On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Brett Camet wrote: > I'd like to address this issue as well. What does it matter what the > company you work for is billing to the client. That is betweeen the company > and client. The fact that it's a business and there's a profit to be made, People seem to be reacting aggressively to this question, which I find odd. I think most here would find it odd if someone were to suggest that a body hiring through an agency shouldn't try to determine the best deal. There are many aspects to that, all with different weights attached to them by differing people. (To speak to the example, one client might interpret that a specific agency was paying an above market rate as not controlling costs; another might interpret that as attempting to retain better than average consultants.) Similarly, as someone who has worked through agencies before, I wanted to know market averages and as much specific detail about potential agencies as possible. "All the market will bear" applies on both sides of the coin. (As does "all the market will bare"...) It is a perfectly legitimate question. In my experience, I worked with agencies that passwd through somewhere around 65-70% of the total client fee. There seemed to be a cluster of trade-offs that centered around there that worked for me at the time. The economy is different now, my skills might not match yours, YMMV, etc. Remember that this particular variable varies widely and does not come close to encompassing everything important to make a decision to work through a given agency. Look at total rate, what they do for you and what the value of those things are to you, how much work they can get you, the industries you're interested in, what you hear from other folks working through them, how much you like the people you interface with, etc. etc. etc. Good luck. -j -- Jamie Lawrence jalat_private I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Dec 18 2002 - 12:13:37 PST