New 'STATS' - Any Thoughts???

Anyone who knows me is pretty well aware that I'm not a huge fan of online VMS (Vendor Mgmt System) solutions because of the inefficiencies they create. I'm sure you know what I mean -- most organizations allocate their most low-level recruiters, HR admins, or worse, Contract Recruiters, to managing this channel. But I'll be honest that I was sold on BountyJobs claim to fix what was broken with the other "usual suspect" VMS players when I was asked by a founder if "I was a Recruiter" at the Kennedy Info 2007 (Orlando) Conference.

So, I think to myself, I'll give it a shot and I submit 3 candidates (2 to a Defense role and 1 to a role that would have been a good fit for a friend of my sister up in the NE - Translation: I only really worked the Defense job). Anyway, I sub in 2 candidates, and each gets interviewed - Because of this, along with the level of detail I'm providing with each candidate, I'm then told by the Contract Recruiter handling the VMS that:

"Wow, this is great - most firms don't even call the candidates before submitting them to us . . . Thanks!"[Note: I don't know what that means - are you kidding me that this occurs??? . . . not even speaking to the candidate??? Anyway, moving on . . . ]

Over the course of the three weeks or so that I worked with this particular VMS, I noted a potential enhancement in the way of submission:interview stats and I sent an email to their Support Lead recommending it. A couple weeks later, I'm blown away as I see the following mass email go out from the founder that personally (yes, personally) invited me in at the Kennedy Info 2007 conference:

"BountyJobs is pleased to announce that we have updated the employer statistics to show you the total number of hires made by an entire company, as well as the jobs that an individual user has filled.
You can also see a particular user's interview rate (screenshot below). This percentage is based on the total number of opened resumes that have resulted in interviews.”

Back to the point - although my candidates both get interviewed, the Contract Recruiter didn't note them this way in the system. In fact, the Contract Recruiter didn't even set the phone screen up . . . they just had the manager call them impromptu in the middle of the evening (again, we could speak about this, too, but I digress!)

At this point, I drop the Contract Recruiter a line to see if she can fix my 'BountyJobs Batting Avg' by noting my candidates as 'interviewed', but my request falls on deaf ears. I don't know about any of you, but hey, I take my stats seriously - I mean, that's our brand as Executive Recruiters out there. I average an 80% or better submission:interview rate . . . so the last thing I want is a big goose-egg 0% sitting out there is employers look at my ratios!

So, I then write up a short email to the founder who forwarded out the mass email above: "This [new stat capability] is awesome. Do you mind letting me know how I can fix my stats? I’ve sub’d 3 candidates and 2 have had interviews (i.e. 66.7%). Thanks!"

Then I get the following back from the founder:

"We are only calculating opened submissions vs interviews that the employer hit their Request Interview button since December. That's all the info we have. Everyone's in the same boat."

I don't know about you guys, but I know a "Sorry, Buddy - It's not my $%#@ problem" email when I get one. :) So my question for all of you is:

How do you think it impacts a new product's brand in the marketplace when they forward out a mass-email to all recruiters and employers that they've included new functionality for us to better gauge one another (and potentially increase Customer Satisfaction) . . . but then when it comes to the human interaction component (meaning not the mass email, but my one-on-one above), it's handled like the above?

Joshua Letourneau
Mg Director, SSF (Strategic Sourcing Framework) Implementation
LG & Associates Search / Talent Strategy

Views: 215

Comment by Joshua Letourneau on April 14, 2008 at 8:44am
Great points, Jason - I appreciate the insight :) We could probably have an at-lenght discussion here about your point regarding a Contract Recruiter who is jockeying to remain billing . . . . and the search firms they've been assigned to work with! I mean, 99% of Contract Recruiters I know are great, but there are a few that probably shouldn't be recruiting. I'm trying to think of a fitting analogy . . . . but I need more coffee. The first one that 'round-about' comes to mind is our Fed Gov't providing subsidies to Big Oil to develop substitute products (i.e. "alternative fuels"). I mean, they have a stake in keeping Oil consumption at its current levels, so there is a logical flaw here! :)


You need to be a member of RecruitingBlogs to add comments!

Join RecruitingBlogs


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