Reply to: Recruitment agencies greed causes grief

[Szalyvah]

And so ends lesson 1 on how to make yourself look like an idiot on a public forum. Lesson 2 will no doubt start very shortly.

'1 post is to say yer a proper bug*er.. but funny.

Now mods, can I ride without stabilisers?

[DodgyAgent]

Yes, I know that. I don't need to do it, enough people are coming to me to keep me working now and I'm looking to wind down fairly soon anyway. But I accept you have to market actively or not at all.

Good luck with it if you decide to give it a go!

[malvolio]

Malvolio I do not mean to personalise this but I am afraid the problem is entirely of your own making. The inability of your business to find its way to the market is nothing to do with the existing agency/client/contractor model it is to do with either an inability to get it to the market or the market simply has no requirement for the service.

You should identify your clients and identify the stakeholders in those clients that would benefit from what you do (and these need to be benefits that ultimately relate to making financial gains). you then need to contact these people and get meetings with them in order to have an opportunity for you to show how your services can be of benefit.

If you sit and wait for clients to find you then whatever you do do not hold your breath.

Yes, I know that. I don't need to do it, enough people are coming to me to keep me working now and I'm looking to wind down fairly soon anyway. But I accept you have to market actively or not at all.

[DodgyAgent]

Now don't personalise it. I've been earning good money for many years, and in recent years no more than 20% of my work has come from me applying to agency adverts. I'm actively working on getting that down to zero.

But that's me talking to people who know me (or know of me). That's a lot different to cold-calling my potential client base and asking them if they have some expensive flaws in their delivery operations that I could fix for them. I wouldn't get past the second line of climenoles. Plus my work is mainly hidden: after all if you have to return to a service improvement programme, you've done it wrong.

What I'm saying is that if that high level client wanted my skills, how would he find me? Google "Service Improvement Speciallist" (and find me on around page 20*) or give his tame agency a call to send one over?

That doesn't make me any less of a business, it just means my market is the intermediate agency rather than the client. The problem then is twofold: your interface is generally pretty rubbish and run by your cheapest available resource since you don't need to spend money to improve it in a market full of candidates, and you don't bother to remember me or follow up what I achieved for your client so I have zero market presence regardless of how well I perform...




* and several pages behind our Cojak...

Malvolio I do not mean to personalise this but I am afraid the problem is entirely of your own making. The inability of your business to find its way to the market is nothing to do with the existing agency/client/contractor model it is to do with either an inability to get it to the market or the market simply has no requirement for the service.

You should identify your clients and identify the stakeholders in those clients that would benefit from what you do (and these need to be benefits that ultimately relate to making financial gains). you then need to contact these people and get meetings with them in order to have an opportunity for you to show how your services can be of benefit.

If you sit and wait for clients to find you then whatever you do do not hold your breath.

[malvolio]

It is not a matter of right or wrong is it? It is a matter of failure of you and your business to get its message across to the market. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the agency/contractor market.. come on Malvolio a wise logical thinker like you should know this. If you are relying on agencies to understand and sell your business then you are very naive, furthermore you are failing to control your business if you are relying on people who have no understanding or interest or incentive in selling your services.

Run it by me if you would like some advice on how to sell your business.

Now don't personalise it. I've been earning good money for many years, and in recent years no more than 20% of my work has come from me applying to agency adverts. I'm actively working on getting that down to zero.

But that's me talking to people who know me (or know of me). That's a lot different to cold-calling my potential client base and asking them if they have some expensive flaws in their delivery operations that I could fix for them. I wouldn't get past the second line of climenoles. Plus my work is mainly hidden: after all if you have to return to a service improvement programme, you've done it wrong.

What I'm saying is that if that high level client wanted my skills, how would he find me? Google "Service Improvement Speciallist" (and find me on around page 20*) or give his tame agency a call to send one over?

That doesn't make me any less of a business, it just means my market is the intermediate agency rather than the client. The problem then is twofold: your interface is generally pretty rubbish and run by your cheapest available resource since you don't need to spend money to improve it in a market full of candidates, and you don't bother to remember me or follow up what I achieved for your client so I have zero market presence regardless of how well I perform...




