Reply to: What to do when a role is advertised by many agents?

[DodgyAgent]

Find out who the client is and go direct.

Failing that, find out who the preferred supplier agencies are and go to them.

Or just apply to all of them and let them fight it out to see who takes the smallest margin.

If I was a contractor that is almost precisely what I would do (please dont tell anyone), but I would be smarter. If the direct route was not on I would pick one agency and make them think that I have several routes to the job and that they are the lucky ones to represent me. You need to convince the agency that you are the "man" for the job and that you meet all the criteria - not difficult just flatter them (without patronising them) Also keep feeding them information even if it is false. So when you call them, instead of "chasing" say that you have been approached by another agency..
Information is power

[expat]

I'm not saying the model is perfect - far from it - but the reality can be taken back to the lamb chop analogy. You are the farmer - the seller of the produce, and ultimately, you can choose the best route to market for you - if that's selling your own produce on your farm and reaping the rewards (i.e. going direct to your client) then of course you are going to.

I'm not admitting to being convinced, but the analysis is good. I don't get to choose my buyer, only my sales channel. I think you've nailed that in one. Whether that's the solution or the problem, is a different question.

[expat]

Explains why some of them phone me on Sunday.

No, that's because they're moonlighting. I wouldn't touch them.

[fergey]

I am in this situation at the moment where Agent A submitted me to a client who put the roles on hold. 3 months later I have been put forward by Agent B for a similar role but with an amended spec and higher rate as there are managerial responsibilities.

My argument is that the role is now significantly different to allow me to apply via Agent B but A is kicking up a poostorm and the client has now cancelled the interview i had scheduled tomorrow as they have a number of less 'problematic' candidates to see.

I have been really lucky in the past 5 years and have only really been benched these last couple of months. In that time I have experienced probably all the worst agency tactics from fishing to out right lying.This is making me more and more jaded by the day. and incidentally TAV, your analogy around farming is way off the mark, as someone who has worked in the farming industry it's more akin to what we all experience with agents, the supermarket will offer as little as possible to the farmer for the product and tie them into an exclusive supply deal with massive penalties and restrictions or else they won't be able to sell their wares. Sound familiar?

And I agree with expat's partner 101%

[SueEllen]

I hope this gives you a better insight - it's fair to say this example is probably about the mid to senior level of the industry - higher level interim CIO level specialist etc, can probably expect to bil £400,000 and take home about £130k - however - whilst my hours are ridiculous - they pale into insignificance when you look at these guys - and it's worth bearing in mind that I put in about 55 hours a week - so god only knows where their hours get to!

If you have any more questions - feel free to ask.

TAV

Explains why some of them phone me on Sunday.

[The Agents View]

Your points are well considered (except the last para and you effectively destroy my crude analogy. However it leaves me uneasy, like someone who has lost an argument against someone who speaks better but isn't necessarily right. I may not be a lamb chop, but I am a follower of Adam Smith and a firm believer in the free market, and I see it being thwarted more than applied here. Theoretically I suppose the client is the customer in this market, and what he is buying is an agency service, not a contractor; so the market comes into it when he chooses which agency service to use. You have put that well and I am convinced (I think).

But over on the contractor's side, how does the market operate? I am selling, and agencies are my potential buyers. I do not see why I should not be able to look for the best buyer.

The flaw I suppose is that the agency is not really my buyer, they are not my client in a real sense, just a facilitator. Hence I can not offer my services to several agents for the same contract, because they are not themselves buying, only advising the real buyer.

I'm not saying the model is perfect - far from it - but the reality can be taken back to the lamb chop analogy. You are the farmer - the seller of the produce, and ultimately, you can choose the best route to market for you - if that's selling your own produce on your farm and reaping the rewards (i.e. going direct to your client) then of course you are going to.

But a supermarket has the brand, the marketing capability, the loyal customer base in order to sell more of your produce. Sure you have to sell it with a significant reduction, but it's the bread and butter that will keep you going. Like it or not, you wouldn't be able to get to 90% of the customers who shop at Waitrose, from your farm - you just don't have the clout, or the product range.

The reality is that as a farmer, you would be in a far stronger position to demand a premium for your produce, if you were ONLY available through Waitrose though - why do you think you see these "exclusively available through" ads on the TV - The product is high quality, and only available through one chain - the farmer has the upper hand when negotiating the rate per pound - only slightly, but it is an advantage.

Now I know this isn't necessarily how it works in reality but my advice to you would be to use agents/supermarkets as one sales channel, for the high volume, lower profit margin sales, and use your direct contacts to make the juicy profit levels.

In the end, if you think like a business, you will ultimately find that you are not only more content in the contracting world, but significantly better off.

I hope this all makes sense - it's not easy to think "farmer" in the middle of a recruitment office!!

TAV

[The Agents View]

Money. For. Old. Rope.

