
Ask HN: “Agents” instead of recruiters for tech professionals? - trcollinson
Note: This may be a US centric problem set. If you consult in a country other than the US I would be interested in hearing how this works for you.<p>I have consulted, on and off, for a good portion of my career. In that time I have found new gigs either though networking with existing contacts, or through recruiters at dedicated recruiting firms, both of which have been successful.<p>Of course, there are issues with both approaches. When using my own contacts and networking, time and effort must be spent to cultivate more than the relationship. I must also cultivate the business needed to get the next contract. This time and effort is expensive but ultimate becomes very rewarding when a new contract is landed.<p>With recruiters there is less time and effort put into cultivating the business of getting a contract. However, recruiters come and go and so I am constantly cultivating relationships with recruiting firms to find the ones who understand the business, the clients, and my skills and can match me up correctly. Again this is time and effort which can be quite profitable, of course, in the end when a new gig is started.<p>However, I imagine there is a more efficient method of handling this. Right now, as the engineer, I am trading time for finding lucrative consulting gigs. Often the company either pays me hourly (or more accurately daily, or on a fixed bid rate), or they pay the recruitment firm. I do not have to pay any monetary sum to get a contract. However, I do make a sizable rate. Why are there not technical &quot;Agents&quot; much like in the entertainment, writing, or sports industries, who will keep that relationship with me, understand my skills and my business, and find new clients for me where in I can pay them a percentage of my rate? This would eliminate the need for me to constantly curate my list of recruiting firms and keep up ever changing relationships as well as focus on what I do and enjoy best which is engineering solutions.
======
BjoernKW
This idea keeps coming up as stephengillie said and he made a good point as to
why it's the other way round right now.

I think it's more important to cultivate an entrepreneurial attitude and
business skills with consultants / freelancers. Many freelancers still see
themselves as mere coders / temporary employees whereas I think they rather
should consider themselves business problem solvers and entrepreneurs.

The IT freelance market pretty much depends on recruiters, who are nothing
else but expensive middleman and gatekeepers. At least part of the reason for
this is that freelance developers apparently can't be bothered with lowly
stuff such as the everyday problems of running a business.

This attitude is a fallacy in my opinion. Not only are business problem
solvers paid better than developers but approaching your work from this
perspective is also a lot more rewarding in the long run. Using JavaScript
framework A or B or Java technology C or D? I couldn't care less. Solving an
interesting business problem? That's something entirely different.

Besides, seeing yourself as an entrepreneur instead of a temp worker will
allow you to talk more confidently with recruiters and clients alike.

~~~
7Figures2Commas
> Many freelancers still see themselves as mere coders / temporary employees
> whereas I think they rather should consider themselves business problem
> solvers and entrepreneurs.

Many freelancers _are_ coders and temporary employees.

There are freelancers who have the skills and experience necessary to become
members of the consultant class, but there are many freelancers who don't.
Just because you can code doesn't mean you're a business problem solver or
entrepreneur, or want to be.

If I need to hire somebody to knock out some code for a few months, I'm not
going to hire somebody who is pitching himself or herself as a panacea for all
of my business problems. Solos should be thoughtful about the personal and
professional implications of their positioning. It's one thing to want the
financial rewards of consulting, but it's another thing to deal with the day-
to-day demands.

~~~
BjoernKW
There is a clear distinction between being a freelancer and an employee -
whether temporary or not: However small it might be, a freelance business is
still a business. If you don't want to deal with all that marketing,
accounting, business development and management stuff that comes with that you
shouldn't be a freelancer in the first place.

Then there are different degrees of business problems: Somebody churning out
cheap logos on Fiverr solves a vastly different and vastly smaller problem
than someone who say troubleshoots manufacturing processes at a large plant
but both are still business problems. That doesn't mean that someone being
able to solve them is a panacea nor should he probably market himself as such.

------
stephengillie
This topic keeps coming up.

We have recruiters (basically agents for employers) because our industry has
excess supply of positions and insufficient demand for these positions. Since
we can relatively easily go find another job, it doesn't make sense for us to
pay someone to help us look.

For a contrary example - actors have agents because their industry has a small
supply of jobs, and high demand for acting jobs. And so they benefit from
paying an agent to help them find what few jobs there are.

~~~
trcollinson
I haven't seen this particular topic come up but I may have just missed it. I
like where you are coming from though.

I would like to take a look at the entertainment business in comparison to
engineering positions for a moment. You are absolutely right there is an
excess supply of positions and an insufficient demand for those positions.
However, that is a general statement that can be narrowed down I believe.

While in the entertainment industry there is a very small supply of jobs for
high dollar actors and actresses, there is a excess supply of positions for
small walk on, non-speaking characters with insufficient demand for those
positions. People don't want small, low paying, non-speaking, uncredited
acting positions. They are willing to pay an agent to try to get them the
small supply of high paying acting positions that they want.

I still think your difference holds true though. I am not trying to set up a
straw man here. I fully admit that I can walk out today, talk to 20 businesses
in a relatively short period of time, and land a new high paying gig. I could
also walk out and talk to a dozen recruiting firms and accomplish the same
thing. It's easier for me than it is for an actor in the entertainment
industry.

But I still see that there are a significant number of engineers who are
willing to pay an agent to keep up these relationships for them. What would
make it worthwhile to the Agent? 10% of 20 engineers who make on average
$150,000 a year? Is there not room in the industry for that type of service?

