4 ms·

We had this discussion in the IRC channel a few weeks ago. It's largely unsustainable for the agents. Agents work in Hollywood because if you're doing smaller

We had this discussion in the IRC channel a few weeks ago. It's largely unsustainable for the agents. Agents work in Hollywood because if you're doing smaller work (commercials, etc) you might get 3, 4, 5 jobs a month. If you're doing movies, you might still do 2 or 3 or even 4 movies a year. The average developer is at 1 job a year (or longer), or maybe 2 over the course of a year. Additionally, all the Possible Solutions to Problems identified in this post are already being solved by GOOD recruiters. And many of the solutions proposed that are "opt in" are what GOOD recruiters already do... the problem with the industry isn't recruiters. It's BAD recruiters.

brey 14y ago
right, so an agent needs a lot more clients. but they also have a lot less work to do per client, they're only needed for a few weeks' work every year each. and that serves them well if they build a portfolio of clients with myriad technical skills between them - IMO engineers aren't anywhere near as fungible as actors.
- zacharycohn 14y ago
  This is how recruiters work too, though. They have a bunch of people who need jobs, and a bunch of people who need people, and they mash 'em together.
  - Nrsolis 14y ago
    But their fee comes from the employer, not the developer. That sets up a regime where they do not represent the developer, but their client, the employer. Contrast that to a Hollywood or major-league sports agent: they represent a client for years across many many possible engagements. They work to get the best possible deal for their client. And they get paid handsomely for that: 10-15% gross of an actor/athlete's earnings.
    - fecak 14y ago
      This is the key. Representing the best interest of the job seeker and not just driven by the fee paid by the client. Ideally, the recruiter's ethics would make them want the best for their candidates, but in the end the fee is what is driving them. Agents represent the talent and not the team/studio/etc.
      - peacemaker 14y ago
        Well, how much are we talking here? I'm guessing the fee would have to be fairly large to retain an agents service. Perhaps the agent could tie the fee to the engineers salary therefore having a real incentive to negotiate well? The downside to this approach is the same as you've mentioned elsewhere - the agent will push towards any job just to get paid. I guess I'm just having trouble seeing how this model could realistically work.
        fecak 14y ago
        My thought was an annual fee for representation, with some bonus after a search. The one function of an agent that hasn't really been picked up is career guidance. Perhaps 'manager' is a better word from an entertainment career parallel term. There is tons of guidance to be given during any year, even if a job search isn't happening.
        Nrsolis 14y ago
        Manager is a different thing from "agent." Agents get you jobs. Managers handle things like payment, accounting, scheduling, travel, etc., etc. Trust me: nobody working as a developer can afford to give up the kinds of percentages of their incomes that would make it worthwhile for a potential hired manager or an agent. It's like the infamous "buyer's broker" in real estate. It only makes sense if you buy enough.
        fecak 14y ago
        The name difference is just syntax, it doesn't make a difference what you call the person (a developer is not going to have a manager and an agent, but could have one person that handles a whole host of things for him/her). "Trust me: nobody working as a developer can afford to give up the kinds of percentages of their incomes that would make it worthwhile for a potential hired manager or an agent." I think you are assuming a bit much here. If you can get say 100 clients (programmers) to give 2K a year, you just made 200K, which isn't too bad. That might be < 2% of salary for most people who would even want an agent - if that person is a consultant, it could be 1% range. Everyone keeps assuming the agent only gets paid during job changes, where I was assuming it was a career agent that was part of the team all year round and not just during job changes. Athletes have agents, paid a percentage, but don't change agents every time they change teams. If I negotiate you a 5K salary more than you would have negotiated yourself, that 2K per year seems pretty small. Just spitballing the numbers of course.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - brey 14y ago
    sure, but this doesn't mean the agent model isn't viable for clients with longer-lasting contracts.
fecak 14y ago
Author of the article here, and I agree that the problem is the bad recruiters. My business is doing quite well, but I could see where job seekers question the motives of recruiters mainly because of the fact that recruiters get paid by companies, and only get paid (generally speaking) when they take the job. So recruiters have the short-term incentive of convincing candidates to take jobs, and not necessarily to do what is right for their career. Long term requires recruiters to be fully ethical or lose credibility. If I send you for an interview and it isn't the best fit for you, I'm financially motivated to try and get you to take it anyway. As your agent, I would tell you not to since you are my client. The agent model would be advantageous to the tech community, but obviously more costly to them. Whether or not it would be sustainable is something I would be curious to find out. I'm not sure if an agent would only get paid during a job search, as there could be advising going on during your entire career that has some value (how to negotiate a raise for yourself, what is hot/not, trends) - some of this engineers are good at, and some they are not.
- zacharycohn 14y ago
  "Long term requires recruiters to be fully ethical or lose credibility. If I send you for an interview and it isn't the best fit for you, I'm financially motivated to try and get you to take it anyway. As your agent, I would tell you not to since you are my client." That doesn't make any sense. My agent is still financially motivated to get me to take the job.
  - fecak 14y ago
    That depends on how you pay your agent. If you pay an agent an annual fee not tied to a job change or activity, that agent would not be financially motivated to have you move. I think the model works best with a long term relationship with annual fees instead of just some tax when you change jobs. There is quite a bit of guidance in between job changes that could be of great value in getting to that next job.

