Sowing opportunities. Growing futures.

It’s badly run because the incentives are wrong. Fees are paid on placement, so filling the vacancy is what gets optimised — and the candidate quietly becomes the means to it rather than the point of it.

You can see the consequences from the outside. Adverts for roles that were filled weeks ago, kept live to harvest CVs. Salary ranges written as “competitive” because publishing the real one would cost a response. Applications that vanish, because a rejection takes four minutes nobody is paid for. None of that is anyone being wicked. It is what happens when the only thing measured is how many vacancies got filled this month.

Sowers was started to work the other way round: to be paid for placing people well rather than quickly, and to accept the lower volume that comes with it.

So the constraints are deliberate. One named consultant owns your search from first call to first day, which caps how many people we can look after at once. Every advert carries a real salary, which means we turn down clients who won’t publish one. Everybody gets an answer inside 48 hours, including a no with the reason attached. Each of those costs us something, and that is precisely why they are worth putting in writing — a promise that costs nothing to keep tells you nothing about who is making it.