Reply to: Is it feasible to find contracting roles without the use of an agent?

[LondonManc]

I think you're right in principle, but in talking with my own clients sometimes about their experiences, a lot of them complain that a lot of recruitment agencies send them numerous CVs that are quite unsuitable for the role they want to fill, and it causes a lot of annoyance and frustration. A lot of my peers in my own field talk with their own clients and get the same message. Although there are some good agencies, agencies on the whole do not have a good reputation from what I have seen.

It beats sifting through 500 cvs by yourself, as well fighting off calls from agencies, chancers and all sorts of other people like consultancies who believe that they can offer a better solution. The agency route is still the best of a bad lot. The problems with the agency route are simple: imprecise requirements, inexperienced cv searches at the agency and BS merchant contractors claiming they can do something that they can't. I replaced what the hiring manager described as a "Google DBA"; he'd used me elsewhere as the data warehousing specialist so knew that while I wasn't an out-and-out DBA, I was far more up to the task than the clown who had bluffed his way through the interview.

[rogerthedodger]

Companies use agencies for two reasons:
Simplicity of invoicing; it's easier to deal with two or three touchpoints for invoicing, hiring, firing, etc. rather than 200 contractors each on an individual basis
Simplicity of recruitment: saves on cv sifting - companies will ask for the three best cvs off each of the agencies on their PSL and then choose the candidates that they want to interview. Saves vast amounts of time going through every CV.

While that model isn't perfect, a multiple agency approach means that the client can get the best available candidate (rather than simply the one that offers best margin to the agent) and can have different agencies specialise in different areas (e.g. networking versus databases).

I think you're right in principle, but in talking with my own clients sometimes about their experiences, a lot of them complain that a lot of recruitment agencies send them numerous CVs that are quite unsuitable for the role they want to fill, and it causes a lot of annoyance and frustration. A lot of my peers in my own field talk with their own clients and get the same message. Although there are some good agencies, agencies on the whole do not have a good reputation from what I have seen.

[LondonManc]

Companies use agencies for two reasons:
Simplicity of invoicing; it's easier to deal with two or three touchpoints for invoicing, hiring, firing, etc. rather than 200 contractors each on an individual basis
Simplicity of recruitment: saves on cv sifting - companies will ask for the three best cvs off each of the agencies on their PSL and then choose the candidates that they want to interview. Saves vast amounts of time going through every CV.

While that model isn't perfect, a multiple agency approach means that the client can get the best available candidate (rather than simply the one that offers best margin to the agent) and can have different agencies specialise in different areas (e.g. networking versus databases).

[rogerthedodger]

That's my point, it's not a mystery to many of us, just to you lol.

Everyone else here know's why, I would tell you but it's a trade secret...

You're obviously having difficulty reading posts and / or remembering what's been said. Let me spell it out for you again:

Let me start by reminding you that you originally asked why COMPANIES use agencies ("this more expensive route").

You're now saying, actually quite rightly, that CONTRACTORS use agencies most of the time.

CONTRACTORS use agencies because......surprise surprise.... COMPANIES use agencies.....a lot........so contractors have to use agencies to exploit what is a sizeable slug of work opportunities.

But the important question is....WHY DO COMPANIES USE AGENCIES?

For many contractors, it's quite hard to fathom why companies use agencies, because based on comments I've seen from various credible people who've looked into it, the majority of contractors have the view that the majority of agencies are pretty poor.

Have you got it now?

[Agent]

You'd better ask them that. It's a mystery to many of us!

That's my point, it's not a mystery to many of us, just to you lol.

Everyone else here know's why, I would tell you but it's a trade secret...

[rogerthedodger]

That's not the post I was referring to. The post you've just quoted is the post where I was referring to my mate's trade secrets i.e. things that are specific to him and his field of work. They work for him because he's in HR but they wouldn't work for me or almost everyone on here I guess.

[LondonManc]

A very good old mate of mine has been an independent professional for 25 years (and a very successful one) and has bagged ALMOST ALL his contracts by means of direct speculative approaches. Very importantly though, he has used SNAIL MAIL i.e. letter plus CV, NOT email. There are some 'trade secrets' as to how this is done, that I'm not at liberty to disclose. Think carefully, though, and you might just be able to work it out. He's NEVER used an agency and NEVER responded to an advertised role.

