Do recruitment agencies apply for you to Company websites?

Bozacke

Do recruitment agencies apply for you to Company websites?

The reason why I ask this is I've seen a few cases where I've seen a job listed on websites like Irishjobs.ie that are listed directly by the employer and then see the same job listed by several different recruitment agencies. I originally thought that the actual Hiring Company was listing the job themselves as well as giving one or more recruitment agency the opportunity to also fill the position. But after a few transactions with a few of these recruitment agencies, I'm starting to believe that the recruitment agencies see the same jobs we see online and then just submit our details as an agent with the hope of receiving a commission.

The reason why I'm asking this is because I was originally under the impression that if an Agency is submitting your name to a company they had some connection and or contract with the company in question. So if you see the same job advertised directly with a Company or via an Agency you might get some coaching or insight from the agency (obviously the level of this information varies from agency to agency). On the other hand, many feel they are better off applying directly to the Company, avoiding the Company to pay a finders fee to the Agency. This may be the case for small companies, but having work for several multinationals, no one seems to care about these fees. So the assumption you are better off using the agency, as long as the Agency isn't some chancer that is just submitting your application and doesn't have any inside scoop on the job.

I'd appreciate any opinions or comments on this.

dan_d

I'm not sure what they do but if you visit a lot of the individual company websites where jobs are advertised, they will often have a note on the bottom saying "Recruitment agencies need not apply" or " We do not require the assistance of recruitment agencies at this time", or something to that effect. That leads me to believe that many agencies just pick the jobs up off the companies websites and advertise it themselves.

flash harry

I dont really think that they apply with your CV per se and then try claim a fee although from what I've read here nothing would surprise me with my industry! I know there was some cases in the UK were recruitment agencies sent lots of CVs with a T&Cs and then tried to claim fees even though the companies may already have had the CV.

With regard to the "assistance of agencies not required" - plenty of my clients have this, doesn't mean they dont use agents, just means there not looking for new ones to supply them....

Mink

I very much doubt the company, if they have a listing on a jobs website, also have a recruitment agency looking for candidates. Both avenues are very expensive & a company will go with one or the other for a role.

In my work this happens where we advertise on job websites & then get calls & emails from agencies with CV's. We ignore them & just go with direct applications from our ad's. Otherwise you're paying double.

If it's a double listing, don't bother with the agency, apply direct to the company.

pollypocket10

Mink wrote: »

I very much doubt the company, if they have a listing on a jobs website, also have a recruitment agency looking for candidates. Both avenues are very expensive & a company will go with one or the other for a role.

In my work this happens where we advertise on job websites & then get calls & emails from agencies with CV's. We ignore them & just go with direct applications from our ad's. Otherwise you're paying double.

If it's a double listing, don't bother with the agency, apply direct to the company.

Not necessarily, a lot of the time the most experienced people for a job are employed and are not actively applying for jobs. A recruitment agency will quite often have a database of these people and will be in a position to source these people as opposed to waiting for applicants to come in. If that is all an agency is doing they aren't really providing much quality of service.

It would do you no harm to speak the agency and see what sort of a relationship they have with the company in question, really probe them on this. Lots of my clients would advertise themselves and some would also have other agencies working on it, but they would generally take my candidates because I have indepth knowledge of the industry, the market, the candidates on the market and I know exactly what they are looking for and what type of person they need.

Companies who do this are more concerned with the quality of candidate and making sure they've exhausted every possible avenue than trying to do it at minimal cost.

If they cannot show you that they have a good relationship then you would probably be better off going directly to the client

AARRRGH

It works something like this:

1. Company advertises job on job website
2. Agency puts up similar job advert (without telling the company)
3. Agency receives CVs
4. Agency contacts the company and says they have CVs which are suitable for the position
5. Company may or may not agree to accept the CVs. They usually do. (HR people would rather give 10 - 20% commission than do a bit of leg work!)

That's my experience of it anyway.

Note some agencies do have an agreement with companies to advertise and hire their staff, but I would say that only happens in the minority of cases.

pollypocket10

AARRRGH wrote: »

It works something like this:

1. Company advertises job on job website
2. Agency puts up similar job advert (without telling the company)
3. Agency receives CVs
4. Agency contacts the company and says they have CVs which are suitable for the position
5. Company may or may not agree to accept the CVs. They usually do. (HR people would rather give 10 - 20% commission than do a bit of leg work!)

That's my experience of it anyway.

Note some agencies do have an agreement with companies to advertise and hire their staff, but I would say that only happens in the minority of cases.

