[rglullis]

1) More important than deal flow, I could see myself working with something like that if it increased my hourly rate, and if it did so substantially. I am 100% positive that most of the jobs/projects I got into I left money on the table because I didn't want to put too much effort in the negotiation process and just wanted to work on interesting things.

So it would be great if something like that managed to work as a market force to push things up. However, these guys would have to be completely transparent, pretty much like we see sport athletes getting their contracts disclosed, all of their "stars" would have each of their signed projects on a billboard, complete with stats and metrics of performance.

If it increased my rate by 20%, I wouldn't do it. Promise me that I would be able to live in New York and make $300-$400k/year without having to get into finance, and I could give them 10-20% of it easily.

2) Apologies in advance for my blatant stereotyping, but I couldn't help noticing that most if not all names of the guys leading this are Jewish. Coupled with the "Here's your Ari Gold" comment it makes me wonder, why is this such a Jewish-dominated field?

[fecak]

Transparency is critical in all things related to recruiting (and tech talent management if it is to become a 'thing'). Most of the problems that arise are due to a lack of transparency and the recruiter's incentives.

You wouldn't pay someone a percentage if it increased your rate by 20%? That seems a bit of a strange concept. Curious as to why not?

Not sure what to make on your assumptions of the guys leading this and their possible religious background, but since you went there - the Ari Gold reference was one I made in a similar article about agents being a possibility in tech, and I chose Ari Gold not due to any religious concepts (for transparency, I'm not Jewish) but because that his style as an agent is what everyone seems to want and he is probably the most known agent (even though fictional) in the world. I could have picked Jerry Maguire, who would be a close second I'd think. I'd have mentioned Drew Rosenhaus, but tech folks seem more knowledgeable about TV than sports.

[rglullis]

If my gross rate goes up by 20% and I need to give you a 10% cut, my net rate increase is 8% (possibly less depending on things like taxes). My lizard brain will either try to cut you out of the loop or just forget about the whole thing.

Also, social capital. If you are already somewhat networked and you start telling everyone to "talk to your agent", I would guess lots of people would turn up their noses. Yes, it should be an absolutely professional relationship and all, but just ask people in Cleveland about Lebron or people in Boston about Ray Allen how they feel about them leaving and you'll see that there is more to money in any kind of relationship.

Another reason: we computer people love automation and streamlining of processes. If this actually becomes a thing, you will start seeing lots of copycats or actual startups trying to emulate parts of whatever process become established. This would just lead to either a new market norm (like the way YC has changed seed-stage funding) or forcing players in this space to go for a new level of risk/reward (the high-6-7 figure earners)

About the "Jewish" part, again I apologize for my ignorance. I think I wrote Jewish when I meant Jew (as in ethnic/cultural background, not religion? Semitic would be better?) and I was just going for last names. Coincidentally, if I had to guess, Rosenhaus sounds like a Jewish name to me.

[fecak]

If your bill rate (paid by the company to me as your agent) is 100/hr, and you give me 10% (10/hr), your pay rate is now 90/hr. If I get 'us' a 20% increase, I'm now billing you at $120 - of that I'm taking 10% ($12), leaving you with $108. You just went from 90 to 108 (20% raise). Not sure where the net 8% is from that you mention.

Some might turn up noses if you say 'talk to my agent', because it is a new concept. That is expected. Change is hard.

Regarding the 'Jewish thing' again - let's just put that whole line of thinking to bed at this point, I think you may be digging the hole a bit deeper. I'm not sure that you've offended anyone just yet, but you may be on your way.

[rglullis]

The 8% come from the fact that I don't need you to negotiate the base pay. I was going from $100 without you to $108 with you.

[fecak]

Oh. Nice job and congrats on the raise. I think that the recruiter's rate (margin) in that scenario should stay static.

[r00fus]

> You wouldn't pay someone a percentage if it increased your rate by 20%? That seems a bit of a strange concept. Curious as to why not?

Because nothing is free. Adding an extra layer to the sales process costs more than 20% of my time. I can't speak for rglullis, but I'd only accept 20% it if I was incapable of finding additional clients.

[fecak]

Adding an extra layer to the sales process that will be handling the entire sales process should cost you no additional time at all - actually, the inverse is what they are proposing. The services I provide to my clients as a recruiter save them quite a bit of time - bringing them opportunities saves them research time, fixing up their resumes when necessary, scheduling interviews, negotiating, etc. All I do is save my candidates time, and that service is free to them. If I negotiate a higher rate than they would have negotiated on their own, even better. As an agent, I would be compensated based on two things - my ability to get you more money (higher rate, low amount of downtime) and save you time.