eventually most would settle on the latter.

Many agents do not truly take the risk of a client not paying on time and instead shift the risk on to the contractor. They'll be many contractors on here who've heard pleas from their agent that they haven't been paid so they can't pay you. If agents were there to smooth out the waves of client payment then they would be a performing me a service.

I read a post on this forum once, and it could have even been from this post's initiator that contractors are mistaken in thinking that an agent takes a cut of their money: in their view it is in fact the contractor---who does the real work---that is taking a cut out of the business the agent has won. I was absolutely livid when I read this.

If agents were such slick sales people that they could get contractors in without the contractor having to take a day off for interview, and be sold on the strength of their CV alone I would think the agent had done me a service. It's the contractor's performance at interview that gets the agent the money. There's no getting away from that.

To say that an agent won the contract and not the contractor is ridiculous. Agents don't even put the effort in to differentiate their advert on JobServe: you can recognise which agents are trying to fill an individual contract by the level of copy-and-paste that's going on from the client's original requirement. It's a small thing but agents don't even take the time to put any effort into that.

I feel better now...

Firstly - SUPERB rant. It reminds me of the effort people put in to analysing the performance of my football team

Secondly - responding to this is going to take me a while - it needs a bit of thought as to where I stand on it (it was me that said you guys take a percentage of our rate - and I will try and explain what I meant by that - it's not quite how you've read it I suspect).

I have a tender that I need to get in by 2:30 - so I'll be along this afternoon to respond

[The Agents View]

In your opinion, is your answer to 2) the norm in your industry, or the exception?

I think it used to be the exception. I can probably name a number of people who would have gone the whole hog, and taken the £250 per day margin on a £250 pd contractor. These days, I think it has become more normal because things have got so tight - It's supply and demand at the end of the day, so I'd be happy to be able to undercut the competition by 40%, because it makes it more likely that my representative would get the gig.

There are some businesses out there who claim to be "delivery experts" and "interim specialists" who I would expect to pocket the money still!

[d000hg]

Clients think agents are earning their money by screening CVs but in my experience this has often not been the case. One of the permies at a previous contract was sharing the contractor candidate CVs with me and there was no evidence of screening whatsoever.

This has tempted me to set up my own agency that did real technical screening. On second thoughts though if you really did screen people you'd never place anyone. Also, the two approaches of screening or not screening would probably pay the same so eventually most would settle on the latter.

I've thought about this too. I think it would work, IF you could prove a better class of candidates put forward than other agencies - i.e. clients see your candidates are on average better at interview.

[The Agents View]

I've thought about this too. I think it would work, IF you could prove a better class of candidates put forward than other agencies - i.e. clients see your candidates are on average better at interview.

The problem you then have, is marketing it is. Every agency that has ever been invented markets themselves as specialists in delivering the best in technical, consultative or whatever, skillsets.

The issue then is that nobody takes any notice because they've heard it all before.

[malvolio]

Firstly - SUPERB rant. It reminds me of the effort people put in to analysing the performance of my football team

Secondly - responding to this is going to take me a while - it needs a bit of thought as to where I stand on it (it was me that said you guys take a percentage of our rate - and I will try and explain what I meant by that - it's not quite how you've read it I suspect).

I have a tender that I need to get in by 2:30 - so I'll be along this afternoon to respond

Sorry, I've been making that point for years, mostly in response to people asking about cutting the margin or getting rises "because they deserve one". My point has always been that if I was any good at sales and cold calling, and had a network of contacts and could afford a 5% sales conversion rate, then I wouldn't need agents. But I'm not a salesman, I'm a damned good delivery manager, and I know enough to let the experts do their job while I do mine.

However you look at it, the client has signed a contract with the agency, the agency spent the sales effort necessary to find and secure the contract and established the rate. Of course it's their business and we are simply suppliers to help the agency fiulfil their contract. As long as the margin is reasonable (15% max for a non-PSL these days, 5%-10% for a PSL for the averag gig), nobody should have any objections.

Where is grates is where the agency believes that we are therefore subordinate in the food chain (Yes, S3 and chums, that's you). Agencies in general need to remember that they are effectively retailers: without us wholesalers there is no market.