A Sinister Cloud On The Horizon For The Recruiting Industry...

Hi Everyone,

 

It's been a while since I last posted on here - that's because I've been really busy keeping my head above water in this never ending recession. Anyway, I've noticed many references by recruitingblogs to Bounty Jobs... I'm sure they are paying recruiting blogs to promote them.... which is fine, that's how recruitingblogs in part make their money. I had no idea who they were at first, until someone told me they were the equivalent of Talent Puzzle here in the UK.

 

So - on the subject of Bounty Jobs, and similar services setting up here in the UK, I thought you should all take a read of the following article written by a person I have huge respect for in our industry....

 

(replace "Tesco" with "Walmart" - and you'll get the picture)

 

Click HERE

 

I can't comment on how everyone is taking Bounty Jobs in the US... but we aren't taking to kindly to this type of service in the UK. Don't you just hate how the likes of Walmart are forcing it's suppliers to work harder, for less, forcing all the small grocery stores out of business, and forcing us as customers to accept hikes in grocery prices because we have little choice on where else to shop! The big supermarkets totally control the food supply chain, and I for one don't want anyone coming into the recruiting industry and taking dictating how we as the REAL supplier should be working in a similar fashion.

 

I know that Jason most likely won't feature this particular blog of mine, as he's kindly done in the past... given the fact that Bounty Jobs are a sponsor on here (perhaps when he's gone he might comment?). However, I just wanted to know how you are all taking to Bounty Jobs over there in the US?

 

Are you happy with them coming in a trying to control the market - forcing you to go through them to get to the jobs you want to fill, driving down your fees, and even taking their cut of your low fee in the process?

Views: 208

Comment by Slouch on June 10, 2011 at 12:44pm

Hi Sean,

Just because a company is or has advertised in the past does not mean I won't feature a post. This means that when tomorrow comes around and time is right for me to send my email, I may in fact feature this because it may be one of the better ones.

There has been a boatload of info written on RecruitingBlogs.com about BountyJobs and if you go here and do a search for them, I think you will be amazed at how much has been written and commented on about them.

I just want to make sure that you don't think because you have a negative view of an advertiser, I will try to bury it.

Thanks

Comment by David Palmer on June 10, 2011 at 12:54pm

Thanks Sean.

I don't blame BountyJobs or TalentPuzzle for seeing the opportunity but I'll be so disappointed if Independent Recruiters don't wake up to the threat and do something about it. We must gain control of the supply chain by building recruiter-positive networks.

This is what TalentPuzzle said about Agencies on:
12/5/11:
"We know that working with recruitment agencies can be a real pain so we’ve created a way to take the risk and guesswork out of choosing an agency. At the same time, our system puts an end to the hassle of endless cold calls, negotiation of terms and struggling to get the best candidates."

19/10/10:

"Did you know that you can work with the UK's top agencies from as little as 9%?"

02/06/10:
"Do you find recruitment fees charged by agencies are too high? Are you tired of unsolicited sales calls."

Sound ominous? Lets do something about it!

Comment by David Manaster on June 10, 2011 at 1:00pm

I find this pretty amusing. A person that never heard of this company until a friend told him that they were the equivalent to another company.

 

Which reminds him that they are JUST like another company, which happens to be the biggest company in the world.

 

Well thought out.

Comment by Sandra McCartt on June 10, 2011 at 1:56pm

Well, you just gave Bounty Jobs the biggest plug they will ever get by equating them to WalMart.  I am sure they will be thrilled but i don't think they have reached that status just yet.

 

However ,if you are providing WalMart quality products and service at Neiman Marcus prices then expect folks to buy at WalMart.  Capilatism is a bitch, ain't it?

Comment by Sean O'Donoghue on June 10, 2011 at 3:26pm

Cheers Sandra... nice to see you on here again; and love your witty observational comments - great stuff! 

 

Full credit goes to David Palmer on this one, I've been thinking about what to do in regards to these "Market Places" driving into our market - and David just happened to write a great post which sums up my thoughts exactly.

 

And Jason - thanks very much for highlighting this post. You have indeed shown that you are unbiassed in your approach to managing this group, and I apologise for assuming you may have acted otherwise. You will be sorely missed when you sell this place, I hope the next owners manage it as well as you have! 

 

I guess I'm just so used to getting treated that way in certain trade groups in the UK... where if you dare speak out against them, one of their employees, or partners - they instantly start censoring your comments. A new trade body started up in the UK, called the Institute of Recruiters - claiming to be the saviours of our industry. For an organisation that is supposed to be setting best practice and governance - the fact that they aren't even legally allowed to call themselves an "Institute" in the UK isn't a great start. When I hinted towards this on their Linked forum, they got totally abusive towards me and threw me off the group. Beware if you ever start seeing them appear in the USA!

