PDA

View Full Version : Recruitment Consultants are parasites



scooterscot
24th September 2013, 08:40
The 2nd highest rated comment on the beeb regarding 'CV blunders hit jobseekers' chances of securing employment (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24201307)'.

It's good to know I'm not alone in feeling this way about those people.


69. Alan
23RD SEPTEMBER 2013 - 11:34
3.BikerJake
I worked for 24 months as a Recruitment Consultant
----

Another non job. Recruitment Consultants are parasites, clueless ones at that. I have never understood why any company uses them given that most just post the jobs on some site and that's it. We get many letters\emails from such "consultancies", even people turning up unannounced, trying to "sell" us people. Not needed thank you.

SimonMac
24th September 2013, 08:41
I treat them as a tool, there are good one and bad ones, but needed for me to get contracts at times

amcdonald
24th September 2013, 08:42
The 2nd highest rated comment on the beeb regarding 'CV blunders hit jobseekers' chances of securing employment (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24201307)'.

It's good to know I'm not alone in feeling this way about those people.

Good post, lets all like it and keep it there

d000hg
24th September 2013, 08:44
I'm sure a comment criticising contractors earning £500/day would be very popular too, especially if they were "earning £500 of tax-payers' money a DAY". Lots of people thought Labour were doing a good job in power...

scooterscot
24th September 2013, 09:21
I'm sure a comment criticising contractors earning £500/day would be very popular too, especially if they were "earning £500 of tax-payers' money a DAY". Lots of people thought Labour were doing a good job in power...

Why would they criticise someone who has worked hard for an education to better themselves and income?

This is at odds with the majority of recruitment consultants who continue to demonstrate an absence of knowledge or enthusiasm.

d000hg
24th September 2013, 09:24
Why would they criticise someone who has worked hard for an education to better themselves and income?Because permies often have just as good an education and work at least as hard (you know, overtime, putting one in for the team, etc).

Who cares why... are you disputing that they would? I bet it's a LOT of hard work to get to be an MP and they often have great educations, but they are hardly popular.

Ticktock
24th September 2013, 09:28
Why would they criticise someone who has worked hard for an education to better themselves and income?

This is at odds with the majority of recruitment consultants who continue to demonstrate an absence of knowledge or enthusiasm.

Do you really believe what you post?

They would criticise it because the rate is £500 per day. You'll have the straight jealousy because of the stated rate. Then you'll have someone in a techie role saying "That guy is doing the same thing I do so why should he get more money". And if it's a public sector contract, the combined "Contractor Greed at Cost of Taxpayers" outcry.

You'll be lucky to find anyone who cares how you got to where you did. And that's not always got anything to do with education or hardwork - your role will exist in permie land for a lot less.

scooterscot
24th September 2013, 09:30
Because permies often have just as good an education and work at least as hard (you know, overtime, putting one in for the team, etc).

Who cares why... are you disputing that they would? I bet it's a LOT of hard work to get to be an MP and they often have great educations, but they are hardly popular.

Working hard is not the same as working smart. Overtime is it what happens with piss poor planning, and faffing on internet forms, don't panic!

UK employees work many more hours than Germans, yet they are far less productive! - :o

scooterscot
24th September 2013, 09:38
Do you really believe what you post?

They would criticise it because the rate is £500 per day. You'll have the straight jealousy because of the stated rate. Then you'll have someone in a techie role saying "That guy is doing the same thing I do so why should he get more money". And if it's a public sector contract, the combined "Contractor Greed at Cost of Taxpayers" outcry.

You'll be lucky to find anyone who cares how you got to where you did. And that's not always got anything to do with education or hardwork - your role will exist in permie land for a lot less.

Yes.

£500 per day is okay for sure but I'm knowing lawyers who charge £250 an hour. It pales into comparison. If the world was as fair as you propose it would be near impossible to find those who really do have skills and those wide mouth boys who have the gift of the gab.