brey 14y ago

right, so an agent needs a lot more clients. but they also have a lot less work to do per client, they're only needed for a few weeks' work every year each. and that serves them well if they build a portfolio of clients with myriad technical skills between them - IMO engineers aren't anywhere near as fungible as actors.

zacharycohn 14y ago
This is how recruiters work too, though. They have a bunch of people who need jobs, and a bunch of people who need people, and they mash 'em together.
- Nrsolis 14y ago
  But their fee comes from the employer, not the developer. That sets up a regime where they do not represent the developer, but their client, the employer. Contrast that to a Hollywood or major-league sports agent: they represent a client for years across many many possible engagements. They work to get the best possible deal for their client. And they get paid handsomely for that: 10-15% gross of an actor/athlete's earnings.
  - fecak 14y ago
    This is the key. Representing the best interest of the job seeker and not just driven by the fee paid by the client. Ideally, the recruiter's ethics would make them want the best for their candidates, but in the end the fee is what is driving them. Agents represent the talent and not the team/studio/etc.
    - peacemaker 14y ago
      Well, how much are we talking here? I'm guessing the fee would have to be fairly large to retain an agents service. Perhaps the agent could tie the fee to the engineers salary therefore having a real incentive to negotiate well? The downside to this approach is the same as you've mentioned elsewhere - the agent will push towards any job just to get paid. I guess I'm just having trouble seeing how this model could realistically work.
      - fecak 14y ago
        My thought was an annual fee for representation, with some bonus after a search. The one function of an agent that hasn't really been picked up is career guidance. Perhaps 'manager' is a better word from an entertainment career parallel term. There is tons of guidance to be given during any year, even if a job search isn't happening.
        Nrsolis 14y ago
        Manager is a different thing from "agent." Agents get you jobs. Managers handle things like payment, accounting, scheduling, travel, etc., etc. Trust me: nobody working as a developer can afford to give up the kinds of percentages of their incomes that would make it worthwhile for a potential hired manager or an agent. It's like the infamous "buyer's broker" in real estate. It only makes sense if you buy enough.
        fecak 14y ago
        The name difference is just syntax, it doesn't make a difference what you call the person (a developer is not going to have a manager and an agent, but could have one person that handles a whole host of things for him/her). "Trust me: nobody working as a developer can afford to give up the kinds of percentages of their incomes that would make it worthwhile for a potential hired manager or an agent." I think you are assuming a bit much here. If you can get say 100 clients (programmers) to give 2K a year, you just made 200K, which isn't too bad. That might be < 2% of salary for most people who would even want an agent - if that person is a consultant, it could be 1% range. Everyone keeps assuming the agent only gets paid during job changes, where I was assuming it was a career agent that was part of the team all year round and not just during job changes. Athletes have agents, paid a percentage, but don't change agents every time they change teams. If I negotiate you a 5K salary more than you would have negotiated yourself, that 2K per year seems pretty small. Just spitballing the numbers of course.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- brey 14y ago
  sure, but this doesn't mean the agent model isn't viable for clients with longer-lasting contracts.

fecak 14y ago

Author of the article here, and I agree that the problem is the bad recruiters. My business is doing quite well, but I could see where job seekers question the motives of recruiters mainly because of the fact that recruiters get paid by companies, and only get paid (generally speaking) when they take the job. So recruiters have the short-term incentive of convincing candidates to take jobs, and not necessarily to do what is right for their career. Long term requires recruiters to be fully ethical or lose credibility. If I send you for an interview and it isn't the best fit for you, I'm financially motivated to try and get you to take it anyway. As your agent, I would tell you not to since you are my client. The agent model would be advantageous to the tech community, but obviously more costly to them. Whether or not it would be sustainable is something I would be curious to find out. I'm not sure if an agent would only get paid during a job search, as there could be advising going on during your entire career that has some value (how to negotiate a raise for yourself, what is hot/not, trends) - some of this engineers are good at, and some they are not.

zacharycohn 14y ago
"Long term requires recruiters to be fully ethical or lose credibility. If I send you for an interview and it isn't the best fit for you, I'm financially motivated to try and get you to take it anyway. As your agent, I would tell you not to since you are my client." That doesn't make any sense. My agent is still financially motivated to get me to take the job.
- fecak 14y ago
  That depends on how you pay your agent. If you pay an agent an annual fee not tied to a job change or activity, that agent would not be financially motivated to have you move. I think the model works best with a long term relationship with annual fees instead of just some tax when you change jobs. There is quite a bit of guidance in between job changes that could be of great value in getting to that next job.