This is really not the case. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from but it is totally incorrect. If there are some recruiters who operate in this way they are certainly in the minority.

AARRRGH

pollypocket10 wrote: »

This is really not the case. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from but it is totally incorrect. If there are some recruiters who operate in this way they are certainly in the minority.

I've worked within the recruitment industry for 6 years, and nearly every agency I have dealt with works as I have explained.

pollypocket10

I've worked in Recruitment for 5 years, internal HR & recruitment for 2 and then back to Recruitment for the past year and I've never come across one recruiter that operated in that way in all that time. I'm not sure what capacity you've been involved in but you are certainly being fed mis-information if this is what you believe.

I have come across some characters with questionable ethics in the industry, but this sort of practice is totally unprofessional and quite frankly would bring in very little money for any recruiter.

I know the industry very well and I am certain that you are wrong.

AARRRGH

pollypocket10 wrote: »

I'm not sure what capacity you've been involved in but you are certainly being fed mis-information if this is what you believe.

Eh, I have seen it numerous times with my own eyes.

What I have described is practically standard practice. It is how most recruiters make their money.

pollypocket10

Well they are not very good recruiters then

Standard approach is as follows:

1. They have a relationship with a client who comes to them with a role
or
2. They do BD calls to clients/potential clients and client agrees to have them recruit for the role which saves them the cost of advertising the role themselves
or
3. They approach a company who is advertising and the company agrees to also let them recruit for the same role.

THEN they advertise and start the sourcing process.

With the third option, the company will have already have invested heavily themselves and will be receiving direct applications. It is less likely the the recruiter will place someone with this type of client so they will not be billing at any substantial level if this is their standard approach to BD.

AARRRGH

pollypocket10 wrote: »

Standard approach is as follows:

1. They have a relationship with a client who comes to them with a role
or
2. They do BD calls to clients/potential clients and client agrees to have them recruit for the role which saves them the cost of advertising the role themselves
or
3. They approach a company who is advertising and the company agrees to also let them recruit for the same role.

THEN they advertise and start the sourcing process.

Some comments on your scenarios:

Number 1 is very rare.

You're having a laugh with number 2. "Saves them the cost of advertising the role themselves"...? I don't even know where to start with this one.

Number 3 happens sometimes.

But you left out number 4 which is the normal route which is what I described in my earlier post.

You've either been shielded from the reality of the recruitment business or you are trying to paint a false picture of the industry.

pollypocket10

AARRRGH wrote: »

Some comments on your scenarios:

Number 1 is very rare.

You're having a laugh with number 2. "Saves them the cost of advertising the role themselves"...? I don't even know where to start with this one.

Number 3 happens sometimes.

But you left out number 4 which is the normal route which is what I described in my earlier post.

You've either been shielded from the reality of the recruitment business or you are trying to paint a false picture of the industry.

Can I ask what in what capacity you are involved in the industry?

I can assure you, I am managing a successful desk in a very competitive market for the past year. No 1 is not rare, I regularly have clients calling me up with requirements, I see the same thing happening with my colleagues.

No 2 I regularly put in BD to people I haven't touched base with in a while and discover they do actually need someone and yes I can save them alot of time and provide them with the cream of the crop without the need for forking out the extortionate amounts that job boards charge for a simple advert.

No 3 happens when my pipeline isn't looking great.

No 4 never, would be a sackable offence in my company.

I think I know how to do my job and I am in a very good position to advise on what the standard practice is.

AARRRGH

pollypocket10 wrote: »

Can I ask what in what capacity you are involved in the industry?

Right now I own jobsites in Ireland and Spain. Previous to this I worked in an agency and for other jobsites. I also run a somewhat side business as an industry analyst.

pollypocket10 wrote: »

I can assure you, I am managing a successful desk in a very competitive market for the past year. No 1 is not rare, I regularly have clients calling me up with requirements, I see the same thing happening with my colleagues.

No 2 I regularly put in BD to people I haven't touched base with in a while and discover they do actually need someone and yes I can save them alot of time and provide them with the cream of the crop without the need for forking out the extortionate amounts that job boards charge for a simple advert.

No 3 happens when my pipeline isn't looking great.

No 4 never, would be a sackable offence in my company.

I think I know how to do my job and I am in a very good position to advise on what the standard practice is.

I believe you when you say your employer does not do these things, and I believe you when you say you have never come across them yourself. What I am saying is your experience is not the norm for the industry.

AARRRGH

Btw, I don't want to argue with you. I'm sure people reading this can decide if recruiters are the ethical angels you think they are...