Also you forget (and I don't know how the government has done it) but 500 today is it not what it was in 2006, Sterling has become hugely depressed against all the major currencies, it's worth less for sure and should be a wake up call.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0OGRftqniY&feature=youtu.be&t

cojak
24th September 2013, 09:42
Working hard is not the same as working smart. Overtime is it what happens with piss poor planning, and faffing on internet forms, don't panic!

UK employees work many more hours than Germans, yet they are far less productive! - :o

There is no pressure on UK businesses to be more productive when labour is cheap and the supply plentiful.

Ticktock
24th September 2013, 09:47
Yes.

£500 per day is okay for sure but I'm knowing lawyers who charge £250 an hour. It pales into comparison. If the world was as fair as you propose it would be near impossible to find those who really do have skills and those wide mouth boys who have the gift of the gab.

Also you forget (and I don't know how the government has done it) but 500 today is it not what it was in 2006, Sterling has become hugely depressed against all the major currencies, it's worth less for sure and should be a wake up call.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0OGRftqniY&feature=youtu.be&t

Um, so what? I know lawyers who charge a lot more than £250 an hour. I know of footballers earning a lot more than that. Yes, some people earn a hell of a lot more than I do - they also have a completely different skillset and work in different industries than I do.
What bearing does that have on how a permie earning £28k a year will view someone else doing the same type of work, but on £500 per day? The value of the £500 doesn't matter. It's the perception of that £500 that matters.

As usual, it looks like you're shifting the argument.
1. The initial premise was that a post criticising contractors for charging £500 per day would also be popular, especially if that money was coming from the public purse.
2. Your response was "Why would they criticise someone who has worked hard for an education to better themselves and income?".
3. The counter-argument was that they won't care how hard you worked (and they may have worked just as hard and have the same qualifications). What they will see is that you are charging for one day nearly as much as they get for one week.

Hopefully breaking this into bullet points will make it easier to follow, if you don't get confused by the numbers.

scooterscot
24th September 2013, 09:47
There is no pressure on UK businesses to be more productive when labour is cheap and the supply plentiful.

And we wonder why our exports are falling. There's every pressure for business to become more efficient, the same production in less time. In fact since every recession ever recorded it's the single theme that comes out, increased efficiency.

If that's not pressure to improve I don't know what is. Business needs to do more with less, that's where the success lies. We should have learnt by now cheap labour is a short term game we'll always loose and is not one for us to be playing.

d000hg
24th September 2013, 10:47
Also you forget (and I don't know how the government has done it) but 500 today is it not what it was in 2006, Sterling has become hugely depressed against all the major currencies, it's worth less for sure and should be a wake up call.Poor diddums tax avoider struggling to afford private school for his kids.


Would I expect be about the level of sympathy such a comment would garner.

DodgyAgent
24th September 2013, 11:05
£500 per day is okay for sure but I'm knowing lawyers who charge £250 an hour. It pales into comparison. If the world was as fair as you propose it would be near impossible to find those who really do have skills and those wide mouth boys who have the gift of the gab.

So you think you are worth more than £500 a day just because of well "who you are"?.
If the world was fair you would be earning a lot less than £500 a day.
Obviously you resent lawyers earning more than you because you have an inflated idea of "what you are worth"

We can all play that game why are you worth more than a farmer in Africa or a doctor in India or a teacher in Cambodia?

The sheer arrogance that you display is beyond parody

MaryPoppins
24th September 2013, 12:00
£500 per day is okay for sure but I'm knowing lawyers who charge £250 an hour. It pales into comparison. If the world was as fair as you propose it would be near impossible to find those who really do have skills and those wide mouth boys who have the gift of the gab.

So you think you are worth more than £500 a day just because of well "who you are"?.
If the world was fair you would be earning a lot less than £500 a day.
Obviously you resent lawyers earning more than you because you have an inflated idea of "what you are worth"

We can all play that game why are you worth more than a farmer in Africa or a doctor in India or a teacher in Cambodia?

The sheer arrogance that you display is beyond parody

Agreed.

If agents genuinely were that universally crap, they would have ceased to exist well before now. They obviously add some value somewhere along the line; for me, it's in ensuring I get paid on time and little else.

Old Greg
24th September 2013, 12:14
Agreed.

