No Image Available

Seb Anthony

Read more from Seb Anthony

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1705321608055-0’); });

Investigating the debate on rates


Hi all

As some of you know I have recently undertaken a survey into the rates freelance and associate trainers get/charge for a days 'delivery'. Last years report, highlighted a concern that trainer rates are being squeezed. I have read the 'free text' comments from this years respondents and the concern is ever growing, to the extent that I have asked TrainerBase members to expand on a number of topics.

Given that most of the responses I am getting suggest a pretty damming indictment on some rather questionable attitudes with regards to the procurement of freelance trainers, both direct and via third party training companies, I was wondering whether there are 'procurement officers' within this forum, from both the private and public sector, direct and third party training organisations (those with framework agreements etc) who would like to add their views (confidentially) to a piece I am writing.

To illustrate: It is suggested that in order to show transparency within the tendering process, training has been reduced to a "commodity" and the procurement of training has become a "transaction" (based on the completion of 155pp PQQs and 200pp ITTs) where the only identifiable differentiator for purchasing agents with no knowledge of 'training'; is price.

My intention is to put together some supplier (trainer) concerns on which I would like purchasers views. I would be pleased to hear from anyone that would like to take part.

Please feel free to email me direct at [email protected]

Peter (AKA Ed)

Peter Mayes

One Response

  1. Probably true…
    But I’m not convinced that most training hasn’t become a commodity.

    I’ve been on so many courses that I’ve lost count that regurgitated the same old pseudo facts in pretty much the same way, change management, time management, sales skills, presentation skills etc. that I’m not sure that innovation seems to be much of a priority.

    Training (or investing in people) never seems to have much strategic sway for businesses, they rarely investigate the actual effects of training preferring to take happy sheets and a couple of days morale boost (usually more due to skipping work than the course content) as enough return on investment. There’s little or no follow up in the workplace, despite the obvious “practice makes perfect”. And no-one wants to talk ROI – because it’s too hard to do (it’s not by the way – we just need to determine appropriate measures before we start).

    As a profession we seem to be obsessed with offering surveys and opinions rather than cold hard fact and business bottom line calculations to justify our existence. We have allowed our main mouthpiece (the CIPD like it or not) to be subsumed into generic HR blah and I rarely see an article about training the gives real measures (hard numbers) rather than opinion.

    If we want employer’s and the public sector to buy quality products (and I know there are fantastic professionals in this industry, many of whom contribute to this bulletin board) then we need to smarten up as a profession and represent the real benefits of training and why training is a strategic function driving a business forward rather than a subsidiary of “people management/HR”. Otherwise we deserve to be commoditised.


Get the latest from TrainingZone.

Elevate your L&D expertise by subscribing to TrainingZone’s newsletter! Get curated insights, premium reports, and event updates from industry leaders.

Thank you!