* and several pages behind our Cojak...

[northernladuk]

Is this a good time to start a discussion about real businesses and work seekers looking for gigs via an agent pretending to be businesses..

Or should I

[DodgyAgent]

Sorry but from where I sit the model is wrong because it prevents my business being recognised for what it is; to do so it would have to stand up against an established £27bn industry that has deliberately hidden what I do for a living from the people I would like to sell it to.

We can argue till the cows come home about how and why we got to where we are, but at base it is pure capitalism at work and the logical outcome of a progression from what was a close professional relationship to a commodity service driven by bean counters and shareholders. Rarely do agencies care who I am, only what skills I can deliver, which is why there is no continuity of service, and no trust, between contractor and agency.

I think that's a shame, and an understandable one, and I don't have to like it.

And FWIW I - and many others I know - could easily compete with and out-perform the offshore crowd on cost and quality, but only if the people who use offshore resources know we're here. WIPRO and AMS didn't get big by telling the truth.

It is not a matter of right or wrong is it? It is a matter of failure of you and your business to get its message across to the market. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the agency/contractor market.. come on Malvolio a wise logical thinker like you should know this. If you are relying on agencies to understand and sell your business then you are very naive, furthermore you are failing to control your business if you are relying on people who have no understanding or interest or incentive in selling your services.

Run it by me if you would like some advice on how to sell your business.

[malvolio]

i agree with all of that except your unfounded assertion that the model is wrong. There is no basis whatsoever to say this other than old fashioned jealousy or resentment. You are the one arguing this point logically so it does not look good to abandon the logic for a bit of bigotry.

I will add that the market has made it very hard now for agencies to make money these days. contractors are no longer that hard to find and the likes of Alexander mann are delivering the cost savings and removing the risk for clients. This is an example of how markets (not contractors with an axe to grind) determine the worth of people and bodies within a business supply chain.

And before you contractors give it the "serve us right" treatment I will point out that contractors have also become marginalised by virtue of on/off/near shoring.

Sorry but from where I sit the model is wrong because it prevents my business being recognised for what it is; to do so it would have to stand up against an established £27bn industry that has deliberately hidden what I do for a living from the people I would like to sell it to.

We can argue till the cows come home about how and why we got to where we are, but at base it is pure capitalism at work and the logical outcome of a progression from what was a close professional relationship to a commodity service driven by bean counters and shareholders. Rarely do agencies care who I am, only what skills I can deliver, which is why there is no continuity of service, and no trust, between contractor and agency.

I think that's a shame, and an understandable one, and I don't have to like it.

And FWIW I - and many others I know - could easily compete with and out-perform the offshore crowd on cost and quality, but only if the people who use offshore resources know we're here. WIPRO and AMS didn't get big by telling the truth.

[DodgyAgent]

But this time...?

My point is that, like it or not, the market is the agencies', not the contractors'. That has come about because for many years the agencies ahave successfuly persuaded the clients that they are the source of the workers, who they have all lined up and ready to roll with no risk of any unwanted employement rights claims or taxes to pay (not that that is going to happen anyway, but hey, this is business).

Go look at any of their websites, they all have the exact same core message. Some clients understand the reality and cheerfully ignore it in the hope of a quiet life, some are taken in by it, some are so fooled by it they use RPOs and handover all their HR functions.

That is why alternatives to the agency model are so difficult to establish outside your own narrow network. The rent-a-coder sites only ever attract SMEs with tiny and usually local requirements. If you want a grown up you go to the agency model because the clients simply do not understand that we are independent businesses and more than happy to work on the back of a purchase order - if only they knew that we exist.

It's also why the agencies never put YourCo's name on anything that goes near the client. God forbid they admit they are not the only commercial entity in the daisy chain.

However, wrong as it is, it isn't going to change. Well not until it is totally disfunctional and the agencies are out of business and that's a little way away yet. Meanwhile banging on about who owns the business is a waste of breath. We don't.




Going back to sleep now...

i agree with all of that except your unfounded assertion that the model is wrong. There is no basis whatsoever to say this other than old fashioned jealousy or resentment. You are the one arguing this point logically so it does not look good to abandon the logic for a bit of bigotry.

I will add that the market has made it very hard now for agencies to make money these days. contractors are no longer that hard to find and the likes of Alexander mann are delivering the cost savings and removing the risk for clients. This is an example of how markets (not contractors with an axe to grind) determine the worth of people and bodies within a business supply chain.

And before you contractors give it the "serve us right" treatment I will point out that contractors have also become marginalised by virtue of on/off/near shoring.

[malvolio]

+1 Wanderer is seldom wrong

But this time...?

My point is that, like it or not, the market is the agencies', not the contractors'. That has come about because for many years the agencies ahave successfuly persuaded the clients that they are the source of the workers, who they have all lined up and ready to roll with no risk of any unwanted employement rights claims or taxes to pay (not that that is going to happen anyway, but hey, this is business).

Go look at any of their websites, they all have the exact same core message. Some clients understand the reality and cheerfully ignore it in the hope of a quiet life, some are taken in by it, some are so fooled by it they use RPOs and handover all their HR functions.

That is why alternatives to the agency model are so difficult to establish outside your own narrow network. The rent-a-coder sites only ever attract SMEs with tiny and usually local requirements. If you want a grown up you go to the agency model because the clients simply do not understand that we are independent businesses and more than happy to work on the back of a purchase order - if only they knew that we exist.

It's also why the agencies never put YourCo's name on anything that goes near the client. God forbid they admit they are not the only commercial entity in the daisy chain.

However, wrong as it is, it isn't going to change. Well not until it is totally disfunctional and the agencies are out of business and that's a little way away yet. Meanwhile banging on about who owns the business is a waste of breath. We don't.




Going back to sleep now...

[DodgyAgent]

+1

In
Client --> Agency --> Contractor
both the end parties are of the essence. The one in the middle is not. Useful maybe, not essential.

why does it matter?

[northernladuk]

The agency provides a service to the client which they can decide to take or not. It is a popular business model to allow clients to get on with their daily business in the same vein as outsourcing their IT, coffee machines and plant maintenance. None are essential but make good business sense in many cases.

Not quite understanding why people get so wound up about it. It's not gonna change, it is part of our business so just understand it, accept it and manage it.

[DodgyAgent]

So imagine a business relationship of Client --> Agency --> Contractor

The agency is not a critical element here since the relationship between the client and contractor can (and often does) still exist without an agent. The client has a budget allocated to pay for some resource. Agents take a cut of that and pay the rest to the contractor so they are making their money by taking it out of the contractor's earnings. Therefore, the contractor is paying your wages.

And don't tell us that we are taking a cut of your money because that's nonsense. See the chain above: we could still have a business relationship with the client without you taking your cut. Agents could not exist without clients and contractors. Fewer agents means more direct contracts for us and less money taken by a middle man for adding very little value.

I am not saying that the agent is critical to the deal - I am not that full of my own importance. If the agent were not in the mix who are you to say that the agents money becomes yours. It does not and it never is. Iit is the clients money to dispense with as he wishes. You have no control over this and therefore you are not the payer of the agent. the client is.

Clearly you have decided to make judgements about the value of people in the supply chain (talking up your own importance) if you want to play this irrelevant game then it is more than likely that the people who grow, pick the fruit could operate far more efficiently without the dead hand of a computer system.

All the "coulds" that you talk about are utterly irrelevant. The "ares" are the result of a chain of decisions (rightly or wrongly) arrived at out of choice driven by market forces. Just as the choice to build a computer system in the first place (rightly or wrongly) is similarly arrived at.

I do not mind accepting that the agent is of no relevance and that the world does not really need us, but I also wont accept that some soulless contractor that has neither the wit or social skills to find his own business has the right to tell me where I should fit in the market.

[Ignis Fatuus]

+1

In
Client --> Agency --> Contractor
both the end parties are of the essence. The one in the middle is not. Useful maybe, not essential.

[geoffreywhereveryoumaybe]

+1 Wanderer is seldom wrong