If agents genuinely were that universally crap, they would have ceased to exist well before now. They obviously add some value somewhere along the line; for me, it's in ensuring I get paid on time and little else.

The other perspective is that agents remove a lot of the contracts / payment type hassle from clients, making taking on contractors a more palatable business.

scooterscot
24th September 2013, 12:29
[I]
So you think you are worth more than £500 a day just because of well "who you are"?.
If the world was fair you would be earning a lot less than £500 a day.

And you claim to be in the business of making money? :eek:

Learn the simple lesson of supply and demand. If I choose to learn skills that place in me a niche, and demand increases then I can make more money. My worth is only determined by what others are willing to pay. Do you understand that?

The acquisition of the skills you use to be an agent are not in demand hence you're frustration and anger towards me. If your skills can be acquired for ten a penny don't take your anger out at those that chose a more challenging route. Perhaps try an alternative career path.




We can all play that game why are you worth more than a farmer in Africa or a doctor in India or a teacher in Cambodia?

The sheer arrogance that you display is beyond parody

You're frustration is cause for amusement. If you understood supply & demand, you would not be arguing about worth. I'm sure your energy would be better focused elsewhere.

DodgyAgent
24th September 2013, 12:58
And you claim to be in the business of making money? :eek:

Learn the simple lesson of supply and demand. If I choose to learn skills that place in me a niche, and demand increases then I can make more money. My worth is only determined by what others are willing to pay. Do you understand that?

The acquisition of the skills you use to be an agent are not in demand hence you're frustration and anger towards me. If your skills can be acquired for ten a penny don't take your anger out at those that chose a more challenging route. Perhaps try an alternative career path.



You're frustration is cause for amusement. If you understood supply & demand, you would not be arguing about worth. I'm sure your energy would be better focused elsewhere.

I perfectly understand the laws of supply and demand. I live by them day to day. I have no contractual entitlement that puts me beyond the vagaries of market forces. It is you that is whining about "fairness" and it is you who is trying to justify your worth(lessness) against what everyone else earns.

scooterscot
24th September 2013, 13:06
It is you that is whining about "fairness" and it is you who is trying to justify your worth(lessness) against what everyone else earns.

Show me this thread where I've whined? Can you not read & think at the same time with due diligence and consideration of the text before you? There's a reason you're a recruitment agent.

d000hg
24th September 2013, 13:23
SS maybe you should write on a post-it note which side of the fence you're on before you start.

scooterscot
24th September 2013, 13:27
SS maybe you should write on a post-it note which side of the fence you're on before you start.

I don't pick sides. That would make for an unbalanced debate. An argument without balance is like a boat in shipyard, dry with no one onboard.

MaryPoppins
24th September 2013, 13:32
SS maybe you should write on a post-it note which side of the fence you're on before you start.

...and learn the sodding difference between 'you're' and 'your'. Moron.

Ticktock
24th September 2013, 13:33
I don't pick sides. That would make for an unbalanced debate. An argument without balance is like a boat in shipyard, dry with no one onboard.

Please don't pretend you're trying to have a reasoned debate.

It's not a balanced debate when you change your position with every post, can't keep on topic, have no logical sense, can barely speak your native tongue to an intelligible level and don't seem to understand your own initial argument.

scooterscot
24th September 2013, 13:37
It's not a balanced debate when you change your position with every post

A change of position is necessary for balance, is that so difficult to understand? If you sit on side of the seesaw your argument will be quick over.

MaryPoppins
24th September 2013, 13:38
I don't pick sides. That would make for an unbalanced debate. An argument without balance is like a boat in shipyard, dry with no one onboard.

You're not Yoda for crying out loud. Get a grip.

scooterscot
24th September 2013, 13:39
...and learn the sodding difference between 'you're' and 'your'. Moron.

wHo the <insert appropriate expletive> here cares about grammar given the general topics of conversation.

Ticktock
24th September 2013, 13:40
A change of position is necessary for balance, is that so difficult to understand? If you sit on side of the seesaw your argument will be quick over.

