Agencies as Biz Introduction Services

[Jubber]

You can take on a small bit of fixed price work/support and then expand it and then take what you have done to other clients. The best person to sell your services is you. Dont employ a salesman. You will need to sell it yourself, so get some sales training, or read some books.

I do! I do! - I often get repeat work directly from previous clients I have worked for (which I have generated not agencies) but it is not enough. I don't want the hassle of employing other people but I do want a better way of contracting my services out than is available through agencies because of IR35.

[DodgyAgent]

Bit of an arse if they terminate your contract after you've been there for only a couple of months though, after the agency has taken 20% of a years contract.

You also get no payment protection, probably worse payment terms - no factoring of invoices etc...

As far as I can see, although you have marginally more IR35 protection, you get all the downsides of going direct, and none of financial benefits....

The agency gets you the work. You price it and plan it, and the agency gets 20%-part now part on completion. I doubt agencies will want to get involved in agreeing fixed price contracts or service level agreements for support as there may be penalty clauses built in and insurances required.

It is not a question of money it is because agencies would not understand any of the dynamics of doing work on any other basis.

If you want to become a software house, the best place to go is a previous client who likes and trusts you. You can take on a small bit of fixed price work/support and then expand it and then take what you have done to other clients. The best person to sell your services is you. Dont employ a salesman. You will need to sell it yourself, so get some sales training, or read some books.

[b0redom]

Bit of an arse if they terminate your contract after you've been there for only a couple of months though, after the agency has taken 20% of a years contract.

You also get no payment protection, probably worse payment terms - no factoring of invoices etc...

As far as I can see, although you have marginally more IR35 protection, you get all the downsides of going direct, and none of financial benefits....

[Jubber]

20% agent/80% you? Really?

If the agent is doing as much as a quarter of the work that you are doing, on you alone, what on earth is he doing with all that time? It must be a very inefficient process.

Anybody who has ever done a contract direct with the client knows that the peripheral dealings don't take that much time. No, the agent spends his time "generating" business, i.e. trying to ensure that he is the one who gets to be the intermediary on contracts, rather than someone else: he doesn't actually "generate" anything. Most of his work is not spent on getting you a contract, it's spent on getting him a contract.

I don't have the time/staff or inclination to spend hours on the phone trying to generate business. I would happily give 20% of the contract value to the agency if they found the work. No problem at all. Actually, it is exactly what is happening now but the other way around. The agency is giving me 80% of the contract worth. I also would have no problem with a handcuff clause either.

The only reason I would like to go direct with the client is so that my company could insist on working conditions and paperwork that is solidly outside of IR35. Reasonable care in an instant. I have no problem parting with the 'finders fee' if that is a better phrase to use.

[expat]

15% of my contracts is a nice little tickle - I only put that figure out for a starter - I'd probably go to 20%.

20% agent/80% you? Really?

If the agent is doing as much as a quarter of the work that you are doing, on you alone, what on earth is he doing with all that time? It must be a very inefficient process.

Anybody who has ever done a contract direct with the client knows that the peripheral dealings don't take that much time. No, the agent spends his time "generating" business, i.e. trying to ensure that he is the one who gets to be the intermediary on contracts, rather than someone else: he doesn't actually "generate" anything. Most of his work is not spent on getting you a contract, it's spent on getting him a contract.

[Jubber]

If you think a sales company is going to invest, on a contingency basis, this sort of money for a lousy 15% then you are living on the wrong planet.

15% of my contracts is a nice little tickle - I only put that figure out for a starter - I'd probably go to 20%.

Maybe SOME of the work agencies get in fit this criteria?

e.g.

When the client requests someone against the 'buzzwords'... within the agency database is a pointer saying that this individual works through a company that is willing to work on a direct "company to company" basis.
The agent could then ask the client if they would rather work on this basis.? I'm sure if the agency received the whole fee up front for the whole contract it would be a sweetener. Less risk for the agent. Dosh in the poche etc.

[beaker]

If clients wanted businesses then agencies would love to be doing this. Most clients however think they need a temp, not a business to deliver a piece of work...

[DodgyAgent]

Has this idea ever been mooted?

How about if agencies became 'Business Introduction Services'.

e.g.

An agency finds work as it does at the moment. Now instead of introducing a candidate, they introduce the business. The client and the introduced business strike a deal and the agency takes a cut, say 15% of the total contract worth. This is paid in full by the introduced business at contract signing.

All contract details are between client and introduced business only (thus all IR35 issues well and truly ironed out)

Are there agencies who will do this?

Yours naively
J

No.

Agencies do not understand enough about "solutions" to talk to a client about solutions to problems, especially not IT solutions. To identify a need one has to understand the business, its requirement and then a whole host of technical issues in order for the client to entrust them with any business.

With a CV it is not only a numbers game of sending them out, but placing a CV against a set of buzzwords is a lot easier than trying to analyse and solve client problems.

Software companies such as Tata, EDS, Citrix, Compuware, invest so heavily on training salespeople exactly how and where their products and services fit into the market. More often than not the sales people themselves come from a business?It background.

If you think a sales company is going to invest, on a contingency basis, this sort of money for a lousy 15% then you are living on the wrong planet.

[Billy Pilgrim]

Its a great way for them to hand over any repeat business to your co...which is why (IMHO) they won't do it !!!

[BolshieBastard]

They're quite happy to use the current model and there's no incentive to change.

Until there is.............................................

[Spacecadet]

I've mooted this idea quite a few times to various agents/agencies to help my plan B.... absolutely nothing back.
I think its too much of a diversity for agents to get their little minds round

[Jubber]

Has this idea ever been mooted?

How about if agencies became 'Business Introduction Services'.

e.g.

An agency finds work as it does at the moment. Now instead of introducing a candidate, they introduce the business. The client and the introduced business strike a deal and the agency takes a cut, say 15% of the total contract worth. This is paid in full by the introduced business at contract signing.

All contract details are between client and introduced business only (thus all IR35 issues well and truly ironed out)

Are there agencies who will do this?

Yours naively
J