Sometimes, I introduce the concept of a retainer to an employer, and I see them become more guarded.

But when I explain how my pricing is a consequence of service, and what this looks like in practice, our conversation becomes more open again.

After all, you talk to me because there's something about your vacancies that require a different approach to the transactional.

(For me it's key hires, problem vacancies and 'new role' recruitment for UK employers, across commercial, operational and technical.)

In some ways, it's like buying carpet -

A specification is agreed based on your needs. Agree the dimensions, the underlay, the fitting date.

The price is a consequence of these points, and they require a reasonable deposit, to secure your commitment and the opportunity cost of a wasted day should you change your mind.

Who quibbles on that, especially when you know other carpet suppliers can be quite poor?

Or you can buy the carpet and fit it yourself, if you know what you're doing. Seems pretty simple when you think about it... what can go wrong? Buy cheap, buy thrice?

Recruitment can also be specification led.

What are the needs of the project, or programme of work?

What do I need to invest in to best service it?

Will it be the typical outcome of 80-100 hours of research, to find exactly the right people?

The scope of work defines my pricing, and what that looks like is often very different from employer to employer:

- daily rate for hands-on work, with a discounted fee for direct hires
- reverse rebates, with a small amount paid up front and full fee paid over 3, 6 and 9 months after the start date
- instruction fee covering costs and the remainder on the start date
- 'subscription' type retainer as you'd see in an HR service contract, where you receive ongoing support and advice, with lower fees on placement
- consulting fees for writing a job spec, advert and action plan allowing the employer to hire themselves

I've worked as an agency recruiter, in-house recruiter and hiring manager, so I see recruitment from three sides of the fence. It's important for me to price fairly based on the needs of the project and enable me to do my best work.

While there are many benefits for us both, there's no question that skin in the game is an important one.

By paying an amount up front, you expect more, you demand more, you challenge more and in return my requirement is to reciprocate to ensure we recruit in the right way, with me as strategic partner.

If I can help you, if you believe in my competence and commitment to deliver on our agreement, and if you enable me to do my best work - the outcome has been a 100% fill rate (except those cancelled by economic disruption) and a 4-year retention rate for typically high performers.

I mention cancellation because it's fair to say working retained means I know my time is paid for, should the unexpected happen and you need to change course.

I think that's fair. What do you think?