I... I don't think I can even be bothered with trying to continue this.
If I try to argue he'll just tell me how important it is to stick to one side of a debate throughout, having switched positions again in the name of balance...

Sometimes I'm almost happy I never had kids, so didn't have to go through these sorts of discussions.

scooterscot
24th September 2013, 13:41
You're not Yoda for crying out loud. Get a grip.

I know, I'm just an engineer. Full grip.

MaryPoppins
24th September 2013, 13:45
I... I don't think I can even be bothered with trying to continue this.
If I try to argue he'll just tell me how important it is to stick to one side of a debate throughout, having switched positions again in the name of balance...

Sometimes I'm almost happy I never had kids, so didn't have to go through these sorts of discussions.

:laugh

My 4yr old is far superior to ScooterScat in most areas.

scooterscot
24th September 2013, 13:46
If I try to argue he'll just tell me how important it is to stick to one side of a debate throughout, .

Well it wouldn't be much of an argument if I just agreed with you would it!?!!







Thicko,

:rolleyes:

eek
24th September 2013, 13:47
:laugh

My 4yr old is far superior to Scooter Scat in most areas.

I now have an image in my head which I would very much prefer not to be there....

scooterscot
24th September 2013, 13:47
:laugh

My 4yr old is far superior to ScooterScat in most areas.

I'm sure your little girl is.

MaryPoppins
24th September 2013, 13:53
I'm sure your little girl is.

Tosser.

scooterscot
24th September 2013, 13:55
Tosser.

Goodness you pay someone a compliment - the anger must run deep in this one.

darmstadt
24th September 2013, 14:18
Well my agent has just gone on maternity leave and her replacement just gave me a call to set up a face to face. Over the phone she sounded really rather nice so checked out her profile on Xing and the face matched the voice, which was nice. Definitely didn't look like a parasite to me although could be a small cuddly fluffy animal with central heating problems.

evilagent
24th September 2013, 17:38
Recruitment, much like estate agency (sadly), is involved in high-margin activities.
It's about securing a high-value product, and acquiring "dibs".
The rights to represent a client, and to represent a candidate. (or house)

If you look at the adverts for recruiters, you will find, almost exclusively, the skills sought after are primarily sales ability.
Not sector knowledge.
Not X years technical experience.

The industry, therefore, is awash with KPI-obsessed types.

I don't think much will change until the nature of the industry changes, ie, industry knowledge as a cornerstone of the skill-set.

But, as candidates, you also have a responsibility to cause change by ensuring you are represented by the right people.

Recruiters exist because most companies do not wish to engage in the long-drawn out process of engaging and on-boarding new talent, and out-source this activity.

There should be better ways of taking on new people, either as apprentices, grads, experienced permies, or freelancers.
If there is, it is being kept a closely guarded secret, or won't make money for anyone.
Or, the commission-hungry sales-types are winning all the deals.

scooterscot
24th September 2013, 18:56
I don't think much will change until the nature of the industry changes, ie, industry knowledge as a cornerstone of the skill-set.

Very little is likely to change for as long as contractors are happy to give away a percentage of their earning ability. If you're charging an end client directly, say £500 a day, then all is well. If you have a client that will only accept business through the agency and they tell they're only willing to go to £400 a day (20% and that's being kind), my god, they're looking to possibly collect £2k a month from your efforts.

If contractors are willing to give up that much money all because they can't be bothered with a little networking, they fair play to the agents. That's one view. For the sake of balance, my other view is that apathy from the freelancers is only matched by that of HR departments. They believe the only way to recruit is to process CV's and hence farm the activity out when they're swarmed by numbers. They're by far the best people to recruit, it is after all their business. It's such a waste of energy to use a fifth wheel. That extra £2k does not feed the business nor the supplier, it's parasitic, eventually weakening the business and greater economy.




But, as candidates, you also have a responsibility to cause change by ensuring you are represented by the right people.

There's no such thing as 'the right people' - The agency has an agenda that is nothing to do with yours or your client's.

