VA staffing company. Lower rates but steady work.
Most entries in this database assess someone selling you something. This one is different, and the difference matters for how you should read it. Barnaby Lashbrooke is not selling a course, a mastermind, or a coaching program. He runs a company that hires people. The question here is not whether a product is worth buying. It is whether working through Time etc is a good deal for the assistant doing the work.
That reframes the analysis entirely. There is no refund clause to scrutinise, no income screenshot to verify, and no scarcity funnel. There is a rate card on one side and a pay rate on the other, and the space between them is where the assessment lives.
Who He Actually Is
Lashbrooke's entrepreneurial record predates Time etc and is more substantial than most people in this category can claim.
He founded SupaNames and served as its managing director from 2000 to 2006, a web hosting and domain business he built from a starting investment of roughly $240 into a customer base reported at more than 24,000, before selling it to Pipex PLC. That is an actual exit to an actual acquirer, which distinguishes him from educators whose primary achievement is teaching. He co-founded Cloud Lab LLP in 2009.
Time etc launched in 2007. The stated origin is ordinary and plausible: he had no office and a business too small to justify hiring, and wanted delegated help without the overhead of employment. The company now reports handling more than 20,000 tasks per month.
He has since written The Hard Work Myth, which carries a recommendation from Richard Branson, and writes as a Forbes columnist on productivity. His materials state that he has sold more than $35 million worth of services. That figure originates with him and is not independently audited, though a staffing business running since 2007 at meaningful volume makes it unremarkable rather than implausible.
What Is Actually Documented
The useful numbers here are the two sides of the transaction, and both are publicly stated.
What clients pay. Time etc's published plans run from roughly $360 per month for 10 hours, an effective rate of about $36 per hour, down to roughly $1,800 per month for 60 hours, an effective rate of about $30 per hour. The rate falls as volume rises, which is standard.
What assistants earn. Time etc's own recruiting materials state a starting rate of $17 per hour, describing increases over time as long-term client relationships develop. Glassdoor data for assistants at the company reports a range of roughly $20 to $32 per hour, which is consistent with starting at $17 and rising with tenure.
The spread. At entry level the client pays $30 to $36 per hour and the assistant receives $17. That is a take rate somewhere in the region of 45 to 53 percent. Toward the upper end of the reported assistant range the split narrows considerably, and a long-tenured assistant on $32 against a $36 client rate is in a very different position from a new one on $17.
Working conditions. Assistants must be available at least five hours per week, Monday to Friday.
Worker sentiment. Time etc holds a Glassdoor rating of about 4.8 out of 5 across more than 265 reviews, with roughly 94 percent of reviewers saying they would recommend working there. That is a genuinely high score for a staffing platform, and it is the single strongest data point in the company's favour. The recurring complaints in the same reviews are specific: available tasks are claimed quickly by other assistants, and the pay rate is felt to be low relative to the work performed.
The Business Model
Time etc is a managed marketplace rather than a job board, and the distinction explains the margin.
An independent virtual assistant charges the client directly and keeps everything, but must find every client, negotiate every rate, chase every invoice, absorb every gap between engagements, and handle the administrative overhead of running a business. Experienced independent VAs commonly bill in the $25 to $75 per hour range, with the wide spread reflecting specialisation and negotiating position.
Time etc removes all of that. The assistant does not prospect, pitch, negotiate, invoice, or chase payment. Work arrives, hours are logged, payment is reliable. The company carries client acquisition, payment risk, dispute handling, and the cost of maintaining enough bench capacity to cover demand.
The roughly half of the billing rate that the company retains is the price of that service. Whether that is a fair price depends almost entirely on what the alternative looks like for a specific person, and the honest answer varies enormously.
For someone with no client-acquisition ability, no portfolio, and no professional network, the alternative to $17 per hour through Time etc is frequently $0 per hour, because they will not land clients independently. For that person the platform is straightforwardly good: it converts capability into income without requiring sales skill.