 

And David - you may have miss read what myself and David Palmer are saying... Walmart control the food industry... and have far too much control for one company. Bounty Jobs are of course nothing like that, but they are playing a very bad game.... on one side they are trying to be the "recruiter's friend", encouraging them to take the easy approach, get rid of business development, and settle for lower fees as a result. On the other side, they are totally bad mouthing recruiters to companies, and trying to pull at the empathy strings of those companies by offering a "band aid" to their problems.

 

We don't want your band aid Bounty Jobs or Talent Puzzle... you need US more than we need YOU... and if you start thinking you can dictate how we operate, and force us to work for peanuts; well you'll soon see your house of cards come tumbling down - leaving you to go back to running job boards which is where you belong!

 

PS. I appreciate there's been a lot of discussion on here about the likes of Bounty Jobs... sorry if I'm bringing up old ground... like I said, I've been away for a while - focusing on totally revolutionising the way independent recruiters and small agencies can work together, and take back control of our industry again!

Comment by pam claughton on June 12, 2011 at 4:57pm

Bountyjobs has been around for awhile and it's absolutely no threat at all to recruiters. It's just another option out there. It's not a threat, because generally speaking, top recruiters don't need or want to bother with Bountyjobs, so they're not playing. Bountyjobs attracts newer recruiters who don't have as strong a client base. It also is an option for any recruiter to simply browse and see if there's any open reqs that fit with candidates they are working with, if so, they'll send the candidates. So in that regard it's just another potential lead for candidates. There's a big distinction there though, being that these recruiters are not working the reqs....just doing a quick look to see if there's any match for their people.

 

There's loads of business out there, Bountyjobs isn't going to hurt anyone and could lead to a potential placement for people you don't have anything else for.

Comment by Mike Hard on June 13, 2011 at 10:08am

Hey Sean: interesting post :) While I disagree with some of your points (Jason "stifling" debate?), and confess I was confused at first with the Walmart analogy, kudos on bringing up a good debate in an entertaining way.

 

There are a few things I'd respectfully disagree with. You have the wrong read when you think BountyJobs lowers fees. By allowing employers to post the fee they want, and allowing headhunters to engage only on those jobs w/fees they like, BountyJobs helps make the market. You could see that as evil, but a "market rate" is very different than a "discounted rate". We think the time has come for this. The average fee on Bounty has been constant at 20% the past 3 years, but not because we set or drive anything - it's because information is more efficiently flowing and the best headhunters vote with their feet.

 

Ditto with "restricting access to jobs". BountyJobs helps expose employers to specialized headhunters all over the US that they never would have found before. While I have nothing against large recruiting firms (and several use us), BountyJobs is helping to level the playing field amongst all headhunters by getting them access to the best jobs in their specialty. They don't get access thru cold-calling, or advertising, or marketing budgets. They get access thru their track record which is visible for everyone in the marketplace to see. Once engaged on a job, they win by providing great candidates and building great relationships - all in a way that is managable for HR. Does this hurt the headhunter that really wants an exclusive with that hiring manager she has known for years? Yes it could. Do the benefits of transparency and broader access for everyone outweigh an exclusive? We think so.

 

The best way to gauge the right answers to these issues is to open it up to debate - which you have done :) nice job

Comment by Mike Hard on June 13, 2011 at 10:10am
I should have added this to my post and am sorry I did not make it clear - I am the CEO of BountyJobs, feel very passionate about what we are trying to do, and so am very biased.
Comment by Frank Zupan on June 13, 2011 at 11:20am
I do not believe Recruiters are "the REAL suppliers" in the value chain of employment. Individuals that possess skill and experience being required by a prospective employer/business are "the REAL supplier". Recruiters are and always have been brokers. Aggregate and collective sights such as Bounty and the like are simply trying to slice a percentage of your brokerage fee, something which is rather inconsequential to the principals involved in this supply and demand equation (employers and employees). To suppose that Recruiters can or should gain control of this supply chain is, in my opinion, pure folly.
Comment by Robert Wilson on June 13, 2011 at 11:34am
My experience with Bounty was dismal multiple times and I am determined to focus on how I operate best, with direct contact with employers.  I took the plunge into using Bounty and found it to be one sided.  Recruiter beware.  While I refuse to send crappy candidates and await until I have a solid one, my experience was that employers might, maybe, but probably not respond within the definition Bounty gives them but more than likely they treat recruiters as a burden to ignore. Even if they don't like candidates, at least a response to say "no fit" or "don't like" would be nice within the boundary Bounty perscribes.  Bounty's model sounds good but without timely feedback on candidates or at least the ability to talk with the company contact at times puts a big kink in the recruiters already hard ability to please a company a with a gem of a find. Not to mention the frenzy of companies to join in for the sake of cut throat rates. Bounty recruiters work just as hard, maybe harder due to limited contact, while the company focuses on rate reductions only, a dangerous situation for recruiters.

Comment

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

Join RecruitingBlogs

Subscribe

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

Just enter your e-mail address below

Webinar

RecruitingBlogs on Twitter

Groups

© 2019   All Rights Reserved   Powered by

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