Question (since this has gone OT already): do agents normally work to a salary, or salary + fixed commission per placement, or salary + % of agency profit on placements, or commission only?

Ok - so this is a tough question. The answer is that it varies at each different business. However the "normal" model is as follows.

Salary + % of profit generated as commission.

Salaries vary from 16k, to 45k dependant on how good you are, your previous billings history and various other factors (other areas you can add value - mine tends to be turning teams from CV sausage factory, to consultative sales specialists).

Commission is generally (and this is not a hard and fast rule) based on the amount you bill in profit, monthly.

It is usually on a sliding scale: ie.

5% up to £5000
10% - 5000 - 9,999
15% - 10,000 - 19,999
20% - 20,000 - 29,999
25% - 30,000 - 39,999
30% - 40,000 +

You get to commission on each portion generally - so for the first 5,000 profit billed, you get £250, for the next 10,000, you get £1000 (total £1250) and so on and so forth.

As a general rule of thumb, a consultant should earn approximately 33% of what they bring in for the company, including basic salary.

As a rough guide - a successful consultant adding to his contractor book by 2 every month, should probably bring in £250,000 for the company over the course of a year - of which they will be paid £82,500 per annum roughly - again - this varies wildly, and certain companies will do their best to stiff the consultants.

I hope this gives you a better insight - it's fair to say this example is probably about the mid to senior level of the industry - higher level interim CIO level specialist etc, can probably expect to bil £400,000 and take home about £130k - however - whilst my hours are ridiculous - they pale into insignificance when you look at these guys - and it's worth bearing in mind that I put in about 55 hours a week - so god only knows where their hours get to!

If you have any more questions - feel free to ask.

TAV

[expat]

I had a situation where agent 'A' put more forward for a role in January, I didn't get an interview and have no idea if the role was filled.

2 months later the role appears again but a different agent contacts me and agrees to put me forward but this time I am interviewed.

Is there a conflict? I ask because I wasn't offered the role and I suspect agent 'A' may have kicked up a fuss despite the fact the client didn't want to interview me first time around, or the client realised they had seen my details before and decided it wasn't worth the hassle.

Either way I lose out through no fault of my own.

As my partner puts it, often, how did a bunch if intelligent guys like you who actually know how to do the work, end up letting that bunch of [barrowboys|winkers|<deleted>] run your lives?

She comes from a background of City tax accounting where as she keeps pointing out, you can't become an agent for those professionals if you don't know the job yourself, because the professionals would scoff and refuse to deal with you.

Our problem, contrary to what they claim, is that we do not scoff at agents nearly enough.

[gingerjedi]

No - I suspect agents are not YOUR friends, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

There is no choice here - if the agency has followed the right path (ie, signed terms of business, followed due dilligence, passed the name of the client to you, described the job etc) then the client is duty bound to go with that agency - there is no "shop around for the lowest margin" because that's the way agencies work - we all attach terms of business to CV's that are sent - by opening the attachment detailing the candidate, they are then legally bound with inferred agreement with the terms on that email, which states that nobody else can represent the candidate to the client for the same job, for 6 months.....

Is that clear?!?

I had a situation where agent 'A' put more forward for a role in January, I didn't get an interview and have no idea if the role was filled.

2 months later the role appears again but a different agent contacts me and agrees to put me forward but this time I am interviewed.

Is there a conflict? I ask because I wasn't offered the role and I suspect agent 'A' may have kicked up a fuss despite the fact the client didn't want to interview me first time around, or the client realised they had seen my details before and decided it wasn't worth the hassle.

Either way I lose out through no fault of my own.

[Wanderer]

So what if I get every agent and his dog to put my CV forward. A fair number of them never get a look in because the client is ignoring all except a few agencies they deal with. Then the agent with the lowest cut or on the preferred supplier list is going to get me the interview. I don't see the downside?

I've been at the client end and you get all manner of crud thrown at you from agencies. Some of them send completely inappropriate people along just to fill interview slots that they have prebooked. If the client knows what they are doing then they will beat the agents into shape.

[expat]

We're not talking about Lamb chops here though - we're talking about the effort and dedication it takes to go through a number of different steps, to ultimately secure a sale worth generally in the region of £100,000, with (as an example) £20,000 worth of profit for the agency (which pays for everything from lighting and heat, to salaries during due dilligence, insurance and the cost of administering your pay packets).

Your lamb chops have been taken from a farm where thousands of sheep are packed together and slaughtered - they're basically a generic product - they've not been specifically matched to you, checked for good quality, referenced from the other sheep, before being presented to you - in the supermarket, you see what we see - the rack of say 100 chops, which you then inspect 1 by 1 to check whether they're the ones you want for tea. If you decided to employ a personal shopper to do this for you, you'd pay for it, and be asked for exclusivity. Essentially, we are quite simply personal shoppers for clients, and the source (sauce) of a sale for the contractor.

