Is Bounty Jobs A Risk To Our Industry?

I just finished writing a piece in one of the forums regarding Bounty Jobs and it is something recruiters need to be warned about now. In brief, Bounty Jobs is a "bulletin board" where employers can post open positions to the recruiting community and be rewarded with having an endless number of recruiters work the search on contingency. I would like to point out that I believe the concept is brilliant and the folks at Bounty Jobs are well intentioned - it is largely the employers that are to blame.

Here is what recruiters need to be worried about - companies are having their databases significantly updated for FREE. They can have recuiters send them resumes for all those positions that they typically would utilize a retained search firm for and now they don't need to - I have viewed some positions with 80+ submissions with no candidates under "active" review. Some of us may say - "They will always use a top-notch search firm for important positions because it takes a seasoned recruiter to find people with a certain skill set". Well, now that they can have an endless number of recruiters submit resumes for those positions and although some resumes may be off the mark, some of those will be right on target.

If I submit resumes on my standard searches, I usually fill the position within 4 resume submissions. After nearly 25 submissions on Bounty Jobs, I was 0 for 25. I utilized Linkedin to see the background of people previously in the position and I know absolutely that my candidates were superior to people the company hired previously. I couldn't even get my candidates a telephone interview which was a red flag. Another circumstance that I found odd was one of the companies on the site would not tell me who the position reported to - although they had no problem posting that information on TheLadders. There were also other searches that were put on "hold" with no warning - this happens in our industry but I found the level of occurence on Bounty Jobs to be a worry.

I used the site for two months and worked searches similar to ones I had recently worked as it would not require much work and could result in some extra money. I came the realization the site was not even worth the time it took to press enter on my keyboard.

I think Bounty Jobs is a good concept, but recruiters must not be the only ones making an investment. The only fault I have with Bounty Jobs is that they are not doing a good enough job screening clients - we all turn down searches and so should the folks at Bounty Jobs. With the emergence of more and more sites like Bounty Jobs we could be cannabilizing our business. The result could be fewer search assignments and lower fees for all of us.

Next Post >

Comment by Steve Levy on October 23, 2008 at 9:54pm: Darren-

A few thoughts about your post:

They can have recuiters send them resumes for all those positions that they typically would utilize a retained search firm for...

Most of the positions on BountyJobs would not be retained search territory; if someone from BountyJobs doesn't reply tomorrow, I'll call them and get a breakdown by salary band.

I utilized Linkedin to see the background of people previously in the position and I know absolutely that my candidates were superior to people the company hired previously.

Of course, they were superior - they're you're candidates! Darren, LinkedIn profiles are like resumes; some people are just better at writing about what they've done versus actually doing it.

There were also other searches that were put on "hold" with no warning - this happens in our industry but I found the level of occurence on Bounty Jobs to be a worry.

Two words - Wall Street. Oh, have you also noticed all the recruiters looking for work these days? Why is that?

Talking about BountyJobs in terms of good and bad is like talking about the best ATS or recruiter training program: I know employers and recruiters who like the concept and the results.

Sure I was there in the beginning and helped Jeremy and Ron with employer and recruiter contacts but I'm not there now. BountyJobs is a different idea, one that this profession needs to consider as it continues to evolve. No one forces recruiters to participate in a search and can you blame employers for wanting to reduce costs? Perhaps there will be a percentage at which recruiters won't elect to work with and employers may not receive the quality they seek. I suspect at this point the percentage pendulum could swing in the positive direction.

Again, BountyJobs is a business; the marketplace will ultimately decide its fate.

Comment by Darren Crosby on October 23, 2008 at 11:45pm: Thanks for the comments Steve-

companies generally seek out retained search firms for positions paying in excess of $80K - however it ultimately depends on how challenging a company perceives filling a position will be - I only worked positions through Bounty Jobs paying in excess of $100K.

In terms of judging candidates - as a retained recruiter I do references on all my candidates up front and qualify them by determining how they impacted bottom lines - I look at more than a resume.

Business for me has been better than ever because when the economy tanks top talent is more risk avert and they are less willing to make a career change - for that reason companies truly need a recruiter. I just think Bounty Jobs does a poor job of screening clients - and if anyone does a google search they will see other individuals have had similar experiences with the site.