For someone who can market themselves, the arithmetic is much worse. An independent VA billing $40 per hour needs fewer than half the hours to match $17 per hour gross, and keeps the client relationship. Staying on the platform long-term in that situation means paying roughly half of revenue indefinitely for a service (client acquisition) that they no longer need.
The Honest Version of the Trade-Off
Set out plainly, at entry-level rates:
| Time etc | Independent |
|---|
| Rate to worker | $17/hr starting, rising with tenure | $25-$75/hr typical |
| Client acquisition | Handled | Your responsibility |
| Payment risk | Absorbed by company | Yours |
| Income stability | Steady once established | Variable, often lumpy |
| Startup effort | Application only | Portfolio, marketing, sales |
| Rate ceiling | Bounded by company rate card | Set by you and the market |
The pattern that serves a worker best is to treat the platform as an entry ramp rather than a destination: use it to build experience, references, and a sense of what clients actually need, then move toward independent work or negotiate up the internal ladder once tenure allows. The Glassdoor range suggests the internal ladder is real ($32 per hour is a materially different proposition from $17) but reaching it takes time and sustained client relationships.
The failure mode is staying at entry rates indefinitely while assuming the platform will lift them. Nothing in the structure compels that.
What the Numbers Mean in Practice
Abstract rates are easy to nod along to, so it is worth converting them into what a person actually takes home.
At the five-hour weekly minimum and the $17 entry rate, the platform produces about $85 per week, or roughly $368 per month before tax. That is supplementary income. It covers a utility bill or a phone contract, not a salary. Anyone evaluating this as a route out of employment should start from that number rather than from the hourly rate.
At fifteen hours a week, a common commitment for someone working around another job, entry rates produce about $255 per week or roughly $1,105 per month. That is meaningful supplementary income and, for many people, the realistic ceiling of what a side commitment can generate without displacing other work.
At the upper end of the reported range ($32 per hour after building tenure and durable client relationships) fifteen hours a week produces about $480 weekly or roughly $2,080 monthly. The progression from $17 to $32 nearly doubles output for identical hours, which is why the tenure question is the most consequential one for anyone considering this.
Two adjustments matter. This is contractor income in most arrangements, so tax is not withheld and the take-home figure is lower than the gross. And hours are not guaranteed: the documented complaint that tasks are claimed quickly means a nominal fifteen-hour availability does not automatically convert into fifteen paid hours, particularly early on before client relationships are established.
The practical implication is that the first few months are likely to underperform the arithmetic, and the position improves substantially with tenure. That shape (slow start, better later) is the opposite of how side income is usually marketed, and it is worth knowing before starting.
Content Analysis
There is no course to evaluate, which is itself worth noting: Lashbrooke has an obvious audience of aspiring virtual assistants and does not sell them a training program. In a category where the standard move is to monetise hopeful workers with a $997 "become a VA" course, running an actual staffing business and paying people instead is a meaningfully different choice.
His published writing (the Forbes column and The Hard Work Myth) argues broadly against the equation of long hours with productivity, and is aimed at business owners rather than at assistants. It is competent and unremarkable; it is not the reason anyone lands on this page.
The company's own resource library on hiring and working with virtual assistants is client-facing marketing content. It is accurate enough and openly promotional, which is the correct combination.
Green Flags
No course sold to aspiring assistants. The obvious monetisation of this audience is a paid training program. It does not exist here. Applying costs nothing.
A verifiable prior exit. SupaNames was built from a small starting investment and sold to Pipex PLC, an actual acquisition rather than a claimed one.
Strong worker sentiment. Roughly 4.8 out of 5 across 265-plus Glassdoor reviews with about 94 percent recommending is a high score, and it comes from workers rather than from marketing.
Payment reliability and no client acquisition burden. For an assistant, the two hardest parts of freelancing (finding work and getting paid) are removed entirely.
