Last week, I had a conversation about creative staffing agencies with two different freelancers. Both wanted to drum up more work, and I suggested that, among other ideas, they call a few agencies (and drop my name so I could get the referral bonus!).
"Have you had any luck with those? Because I haven't," they told me.
"Honestly, no," I admitted. "But I keep hearing about them, so I thought maybe they worked for other freelancers, and I just wasn't working the system correctly."
Turns out they'd had a similarly disappointing experience. Here's why I think creative staffing agencies aren't so hot.
Low pay. My rate is low compared to a lot of the freelancers I know, but it's pretty high by staffing agency standards, because the agency takes a big cut of every hour you work. I have worked as a subcontractor with more specialized advertising and copywriting firms, and they actually value the work I do, because they do similar projects themselves. They get that good writing is a craft, not a commodity.
Why earn $xx/hour at some staffing agency gig when I could cut out the middleman and earn almost twice as much on my own? Sure, there are certain benefits to having a staffing agency behind you (it's likely you'll get paid on time and in some cases, you might quality for health insurance), but really, you're just making money for the agency when you could be making more of it for yourself.
Experience over a quality portfolio. I've seen gigs posted on staffing agency websites that mirror my skill set. Then when I call to ask if they'll forward my portfolio to the client, my contact tells me, "they're not really looking for a junior copywriter." Well, actually, I'm not a junior copywriter. But when they pull up my file and see my graduation year, they automatically assume I need lots of hand-holding.
Most of my clients hire me based on my portfolio, not my resume, because they know that the quality of my work matters more than the number of years I've spent working. Some of the recruiters I've met at supposedly creative staffing firms don't even know how to evaulate creative professionals, so they categorize people based on how long they've been working. (This conundrum reminds me of Brazen Careerist's focus on ideas rather than resumes.)
Lots of on-site gigs. Last year, I met with recruiters at almost every creative staffing agency in the city. All of them said, "we do both on-site and work-from-home placements." Yet it seems like every time I get a call with a potential project, it requires schlepping out to the North Shore or Western Massachusetts five days a week. That's just not my style. Part of the reason I freelance is so that I don't have to get up super-early and commute to an office. I can spend that time getting more work done, working out, whatever I want. I'd hesitate to give that up.
Some creative staffing agencies also place accountants, IT professionals, and other types that typically work in an office, so they buy into the notion of facetime. I don't. If I spent 40 hours a week working on-site, then I would have very little time to market myself and line up work for after the gig ended. Trust me, that is a terrible situation for a freelancer! We have to be masters of multi-tasking and you just can't do that if you're working on-site because you have to focus on one client's needs.
Your turn! Tell us about your experiences working with creative staffing firms. Have you had similar issues? Or the opposite?
PS If you're reading this and you happen to be a recruiter for an agency that places freelance copywriters, I'd love to hear why I'm wrong. Match me with a great gig, and I'll post an update singing your praises. Seriously, folks, bring it on. I'm ready!
Flickr photo courtesy of Marc Sebastian