Clients requiring approved vendors to utilize bounty jobs

Hi Folks;
Happy New Year!
A large and steady client for over a decade is requiring its vendors to use the bounty portal.
As a seasoned recruiter I find no value in bounty and it takes out the human element and surtaxes my fee.
Has anyone had this experience and how did they remedy the situation?
Thank you!
Sal

Comment by Greg Z. Manson on January 5, 2009 at 3:18pm: Sounds to me like companies who are requesting vendors to utilize Bounty Jobs, may be breaking a vendor contract by using bounty jobs as workaround to add "non vendors" to work on reqs made for preferred vendors.

With that said, you may want to revisit your contracts this year and make some revisions.

Greg Z. Manson
Linkedin connect

Comment by Judy Lewallen on January 5, 2009 at 3:21pm: i am still maintaining the same relationships with my client that is on bounty.

Comment by Liz Brown on January 5, 2009 at 3:23pm: In response to Gregs comment. I never thought it about it like that. You may be right though.

Liz

Comment by Eric Beauford on January 5, 2009 at 3:26pm: The more things change the more they stay the same. I have always believed Bounty Jobs was a glorified on-line VMS such as PeopleClick (which I hated as well back in the 90's), Beeline, etc....They try to appeal to the fear that resides in most recruiters related to client acquisition. However, they do not address the one issue that was the major issue back then, is the main issue now and will ALWAYS remain the major issue for TPR's as long as humans are involved in the recruitment/interview process, Company and hiring manager feedback and overall communication. I never saw the reason to utilize websites, give up 25% of fee and have absolutely no control over the level and type of communication, just to say that I had more job orders to submit candidates to??

Comment by Joshua Letourneau on January 5, 2009 at 3:27pm: Scott is right. "Working above HR" involves the correct Client selection, first and foremost, as he suggests. Can you do it when working with a F500? Not likely. For a poker analogy, perhaps knowing an "insider" at the F500 means you have a face card in the hole . . . but it's still highly improbable you win the pot. Do we want to spend our time toying around with pots in which we're coming in with a marginal hand (i.e. low probability of winning)? Sure, maybe you win a couple hands here and there, but I ensure you that you'll lose more than you win. The correlary is this: Maybe you make a placement here or there, but who wants to work at a 10% fill/win rate?

If you work with the right types of Clients (i.e. "those with their name on the door"), you're coming into the pot early with AK suited. Sure, maybe you get a bad beat or don't play the hand aggressively enough (hoping to trap your opponent) . . . but if you work the right kinds of jobs with the right kinds of clients in the right way, and you're going to win way more than you lose.

The Big-Box Publicly Traded Staffing Agencies often fight over the F500s, each claiming to have a 'better process' or 'better value' . . . where a 10% win rate is ok due to the volume of positions. When I worked at a BBPTSA, I remember being told a 10% win rate was absolutely awesome ("Fill 1 in 10 and you're a Big Biller!")

What ultimately happens is that the top producers realize they're living in shark-infested waters . . . at which point they leave to start their own firms and target the types of Clients that Scott is suggesting. Then they hire an attorney to fight off the non-compete which is worthless anyway because the types of Clients a mover and shaker goes after is much different than the staggering numbers of outbound calls made by the new PTSSBA-er du jour to F500s in the area :)

Ok, back to making calls.

Comment by Liz Brown on January 5, 2009 at 3:29pm: Great point. I am just getting in to the BD game and know that I will be facing major challenges.
Quality not quantity.

Comment by Barbara Goldman on January 5, 2009 at 3:34pm: I've tried BJ, and haven't had success. No feedback. I'm also not excited about giving up a large part of my fee. I think it is good for recruiters who are struggling to find job orders. For established recruiters, it is a complete waste of time.

Comment by Salvatore Petrara, CPC on January 5, 2009 at 3:50pm: Hi Folks;
Thanks for all the posts/comments and I agree with most...
with this company I deal with both HR and hiring Mgrs.
HR does not mind since they seem to be very busy and have no time to manage the process.
BJ like the others (especially Peopleclick) is a no win for the outside recruiter.
I always have had issues inputting a candidate WITH their contact info into any ASP driven site, and to be paid by the ATS/VMS is hogwash, as indicated in a previous reply what happens when they hit hard times? Payment that was normally inside thirty days now gets pushed to 90 Plus days.
If anyone recalls with Peopleclick in the 90's a job would be released then in about 30 minutes they would close the job out (they either had a gazillion resumes submitted in a short time jeopardizing the system/server, or the job was already filled prior to vendor release...)
Are we extinct? I say no at least not yet. We have all seen clients come and go and no fault of our own.
It would be great to hear from someone that has utilized BJ especially from the corporate side.
I am not prepared to toss resumes into the abyss of the unknown and to not have any feedback for my candidates regarding their status... Yes clients pay us but we are equally indebted to the candidates we serve (how many times has a candidate gotten hired then turn additional JO's over to you? For me too many to count!)
On a personal note to Matt Decker, is that Commodore Decker?

Comment by Lou Redmond on January 5, 2009 at 3:56pm: Ah the conundrum of lowering your standards to work with a client who has lowered theirs.....

I have tried working with Bounty Jobs, but as a recruiter who gets to know my client, their organization, their goals and objectives and the nuances of the position, I get no insight from poorly written job descriptions or job ads.

From the corporate-side, I do not want to work with agencies that do not want to develop a relationship with me & my organization.

And frankly, the candidates that I like to work with are sophisticated enough to want to have qualitative conversations about an organization and the opportunity.....

The BJ (no double entendre here) model may work for non-strategic positions and non-strategic organziations, but it just doesn't work for me or the organizations that I am aligned with.

Comment by Todd Noebel on January 5, 2009 at 3:59pm: Scott - depends on the company. When HR is doing their job right then none of the execs feel the need to exclude HR. But hey, that's just the opinion around here.