It’s amazing the things you learn when you sit next to a sales team.
For several years, I worked at a company where my desk was next to them. They had a really interesting sales technique called “try and buy.” It was pretty simple. The company would install a system and let a customer use it for free for 90 days. After the trial period, either the customer would buy the system or the company would take it back.
It was hugely effective. Most customers were surprised when their 90 days was up and wouldn’t dream of giving up the system. So they paid for it. The customer received a system they were familiar with and understood how to get their money’s worth from it and the company made a sale.
This “try and buy” sales technique worked because the product was expensive and usually required a big customer commitment to manage it appropriately for about three to five years.
Sounds kind of like a job, doesn’t it?
A job often lasts several years, it’s expensive for the employer, it’s a lot of time for the employee, and it requires a commitment from both sides to work together appropriately. You never really know if you’re going to like a job, or an employee, until everyone’s worked together for a few months.
Good news! Try and Buy for Employment
Try and buy exists for employment. It usually takes two forms: contract-to-hire, or a probationary period. The details vary, but the basic idea is that there is a defined “trial period.”
Technology companies rely on IT contract-for-hire workers at a greater rate than other industries, according to data from Dice Holdings.
For example, only 8 percent of jobs listed on eFinancialCareers called for contract finance workers, whereas a sizable 48 percent of jobs listed on Dice.com were for IT contractors.
And of the IT contract jobs listed on Dice.com, 27 percent were for contract-to-hire positions. ”Try and buy” can be a good way to turn a contract job into a permanent position, because the employer may start to wonder, “How can I live without this person?”
Also, at the end of an initial contract or probation period, both the employee and the employer can take a step back and decide if this is really working out. If yes, then the job goes on. If no, then everyone walks away. No harm, no foul.
I like this article about “Try and Buy for Employment”. But like anything else it has its pros and cons. As a new Computer Science graduate I just want a fair opportunity to prove what I can bring to the table for any company that hires me.
Only scrub Developers need to resort to contract-to-hire. The best don’t need to lower themselves.
Only a desperate developer would quit a full time job to go contract to hire. But with so many unemployed software engineers, I bet plenty of people will do anything for a job.
I agree 100% cc
except when the contract position offers 2-3x as much per hour as the employee one, and the work is far cooler than the current job and will boost the resume. most “full-time jobs” are pretty unstable – a lot of folks benefit by going rogue agent.
The contract to hire positions pay more because you’re responsible for your retirement, insurance, no sick pay, etc
I’ve also seen people use this for making big career moves: the first management job, or the first team lead job, or the first job in a new industry. That way the employee can see if they actually like it (or management stinks, back to coding!). The employer is more likely to take a chance on a newbie if there’s an out, too.
I love a situation where everyone wins!
There is nothing new about a 90 day probation period, in IT or elsewhere.
Most white collar professions do not do contract-to-hire. But in a field with an extreme surplus of workers, an employer can get away with it.
I was/am not specifically referring to a contract-to-hire, but a 90 day probation. The problem I see with contract to hire is you, as an employee, can find yourself “stuck” in contract-land and never being hired as a FTE.
I would not call contract work “Try Before You Buy.” In nearly all cases, the client company has no intention at all of hiring the contractor. They are generally being brought in to complete a specific project, and once the project is done, there is no more work for them.
In addition, many companies are now using perpetual 1099 workers because they are cheaper than employees. The company does not have to pay for healthcare or any other benefits, workers’ compensation or Social Security/Medicare. They also don’t have to pay out unemployment if they decide to get rid of the contractor.
Are you saying the 27% of contract postings listed as contract-to-hire have a high percentage of employers that do not really intend to hire the contractor?
How could you know this? Source please.
How could I know this? Because I’m a REALIST, not an optimist.
Most economists agree with me. Full-time jobs with benefits are going the way of the horse & buggy, and we are moving into the Age of the Temp.
Actually, as a supervisor with a few contractors working for me, I do know that my upper management has had a contractor wotking for me with no intention of hiring him full-time. He doesn’t get benefits which can hurt someone without medical benefits from any other source. As a family man with small children myself, I canot hold a contract position. The health and safely of my family is at stake. If a national holiday comes up, the contractor does not get paid when everyone else is enjoying a paid holiday with their family. If they get sick or need a day off, the won’t get paid for it. It’s not a good situation for my contractors when their coworkers are getting a paid holiday or their child get’s sick and the can take them to the doctor under their sick time and medical coverage. No, the contract-to-hire position is sometimes a carrot to dangle in front of a less costly employee. I am pushing to hire my contractor full-time with benefits, no matter how short the tenure for him may be. He works just as hard and long as any other full-time, benefitted employee.