Reply to: Wimps?

[TheFaQQer]

My agent doesn't even know who the end client is.

Me -> Agency -> Consultancy -> X

And he douldn't get "X" right when he found the role.

[swamp]

I've just accepted an offer on my flat. I'm going to pay around £5K to the estate agent who has run around a bit and made a few calls but not much else. And I don't care about the £5K because I believe they've achieved a much better sale price than I could ever have got for myself.

Contracting is the same.

[expat]

The problem is not that there are agents, nor necessarily the size of their take, but the way that the market is ruled by people who have no idea what any of the keywords mean that they insist on seeing in the right profusion on the CV.

My response was that it is not contractors but clients who wimp out and hand the skilled work to unskilled barrow-boys. Witness the fact that most of the times when I have found a contract directly, I have been forced by the client to find an agency and go through them.

My OH also asked what proportion of agents were former IT contractors, who would know what the work demanded and be able to asses a contractor's ability. Close to 0%, I said. Ridiculous, she said. She is not talking out of her hat here, because in the past she worked in tax accounting in the City, where there were agents, but they were people who could do the job and do the selling. Our lot are just Siralans who can do the selling regardless of the goods.

ISTM too that the IT agents' world is one that is populated by their real competitiors, other agents. Clients are just punters, and contractors are raw materials. This leads among other things to there being too many agents: the market fills up with the maximum number of agents that it can support. In the course of doing that, it causes them to require to take a large margin, rather than have fewer contractors on their books.

I take Threaded's point which is slightly more observant than just bleating about the iniquity of having to use agents, but that is not what happens for most of us. It can not, since IT agents don't know anything about IT, and their business model does not include representing contractors.


In short, IT agents are not real agents. One giveaway to this is the number of times that there is a chain of more than one agent between the client and the contractor. I have had agents that I did not know "offering" me to agents that as it happened I did know well and regularly work with. These former guys are simply parasites, not trying to be an agent for any or either party but just trying to insert themselves into the chain and rake off from it. I am not tarring all agents with that brush, but the fact that it happens is a sign of a twisted market populated by peoople who are not satisfing it properly.

[Moscow Mule]

Couldn't agree more, you'd think there would be an agency with a transparent low margin set up purely for the 'go between' scenario.

Money for old rope but they could do a stoncking trade on less than 5% margin seeing as they’d have very little to do. Plan B anyone?

I believe JM Contracts charge 5% when they haven't done the placing. May be more/less in this climate but I haven't had reason to ask.

[The Lone Gunman]

Agents are your sales force. If you've been in business properly you will know how much a sales organisation costs a business. I think agents are pretty good value for money in comparison.

I understand what you are saying, but that is not the model we work with. It would be nice to have an agent who worked like that, but the truth is closer to what the OP said.
I have one agent who represents his contractors and sells them to the clients. He negotiates based on his knowledge of what we do and he sells our skills and tries to find a best fit for the client. He wont put me up for stuff I am not right for even if my CV has some matches unless he cant find a real fit and he always informs the client of this. He even attends interviews with me and sells the contractor model if the client is new to using us. I always go to him first when my contract search starts.
The rest of the agents are a just a filtering service for the client.
The clients are also victims of agent whispering about needing an agent to avoid employer obligations or unpaid tax coming back up the chain.

[BrilloPad]

Explained to (non-IT) partner in detail how the agency model works, how much agents know about IT, how the selection is all based on keywords rather than on knowledge, the size of the agent's cut, the handcuff clauses, the lies about having submitted your CV, how they tell us not to be submitted more than once or else be binned, etc etc.

She summarised the situation in a few words: you're all a bunch of spineless wimps for letting those ******* do that to you.


Discuss, dissent, please.

What are we supposed to do about it? Break their legs?

[gingerjedi]

.

The problem really is companies forcing people to go through agencies even when the appointment was made through a network.

Couldn't agree more, you'd think there would be an agency with a transparent low margin set up purely for the 'go between' scenario.

Money for old rope but they could do a stoncking trade on less than 5% margin seeing as they’d have very little to do. Plan B anyone?

[SallyAnne]

Agents are your sales force. If you've been in business properly you will know how much a sales organisation costs a business. I think agents are pretty good value for money in comparison.

That's actually a great way of thinking of it Threaded.

[Churchill]

Agents are your sales force. If you've been in business properly you will know how much a sales organisation costs a business. I think agents are pretty good value for money in comparison.

What the Fat Yorkie Says!

[threaded]

Agents are your sales force. If you've been in business properly you will know how much a sales organisation costs a business. I think agents are pretty good value for money in comparison.

[minestrone]

She does have a point, but then I don't think many development managers/PMs want to look through 200 CVs for one job.

The problem really is companies forcing people to go through agencies even when the appointment was made through a network.

Agencies should make their money for finding someone, not being the mandatory middle man in a business to business agreement.

[Turion]

Without agents, there would be far fewer opportunities for contractorship. Most contractors would be permies, either with end clients or the big body shops. For all their shortcomings, I'm grateful for their creativity in making the UK the largest open market for IT freelancers.

[shoes]

She summarised the situation

Here's my summary of her expert analysis. Think more talk less.

Put the kettle on love.

[TimberWolf]

Explained to (non-IT) partner in detail how the agency model works, how much agents know about IT, how the selection is all based on keywords rather than on knowledge, the size of the agent's cut, the handcuff clauses, the lies about having submitted your CV, how they tell us not to be submitted more than once or else be binned, etc etc.

She summarised the situation in a few words: you're all a bunch of spineless wimps for letting those ******* do that to you.


Discuss, dissent, please.

It is crazy what agents take, but on the other hand I do think they increase the rates achieved. I might go so far as to say they artificially inflate our salaries, which can be a pain and work against you when you're willing to work for less to get work.

[oracleslave]

Does she have a viable alternative model in mind that can be rolled out globally? Alterntively hand her the phone and ask her to find you your next contract.