As for being a parasite, or dishonest, I don't believe I know you - therefore please leave your unfounded, unsubstantiated insults where they belong - directed at the agent that is shafting you.

Your points are well considered (except the last para and you effectively destroy my crude analogy. However it leaves me uneasy, like someone who has lost an argument against someone who speaks better but isn't necessarily right. I may not be a lamb chop, but I am a follower of Adam Smith and a firm believer in the free market, and I see it being thwarted more than applied here. Theoretically I suppose the client is the customer in this market, and what he is buying is an agency service, not a contractor; so the market comes into it when he chooses which agency service to use. You have put that well and I am convinced (I think).

But over on the contractor's side, how does the market operate? I am selling, and agencies are my potential buyers. I do not see why I should not be able to look for the best buyer.

The flaw I suppose is that the agency is not really my buyer, they are not my client in a real sense, just a facilitator. Hence I can not offer my services to several agents for the same contract, because they are not themselves buying, only advising the real buyer.

[d000hg]

£20,000 worth of profit for the agency (which pays for everything from lighting and heat, to salaries during due dilligence, insurance and the cost of administering your pay packets).

Money. For. Old. Rope.

Question (since this has gone OT already): do agents normally work to a salary, or salary + fixed commission per placement, or salary + % of agency profit on placements, or commission only?

[Dr Evil]

How about just acting with a little integrity, you can generally get a good feeling of what sort of person the agent is. Accept the fact that they are people who are at work trying to make a living (the same as you are) and understand their point of view.

I always ask the agency the name of the client with the promise that I won't disclose it elsewhere if asked about that role (and I don't).

As for multiple agencies, I tend to go with the ones that I get on with best on the phone, the intelligent sorts who know the market and their client as these are the ones I will likely build the best relationship with (for this and future work).

Be honest and let them know that you expect honesty from them. In my own experience, this approach works and means you start off in the right way from the first phone call right through to interview and hopefully day 1 of the contract.
IMO.

[The Agents View]

It is perfectly clear that that is how agencies want to work. I am not suggesting otherwise, I am saying that it is morally wrong. That agencies succeed in imposing this perversion on the market does not make it right.

It is a perversion of a market, just as much as if Sainsbury's were to refuse to show me a lamb chop for my possible purchase, until I signed to say that I wouldn't buy from Waitrose instead.

Even if Waitrose and Tesco did exactly the same, that wouldn't justify them saying "that's the way we work", it would still be restrictive.

Same with agencies and contractors: make a market and the participants can choose the best offer. Those doing business always like having a monopoly, obviously; but they should not be allowed to.

And agents are not my friends because I don't like parasites, especially dishonest ones.

We're not talking about Lamb chops here though - we're talking about the effort and dedication it takes to go through a number of different steps, to ultimately secure a sale worth generally in the region of £100,000, with (as an example) £20,000 worth of profit for the agency (which pays for everything from lighting and heat, to salaries during due dilligence, insurance and the cost of administering your pay packets).

Your lamb chops have been taken from a farm where thousands of sheep are packed together and slaughtered - they're basically a generic product - they've not been specifically matched to you, checked for good quality, referenced from the other sheep, before being presented to you - in the supermarket, you see what we see - the rack of say 100 chops, which you then inspect 1 by 1 to check whether they're the ones you want for tea. If you decided to employ a personal shopper to do this for you, you'd pay for it, and be asked for exclusivity. Essentially, we are quite simply personal shoppers for clients, and the source (sauce) of a sale for the contractor.

As for being a parasite, or dishonest, I don't believe I know you - therefore please leave your unfounded, unsubstantiated insults where they belong - directed at the agent that is shafting you.

[expat]

No - I suspect agents are not YOUR friends, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

There is no choice here - if the agency has followed the right path (ie, signed terms of business, followed due dilligence, passed the name of the client to you, described the job etc) then the client is duty bound to go with that agency - there is no "shop around for the lowest margin" because that's the way agencies work - we all attach terms of business to CV's that are sent - by opening the attachment detailing the candidate, they are then legally bound with inferred agreement with the terms on that email, which states that nobody else can represent the candidate to the client for the same job, for 6 months.....

Is that clear?!?

It is perfectly clear that that is how agencies want to work. I am not suggesting otherwise, I am saying that it is morally wrong. That agencies succeed in imposing this perversion on the market does not make it right.

It is a perversion of a market, just as much as if Sainsbury's were to refuse to show me a lamb chop for my possible purchase, until I signed to say that I wouldn't buy from Waitrose instead.

Even if Waitrose and Tesco did exactly the same, that wouldn't justify them saying "that's the way we work", it would still be restrictive.

Same with agencies and contractors: make a market and the participants can choose the best offer. Those doing business always like having a monopoly, obviously; but they should not be allowed to.

And agents are not my friends because I don't like parasites, especially dishonest ones.