Direct recruitment or an agent network: choosing without regretting it

Institutions entering Vietnam face an early structural choice: build direct demand, or work through agents. Presented as a philosophical question it produces bad decisions. Presented as an operational one it is straightforward.

What each actually costs

Direct recruitment costs fixed money — content, presence, staff time — and pays off slowly but compounds. Agent recruitment costs variable money, commission per enrolment, and produces volume sooner but does not accumulate. Neither is cheaper; they are differently shaped.

How each fails

• Direct fails when an institution funds one year of effort, sees modest numbers, and stops. The spend is lost precisely because it was stopped before compounding.
• Agent-led fails when the institution has nothing of its own in market. If agents deprioritise you, the pipeline goes to zero with no fallback, and you find out a season late.

The answer most institutions arrive at

Both, in sequence. Agents for volume now; a modest, sustained direct presence so that in three years families recognise the name without an intermediary. The direct half is what stops the agent half from holding all the leverage.

One question to settle first

What is the enrolment number that makes Vietnam worth doing at all? Below roughly that line, agents alone are the rational choice. Above it, a direct presence usually costs less per enrolment than the commission it replaces.

Both halves, one plan: Services for institutions →