If you want to stand out from the crowd you approach the client yourself. The number times I've read 'Graduate applies for 150 jobs not one response'. It turns out said graduate applied for no jobs, but 150 agencies. :suicide:



Recruiters exist because most companies do not wish to engage in the long-drawn out process of engaging and on-boarding new talent, and out-source this activity.

Yet I bet those clients that cannot be bothered with the process find themselves with transient environments, projects bogged down by problem after problem and budgets exceeding their targets.

I've two direct clients at the minute, both from first contact to the first invoice took nearly a year. But my what a difference. Highly flexible working conditions, ad-hoc demand, long-term commitment, and project success (because I'm usually managing the project myself!!).

I asked those agency guys among us to count the successful projects you've seen completed or did you leave first before? Be honest...

evilagent
25th September 2013, 07:54
If £2K a month is too much, then how would you price a gig?
Bear in mind a success rate of maybe 1 in 2, or 1 in 3.
And, if you price it down too much, just have a think about the sort of under-achievers you will be working with.

Networking is a given. However, candidates tend to only network as their current gig approaches an end. The timeline of being on the bench may be several weeks. That's money you're not making.

If an agency has conflicting agendas, then construct a business model where the agendas are congruent to all three parties; agency, clientco and candidate.
If you can't, then blaming the agency is not a valid response for merely filling a niche.

Congratulations for having direct clients, and especially one that took so long to come to fruition.
However, this may be more a function of your positive attitude, strategic thinking and patience!
(or maybe, simple bloody-mindedness)
Most candidates have a short-term "did I get the gig or not? If not, move on." attitude.

Many don't follow up with thank you emails after interviews (direct to clientco, not agent!)
Many don't ask if they can approach clientco directly later on.
Many don't send "interesting emails every couple of months.
(eg, "Hi, am currently at my new gig, and they use the same ERP v3.2 that you mentioned in our meeting last time. Hope to build some more experience in it whilst here."
or "these guys at my current gig use a great 3rd party product for their EDI. Thought you might be interested. here's a link" etc)

Overall, I still don't see a valid alternative.
Everyone wants a new way, but aren't willing to put the effort in, and are looking around for someone else to fill the void.
Back to square one with recruiters.

DodgyAgent
25th September 2013, 08:18
Very little is likely to change for as long as contractors are happy to give away a percentage of their earning ability. If you're charging an end client directly, say £500 a day, then all is well. If you have a client that will only accept business through the agency and they tell they're only willing to go to £400 a day (20% and that's being kind), my god, they're looking to possibly collect £2k a month from your efforts.

If contractors are willing to give up that much money all because they can't be bothered with a little networking, they fair play to the agents. That's one view. For the sake of balance, my other view is that apathy from the freelancers is only matched by that of HR departments. They believe the only way to recruit is to process CV's and hence farm the activity out when they're swarmed by numbers. They're by far the best people to recruit, it is after all their business. It's such a waste of energy to use a fifth wheel. That extra £2k does not feed the business nor the supplier, it's parasitic, eventually weakening the business and greater economy.




There's no such thing as 'the right people' - The agency has an agenda that is nothing to do with yours or your client's.

If you want to stand out from the crowd you approach the client yourself. The number times I've read 'Graduate applies for 150 jobs not one response'. It turns out said graduate applied for no jobs, but 150 agencies. :suicide:



Yet I bet those clients that cannot be bothered with the process find themselves with transient environments, projects bogged down by problem after problem and budgets exceeding their targets.

I've two direct clients at the minute, both from first contact to the first invoice took nearly a year. But my what a difference. Highly flexible working conditions, ad-hoc demand, long-term commitment, and project success (because I'm usually managing the project myself!!).

I asked those agency guys among us to count the successful projects you've seen completed or did you leave first before? Be honest...

Let us get one thing straight it is not the contractors money the agent is taking. It is the clients money.

DodgyAgent
25th September 2013, 08:29
If £2K a month is too much, then how would you price a gig?
Bear in mind a success rate of maybe 1 in 2, or 1 in 3.
And, if you price it down too much, just have a think about the sort of under-achievers you will be working with.

Networking is a given. However, candidates tend to only network as their current gig approaches an end. The timeline of being on the bench may be several weeks. That's money you're not making.