Low commitment floor. A five-hour weekly minimum is a genuinely low bar that accommodates people working around other jobs.
Long operating history. Running since 2007 without regulatory action or substantiated complaint.
Red Flags
The entry-level take rate is roughly half. Clients pay about $30 to $36 per hour; new assistants receive $17. The company retains something in the region of 45 to 53 percent at entry level. That is defensible as the price of managed demand, and it is a large share of the value the worker produces.
The starting rate is well below independent market rates. Experienced independent VAs commonly bill $25 to $75 per hour. An assistant capable of finding their own clients is materially worse off on the platform.
Task competition is a documented friction. Worker reviews consistently report that available tasks are claimed quickly, meaning advertised earning potential depends on responsiveness and availability rather than simply on willingness to work.
Pay progression is not contractual. Increases are described as developing with long-term client relationships. The Glassdoor range indicates progression is real, but nothing published commits the company to a schedule, and an assistant who does not build durable client relationships has no defined path off the entry rate.
Headline company figures are self-reported. The 20,000 tasks per month and the $35 million in services sold originate with the company and are not independently audited.
Is the Take Rate Actually Unfair?
It is worth arguing this from both sides, because "the company keeps half" invites an easy conclusion that may not be the right one.
The case that it is fair: the company carries costs the assistant never sees. Client acquisition in a competitive services market is expensive, and the cost of winning a client is paid whether or not that client stays. The company absorbs payment defaults and disputes. It maintains enough bench capacity that a client's work gets covered when their usual assistant is unavailable, which means paying for idle capacity. It handles vetting, onboarding, matching, and the administrative machinery of a distributed workforce. Priced against a conventional staffing agency, where markups of 50 to 100 percent over worker pay are routine, the split here is unremarkable and arguably favourable.
The case that it is not: a marketplace's acquisition cost is front-loaded, while the take rate is charged in perpetuity. Once an assistant has worked with the same client for two years, the company is no longer performing the expensive service that justified the margin. It is collecting rent on an introduction it made once. Nothing in the structure returns that value to the worker as the relationship matures, other than the informal rate progression, which is discretionary rather than contractual.
The honest resolution is that the split is defensible at the start and progressively harder to justify with tenure. That is precisely why the rate progression from $17 to a reported $32 matters so much: it is the mechanism by which the arrangement stays fair over time. An assistant should treat reaching that progression as the central objective rather than a pleasant possibility, and should read a stalled rate after sustained good work as a signal to reconsider the arrangement.
Comparison to Peers
Against other managed VA platforms, Time etc's entry rate is mid-market and its worker sentiment is notably better than the category norm. Platforms that pay meaningfully more typically require specialist skills or route work through more competitive bidding; platforms that pay less frequently operate offshore rate structures with weaker worker protections.
Against open freelance marketplaces, the comparison is a trade of ceiling for floor. Open marketplaces impose no rate cap but also provide no demand guarantee, and a new freelancer there frequently earns nothing for weeks while building a profile and rating. Time etc trades the upside away in exchange for work actually arriving.
Against the "become a VA" course sellers who occupy this niche, there is no comparison worth making. Those operators charge aspiring assistants for information; this one pays them. Whatever the merits of the rate, the direction of the money flow is the right way round.
Who Benefits Most
The person best served is starting out: no portfolio, no network, no client-acquisition experience, and a need for reliable rather than maximal income. Someone fitting that description who can work five to fifteen hours a week around other commitments will find the platform does the hardest part of freelancing for them, and $17 an hour arriving reliably beats a higher notional rate that never materialises.
The person least served is an experienced assistant with marketable specialisation and the confidence to sell. For them the take rate is a straightforward tax on capability they already possess, and the correct move is to build client relationships directly.
The middle case (competent, some experience, uncertain about selling themselves) is where the entry-ramp framing matters most. Use it, build references, and reassess after six months against what independent rates would realistically be.
