Sub-Agent Management for Education Consultancies: Referrals, Commission Splits and Keeping Control

Beyond Kathmandu, a large share of students reach a licensed consultancy through a sub-agent: a smaller office, a coaching institute, a former student. The model works — it is how most consultancies grow past their own city — and it is also where the messiest disputes in the industry happen. Almost all of them are about the same two things: whose student is this, and how much do you owe me.

Both are solved by recording the answer at the moment it is known, in a system both parties can see.

Record the referral at enquiry, not at commission time

The dispute begins when a student who was referred in March is enrolled in September and nobody wrote down who referred them. By then the sub-agent remembers a WhatsApp message and the counsellor remembers a walk-in.

Rule: every lead carries a source, and if the source is a sub-agent, the sub-agent's name is on the lead from the first day. It is copied to the student record and to every application. Commission is computed from that field, never from recollection.

Agree the split in writing, per destination

Commission rates differ by country and institution, and so should the sub-agent's share. A flat "50%" sounds fair and produces arguments the first time an Australian commission is compared to a UK one.

A workable agreement specifies:

• The percentage or fixed amount per enrolment, by destination.
• When it is payable — on commission received, not on enrolment. The consultancy should not be paying out money it has not collected.
• What counts as the sub-agent's student — referred in writing, recorded on the lead, and not already in the consultancy's database.
• Duration — a student referred once remains the sub-agent's for that enrolment, not for life.

What the sub-agent should see — and not see

Sub-agents want to know their students' progress; consultancies do not want to hand over the student's full file, contact details of the family, or internal notes.

A sensible portal for a sub-agent shows:

| Visible | Hidden | |---|---| | Their referred students, by name | Other students | | Current pipeline stage | Internal counsellor notes | | Whether documents are complete | The documents themselves | | Commission earned, pending and paid | The consultancy's gross commission | | A way to submit new referrals | Family contact details |

This is enough to keep the sub-agent informed and motivated, and not enough to let them take the student elsewhere.

The commission ledger

Every application with a sub-agent should generate two ledger lines when the university commission arrives:

1. Received — the gross amount from the institution.
2. Payable to sub-agent — the agreed share, with a status: pending → approved → paid.

A monthly statement per sub-agent, generated from the ledger, ends the "you owe me for six students" conversation. Either the six are in the ledger or they are not.

Quality control

A sub-agent's referrals are your applications, lodged under your name and your licence. A refused visa is your refusal rate.

• Review the first ten files from any new sub-agent personally.
• Track visa-grant rate per sub-agent. A partner at 40% when the office runs at 80% needs a conversation.
• Never let a sub-agent submit an application directly; the file goes through your counsellor.

Growing the network

The consultancies that scale through sub-agents do three things consistently: they pay on time, they pay from a statement rather than a negotiation, and they show the sub-agent their students' progress without being asked. The portal does the third; the ledger does the first two.

Qylantis CRM has a sub-agent portal with exactly this visibility model, referral tracking from the lead onward, and a commission ledger with payable statements per partner. See the sub-agent portal or read how commission reconciliation works.