[rogerthedodger]

This is the big secret approach? That's it?!??

Look again. Nowhere in that post did I say it was a secret approach.

My point stands around costs comparisons. Let me ask you this, WHY do you think that vast majority of contractors work through an agency?

Why not? It's one method of getting work, isn't it?

What's your logic for why companies use this more expensive route to hiring contractors?

You'd better ask them that. It's a mystery to many of us!

[Agent]

Actually it's a bit of a mix of pain letters targeted at business problems requiring consultancy or interim management input, and "have you got any work for me", but all presented as "sh** hot consultant / contractor / interim executive available if you need him / her and oh by the way just LOOK at this CV you really ought to be biting my hand off and oh by the way a Big 4 consultancy charges rock bottom £3,000 / day but you get me for a lot less and the ROI is of galactic proportions".

Spec approaches can work for anyone. A good CV and cover letter, with key messages quickly conveyed, will be read and retained and if a company can get a top notch spec candidate and cut out the costs of advertising and/or agents, it will do so.

I share your concerns about agents. Some are very good, but a vast number are chavvy kids barely out of short trousers and think they know everything, plus communication, responsiveness, and feedback are virtually nil.

This is the big secret approach? That's it?!??

It sounds pretty identical to what I've been doing for over 10 years, spec a CV with a compelling write up to the right person at the right time. Hate to tell you this, but that's not a secret formula, it's sales 101.

My point stands around costs comparisons. Let me ask you this, WHY do you think that vast majority of contractors work through an agency? What's your logic for why companies use this more expensive route to hiring contractors?

[man]

Actually it's a bit of a mix of pain letters targeted at business problems requiring consultancy or interim management input, and "have you got any work for me", but all presented as "sh** hot consultant / contractor / interim executive available if you need him / her and oh by the way just LOOK at this CV you really ought to be biting my hand off and oh by the way a Big 4 consultancy charges rock bottom £3,000 / day but you get me for a lot less and the ROI is of galactic proportions".

Spec approaches can work for anyone. A good CV and cover letter, with key messages quickly conveyed, will be read and retained and if a company can get a top notch spec candidate and cut out the costs of advertising and/or agents, it will do so.

I share your concerns about agents. Some are very good, but a vast number are chavvy kids barely out of short trousers and think they know everything, plus communication, responsiveness, and feedback are virtually nil.

Thanks for sharing and fair play for getting the approach to work effectively. Myself and I'm sure many others on here lack the depth and breadth of marketing skills to pull it off effectively enough to be worth the time investment. I think the topic of B2B marketing is something I'll eventually shell out for a high quality course on as I'm aware it's probably my most serious weakness in the business world and I haven't yet figured out a way of cost effectively outsourcing it.

Totally agreed regarding agents - it's only with great difficulty I bite my tongue when dealing with those types.

[Scotslaw]

I would say, it will depend on what sort of client and industry you want to target.
Factors influencing skill requirements and commercial terms:
1. Larger organisations will have a better chance of having requirements which a contractor can fulfil. Smaller organisations less so.
2. Larger organisations will have the capacity to afford higher day rates for contractors for relatively common skills. Smaller organisations less so.
3. Larger organisations will have the clout to negotiate down day rates with supply aggregators like agencies. Medium and smaller organisations will be forced to pay more to attract the right skills.
Between these factors and depending on the skill set, there will be a sweet spot where there are a lot of requirements in the market at an attractive day rate.

Factors influencing contractor hiring:
1. Larger organisations will prefer the convenience of outsourcing background checks, the legal contracts, IR35 processing etc. to another organisation like an agency. Smaller organisations may not mind it. For this reason, larger organisations will tend to operate almost exclusively through agencies for certain types of skills.
2. Industry sectors like Financial Services will have a lot more mandatory background checks, which will lean them heavily towards agencies.

Most reputable clients will have a roster of dependable and reputable agencies that they use to hire contractors and to employ permanent staff. You can be comfortable approaching these clients through the agencies. Even if you manage to secure a contract offer directly from certain clients, their procurement practices may restrict you to commence the contracted work only through one of their retained agencies.

