Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Justin Pearse on December 5, 2012 at 2:39am

Thanks for your thoughtful and objective viewpoint Martin - much appreciated. It does give me a few things to think about.

In response to some of your comments: 

1. ) DERIVING BENEFIT - Yes, I did choose the software even if it is one of the pricier ones out there. I chose it despite that fact because after that investigation it certainly looked one of the best in terms of what it offered. We can afford it and you are correct, I did understand the costs full well and entered the contract with 'eyes wide open' so that was my choice.  To your point about 'when value is felt', I suppose from my side it is difficult to completely disregard the cost of that value you are seeking, and the greater the cost the more you feel that 'lack of value' so I think those two things are difficult things to separate. I just can't see beyond the belief that we shouldn't pay for something we couldn't use. If it is the way 'SAAS' vendors operate, it is in desperate need of a change. I was speaking to a good friend who works for a company that specialises in compliance and trade order systems for the financial services industry and he was telling me that clients pay half of the fee on installation of the software, and the remaining half on go-live. It is sometimes debatable as to what constitutes go-live, but they tend to base it on the date on which the client is able to derive sufficient benefit from the system and in deriving that benefit are happy to sign-off the acceptance of that software. I know SAAS systems are different and don't require an installation as such, but the way they operate shouldn't be that different to older installation-based systems as to charge people a full fee before they are able to derive any benefit from it. Anyway - I think we may agree on that point.

2.) IMPORT - Perhaps I could have run one or two more tests before spending the time preparing the data for import. I have worked as an IT consultant and I haven't worked on many projects where some issue comes up and one bemoans the fact that one could have done more testing. However, I spent a considerable amount of time in my 'planning', based my data preparation on what I researched in the Bullhorn Support Centre in conjunction with a lot of questions to tech support, and so believe I was pretty thorough in my approach. I appreciate that imports are complex affairs, particularly as client data and requirements differ markedly from one to another and so to get an import carried out successfully, vendors need to make sure they can cover their costs and so fees are high. However, in providing tools that allow clients to carry out a simpler import, the tools really need to work. I did readily admit that to their credit Bullhorn eventually agreed to do the import for no charge, but it did take a very long time to come to that conclusion. The recent attempt at import has uncovered a few more bugs in the import tool and I really think that a professional organisation should have a tool that works properly. If not clients that are offered this tool as an option, will always face issues and have to revert to Professional Services which will incur a cost that wasn't expected.

3.) CONTRACT - I think you're spot on when you say that contracts exist as a tool of last resort. In one of my final discussions with Bullhorn on the matter, the contract was referred to right upfront in the conversation with the Bullhorn representative telling me that as a signatory on the contract I should have understood it and must therefore pay. I said that I understood this full well but that having been a business owner myself, when one of my clients had raised a situation where a contractual term did not make complete sense or possibly threatened a fruitful ongoing relationship, we had carefully considered their case and when required had moved outside of the strict contract terms to maintain a good working relationship. I suppose what I felt continually through the process is that they had not carefully considered the facts of our particular case and were going to the contract and it's terms long before they needed to. 

4.) SHARING MY EXPERIENCE - You mention my one-sided, self-serving story Martin. Clearly you disagree with the sharing of my experience with others? I consider myself a reasonable person and have tried to keep strictly to the facts of my experience. Bullhorn are welcome to share their side of the story too. The crux of the matter is that I really feel strongly that they have not tried sufficiently to understand the extent of my frustration. At no point has anyone ever picked up the phone and called me and said 'Let's try and come to some kind of resolution on this'. Aside from the one telephone conversation, which I requested many times, I have only received emails with a pretty hardline, reasonably unapologetic attitude, informing me that as a signatory I am responsible for what I sign. When dealing with a software vendor, after-sales support and customer service is most often more important than the functionality of the system itself and on this side of things, in my experience, Bullhorn fall horribly short of what I think are my reasonable customer expectations.

Thanks again for your response. 

Martin H.Snyder said:

Nobody likes to see Bullhorn screw up more than I do, but Justin, I'm afraid to say that I think you had a hand in creating the problems and that you responded disproportionately to those problems.

The quote for the conversion was high, but at least on the planet.  Conversions are craft-jobs that require extensive quality communications to achieve great results.   That’s costly no matter who does the work.

All vendors know that not every new customer can afford that service, and there are always smaller import/export jobs that need doing, so the good tools all have robust tools to help end-users with DIY projects.

    

In your case, you found a legit bug in the import tool, but a pro import analyst would have run test loads at the earliest stages of the project- the initial map- which would occur prior to massaging the bulk of the data for import.   So their bug and your inexperience led to an obstacle.   