~~~
stephengillie
Well, you're free to start an employment agency for tech workers. But, with
respect, I won't pay for your agency's services until I stop being contacted
by multiple recruiters a week. :)

~~~
trcollinson
Oh, do not misinterpret my discussion here. I am in no way interested in
starting an agency. In fact, quite the opposite. I would like to find one ;)

I get contacted by recruiters all of the time and that is the problem! Which
should I listen to? Which should I make a relationship with moving forward to
find more business? Which are going to negotiate well for me?

The other issue is that we are paying them for their services, whether we like
that idea or not. We may not be having to handle the tax implications and
whatnot, but ultimately they negotiate a rate for me of say, $100 an hour.
They negotiate a rate with the client of say, $150 an hour. To the client I
cost $150 an hour (in fact most recruiters put it that way to them, that is my
"bill rate"). I am paying them 50% anyway, in this scenario.

~~~
j2bax
I've been an account manager (and non-technical project manager) for an agency
for 9+ years. I have been quite successful at it. I've gained and retained
many large clients and made plenty of money for my employer in the process!
That in turn has kept my paycheck coming in consistently, so I'm pretty happy
overall. But I do sometimes have dreams of doing my own thing.

I have often wondered if I could offer my account management services
independently to a handful of freelance engineers and make enough money to
sustain myself. It doesn't sound too incredibly different from what you are
talking about. I could also see myself being very good at weeding out the
recruiters that don't fit my clients needs.

Edit: I should clarify that the agency I work for is full service and we
handle web projects all the way from design through development. So I have a
fairly in depth understanding of tech, just not a hacker per se.

~~~
trcollinson
It's unfortunate you have no contact information in your profile :)

------
JSeymourATL
> Why are there not technical "Agents"... who will find new clients for me
> where in I can pay them a percentage of my rate?

Turns out that tech talent are often viewed as mercenaries and corporate
recruiting is dysfunctional. The leverage in this marketplace remains still
with the employer. They have deeper pockets.

Consider the agent model you're looking for-- you'll want a sales/biz dev guy
who gets your space, has superior business acumen, and authentic industry
contacts.

How much are you really willing to pay him to market you? Would you pay 20-33%
of your first year salary? Would you pay that amount upon your start date?

The employer, desperate to meet his goals will.

~~~
trcollinson
Well, that entirely depends on the rate that Agent can negotiate. I don't
often take a salary now, but from an hourly perspective (or day rate, or
project based fee), the answer is absolutely yes. In fact, I think I do this
now with recruiters. They put me in front of a client at a client at a
particular rate, my bill rate, and then they take a percentage. Often that
percentage is at least 20 - 33%.

But I think you make a good point about the employer having the leverage. It
may be that the market isn't ready for recruiting Agents who work for the
technical talent. It may be that the market is only able to handle recruiters
who give the perception of working for the companies that need the talent.

~~~
JSeymourATL
It's a curious thing-- we live in an age of disintermediation.

Nobody likes paying a middleman fee, especially true in the professional
workspace.

Yet even with the global Linkedin platform-- Buyers & Sellers of talent have
an impossible time connecting.

------
brudgers
Sports and acting and literary agents can make money because the checks can be
big. No coder gets a $14 million fee, except maybe eventually via options and
the accounting and execution on that are messy and the present value of future
cash flows is usually zero. To put it another way, are you prepared to cut
your agent 30% off the top, apps stores style?

That's why.

~~~
seiji
Also, agency models are based around ongoing negotiations needed multiple
times per year. (also also, agency models are closely tied to union models
which freaks out tech employers.) Employees aren't supposed to be job hopping
every 3 months. Sure, job hopping happens, but you should eventually reach
_some_ steady state where you're not moving every 9 months. Retaining a
personal agent to do nothing after you get stable and are employed for 4 years
is a waste.

The current drive-by-recruiter model exists because developers are valuable
and companies don't know how to find them on their own.

The entire developer+job problem is a classic information asymmetry issue. If
all companies registered their open jobs publicly at a centralized site (then
if the same site knew all available developers and their skills) then the site
could match available developers to openings [modulo culture fit, relocations,
aggressive salary negotiations, etc]. Maybe it could even stabilize salaries
so we correct the pay rates. A lot of developers generate in excess of $5
million in value every year yet get paid 1/40th to 1/30th of their productive
output.

Basically we need a non-evil version of LinkedIn combined with Angel List
combined with Indeed. Jobs would have to be better specified (no 10 years
nodejs required!!!) and people would need to be better specified (not
'recommendations' or 'credentialing' — perhaps trust-but-verify). Then tricky
issues come into play like: do you let companies who interview you post their
subjective "skills scores" back to your profile? Maybe that is allowed, but
then as profile owner you can reject bad reviews.

Lots of options and lots of opportunity. Just takes focus and marketing and
ambition to drive it home.

