Sometimes we are helpful as middle-men, being the "bad" guy for the negotiations (upping the salary in negotiation based on X, Y, Z). ~20% avg fee for $80,000 vs $102,000 is a difference of $4,400 to the company, and an extra (lets say 15% commission) $660 to the recruiter. However, that is way too high of a spread at that point of the negotiation to be a feasible discussion (the candidate should have been submitted at $90-$105, or $95-$110,000).
If the company is sold on the candidate, it is feasible for the recruiter to negotiate another $10,000. If the company has other options or isn't clamoring, you may lose the offer.
But, most recruiters are bunk, and the difference between $80,000 and $95,000 can be a breakdown in the offer being pulled, ergo the "real estate" example of closing the deal at a lower price (salary) and cost of losing it all together. The cost of losing it isn't worth the extra $3,000 / company and $450 / recruiter.
With a recruiter, if you let them know your top-end range, they will typically be blunt with "that is too far out of the range of the position."
Recommended the above comment:
Of course, the take-home lesson is that if you aren't comfortable setting a high anchor point for your salary you shouldn't deal through recruiters. Which probably helps to explain why companies seem to love using recruiters.http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3501730
Companies can sway this the other way, with using the recruiting firm as the "bad guy" of "well, he/she was submitted at $85,000, why are they pushing back for another $5 (or $10),000. This happens as well (incorrectly "getting a candidate in, and we'll renegotiate up, you don't want to price yourself out!" or, submitting too high, resulting in an immediate dequal.
Ug.
Edit: many companies don't necessarily have a sense of fairness, hence asking for salary history, to offer you the lowest possible (or even lateral) salary.
If the company is sold on the candidate, it is feasible for the recruiter to negotiate another $10,000. If the company has other options or isn't clamoring, you may lose the offer.
But, most recruiters are bunk, and the difference between $80,000 and $95,000 can be a breakdown in the offer being pulled, ergo the "real estate" example of closing the deal at a lower price (salary) and cost of losing it all together. The cost of losing it isn't worth the extra $3,000 / company and $450 / recruiter.
With a recruiter, if you let them know your top-end range, they will typically be blunt with "that is too far out of the range of the position."
Recommended the above comment: Of course, the take-home lesson is that if you aren't comfortable setting a high anchor point for your salary you shouldn't deal through recruiters. Which probably helps to explain why companies seem to love using recruiters. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3501730
Companies can sway this the other way, with using the recruiting firm as the "bad guy" of "well, he/she was submitted at $85,000, why are they pushing back for another $5 (or $10),000. This happens as well (incorrectly "getting a candidate in, and we'll renegotiate up, you don't want to price yourself out!" or, submitting too high, resulting in an immediate dequal.
Ug.
Edit: many companies don't necessarily have a sense of fairness, hence asking for salary history, to offer you the lowest possible (or even lateral) salary.