All 'freelancers' aren't the same

I've had one of those infuriating exchanges this afternoon with an agency looking to bring in freelance talent to help with their projects.

I'm always looking to expand my comms network and have had a couple of conversations with this agency before. So I responded to the person putting out the call, explained a little about my background and the kind of projects I'm currently - and previously - have worked on.

It must have sparked a little interest as she came back almost immediately and asked my date/hourly rates.

Now I'm probably upper quartile for writing/editing but cheap for consultancy - I sent back some rates but explained that I'd far rather quote on a project basis as I work a lot quicker than many others in my situation. How do I know that? Mainly from a year where I've commissioned a lot of writing from other sources - and have been gobsmacked by how long it takes some people to produce the goods (or how little they seem to think merits a day's pay).

The contact came back almost as quickly stating they paid about a third of my day rate to freelancers - and was I still interested?

No! No! A thousand times no!!!!

When will agencies realise that they have to treat freelancers as individuals and actually marry the skills on offer to the projects they're handling. Freelancer skills can't simply be commoditised. We have different experience and skills to bring, and judging people only on price brings everyone down to a 'word rate' which takes no account of the insight an individual brings to a job.

If we were making widgets to a set formula, then fine.

But comms isn't like that and while agencies select talent on price alone, the only people who suffer are clients.

Now not all agencies are like that - but in the UK at least, too many still are.

It's more effort to get work directly from new sources - but I keep coming back to the thought that it's so much more satisfactory than working through an agency whose goals are maximising their own profits while minimising their costs.

Funny enough, if this agency invested a little more time in selecting their freelances, they'd probably not spend a whole lot more and gain far higher client satisfaction.

A not so subtle way to access revenue-making talent

So VMA are raising their profile and looking for a means to access potential revenue-earning talent by sponsoring the new and some would say spurious Corp Comms Top 100 Club .

Coming out of CorpComms Magazine, the blurb states: The Corp Comms Top 100 club creates a network of the most influential and inspiring individuals within the communications marketplace; Members will range from individuals responsible for revitalising an internal employees’ messaging scheme to those who have been principle in determining a major CSR policy or to others who have successfully rebranded a FTSE 100 company.

A number of things strike me as worrying about this new club of corporate communicators. The first is that it's exclusive to those working in-house. Yes, there are many great communicators in-house, but there are just as many - if not more working in agencies and as independents. it's often these people who are the creative powerhouses, while their internal colleagues get on with managing their teams and trading in corporate politics. Surely a real 'Top 100' would blend the best of in-house and consultant talent?

Second, I worry about any organisation that still regards IC as 'revitalising an internal employees' messaging scheme'. So, the magazine still regards IC as being postman come publisher? Sounds like they're still very externally focused and behind the times on organisational comms.

Finally, a concern that could also be an opportunity: this new 'club' covers a hugely wide area - from IC to Public Affairs to PR to CSR - often areas that report into different heads in the organisations I work with. Their skills, concerns and outlook are often quite different and the so-called powerhouse that the magazine is looking to create may turn out to be no more than a collection of disparate strands.

Of course, as we move to issues-based communication, organisations should be knitting together all the strands of their communication - so actually there could be a great opportunity here to create and mobilise best practice.

It's just a shame that this new network is under the auspices of a magazine looking to make money by selling subscriptions to big corporates, and sponsored by a recruitment consultancy with a need to get the top talent on their books. Of course, it's the way the world works, but I wonder at the independence in selecting the cream of our industry's cream.