If an agency has conflicting agendas, then construct a business model where the agendas are congruent to all three parties; agency, clientco and candidate.
If you can't, then blaming the agency is not a valid response for merely filling a niche.

Congratulations for having direct clients, and especially one that took so long to come to fruition.
However, this may be more a function of your positive attitude, strategic thinking and patience!
(or maybe, simple bloody-mindedness)
Most candidates have a short-term "did I get the gig or not? If not, move on." attitude.

Many don't follow up with thank you emails after interviews (direct to clientco, not agent!)
Many don't ask if they can approach clientco directly later on.
Many don't send "interesting emails every couple of months.
(eg, "Hi, am currently at my new gig, and they use the same ERP v3.2 that you mentioned in our meeting last time. Hope to build some more experience in it whilst here."
or "these guys at my current gig use a great 3rd party product for their EDI. Thought you might be interested. here's a link" etc)

Overall, I still don't see a valid alternative.
Everyone wants a new way, but aren't willing to put the effort in, and are looking around for someone else to fill the void.
Back to square one with recruiters.

Why would anyone set up a business that was not commercially viable? In case you are unaware the market has changed dramatically over the past 15 years. Control has been brought "in house" whereby agencies now have to operate under strict rules and pre ordained margins. Unfortunately (for agencies and contractors alike) the free for all scramble for increasing rates and high margins has been brought to a halt by the ready availability of information (contractor CVs) provided by the internet.
The only markets untouched (relatively) by this are niche markets and smaller companies (the latter tend to cotton on quickly)
This change has also provided jobs for medium and low achieving recruitment consultants who can get paid pretty well (better than a basic agency salary but not as good as an on target recruiter would earn) to work "in house" for clients.
This has manifested itself in benefits not for the contractors, nor for the agencies but for the clients and recruitment consultants more attuned to managing process rather than sales excellence.
This is why contractor rates have remained locked for the past 10 years.
The system works pretty well for contractors who just want "journeyman work" but if they ever want to break out and make serious money then they need to create their own demand and find their own markets. The same applies to agencies.

evilagent
25th September 2013, 08:43
Why would anyone set up a business that was not commercially viable?

Indeed.

darmstadt
25th September 2013, 08:45
Many don't follow up with thank you emails after interviews (direct to clientco, not agent!)


Er, why? I presume that you thanked the interviewer after the interview and said something like 'hope to hear from you soon.' I think this is more of a permie thing to do



Many don't ask if they can approach clientco directly later on.


Probably because agency contracts are written so that you can't



Many don't send "interesting emails every couple of months.
(eg, "Hi, am currently at my new gig, and they use the same ERP v3.2 that you mentioned in our meeting last time. Hope to build some more experience in it whilst here."
or "these guys at my current gig use a great 3rd party product for their EDI. Thought you might be interested. here's a link" etc)


Er, why? For one thing you maybe in breach of contract at your new place by passing on what could be considered confidential information to a competitor. If you want to keep in touch in an informal way then surely via technical information exchanges (i.e. listservs, forums, conferences, etc.) is much better.

CoolCat
25th September 2013, 08:56
I certainly think there is room for agencies that meet some basic standards, such as no bending the rules by demanding the candidate signs away their rights. Stuff like “we can process you personal data outside of the EU” which destroys your rights under the data protection act, or the opting out stuff. There is also room for agencies which are more akin to mini consultancies where they have senior folk who also deliver projects from time to time, so they still understand the realities (and indeed some small consultancies are like this part delivery and part recruitment consultants). There is also room for agencies that understand more than buzz words, and understand that delivering successful projects is the aim not gathering ever more buzz words, and look at candidates with that in mind.

On the employer side it is full of holes too. Being bombarded with CV’s by CV shufflers, full of the latest buzzwords, but often people who have worked on messed up project after another.

Getting the best candidate into a slot is so much hit and miss at the moment its not really good for the candidate or the hiring organisation. Problem is all their HR training doesn’t show them the obvious ways of fixing this.

scooterscot
25th September 2013, 09:04
If £2K a month is too much, then how would you price a gig?
Bear in mind a success rate of maybe 1 in 2, or 1 in 3.
And, if you price it down too much, just have a think about the sort of under-achievers you will be working with.

