Approached by recruiter- job is on company website?

[thesandwich]

I’ve been approached re a new role by a recruiting agency- post is also advertised on the company website. Any pros/ cons applying directly or via agency?

How good are you at salary negotiations?

I’m pretty clear on the salary for the role- and I think I can negotiate.. ?

Assuming that you didn’t know about the job and were planning on applying to it before they approached you, then go via the recruiter.

I would go through the recruiter, if they are good they can be the difference between you getting the job or not - they can move the process on, give positive feedback about you to the employer, give you interview advice etc. They might have had people interview with the company before and can give you an insight into what questions might be asked.

Thank you all- v helpful.

Your application may well end up back on the recruiter’s desk anyway, just now they won’t trust you! I do retained exec search and all applicants are screens by me whether via an advert or from headhunting.

Even if this isn’t setup like that, go via the recruiter, they’ve done their job - and well by the sounds of it. They deserve to get paid.

A very small minority of positions are recruited on a retainer. Most companies will be happy that you’ve applied directly and avoided the recruiter’s fee. The recruiter doesn’t give a damn about you, or what you want, they just want their commission. I have worked for three recruitment companies, they’re all the same.

Agreed. You don't owe a random recruitment agency anything.

And speaking as someone who recruits, the number of bloody times it turns out in interview that the recruiter has mangled key facts about the applicant of even lied to both applicant and us....better off having a direct line of comms.

Plus if your role requires any kind of commercial nouse this is a perfect example to show your future employers.

It’s kind of immoral to not go with the recruiter if they let you know about the job. Not to mention the fact that they can prep you for the interview , help negotiate your salary and will push for you ahead of other candidates.
If they have an email trail they can legally get your fee if they can prove they informed you of the job and you will look bad to the client if you went an applied for the job directly.

Really appreciate your thoughts all- thank you.

I went for an interview once via an agency and during the interview the person mentioned their newspaper ad and I explained I'd applied via an agency and not directly. We discussed salary and to my disappointment it was lower than I'd been told by the agency. The interviewer said that the first year's salary would be lower because they had to pay the agency fees, I explained that I needed the advertised salary and he pretty much outright told me in that case, I wouldn't be offered the job, and they'd have to choose one of the others who had applied directly.

That is shitty of the company, not the recruiter. They shouldn’t see candidates through one if they don’t have budget for the fee. In no other area of business would you expect a company cost to come out of an employees salary, that is ridiculous.

I work as an in house recruitment manager. I often see my roles being 'advertised' on agencies websites and am often approached by agencies with 'fantastic candidates'. This is even when we rarely use agencies to fill any of our vacancies. Please apply directly as you will have better chance of getting the role. Agencies charge between 15-20% of the roles annual salary as a fee, and companies would only pay that as a last resort.

Not a chance in hell would I go via a recruiter if I could apply direct.

I want the best possible outcome in my salary negotiation which will be restricted by the recruiters payment.

I concur with the other comments in here regarding agencies, why should the company pay an agency commission for you when they can recruit through their own site for nothing.

A few years ago I lost out to another candidate and when I called for feedback was told the other candidate had come through the Jobcentre, therefore no commission was payable, they were quite open about it, as for the comments about an agency giving you an advantage and presenting you in the best light, having worked through them for a number of years as both a temp contractor and a job seeker, they will do what's best for themselves, they will get their commission whether they place you or another of their candidates in the position so you are not their priority.

That’s the thing though, OP didn’t find the job and apply direct, the recruiter found her.

It’s a totally flawed business model I agree and incentivises poor conduct from agency recruiters, but in this instance, it remains the right thing to do to go via the recruiter.

Companies aren’t held hostage to use recruiters. When I was leading an in-house global talent team, we couldn’t do everything ourselves as we didn’t have the expertise. When we didn’t need to use them we were very clear about it and wouldn’t see candidates through them. When we did, we had the budget to pay for it. Any company that is trying to take the money off the candidate salary or using that in their hiring decision is one to steer clear of.

That’s the thing though, OP didn’t find the job and apply direct, the recruiter found her.
But the company concerned haven't necessarily approached the recruiter in the first place. Don't underestimate the sheer pushiness of recruitment agencies. They'll burrow their way in anywhere, invited or not.

I would contact the company directly and ask them if they are using the specific recruiter for the role? If they are then go through the recruiter, if they’ve never heard of them, apply direct.

Thank you all once again. Really helpful. Will find out if the company have engaged this recruiter for this role.