Not getting through directly

[Wanderer]

Do you mean "they pay more" or "the contractor gets paid less"? If it's the former, what difference does it make to you? If the latter, what difference does it make to them?

He means BOTH of those. Let's cut out the middle man and split the difference. Everyone's a winner except the agency.

I get pissed off with parasitic agencies playing the contractor and client off against each other - lying to both parties to pad out their margin, bulltulip contract terms and unfair restraint of trade.

Clients need to sort their act out and stamp down on the agencies so they stop pissing us contractors around. Fixed, transparent margins, reasonable contract and payment terms. Unfortunately, contractors don't have enough clout to do this because it's divide and conquer. If a contractor doesn't bend over and get shafted then the agent lies to the client telling them that the contractor is "unavailable".

[BlasterBates]

It's cheaper for companies to go through agencies. Of course îf you happen to know the PM and you have the right skill set he'll consider you, but once a budget for the contractor has been approved then provided your rate isn't above the max dictated by the purchasing dept, the PM will just go for the best candidate. A PM is not going to see his salary increase because you're a bit cheaper. Not being a preferred supplier is a disadvantage even if you're cheaper because as everyone has said that increases admin costs. A lot of companies won't even allow direct contracts because of possible employment issues, i.e. being sued by a contractor. Agencies don't sue clients but contractors do.

Basically direct contracting is discouraged in most companies, and only happens in exceptional cases. In simple terms it just isn't worth the hassle.

[Gentile]

It's both, actually, to give a concrete example, they now pay £515pd to the agency, of which the unluckly candidate gets £350.
I wasn't willing to do it for less than £400, if fact I was I aiming for £450.
In the end, I am getting £0pd atm

To answer your questions directly, the difference to them is somewhere between £65 and £115 pd and to me is ca £400 pd

Therein lies the root of the problem. When people don't have the necessary skills to assess whether something is valuable or not (in this case, the service you were offering), they use heuristics to try and determine relative worth instead.

Sometimes the heuristics such people use are relevant, but most often they're not. In this case, at least in their heads, it's possible that you were perceived as the less desirable option purely because you were cheaper. Crazy? Possibly. But so much of human behaviour in groups is crazy. Companies don't behave as rationally as individuals. If end users stopped for a moment to think what value agencies are actually adding to the process, they'd never use them at all.

Edit: though it's possible your dreadful grammar also played a factor.

[Gentile]

Hi.

Recently, in order to get a better rate mostly (but also better negotiation possibilities) I have approached various clients directly.
They seemed quite happy and interested but in the end went with a candidate who'd gone through an agency.
Including the agency fees, they end up paying more for the contractor, so it makes me wonder if there's any other benefits for the client to use an agency?

It's kind of the same reason why people don't go to Farmers' Markets, but instead choose to pay a higher price to get the same product from the Supermarket instead. They don't want the hassle of sorting out contracts, dealing with payments in a timely fashion, and sifting the 99% of unsuitable CVs that every open role attracts.

Things are changing in some industry sectors, though. I've had far more success this year in approaching companies that advertise roles themselves through LinkedIn, on their own websites and via other direct sources, than I have in going through Agencies. The end user organisations themselves need to have the relevant competencies within their own staff, though (which typically rules places like the Public Sector and banks: their own internal staff typically wouldn't know a skilled contractor from a burger flipper at McDonalds).

[psychocandy]

What about...

Don't have to advertise the roles
Don't have to sift through the cv's
Don't have to deal with the constant issues and general admin
They are not experts in contractors

They just outsource the recruitment just like any other service. Isn't much that is kept in house nowadays and contracting is no different.

And, of course, OP is assuming that a lot of companies can even be arsed to save money and think about it like that as opposed to save themselves the hassle that NLUK points out.

Never underestimate a large companies ability to waste shedloads of money because they can't be arsed to do things properly/better/cheaper.

[yasockie]

Without being rude, well trying not to be , have you considered that the the other contractor might have been better than you?

ha, un-possible!
Seriously though, just phrasing that in general terms, as I wonder how to approach the next client.
I can probably forgo the £50 extra if it means actually winning the contract via an agency...

[JamJarST]

It's both, actually, to give a concrete example, they now pay £515pd to the agency, of which the unluckly candidate gets £350.
I wasn't willing to do it for less than £400, if fact I was I aiming for £450.
In the end, I am getting £0pd atm

To answer your questions directly, the difference to them is somewhere between £65 and £115 pd and to me is ca £400 pd

Without being rude, well trying not to be , have you considered that the the other contractor might have been better than you?

[northernladuk]

Factor in the saving p/a of the HR staff that they don't need to do this work.

[yasockie]

Do you mean "they pay more" or "the contractor gets paid less"?

If it's the former, what difference does it make to you? If the latter, what difference does it make to them?

It's both, actually, to give a concrete example, they now pay £515pd to the agency, of which the unluckly candidate gets £350.
I wasn't willing to do it for less than £400, if fact I was I aiming for £450.
In the end, I am getting £0pd atm

To answer your questions directly, the difference to them is somewhere between £65 and £115 pd and to me is ca £400 pd

[Ignis Fatuus]

Hi.

Recently, in order to get a better rate mostly (but also better negotiation possibilities) I have approached various clients directly.
They seemed quite happy and interested but in the end went with a candidate who'd gone through an agency.
Including the agency fees, they end up paying more for the contractor, so it makes me wonder if there's any other benefits for the client to use an agency?

Do you mean "they pay more" or "the contractor gets paid less"?

If it's the former, what difference does it make to you? If the latter, what difference does it make to them?

[northernladuk]

What about...

Don't have to advertise the roles
Don't have to sift through the cv's
Don't have to deal with the constant issues and general admin
They are not experts in contractors

They just outsource the recruitment just like any other service. Isn't much that is kept in house nowadays and contracting is no different.

[yasockie]

Hi.

Recently, in order to get a better rate mostly (but also better negotiation possibilities) I have approached various clients directly.
They seemed quite happy and interested but in the end went with a candidate who'd gone through an agency.
Including the agency fees, they end up paying more for the contractor, so it makes me wonder if there's any other benefits for the client to use an agency?