Agency Percentage. Does it matter or not?

[jmo21]

I agree with this

No one is eating no-one's share here. It is just a symbiotic co-existence.

The reason is...... with many candidates available, the agent holds the upper hand in the business transaction, and since it is the candidate who actually does the work, this is why people feel it is "unfair" when the agent proves to be in the stronger position by keeping a larger percentage than the candidate thinks is acceptable.

Given 2 equally capable candidates, the fear is that the agent puts one guy in for the interview based on how much they can increase their %age - perfect business sense for the agent, they are lveraging their

Once a contractor agrees to a certain rate, I don't see a reason, why he/she should be worried how much the agent is making. If you think agent is making a fortune, that is because you don't know how to sell yourself. End of. This comes with experience I guess, and you will fall for quite few times before you learn to walk. Is'nt it?

[d000hg]

You don't "win" the business: the contractor wins it through their performance in the interview.

If they're preferred supplier or have exclusivity, the agency definitely wins the business provided they can find someone the client is happy with.

[The Agents View]

You don't "win" the business: the contractor wins it through their performance in the interview.

Uh Huh.... In which case, my job's a piece of pi55?

So you're going to do the 3-4 meetings on average that it takes to build a level of trust high enough to be able to supply. You're going to go to the networking events. You're going to make the hundreds of sales calls to get one opportunity. You're going to put the marketing budget in to advertising your services. You're going to have a network of other contractors you can use to fill opportunities. Oh and you're going to build a brand that is known all over the industry, so that people come to you are you?

In which case, I'll go home, because there's clearly no place for me in this industry.



Do you not ever consider the fact that interviews make up about 5% of the entire process? No....didn't think so <sigh>

[The Agents View]

I agree with this



The reason is...... with many candidates available, the agent holds the upper hand in the business transaction, and since it is the candidate who actually does the work, this is why people feel it is "unfair" when the agent proves to be in the stronger position by keeping a larger percentage than the candidate thinks is acceptable.

Given 2 equally capable candidates, the fear is that the agent puts one guy in for the interview based on how much they can increase their %age - perfect business sense for the agent, they are lveraging their

The reality is that we don't really have the choice - the only time that applies, is if the client says "they're both perfect, I'd have both of them" - at which point there is a degree of leverage/influence which can be applied. In all other scenarios like the above, it's just pie in the sky.

People screw up at interview, they don't get on with people sometimes, occassionally they send their brother along, and I've even had a guy who turned up in patent white shoes with a black suit - you can never tell, so in the situation where there are two people of identical calibre on paper and over the phone, you submit both, regardless - otherwise you're limiting the clients choice, and your opportunity to get the deal.......

[jmo21]

The reality is that we don't really have the choice - the only time that applies, is if the client says "they're both perfect, I'd have both of them" - at which point there is a degree of leverage/influence which can be applied. In all other scenarios like the above, it's just pie in the sky.

People screw up at interview, they don't get on with people sometimes, occassionally they send their brother along, and I've even had a guy who turned up in patent white shoes with a black suit - you can never tell, so in the situation where there are two people of identical calibre on paper and over the phone, you submit both, regardless - otherwise you're limiting the clients choice, and your opportunity to get the deal.......

My point was about before you submit to the client, that is where you're advantage lies, when you have 2 similar candidates.

[TykeMerc]

More often than not I get to see how much the agency is charging for my time as I'm managing budgets and often have to review client commercial contracts so I can work out their margin.

The main concern I have with what I'd regard as a high margin is that it makes my services quite expensive to the client, potentially prohibitively high, which is bad for my business. Of course knowing the margin also provides an opportunity for negotiation for a higher rate or lower client cost.

I'd never deny that I gain value from agents as:-

1. I don't enjoy sales work so I'm happy to limit that to the CV and interview level
2. I don't have the credit control aggrovation which I have dealt with in the past and I find a pain in the nads
3. My cash flow is greatly simplified, I don't care how long it takes for the agencies to be paid and having been burned in the past I won't issue invoices on terms greater than 14 days

If agents were better at their communications and more honest then they would be better regarded by contractors, I'm afraid that they've earned their lousy reputations time after time across the vast majority of agencies which is why experienced contractors have a very jaundiced view of their entire industry.

[VectraMan]

My gripe is when it comes to a renewal. The first time round I fully accept that the agent has done something, and possibly quite a lot in matching me up with the client and it's completely naive to think that they somehow don't deserve to be paid a decent amount for doing that.

But 6 months later, the renewal is essentially down to me, down to me impressing the client, and little to do with the agent. Yet they continue on the same terms. They're still providing a useful service for sure, but we still have to swallow the cost as if they've done all the c.v. searching, arranging interviews etc. for a brand new contract.

And in fact the one time that I got a substantial rate rise at renewal, it was me that made the case to the client. The agent presumably got a larger cut because of my sales effort, not his.

[DodgyAgent]

It's simple. A contractor can coduct his business even without an agent, but an agent can't earn money without a contractor. The dependency is obvious, so THEY are taking a cut of YOUR money. They exist because you exist, not the other way around.

Are you one of the totally stupid contractors that believes he can run a business without spending time and money on sales and marketing? The agency "model" is a simple and efficient way for contractors to find work. If contractors are clever enough to use their networks to find work then all well and good, but mostly they are poor at selling.

[DodgyAgent]

I agree with that description.

And that's the problem: someone is not doing their job properly.

Therefore you exist.

we exist because you dont have the communication skills to do without us.

[DodgyAgent]

My gripe is when it comes to a renewal. The first time round I fully accept that the agent has done something, and possibly quite a lot in matching me up with the client and it's completely naive to think that they somehow don't deserve to be paid a decent amount for doing that.

But 6 months later, the renewal is essentially down to me, down to me impressing the client, and little to do with the agent. Yet they continue on the same terms. They're still providing a useful service for sure, but we still have to swallow the cost as if they've done all the c.v. searching, arranging interviews etc. for a brand new contract.

And in fact the one time that I got a substantial rate rise at renewal, it was me that made the case to the client. The agent presumably got a larger cut because of my sales effort, not his.

An agent places one in ten/twenty people he puts up for a job. He only gets paid for the one person he is successful with. You pay nothing for job offers that you turn down and clients pay nothing for the candidates they reject. So to quantify the agents "contribution" to the placement of one contractor never seems to show an appreciation of the full story.