Qualifications of Pinnacle Society

Can a guy ask something here? Dave Mendoza was candid enough to answer a few questions about what he does to earn a living out here. For that he has my respect. That leads me to wondering if I can get some answers on another topic: Pinnacle Society membership.

There are a few of these great Pinnacle Society videos and bios readily available for us. The assumption is they are in some elite group of "Big Billers" that we should all aspire to. Though on their website you'll see they no longer have any openings in their cozy little group.

Here is the point. To join PS the general understanding is you have to have like 4 or 500K (please correct me PS members) in "verifiable personal billings". OK. Henry can dig that. Love to make that happen here at my desk.

But getting back to the vids, bios, write ups, etc. From what I can tell the majority of the heavy hitting leaders have at least 1 or 2 researchers, a "back office" person and maybe another "assistant" thrown in.

So what gives here? Do they count whatever a small group of people with titles OTHER THAN recruiter can put together under one person's name as "personal" billings?

Hopefully this will not be taken as any type of slam against Pinnacle Society. My goal is to be there. Believe me on that. Just trying to get a better handle on what qualifies as individual success when it comes to paying others to source, research, "profile" and then hand over qualified candidates to you.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Art Pitcher on August 28, 2008 at 12:22pm

The problem is, when you're doing that volume of business you have to have some support staff - otherwise you're going to end up leaving money on the table.

I used to have a sourcer that never contacted my clients or candidates and it doubled my available time. But I utilized them to cut down my sourcing time only (the biggest chunk of time I spent) and free up time for managing my clients and my candidate inventory.

How often do you hear candidates complain about crappy service and no return calls? If you have the right support staff under you it sure makes it easier to provide top service.

Art Pitcher
www.TheArtOfRecruiting.net

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jorge' Blanco on August 28, 2008 at 12:27pm

Oh - you'll find complete agreement here. I've got 2 "helpers" myself. Couldn't live without them!

Just getting into this whole world of social stuff and there are quite a few self-acclaimed top producers. So that led me to Pinnacle Society.

Anybody in the world can bill 500k with a team of 3 people. You should be doing that and if not you suck. So if that counts all old Henry is saying here is it shouldn't impress anyone. Least not enough to put them on a big biller panel pretending they have achieved something we have not.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Art Pitcher on August 28, 2008 at 12:57pm

LOL!

Henry - the cold truth for me is that I would rather have 5 $100k billers than 1 $500k biller, but then that's a business/operations perspective and has to do with cost/retention.

The cold truth is that 70% of recruiters in our industry do NOT break $100k in billing, and they don't suck - there's a variety of reasons they bill less than that.

I would say anyone who's making a living at this - really making a living, doesn't suck. Calling "suck" on generalisms is not necessary.... those who "suck" leave the business on their own. To me, people have to actually do something "sucky" to earn that designation.

In other words, if you're in the top 1% club billing over $400k/yr - good for you (and us) - but that doesn't mean the other 99% sucks. In fact, I've never seen anyone who wasn't a one-hit-wonder walk in and have a $400k year by year 2..... people could be ramping up, new to the business, or just dealing with a low-fee industry.

Broad generalizations are self-limiting.

Why is it necessary to join a group like Pinnacle anyway?

Art Pitcher
www.TheArtOfRecruiting.net

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on August 28, 2008 at 1:13pm

This is a very interesting discussion - thanks for bringing it up.

Art, do you know if there is a limit on support staff or anything like that? Is there a limit dependent upon Acct Mgmt versus Recruitment? (For example, is Pinnacle full-desk dependent? . . . ?)

I'm getting value here and appreciate everyone's thoughts. Are there constraints or certain variables that come into billing amounts for Pinnacle?

Art Pitcher said:

LOL!

Henry - the cold truth for me is that I would rather have 5 $100k billers than 1 $500k biller, but then that's a business/operations perspective and has to do with cost/retention.

The cold truth is that 70% of recruiters in our industry do NOT break $100k in billing, and they don't suck - there's a variety of reasons they bill less than that.

I would say anyone who's making a living at this - really making a living, doesn't suck. Calling "suck" on generalisms is not necessary.... those who "suck" leave the business on their own. To me, people have to actually do something "sucky" to earn that designation.

In other words, if you're in the top 1% club billing over $400k/yr - good for you (and us) - but that doesn't mean the other 99% sucks. In fact, I've never seen anyone who wasn't a one-hit-wonder walk in and have a $400k year by year 2..... people could be ramping up, new to the business, or just dealing with a low-fee industry.

Broad generalizations are self-limiting.

Why is it necessary to join a group like Pinnacle anyway?

Art Pitcher
www.TheArtOfRecruiting.net

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Art Pitcher on August 28, 2008 at 1:16pm

Josh-

I don't know - I remember at one point Pinnacle was soundling like it was going to be a big deal, but seems to have petered out a bit? But then, I may be VERY wrong and they may be very active - just quieter about it.

