Recently we came across a series of social media posts by an education agent celebrating visits to the agent’s office by several leading agent aggregators. That’s not uncommon, but the posts jumped out because they were grouped together in the agent’s Facebook page, giving the impression that the meetings happened within a short space of time. To be clear, there is no suggestion that the sub-agent has done anything wrong here, and that’s why we have de-identified the posts.
The posts highlight several aspects of the agent aggregator business model and market that it is important for any institution working with agent aggregators, or considering doing so, to understand.
Gorillas and unicorns
There is no clear market leader in the education agent aggregator space. Pre-Covid there was perhaps a sense that rivers of venture capital would result in an ‘Amazon of aggregators’ emerging. That has not happened for a range of reasons, including the impact of Covid, regulatory changes, a developing focus on compliance, and moves by governments in the main destination markets to reduce international student numbers. In the wake of all that there are now a significant number of education agent aggregators operating in the market, many with sub-agent networks numbering in the thousands (for more on this see: 2024 Annual Report: Agent Aggregators and their Sub-Agent Networks). Some are fueled by venture capital, at least one has gone public, and others are long term agents who have pivoted into an aggregator model. Rather than consolidation of the aggregator market, we’ve seen aggregator disaggregation (for more on this see: Crossing the edtech moat: aggregator disaggregation).
Agent Networks – May 2025Sub-agent infidelity
As the screenshots above show, sub-agents often work with multiple aggregators. In so doing they can mix-and-match access to different aggregator platforms and commission share offers. In some cases successful sub-agents may realise that they don’t need the aggregator any longer and seek to work directly with educational institutions. These issues were identified by agent aggregator, Crizac, in documents filed to support its 2025 IPO in India. Crizac stated:
Our agents also work with various other organisations which are our competitors. Our agents may also directly work with global institutions of higher education which are associated with us. In the absence of an exclusive agreement or arrangement, our agents may process the applications directly to global institutions of higher education or through such competitors which may also have an adverse effect on our business operations, revenue and financial condition. We cannot assure you that our existing agents will continue to provide students for enrolment in global institutions of higher education through our Company. In the absence of exclusive contracts or exclusive arrangements, our agents may cease to associate with us for better commissions from competing organisations as well as provide their services to competing organisations or global institutions of higher education. Further, we cannot assure you that we will be able to identify and work with qualified and trained agents to replace the existing agents. Our failure to meet such requirements may adversely affect our growth plans and have an impact on the financial results.
Face Off: Competition vs Integrity
The education aggregator business is a numbers game, and aggregators are competing with each other to recruit and retain sub agents. When business success depends on recruiting a sub-agent army, and your competitors are targeting the same potential recruits, what are the implications for integrity standards? The temptation to reduce or relax vetting standards for new sub-agents must be strong for any education agent aggregator seeking to recruit sub-agents in an increasingly crowded and competitive aggregator market. An aggregator that sets its due diligence standards too high risks losing a potential sub-agent to an aggregator whose barrier to entry is lower (for more on this see: Into temptation: the rise of education agent aggregators and sub-agent risk).
Most education agent aggregators claim to vet their sub-agents. They use words like ‘trusted’, ‘vetted’, ‘screened’ and ‘curated’. Typically the detail behind those worthy catchwords is light. How exactly are aggregators conducting initial due diligence on prospective sub-agents? How are they doing ongoing due diligence on the huge numbers of sub-agents already on their books? Visit an aggregator website and usually you won’t find much detailed information to set your mind at rest. These questions are particularly pertinent when an aggregator grows their sub-agent networks very quickly – often by thousands – over a relatively short period. That is a huge due diligence task. It is worth pausing to consider – and even better, ask the aggregator – how initial and ongoing due diligence is actually being done.
Working with education education agents?
AgentBee’s education agent due diligence solution supports educational institutions to implement best practice education agent due diligence processes.
Educational institutions can use it to:
- protect students – conduct initial and ongoing due diligence checks on education agents.
- protect your brand – detect cases of unauthorised agents using your institution’s name, logo or other IP without permission.
Our clients include…
Get new posts…
Follow AgentBee on Linkedin to get our latest posts on education agents as they drop – (click the icon below)
