Would you use Realmatch instead of Monster, Careerbuilder, Hotjobs

Interesting article today from Cheezhead about how more employers and recruiters are using Realmatch becuase you pay after they find candidates. I am wondering if you would use this site? Here's the article -


Views: 322

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

We have used Realmatch many times, it works great. You dont have to pay unless they deliver great candidates...its pretty cool. I would not say I would only use them but they are one good source.
i saw this article on cheezhead and have not tried realmatch but my colleagues have used it. I like that its free to post but if you like the candidate profiles you get, you will evenutally have to pay if you want them. I guess its like Contigency recruiting, you only pay if you decide to move forward. I like that the risk is shifted off the job poster as opposed to pay to post boards where the poster bears all the risk.
Interesting article...I will try it
We no longer use Monster or Careerbuilder as they are too expensive. Will try the site you mention.
I think realmatch is still a newer service in the eyes of many larger corps which traditionally stick with what they know. Whether its a couple hundred less to place a candidate is of no consequence to them. So I think companies that are more money motivated would use realmatch.
I'll use anything except for monster and careerbuilder. I have not tried real match.
We have recruited healthcare folks with realmatch.com and had some decent results. I'll tell you that there is no one service that is the magic bullet though. Monster and careerbuilder? Are you kidding me...way to expensive and crappy candidates.
its amazing how manyt people say they hate careerbuilder and monster and still those sites gets used a lot. I personally have never used any of these sites. I call people....I know, old school they tell me. Interesting article on cheezhead.
I'm convinced this thread is full of spam
So kill it!
Well for one, Monster still works for me after all these years. Careerbuilder is just another choice to make instead of Monster, but not both. Craigslist is cheap and has fast become my best source code for posting/hiring candidates for an open position.

I'm not so sure about this new approach. Because is it really a "new" approach or is it just the same thing turned around, facing in just another direction where you ultimately get the same result and end up spending the same amount of money? I think so! We've all been trained to look for jobs the same way for a long time. Social networking or not, in the past it was responding to (mailing in, then faxing in) a resume from a classified ad. Then the internet came (Monster) which still dominates the job board industry. And it must work because regardless of the other channels, new or not, everyone still posts their resumes on it because of it's reach. And God forbid the recruiter who has to sift through all those crappy resumes to find the really good ones. Isn't that part of the job that we're being paid to do anyway? I think so!

At the end of the day, if the resource does not provide you candidates that are good enough to hire. don't you just simply stop using it? And then doesn't it just dry up from lack of revenue and go away? Yes. So why is Monster still around after all these years? Because it obviously still works and is it really that expensive when you compare the costs to retained or even contingency hiring? It's not. It's actually less expensive. Quality costs more. And I'm not suggesting that Monster is a "quality" product, but like Google, most can't really live without it. You're shutting yourself off from the outside world if you don't use it. Twitter, Facebook, Linked In, etc., are by no shape of the imagination the level of penetration you get from the big 3 job boards. If they were, we'd all be using them with incredible results. And none of us are really getting incredible results from them, now are we. They are just another channel to look for the same people that are already ON Monster or the other two, or also applying to my job there, as well as everywhere else that I've posted it.

All of this works in tandem with one another. You get more synergy with bigger budgets to "use/try" every channel that is available if that is the way your budgets work. Lucky you if you're in this category (Microsoft, Amazon.com, e.g.). But for the most part, you'd think with a rather high unemployment rate, that the social networking sites, or the "new" stuff that continues to pop up would be working at ultimum capacity because of the sheer number of people looking for work. So it's a good test market, right? But the results are currently just the same. The time and energy spent finding the "best" candidates is always the same regardless of market conditions. The very best candidates are always going to be a challenge to find. The job boards are just the invitation to the party. It's the recruiter as the host of the party that ultimately does the job of throwing a good enough party to not only engage the candidate by having them stick around for another beverage, but then entice them to stay after the party ends to help clean up. That's called making a hire!
I guess the solution you choose will ultimately depend on your pain. Some peoeples paid is weeding through resumes. Some people's pain is not getting enough good candidates, Some peoples pain is high posting fees. You need to be able to find a solution or system that addresses these pains. I dont think a lot of recruiters realize what their pain actually is in a lot of cases.

Reply to Discussion



All the recruiting news you see here, delivered straight to your inbox.

Just enter your e-mail address below


RecruitingBlogs on Twitter

© 2024   All Rights Reserved   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service