Comment by pam claughton on October 24, 2008 at 8:54am: Darren,
I don't think retained firms touch 80k jobs very often. And these days contingency firms very often handle searches up to 200k. I have one now. My average salaries are in the 120-160k mark.

Honestly, I don't think Bountyjobs is any kind of a threat to be concerned about. It's just another option for recruiters and employers. I don't think that many senior recruiters bother with it, it's not a good use of their time, as they likely have plenty of searches to work on,so hard to justify giving a cut to BountyJobs. For newer recruiters who don't have a lot of clients, it could be worth a look to see if any of their candidates match the jobs. That's how I suspect most people use Bountyjobs....looking to see if any candidates match the jobs there. I don't think many recruiters actually dig in and work on the searches with additional recruiting, maybe some do, but with dozens of engaged recruiters on a search, 80+ resumes submitted as you said, it doesn't seem a good use of time to put in additional effort. So, for employers, I'd see it as hit or miss. They'll get candidates that recruiters have in their files, but won't likely benefit from proactive recruiting on their jobs.

Comment by Slouch on October 24, 2008 at 9:33am: The forum section here is not working right today so I thought I would repost my comment from your other post to here. Here goes:

I don't see this as a threat to our industry. I think the thing that makes a recruiter needed is far beyond just having the name. Also, the way this industry works, and I don't see it changing is that if your fee agreement says that if you bring to the table a candidate who your client is not currently talking with, the fee goes to you. It is counter productive for your client to see this any other way. It's an easy sell.

The other thing is that if you live in the third party bubble which I am proud to be a tenant of, you never ever see anything as a threat to this business. You believe that the value you bring to the table can never be replaced by software and you believe that good clients will always see this. You also believe that the fees that are earned are necessary to build your business and in order for you to feel real good about the job that you have. You find it amusing that there are those dedicated to the concept that great talent should be easy and cheap to get.

Comment by Candace on October 24, 2008 at 12:36pm: From a prospective client perspective, BountyJobs is an awesome concept. I am tired of constantly receiving calls from recruiters wantint to submit candidates to postings, sending them unsolicited via email, contacting my hiring managers directly without any fee agreements in place, etc. As we only have authorization for fees on certain postings, BountyJobs sounds like the perfect solution from my perspective.

From the original post, yes, most large-ish companies have internalized recruiting, but that doesn't mean no fees are ever paid. Agencies just don't get to pick the low-lying fruit anymore and have to actually earn their fees by bringing quality candidates to the table that DIDN'T come from a Monster or other site available to any company with a chequebook.

Comment by Slouch on November 5, 2008 at 10:47am: this is interesting - Data taken from compete which is not exactly exact but it's not that bad for comparisons. This is between BouuntyJobs.com. Dayak.com and TalentMaze.com

#1 Uniques visitors:

#2 Visits Monthly

#3 Page Views/Visit

Comment by Stephanie Huff on March 18, 2009 at 1:53pm: I am a corporate recruiter and from the other side, I used bountyjobs for a short time. To be honest I felt really bombarded by external recruiters. I found I spent more time trying to explain my company and what I was looking for and it was exhausting. Plus I got so many resumes that there is no way I would have enough time in a day to look at all of them.I would much rather have a handful of agencies that have worked with us for years and know exactly what I am looking for and when I call them and say I have an opening I don't need to tell them anything else other than location and territory details.

Using Bountyjobs I felt like I got way too many candidates that were not qualified. And I found that at leat 90% of the candidates I received were posted on job boards and actively looking.

So for me I would not recommend a company use bountyjobs if they have have a strong network of agencies and if they have an internal recruiting staff.

I can't say many agencies on bounty actually go out of their way to do true proactive sourcing because it is contengencie and is typically a cheaper fee.

So for me I am staying far away from it and sticking to using what I know best.

Comment by Seema, HR Executive on October 1, 2009 at 2:46pm: what happened to the Bountyjobs and talentmazes since 2008? Have you heard of recruithire? Why are they getting into this space so late and what's different/new about them?