Your expectation was that they would move heaven and earth to see you through the job, and when they failed to do that, you became angry.  Then, to their credit, they ended up doing the job at no charge anyway.   
 

So to fully understand customer centrism, we need to know that when pro services are out of reach financially for customers, vendors should then just step in and do the job anyway.  I guess I get it…..but how good do we want vendors to be to customers other than ourselves?   

 

Next up is a misunderstanding of the financial obligations.    You say that, sure, there is a contract, and yes, it does spell out the start and end dates of the payments.   I will guess that customer centrism means payments are only due when value is felt and contracts are for the other guy?      

With the former, I can agree 100%.   We would never try to sustain an account charge when a customer could not get value.  Contracts exist as tools of last resort in a business relationship.  When Bullhorn goes to the contract first, that’s a big mistake and something they will have to fix, but clearly, you signed it, and you are obligated to pay it and then recover for their breach.   

 

Withholding payments due is your breach, regardless of their breach.  That said, most people understand that the accounting functions and customer service functions of smaller businesses (and Bullhorn is still a small business) are often quite separated.   They ended up doing the right thing, again, as would be expected.   And here you are, filling search engines up with your one-sided, self-serving story, trying to hurt them because they would not bend as fast as you wanted them to. 

 
Sometimes firms screw up.  Lucky we are in a business where life and limb is not on the line.  Sometimes disputes take on personal or emotional baggage, and one side is clearly unhappy but for difficult to understand reasons.   Customers are the life of any business, but they are not always right, and they have ethical obligations which exceed the mere handing over of money.    

I took the time to pen this because people can learn from it.   The original sin was your acknowledgement that Bullhorn is expensive, yet not really accepting what that fact means.  Affordability is personal, of course, but when you buy something expensive, the purveyors expect you to be a person can happily afford the offering.   When that’s not operative, it’s not automatic trouble, but it takes some patience and accommodation on both sides to work out well. 

That seems absent here.  

  

  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin H.Snyder on December 5, 2012 at 10:01pm

Hi Justin, I appreciate your reasoned tone in reply- that's great.  As they say, because we disagree does not mean we must be disagreeable, and it would be understandable if you were angry with what I had to say.    As I said, I took the time because its a good case for vendor side and buyer side differences in perception of the same facts.   

When you say "clearly you disagree with the sharing of my experience with others?"  that is a straw man;  I am all for sharing.  It's the proportionality of the way you shared that I take issue with.  A dedicated webpage seemingly SEO'd to be noticed is more than sharing- it's intentional negative advertising designed to harm Bullhorn.  

Your post here seems, IMO, more in-line with the usual give and take between vendor and customer.   I think a flame site is another level, and not fitted to the facts here.  

I want to clarify one other important point that more small business people don't often grasp: deciding to not pay a demanded bill arising from a contract is also a breach of the contract.  In most cases for smallish amounts of money, better to pay the bill and then move to recover for their breach of the contract to avoid legal issues yourself.   Just not paying seems like the best leverage, but often its counterproductive to getting results.   

A product as complex as Bullhorn (or any serious recruiting software) is going to have a hundred bugs in a given release.  Only a few big ones if everyone is lucky.

 

 

ou should never have to pay for monthy service

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rokson Dobson on December 6, 2012 at 5:19pm

Folks, maybe this is a different discussion, but since the topic is ATS selection, does anyone know of an ATS system that is mobile optimized?  Looking for an ATS that will allow job seekers with mobile devices to easily and quickly apply without having to type 7 pages worth of information on 2x4" smartphone screen? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin H.Snyder on December 6, 2012 at 11:41pm

Roskon identify a system with LinkedIn apply or Indeed Apply (or both) - its the streamlined choice since most people dont keep docs on mobile devices and they dont want to fill out a lot of forms, as you noticed.   I do know of at least one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Justin Pearse on December 7, 2012 at 1:34am

Thanks again for your reply.

I take your point on not withholding funds and will certainly consider that approach next time around. I think you're probably right on that one.

The tumblr post is not a 'dedicated webpage' but merely a simple destination on which I could post the details wihtout being constrained by number of characters. I had created the Tumblr account for future company blog posts and when I wanted to tweet Art Papas (Bullhorn founder), to make him aware of the situation and see if he wouldn't have a different viewpoint, I needed a place where I could post the information and the Tumblr platform was the easiest place to do so. I haven't SEO optimised anything. It is just sitting there as a place where people can read the details.

