Not getting through directly

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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

[northernladuk]

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

[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?

[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...

[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.

[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).

[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.