[LondonManc]

Actually it's a bit of a mix of pain letters targeted at business problems requiring consultancy or interim management input, and "have you got any work for me", but all presented as "sh** hot consultant / contractor / interim executive available if you need him / her and oh by the way just LOOK at this CV you really ought to be biting my hand off and oh by the way a Big 4 consultancy charges rock bottom £3,000 / day but you get me for a lot less and the ROI is of galactic proportions".

Spec approaches can work for anyone. A good CV and cover letter, with key messages quickly conveyed, will be read and retained and if a company can get a top notch spec candidate and cut out the costs of advertising and/or agents, it will do so.

I share your concerns about agents. Some are very good, but a vast number are chavvy kids barely out of short trousers and think they know everything, plus communication, responsiveness, and feedback are virtually nil.

The problem isn't the players; it's the game. Kids are trained up, taught to BS and lie and given often out-dated keywords to sift CVs.

[rogerthedodger]

I'd put my money on it being 'pain letters' (to quote LinkedIn articles from Liz Ryan) - in short a personal approach focussed on solving the prospects actual business problems rather than a spammed CV and a 'have you got any work relevant to me'.

Whatever it is, good for him and I'd love to be able to do what he's done/doing in this regard as agents (or to be more precise, the unprofessional and 'bad' agents) have annoyed me more times than I can count.

Actually it's a bit of a mix of pain letters targeted at business problems requiring consultancy or interim management input, and "have you got any work for me", but all presented as "sh** hot consultant / contractor / interim executive available if you need him / her and oh by the way just LOOK at this CV you really ought to be biting my hand off and oh by the way a Big 4 consultancy charges rock bottom £3,000 / day but you get me for a lot less and the ROI is of galactic proportions".

Spec approaches can work for anyone. A good CV and cover letter, with key messages quickly conveyed, will be read and retained and if a company can get a top notch spec candidate and cut out the costs of advertising and/or agents, it will do so.

I share your concerns about agents. Some are very good, but a vast number are chavvy kids barely out of short trousers and think they know everything, plus communication, responsiveness, and feedback are virtually nil.

[man]

Let's just say that my mate doesn't want to have his techniques leaked to all and sundry i.e. competitors. Almost everyone who's tried direct approaches says it doesn't work, and that's because they don't do it right.

I'd put my money on it being 'pain letters' (to quote LinkedIn articles from Liz Ryan) - in short a personal approach focussed on solving the prospects actual business problems rather than a spammed CV and a 'have you got any work relevant to me'.

Whatever it is, good for him and I'd love to be able to do what he's done/doing in this regard as agents (or to be more precise, the unprofessional and 'bad' agents) have annoyed me more times than I can count.

[rogerthedodger]

Possibility the best post I've seen in a while.

'Trade secrets' which include posting your CV and a cover letter...

Why wouldn't you be at liberty to disclose lol, does he have you under and NDA? Trust me, there's no secret out there that isn't already well known.

There's a guy posting here asking for help on finding a direct contract, you tell him there's a trade secret to do exactly that but you won't disclose it.

Sounds very much like the trade secret that I have about how you can make £1000 to £2000 a day, working only a few hours a day from home....

With regards to not using an agency being cheaper for the client, that's a myth. If it were true, then that's the way the world would be. You're understanding of 'costs' sounds like "day rate direct" vs "day rate agency" - this isn't the way it works. You need to take in to account a lot of other hard and soft costs.

LLLLLOOOOOOLLLLLL

A little knowledge, as they say, is a dangerous thing.

Let's just say that my mate doesn't want to have his techniques leaked to all and sundry i.e. competitors. Almost everyone who's tried direct approaches says it doesn't work, and that's because they don't do it right.

Regards agency costs, your maths seems a little dubious. Day rate + agency margin is greater than same day rate on its own, is it not, or didn't you pass GCSE maths? The hard and soft costs to which you refer are pretty trivial compared to an agency margin over e.g. a 12 month contract.

I've been in this game 25 years and I've done numerous contracts direct with end clients on a day rate basis. My pal has done nearly all his contracts direct, also on a day rate basis, and so have a few other people I know, so please don't try to tell me that "it isn't the way it works". As I said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.