My intention is certainly not to intentionally try and harm Bullhorn. My intention is rather to let other businesses know of my experience with them. Before I make a purchase decision, particularly one that is going to cost a fair amount of money over an extended period of time, I always search the net for a couple of reviews, positive and negative, to see that there aren't some really big negatives I should know about. When reading the negatives, I don't always take them as true, but try and assess from the tone of the post and the content, whether the person is being reasonable or not.

In my case, I said above, that if indeed the SAAS system norm is for people to start paying for something on day 1 irrespective of whether they receive access to it / derive benefit from it only 3 months later, then that is something I need to understand and accept and just move on. Others reading the post can investigate that fact and make up their own minds. To me it was completely unexpected and I still believe to be wrong.

The sharing of information is surely a positive thing that can only benefit the consumer / business. My customer service experience in dealing with these issues was also poor. Whether it's better or worse than any other SAAS ATS I'll probably never know, but I think people should have access to the information. 

Anyway, thanks again for your objective viewpoint. Certainly given me things to think about / consider - which I might not have had you not seen my post and replied to it.

Cheers

Justin

Martin H.Snyder said:

Hi Justin, I appreciate your reasoned tone in reply- that's great.  As they say, because we disagree does not mean we must be disagreeable, and it would be understandable if you were angry with what I had to say.    As I said, I took the time because its a good case for vendor side and buyer side differences in perception of the same facts.   

When you say "clearly you disagree with the sharing of my experience with others?"  that is a straw man;  I am all for sharing.  It's the proportionality of the way you shared that I take issue with.  A dedicated webpage seemingly SEO'd to be noticed is more than sharing- it's intentional negative advertising designed to harm Bullhorn.  

Your post here seems, IMO, more in-line with the usual give and take between vendor and customer.   I think a flame site is another level, and not fitted to the facts here.  

I want to clarify one other important point that more small business people don't often grasp: deciding to not pay a demanded bill arising from a contract is also a breach of the contract.  In most cases for smallish amounts of money, better to pay the bill and then move to recover for their breach of the contract to avoid legal issues yourself.   Just not paying seems like the best leverage, but often its counterproductive to getting results.   

A product as complex as Bullhorn (or any serious recruiting software) is going to have a hundred bugs in a given release.  Only a few big ones if everyone is lucky.

 

 

ou should never have to pay for monthy service

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin H.Snyder on December 7, 2012 at 8:50am

Justin there is no really good market research in the ATS space- there used to be when ERE.net did it, and MaxHire paid for some a few years ago that ranked Bullhorn, MaxHire, Sendouts, and PCRecruiter as the most widely used (in the USA anyway) by third-party search outfits.   

No you should not have to pay for a SaaS account when the system is not available, but we have beaten the horse of how to handle that already.

 

My rule for buying complex stuff on a long relationship (e.g. landlords, wives, sailmakers) is to take it easy in the beginning and see how things are going to play out.   If I cant find a free trial, then add an acceptance clause to the agreement.......figure some way to try before you buy- its the only proof.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Brablc on December 8, 2012 at 8:44pm

Jobscore (http://www.jobscore.com) is another free ATS that you may want to look at.  They provide all the candidate tracking that an ATS provides and does offer job posting as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angela Marasco on December 11, 2012 at 10:32am

We use Big Biller.  It works well for our office (which is less than 5 people).  However, I know of larger agencies that use it as well.  It's also affordable.  $60/month for first user ($20 for each additional user).  There are new advertising options attached to the software (Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.).  The customer service is very quick.

http://www.topechelon.com/recruiting-software/

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vinay Johar - RChilli on April 19, 2013 at 6:26am

you can use 

Zoho Recruit  ..   www.zoho.com/recruit 

thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CEIPAL LLC on August 18, 2015 at 7:30am

Feel free to try CEIPAL TalentHire - https://talenthire.ceipal.com/. It's a cloud based applicant tracking system designed for small, medium and large scale businesses to make their hiring process faster and better.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stuart Read on January 10, 2016 at 7:23pm

If you are looking to go for well priced Applicant tracking system with all the functionality you could even need for a small/medium operation thane you should seriously consider trying JobAdder - there is a free trail available, free demo, no obligation - why not? Applicant Tracking Software

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sanjay Darji on September 15, 2016 at 5:16am

If you are still looking for applicant tracking system for your business, have a list of best applicant tracking system for small & medium sized business with software reviews, demos, price quotes & many more. You will get free consultation for selecting right software for your business. 

If you are looking for freemium applicant tracking system for your business, here are top free & open source applicant tracking system for small &...

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page