I don't remember the criteria... sorry :(

Art Pitcher
www.TheArtOfRecruiting.net

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jorge' Blanco on August 28, 2008 at 1:22pm

Art - you're right. Shouldn't have said anyone sucks. Can I redact that? :)

The true intent with the post was to ask what qualifications these members have to claim their status (w/o question from anyone on the outside) as top billers. It's a pretty simple thought. Are they considering the work of anyone besides themselves under their "personal billing" umbrella?

I wouldn't expect anyone in their first few years to bill anywhere near that. So that was not what I had in mind.

So if it is obvious that anyone doing that volume of business would need a staff of people - how can they then claim to be the one with those numbers?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Art Pitcher on August 28, 2008 at 1:26pm

My apologies in misunderstanding you, Henry.

I like one of your points a lot - I have seen branch managers say on their resumes: "Billed over $1,047,245 in direct placement fees in 2005".

Um..... What? You ran a branch with 6 recruiters, and an admin. Talk about a credit sniper LOL!

Brings up good points about how the models are defined.

Art Pitcher
www.TheArtOfRecruiting.net

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jorge' Blanco on August 28, 2008 at 1:31pm

Do any PS Members drop in here? I would just like to know. My personality is such that for me to look up to and respect people for accomplishing things I would like to accomplish - it'd be nice to know exactly what they're claiming they've done.

p.s. I've asked Slouch to remove the other stuff. My words were not appropriate for the thought I was hoping to convey.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Art Pitcher on August 28, 2008 at 1:34pm

It's all good Henry, it's just a very touchy subject with me.

Art Pitcher
www.TheArtOfRecruiting.net

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on August 28, 2008 at 1:36pm

Most great recruiters I know can handle 3 - 5 'REAL' search assignments over a 3-week period (meaning A+ orders with client urgency and downward pressure) . . . and let's say they fill a solid 50% of them. Assuming they are knocking it out of the park and filling half their search assignments at a fee of $30k . . . .

That would be $30k billed for 10 placements every 12 weeks (or 4 months). So, this would be $30k x 30 placements = $900k annual billings on a full-desk (with no support). Again, that's assuming an avg placement of $30k (not bad; not bad at all) and 50% of all search assignments filled, considering 3-5 great assignments each 3 weeks.

I imagine that it would be improbable to fill 50% of all search assignments without support staff, however . . . . hmmmm, worth some thought . . . maybe my estimations are off.

As in anything, there are surely P vs. PC constraints. The best argument I think we have in the search industry is to keep our fees up - it's funny how, when we start cutting fees, we have to work 1.5x to 2x as hard for the same billing revenue.

Art Pitcher said:

My apologies in misunderstanding you, Henry.

I like one of your points a lot - I have seen branch managers say on their resumes: "Billed over $1,047,245 in direct placement fees in 2005".

Um..... What? You ran a branch with 6 recruiters, and an admin. Talk about a credit sniper LOL!

Brings up good points about how the models are defined.

Art Pitcher
www.TheArtOfRecruiting.net

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jorge' Blanco on August 28, 2008 at 1:42pm

Art - why is it a touchy subject?

Good points Josh. It is my suspicion that PS Members find themselves in very unique situations which make replication very difficult w/o those very same factors. Many only have 2 or 3 clients whom they have serviced for years so they don't have to beat the bushed every day like most of us do. I speculate they do not do any more sendouts, interviews or job orders than we do. Just their fees are giant and their clients are extra special to them!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Art Pitcher on August 28, 2008 at 2:31pm

The other thread is a touchy subject with me.

Do you know that there are clients that WILL NOT do business with me, for example, because I am not a minority owned business? In fact, here is an email I received YESTERDAY from someone I have a very good relationship with:

"The corporate directive we have received states that we should only be doing business with minority owned staffing vendors (i.e. women-owned and small business certified vendors don’t count). "

This situation exists because for years our country allowed (and even encouraged) racial intolerance. Affirmative action and other preferential policies have been created to compensate for these types of attitudes, and frankly they're ALL obstacles and barriers that have haunted be since I entered the industry.

The only solution is ABSOLUTE racial tolerance. Until we can reach that threshold we will never be able to overcome these business barriers, which were instituted in good faith to try to create an equal playing field (failing miserably), but ultimately creating business challenges unfair to everyone.

So, racial topics are touchy for me. Illegal aliens are bad because they're here illegally - not because they're from a specific race. Criminals are bad because they commit crimes, not because they are skewed in any particular racial direction.

And the point was raised in my office today that many offshore operations are based in the Philippines, yet no one is pointing fingers at all Philippinos for the tons of spam sent out.

It's just sensitive and touchy to me, but I am not trying to beat a dead horse - simply answer your question.

HAPPY HUNTING!

Art Pitcher
www.TheArtOfRecruiting.com