There is also a category of person for whom the rate question is close to irrelevant: someone re-entering work after a long absence, or working around caring responsibilities or a health condition that makes irregular independent freelancing impractical. Reliability and a low weekly floor have real value in those circumstances, and a guaranteed-feeling $17 an hour can be worth more than a theoretical $40 that requires constant selling to sustain. That is a legitimate reason to accept the split with open eyes rather than a reason to pretend the split is smaller than it is.
The Verdict
Barnaby Lashbrooke earns a trust score of 4.3 out of 5 and a scam score of 0.5 out of 5.
The scam score is near zero because the fundamentals are sound and the direction of payment is correct. Nothing is sold to aspiring assistants, applying is free, the operating history runs to 2007 without enforcement action, and workers themselves rate the experience at about 4.8 out of 5 across more than 265 reviews. The founder has a verifiable prior exit rather than a career built solely on teaching. None of the markers that drive scam scores upward in this database (unverifiable income claims, high-ticket programs, pressure funnels, discretionary refunds) are present.
The trust score sits at 4.3 rather than higher because of the margin. A new assistant produces $30 to $36 per hour of billable value and receives $17 of it. That is a legitimate charge for managed demand, and it is a large enough share that it should be stated plainly rather than folded into language about flexibility and support. The platform is a good deal for people who cannot yet find their own clients and a poor one for people who can, and the published materials naturally emphasise the first case.
Treat Time etc as an entry ramp. Take the reliable hours, build the references, learn what clients actually want, and then decide deliberately whether to climb the internal rate ladder or leave for independent work. The one outcome to avoid is sitting at the entry rate for years on the assumption that it will rise on its own.
Sources
- Time etc assistant recruiting materials and FAQ. The $17 per hour starting rate, the description of increases tied to long-term client relationships, and the five-hour weekly minimum with Monday-to-Friday availability.
- Time etc published client plans. Approximately $360 per month for 10 hours and $1,800 per month for 60 hours, giving effective client rates of roughly $36 and $30 per hour respectively.
- Glassdoor. Assistant hourly pay range of approximately $20 to $32, company rating of about 4.8 out of 5 across more than 265 reviews, and roughly 94 percent recommending. Also the source for recurring complaints about task competition and pay level.
- Company and founder biographical materials, including Entrepreneur contributor biography. SupaNames founded and run 2000 to 2006 and sold to Pipex PLC, the roughly $240 starting investment and 24,000 customers, Cloud Lab LLP (2009), Time etc founded 2007, more than 20,000 tasks per month, The Hard Work Myth and its Branson recommendation, Forbes column, and the $35 million services figure.
Methodology note: figures originating with the company or its founder are identified as self-reported. The take-rate calculation is derived by comparing the company's own published client rates against its own published starting pay rate; it is arithmetic on disclosed figures rather than an estimate. Independent VA rate ranges are typical market figures and vary widely by specialisation and region.
Barnaby Lashbrooke operates primarily on Time Etc, where they have built an audience of 5K+ VAs followers. VA staffing company. Lower rates but steady work. Their content focuses on online income strategies delivered through Time Etc-based courses and programs priced at Free to apply - no course sold to assistants.
Barnaby Lashbrooke charges Free to apply - no course sold to assistants for their program. When evaluating whether this price is justified, consider: What specific, actionable outcomes does the course promise? Are there free alternatives covering the same material on YouTube or blogs? Does the price include ongoing access, community support, or mentorship? Many Time Etc educators offer similar content at lower price points, so compare before committing.
Barnaby Lashbrooke has a trust score of 4.3/5 and a scam score of 0.5/5 based on our independent analysis. Always verify income claims independently, check for a refund policy before purchasing, and look for verified student results rather than testimonials alone.
Instead of paying for Barnaby Lashbrooke's course (Free to apply - no course sold to assistants), consider starting one of these free side hustles with our step-by-step guides:
Before spending Free to apply - no course sold to assistants on Barnaby Lashbrooke's program, consider these free learning resources: