Reply to: When an end client only works with a small list of agencies

[northernladuk]

When an agency does maintain a database of contractor CVs it is at best completely out of date. They then perform very poor keyword searches on said database, send out a load of spam mail to people woefully inadequate for the role in the hope that one recipient will do their job for them and pass it on to a good candidate.

To call it a database of contractors gives the wrong impression. It does sound like it is a useful list of people they can call up and match easily but it is just a spam mail list and nothing more. As LM says, it will be out of date in less than a month and the chances of you being available will be pretty slim etc.

To be fair I don't mind them contacting me, sometimes the roles are relevant and I can dig for a bit of info on market rates and who is PSL on who. Other times it provides a laugh.

'I have an electrical engineer role are you free'
'I am not an electrical engineer'
'You have an HNC in Electrical and Electronic Engineering 18 years ago on your CV'
'Riiiiiiiiiiight, thanks for the call. Goodbye.'

[ladymuck]

...

The logical conclusion of this argument has already been suggested by another poster.
Apart from identifying possible clients, there is no longer any point in an agency maintaining an in house database of contractors CV's.

When an agency does maintain a database of contractor CVs it is at best completely out of date. They then perform very poor keyword searches on said database, send out a load of spam mail to people woefully inadequate for the role in the hope that one recipient will do their job for them and pass it on to a good candidate.

[Justin Control]

....
It is in the best interest of an agent to have the best skilled resources on his books

No it's irrelevant.

All agencies have access to the same pool of talent through a simple ad. on Jobserve. They are only too painfully aware that they cannot differentiate themselves on this basis.

Neither agents nor contractors have any control over client requirements. As a consequence agents are unable to guarantee work and contractors unable to guarantee availability. The relationship between the two parties is essentially transactional. Repeated transactions shouldn't obscure this fact.

For this reason it's irrelevant to an agency having skilled, or otherwise, contractors on their books. It's equally meaningless for a contractor to be on an agency's books.

The logical conclusion of this argument has already been suggested by another poster.
Apart from identifying possible clients, there is no longer any point in an agency maintaining an in house database of contractors CV's.

[malvolio]

The agency is also in competition with other agencies for skilled resources. The more your skill is in demand the less the agent can earn as a mark up as other agents can offer the contractors more
It is in the best interest of an agent to have the best skilled resources on his books

Yes it is, so why don't most of them bother?

We're back to the circular argument about which agency to use. 90% of contractors don't have a choice. Furthermore, 90% of agencies ignore their own CV libraries; far easier and cheaper to Broadbean the requirement to the job boards and let the contractors find you while you get on looking for the next client.

It's also a myth that the client's rate is up for negotiation: it isn't, that will have been set by a budget manager somewhere higher up the tree than the hiring manager. A certain insurance company in Bristol has a detailed rate card that is totally immutable: they tell the agencies that the lowest matching bid below that rate card wins. It's also set so low that they only ever get second (or even third) rate applicants, but as long as they're happy, that's the market rate.

[Brussels Slumdog]

Agents competition

I did a blog once on contractors not understanding their own market. Perhaps I should resurrect it...

The agency is in a commodity market to make money: he's absolutely sod all to do with recruiting or personnel management. He sells himself to the client as a source of expert staff for any given piece of work. He then has to find those staff, so he advertises for suitable suppliers (or in his tiny world view, people with the necessary list of buzzwords on the CV). His challenge then is to keep as much of his fee to the client as he can by paying you as little of it as he can.

At no time is he interested in you or your best interests: he is in no way obliged to treat you as anything other than the vehicle through which he earns his income. You do not add value to his business.

If you haven't got your head around that, you're in the wrong game.

The agency is also in competition with other agencies for skilled resources. The more your skill is in demand the less the agent can earn as a mark up as other agents can offer the contractors more
It is in the best interest of an agent to have the best skilled resources on his books

[aussielong]

I think that in the case of permie resourcing, it's in the agencies interest to get you as high a salary as poss since their payment is typically based on this but it's a one off.

With contracting, it's in their interest to max the % between what the client will pay and what you will be willing to accept. So if you think they are representing you, the contractor, then you're gonna get fleeced. Obv it's different for sports/celeb agencies

Exactly, they are playing the spread, and they don't care which side it widens as long as it widens.

How are they biased one way or the other in terms of profit?

The market sets the rates, not the agent. The agent merely has more info than most of you, so knows the right price.

[Pondlife]

Interesting. I thought agencies represent both you and the client. They do a sales job on both sides. Can you elaborate?

I think that in the case of permie resourcing, it's in the agencies interest to get you as high a salary as poss since their payment is typically based on this but it's a one off.

With contracting, it's in their interest to max the % between what the client will pay and what you will be willing to accept. So if you think they are representing you, the contractor, then you're gonna get fleeced. Obv it's different for sports/celeb agencies

[malvolio]

Interesting. I thought agencies represent both you and the client. They do a sales job on both sides. Can you elaborate?

I did a blog once on contractors not understanding their own market. Perhaps I should resurrect it...

The agency is in a commodity market to make money: he's absolutely sod all to do with recruiting or personnel management. He sells himself to the client as a source of expert staff for any given piece of work. He then has to find those staff, so he advertises for suitable suppliers (or in his tiny world view, people with the necessary list of buzzwords on the CV). His challenge then is to keep as much of his fee to the client as he can by paying you as little of it as he can.

At no time is he interested in you or your best interests: he is in no way obliged to treat you as anything other than the vehicle through which he earns his income. You do not add value to his business.

If you haven't got your head around that, you're in the wrong game.

[NCOTBAC]

Interesting. I thought agencies represent both you and the client. They do a sales job on both sides. Can you elaborate?

No, they find you and provide you to the client as part of the service to the client. You could possibly use the term represent on both sides but they will have slightly different meanings as one is a paying customer and the other is a resource.

[aussielong]

No, it isn't strange and you've got it completely the wrong way around.

Agencies don't represent you - they represent the client - you represent the agent, they are your customer, the client is the agent's customer.

How the client chooses their agents is really none of your business.

Interesting. I thought agencies represent both you and the client. They do a sales job on both sides. Can you elaborate?

[TheFaQQer]

I actually did in this case. But the end-client insisted an agency was required for 'paperwork'. More likely, the agency is there to bully you to accept a crappy extension when the time comes.

I don't see how you can be bullied to do anything that you don't want to do.

You work for yourself, you decide whether to accept the contract or not. There is nothing more to it than that.

[TheFaQQer]

No the agency is there because the company isn't set up to deal with contractors so they offload it to a third party. Few companies wish to deal with contractors directly (they are fed scare stories by agencies to get work) and those that do are often late payers (there is usually a reason why companies wish to watch the pennies).

For some reason, many clients believe that having an agency in the mix protects them from tax liabilities and you claiming to be an employee.

[NCOTBAC]

I actually did in this case. But the end-client insisted an agency was required for 'paperwork'. More likely, the agency is there to bully you to accept a crappy extension when the time comes.

How can you be a contractor and not understand the very basics of how we work? I would guess you are calling the clients liars as well as the agents now?

The client doesn't care what happens between you and the agent. He pays the agent the same whatever the agent is paying you. The weak link is you not negotiating a very good deal.

[eek]

I actually did in this case. But the end-client insisted an agency was required for 'paperwork'. More likely, the agency is there to bully you to accept a crappy extension when the time comes.

No the agency is there because the company isn't set up to deal with contractors so they offload it to a third party. Few companies wish to deal with contractors directly (they are fed scare stories by agencies to get work) and those that do are often late payers (there is usually a reason why companies wish to watch the pennies).

[masonryan]

Well your solution is simple then. Do your own sales and marketing activities and find your own end clients. That way you negotiate directly and get all your points across.

I actually did in this case. But the end-client insisted an agency was required for 'paperwork'. More likely, the agency is there to bully you to accept a crappy extension when the time comes.