You and I can agree to disagree.

eth0_

flash harry wrote: »

I dont really think that they apply with your CV per se and then try claim a fee

They can and they do. They'll often call you when they see your company advertising a job, try to sell you some of their clients, and then they invoice you for the unsolicited CV's they've sent over. Or rather, they try to.

Bozacke

Thanks for all the comments. I don't think it really matters which scenario Recruiters use, the point is, in some cases some jobs are double advertised - and sometimes tripled and more when there are multiple agencies. The question is, should you apply directly to the company or via a recruitment agency, as previously said, I suppose it depends upon the relationship between the recruiter(s) and the company. Some recruiters have a definite inside track and some are pure chancers.

Thanks again for all the comments and feedback.

Mrs OBumble

I know the OP has his/her answer, but cannot resist chipping in:

I've had an agency that I regard as one of the better ones tell me about a role in a way that made me think they had a relationship - and then do nothing more than submit my CV through the same on-line tool that I could have used myself. I copped on when I got an auto-response from the company's system: the agent had put my email address in instead of their own.

So these days when an agency calls, I always tell them that I need to double-check if another recruiter has already submitted me (and sometimes it's true, I do need to check!). So of course they need to tell me the company name, so I can check on-line to see if direct submission is possible. Then I weight up whether I think the recruiter has a real relationship with the company or not, and think about how I'll best be presented.

Unlike some posters, I do believe that (good) recruiters can add value, especially in convincing employers to consider someone who they might not otherwise give a chance to. And personally, most of the paid work I've had in the last 18 months has been through 'em.

I still won't trust everything they tell me though!

pollypocket10

JustMary wrote: »

I know the OP has his/her answer, but cannot resist chipping in:

I've had an agency that I regard as one of the better ones tell me about a role in a way that made me think they had a relationship - and then do nothing more than submit my CV through the same on-line tool that I could have used myself. I copped on when I got an auto-response from the company's system: the agent had put my email address in instead of their own.

So these days when an agency calls, I always tell them that I need to double-check if another recruiter has already submitted me (and sometimes it's true, I do need to check!). So of course they need to tell me the company name, so I can check on-line to see if direct submission is possible. Then I weight up whether I think the recruiter has a real relationship with the company or not, and think about how I'll best be presented.

Unlike some posters, I do believe that (good) recruiters can add value, especially in convincing employers to consider someone who they might not otherwise give a chance to. And personally, most of the paid work I've had in the last 18 months has been through 'em.

I still won't trust everything they tell me though!

Good recruiters can be of huge benefit to you Mary, and a good recruiter will also tell you if they don't feel they are going to be able to help you at the moment. But you are perfectly right in thinking that some will be more of a hindrance. If you find a good recruiter I would encourage you to develop a relationship with them. Despite what some posters here think of us we are still human and will be more likely to put forward a candidate who has engaged actively with us.

Just on the first point you made though. Some of my clients who would b larger companies have a requirement that we submit a CV through there website because it is linked to there in-house recruitment database. I still have a good relationship and in this case I would also be speaking to them about the candidate so it isn't all as black and white as it sometimes appears.

pollypocket10

AARRRGH wrote: »

Right now I own jobsites in Ireland and Spain. Previous to this I worked in an agency and for other jobsites. I also run a somewhat side business as an industry analyst.




I believe you when you say your employer does not do these things, and I believe you when you say you have never come across them yourself. What I am saying is your experience is not the norm for the industry.

Considering I work for the biggest and most successful Recruitment Company in Ireland and previously worked for another major player ( whose management team didn't have an iota of integrity between them) and also previously worked on the other side of the fence recruiting in-house, I think I am much better placed to judge what the standard is than someone who supplies a service to the industry.

Yes I think it is best we agree to disagree on this occasion .

AARRRGH

pollypocket10 wrote: »

Considering I work for the biggest and most successful Recruitment Company in Ireland and previously worked for another major player ( whose management team didn't have an iota of integrity between them) and also previously worked on the other side of the fence recruiting in-house, I think I am much better placed to judge what the standard is than someone who supplies a service to the industry.

Yes I think it is best we agree to disagree on this occasion .

Sorry I think you misunderstood me, I have worked in agencies too.

I know XXXXXXXXXXX don't do blind submissions, but seriously you can't compare XXXXXX to the rest of the industry. You are completely deluding yourself if you think the majority of the industry are like XXXXXXX or one or two of the other very large agencies. Most agencies are small and don't have XXXXXX contacts.

eth0_

AARRRGH, i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't being vindictive in naming pollypocket10's employer, even though you used their name four times in your post...