Okay, to become a freelancer you must forget about being about a passive contractor. Rarely are two of my projects priced the same. Remember you're in charge.

When I'm pricing a 'gig' I negotiate. For too many contractors this means 'this is my rate, 45, but I could do it for 39'. That's not negotiation. On this forum you'll have folks commuting ridicules journeys but advertising well it's a better rate than the last gig that was on their front door step.

When talking direct I would alway price one rate for on-site and usually 30-40% lower for off-site. That one move takes out many an agent from the client's sights, so baited they are by a lower budget for many years of experience.

Many of my clients receive a free SoW that often take me at least 40 hours to prepare (I thinking of the minimum monthly 2k I'm flushing down the pan if I were going through an agent at this point). That is me demonstrating I understand or am prepared to digest the problem with a direction of how I would work towards a solution' You may scream 40 dam hours for free? Well that one move separates me from a field of other contractors. Suddenly I'm the only on standing on the podium.

My other moves are more personal to me and my business model. But you're right, I'm very persistent. Never give in.






Networking is a given. However, candidates tend to only network as their current gig approaches an end. The timeline of being on the bench may be several weeks. That's money you're not making. .


I can't speak for others myself however my networking activities never consider my current status. I network every week of the year regardless if I'm 110% flat busy to relaxing on a hammock in the english garden.




If an agency has conflicting agendas, then construct a business model where the agendas are congruent to all three parties; agency, clientco and candidate.
If you can't, then blaming the agency is not a valid response for merely filling a niche. .

I don't blame agencies. Not at all. In fact they are to be congratulated for taking advantage of those that don't act for themselves. :yay: I'll probably get slated by every contractor here for such a statement, but the truth is freelancers don't complain, they make the time & effort, and they're persistent.




Congratulations for having direct clients, and especially one that took so long to come to fruition.
However, this may be more a function of your positive attitude, strategic thinking and patience!
(or maybe, simple bloody-mindedness)
Most candidates have a short-term "did I get the gig or not? If not, move on." attitude.



Cheers.





Many don't follow up with thank you emails after interviews (direct to clientco, not agent!)

I would not bother myself either. An e-mail is an awful way of communication sincerity.





Many don't ask if they can approach clientco directly later on.
Many don't send "interesting emails every couple of months.
(eg, "Hi, am currently at my new gig, and they use the same ERP v3.2 that you mentioned in our meeting last time. Hope to build some more experience in it whilst here."
or "these guys at my current gig use a great 3rd party product for their EDI. Thought you might be interested. here's a link" etc)


I'm beginning to think I'm one of the very very very few people who still put pen to paper!!





Overall, I still don't see a valid alternative.
Everyone wants a new way, but aren't willing to put the effort in, and are looking around for someone else to fill the void.
Back to square one with recruiters.


I agree. Effort is the key word. But I suspect if many knew what they were capable of earning without a middle mad that effort might come. It's what drove me to where I am today.

scooterscot
25th September 2013, 09:05
Why would anyone set up a business that was not commercially viable?


Indeed.

Ask Nokia or RIM - :banana:

d000hg
25th September 2013, 09:30
Two companies which previously generated profits in the £billions probably count as viable at the setup stage.

scooterscot
25th September 2013, 09:33
Two companies which previously generated profits in the £billions probably count as viable at the setup stage.

After which they decided to do a British leyland.

d000hg
25th September 2013, 09:35
If you decide not to set up a company because it might one day only be worth a few billion, you aren't cut out for business :)

vetran
25th September 2013, 09:38
can't think why :

Starbucks Losses Hit £30m In Last Tax Year (http://news.sky.com/story/1109134/starbucks-losses-hit-30m-in-last-tax-year)

scooterscot
25th September 2013, 13:26
If you decide not to set up a company because it might one day only be worth a few billion, you aren't cut out for business :)

I do it because I get bored otherwise,