Do this again and you'll receive a lengthy ban.

AARRRGH

eth0_ wrote: »

AARRRGH, i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't being vindictive in naming pollypocket10's employer, even though you used their name four times in your post...

Do this again and you'll receive a lengthy ban.

Sorry, wasn't being vindictive, I assumed polly was being open about who she worked for when she said "I work for the biggest and most successful Recruitment Company in Ireland". She should probably edit that out of her post if she doesn't want people to know who she works for!

Mrs OBumble

pollypocket10 wrote: »

Just on the first point you made though. Some of my clients who would b larger companies have a requirement that we submit a CV through there website because it is linked to there in-house recruitment database. I still have a good relationship and in this case I would also be speaking to them about the candidate so it isn't all as black and white as it sometimes appears.

Agreed: I was suspicious-but-not-certain when I got the email. However whenever I called the recruiter for a update, they always had zero information - it was always "tomorrow" that they were going to ring the hiring manager. Once I could understand, but consistently was just too much to be co-incidental.

mrgardener

pollypocket10 wrote: »

Considering I work for the biggest and most successful Recruitment Company in Ireland and previously worked for another major player ( whose management team didn't have an iota of integrity between them) and also previously worked on the other side of the fence recruiting in-house, I think I am much better placed to judge what the standard is than someone who supplies a service to the industry.

Yes I think it is best we agree to disagree on this occasion .

I have been unemployed for several months (just got a job though:D).
Pollypocket, you are SERIOUSLY deluding yourself if you think that recruitment companies are ethical honest companies.
I've talked to all the biggest and most successful recruitment agencies in the country over the last few months. Having no real experience of them before, I was shocked at the underhand behaviour and downright lies that they told me.
I didn't receive one interview through an agency, but secured interviews by going to the employer direct.
OP, try and go to the employer directly and save yourself a lot of hassle.

KarlDrake

mrgardener wrote: »

I have been unemployed for several months (just got a job though:D).
Pollypocket, you are SERIOUSLY deluding yourself if you think that recruitment companies are ethical honest companies.
I've talked to all the biggest and most successful recruitment agencies in the country over the last few months. Having no real experience of them before, I was shocked at the underhand behaviour and downright lies that they told me.
I didn't receive one interview through an agency, but secured interviews by going to the employer direct.
OP, try and go to the employer directly and save yourself a lot of hassle.

Can't help myself here.
Firstly, fair play on getting a new role! Always good to hear good news.
PP was merely saying that she works in an ethical manner for an ethical company, and while everyone agrees there are a lot of sharks, there are undoubtedly ethical and honest recruiters.
If you secured interviews by establishing who the hiring companies are from the recruiters then short circuiting their work by applying direct (bear in mind I'm not saying you did that) or if you're implying that this is the best way to behave, then you acted (allegedly) or are advising people to behave in as unethical a fashion as the underhanded recruiters you bemoan.
Say it ain't so! An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

mrgardener

KarlDrake wrote: »

Can't help myself here.
Firstly, fair play on getting a new role! Always good to hear good news.
PP was merely saying that she works in an ethical manner for an ethical company, and while everyone agrees there are a lot of sharks, there are undoubtedly ethical and honest recruiters.
If you secured interviews by establishing who the hiring companies are from the recruiters then short circuiting their work by applying direct (bear in mind I'm not saying you did that) or if you're implying that this is the best way to behave, then you acted (allegedly) or are advising people to behave in as unethical a fashion as the underhanded recruiters you bemoan.
Say it ain't so! An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Fear not!
I got zip from the recruitment agencies so I got interviews from finding jobs from websites and from the good old newspaper.
Getting info from recruit companies and then side-stepping them, WOULD be wrong and I never did it.
I just think its better to do the donkey work yourself. A half hour on the web and a quick scan of the jobs section of my local papers reaped a lot more rewards than any of the recruitment companies did for me.

KarlDrake

mrgardener wrote: »

Fear not!
I got zip from the recruitment agencies so I got interviews from finding jobs from websites and from the good old newspaper.
Getting info from recruit companies and then side-stepping them, WOULD be wrong and I never did it.
I just think its better to do the donkey work yourself. A half hour on the web and a quick scan of the jobs section of my local papers reaped a lot more rewards than any of the recruitment companies did for me.

Very glad to hear it! Fair play again. Having said that, I don't see the harm in having (good) recruiters work for free for you also. But then again, you're already out of that loop!