When client companies say they already have the resume you sent in their database from several years ago.

Hello,
I'm sure you have all discussed this before, but I am new to recruitingblogs.com so I apologize if this is a duplication.
I ran into a situation today, that actually happens frequently and am not sure how others might address this.
I sent a resume to a client company today, after thoroughly screening the candidate and confirming that the candidate had not sent her resume to my client of course.

After submitting the resume and summary, I was emailed by the client who told me that they are sorry but they already had this resume in their database from a couple of years ago.

I then pointed out that the candidate said she had never spoken to them. We were the moving party etc. But for our efforts, they would not know this particular candidate was even available etc.

In most cases I can refer to our contract which states that if the company has not been in contact with our candidate in the prior 6 months that we can be credited as source of referrral but unfortunately this contract was ambiguous and didn't address timeframes.

Lately, I have had this feeling that we are in the 'heads up' business and am curious as to what others do about this.

Thank you,

Debbie

Comment by Dan Arkind on January 22, 2009 at 2:51pm: In my contingent recruiting days this started becomming a problem, regularly, about 10 years ago. As you pointed out, we modified our contracts to reflect that representation of the candidate was dependent on two issues:

1. The *first* agency to represent a candidate for a specific position
2. The agency designated *by the candidate* as their representative.

As Jim points out above, however, no matter what's on paper what really matters is your relationship with the people at your client. If your client is not awarding you credit for a candidate because "we have a three year old resume on file" this is indicative of larger issues.

Our goal, ultimately, was to ask that our clients put same rules in effect for all of their vendors. i.e. - we wanted to have everyone playing by the same rules because this way we knew when we submitted someone there wouldn't be a problem.

#2 was a clause that we first saw on a Microsoft recruiting contract, and we made it part of our standard practice...

The reason we did this was because it rewarded recruiters who actually built relationships with candidates and "secured their premission" to represent them. There was never a question in our mind whether a candidate was going to designate us as a vendor because we had:

1. Screened them and written up a pros-and-cons summary
2. Asked the candidate if they had ever interviewed with the client or submitted their resume in the past - and disclosed this information along with the submission.
3. Specifically asked the candidates for permission to submit them to the client.

I know this sounds like a lot of work, but its a full proof way to avoid this problem- and it sets and amazing precedent with the client and greatly increases the likelyhood of your candidates getting an interview - they know you are "earning your keep" with each resume submission.

I agree Jim, however, that if the client doesn't want to work this way, you should likely move on... and I agree with Scott that spite is a very poor motive for any recruiting activity.

Comment by Scott Love on January 22, 2009 at 2:51pm: Hi, Geri. Is it cold in Chicago by the way? Brrr. I was there at CFS's meeting last week downtown. Anyway, in my agreements I would say that I get one year to get paid from the time I referred a candidate and that is usually what most companies say as well. I believe it to be the industry norm, twelve months. If they had the info sent in the past twelve months then a recruiter probably shouldn't be due the fee. If they hire within twelve months of your referral then you should be due the fee.

And I like what everyone said about checking first with the candidate. So many problems can be solved before they become problems if we ask the right investigative questions. This is a great topic.

Scott

Comment by Jerry Albright on January 22, 2009 at 3:17pm: Interesting and important topic here. It's good to see so many people pitching in with our different perspectives. It's what I love about this place!

Many of these topics are shared without the additional context surrounding the event in question. At first we did not know that several placements had been made and some checks were in the mail. That is a completely different situation. Knowing that this has come up several times with them - how about simply asking them what they feel is a reasonable time frame on previous submissions? And when they say 2 years - let them know you think that is far too long. You might then offer a few "industry standard" solutions to this for the next time it comes up which have been offered so far in this thread.

What concerns me here - and I've noticed this in several other topics (not only RBC but other places - I do get around!) is the off-the-cuff advice to "fire them and immediately turn them into a target". In my opinion this is bad advice. Sorry Jim - we share many views but on this I just can't agree.

"You're now a source" is an awfully hard position to reverse. There are hundreds of other companies to recruit from in nearly every marketplace. This "I'm gonna get you now" sort of sword brandishing is in very poor professional taste. Especially as an immediate response to a client who has hired 2 people from you.

Let them win a small battle here and there. Make up some ground when they come back after puruing those dead end candidates without you - and then press forward to strengthen your relationship with them.

Sorry to harp on the "now you're a source" thing - it's just the wrong way to look at these things.

A quick note to Scott - now that I see he's put in an additional reply. Scott - are you saying we as an industry are now no longer using the Bernard Frechtman (sp) "But for My Efforts" philosphy/policy/whatever you want to call it?

I strongly disagree with a 12 months policy. If you had the resume from 11 months ago - and did nothing - and I then generate the interest between the 2 parties - I am most certainly entitled to the fee. And the person who introduced them 11 months ago - especially since I thought we all agreed on the 'but for' rule - is in now way entitled to the fee.

Comment by Jim Durbin on January 22, 2009 at 4:17pm: Jerry, I didn't mean to imply that I would tell the client, and I'd certainly would follow any contract we had in place, but the truth is if I'm not protecting you based on a relationship, it's my duty to candidates and other clients to find the best place for them to work.

For the record, I am almost never for informing a client that you won't work with them. Especially as the problem can often be fixed when turnover occurs at the client company and new blood comes in with new rules.

Even sending a contract termination letter, no matter how it's couched, is perceived as an insult not easily retracted. If you get a client that wastes your time, there's got to be a point where you say no more and cut your losses.

I've had to do that only once - with EToys.com during the dot-com boom. Worked out pretty well for me then, as opposed to other staffing vendors who found themselves millions in the whole. Sometimes these stories do have happy endings.

Comment by Scott Love on January 22, 2009 at 4:23pm: Hi, Jerry. Nice hat in the photo, by the way. Very stylish. Yes, the 'But for' concept, that's what I was going for. it's all about showing your value. Who cares if they knew the guy. Did they know about his candidacy? If it was not for your, would they have interviewed and subsequently hired him? That's what I meant. As far as 12 months, that's what I've seen among different industries as being a common time frame.

Comment by Jerry Albright on January 22, 2009 at 4:52pm: Jim - cool. Scott - thanks for the clarification. But what do you do when a client who signed a 12 month "owndership" clause with you hires someone through another agency under the "But for" clause?

Comment by Scott Love on January 22, 2009 at 5:11pm: You call Joel Klarreich. It's a legal issue now. I first met him the very first time I spoke at the American Staffing Association. He's been serving the staffing and search industry as an attorney for decades. He's worked with over 1000 search firms and staffing agencies regarding legal matters. I have featured him on some of my webinars in the past on legal issues and he's a wealth of information. His website is www.thslaw.com and his email is jak@thslaw.com.

Comment by Kelly on January 22, 2009 at 5:39pm: Hi Debbie,
In my experience and that of my colleagues the six month rule applies. If a client has the resume in their database and has not spoken to them for over 6 months, then they are a new candidate. Realistically after 6 months or more the candidate has developed current and new skills and is likely to be even looking at a different position from what they initially applied for.
I think moving forward businesses will start to find it is about who has the relationship with the candidate not just the resume in their database! Recently a candidate turned down a role with a big global company because of this issue. The candidate did not want to work for an organization that had no contact with them for well over six months, and then once presented to them by a consultant for a different position, they did not want to pay the agency a fee as they were already in their database!
There is a need to be fair and reasonable in this situation and I think that the six month rule should apply across the board.
Kelly

Comment by Dawn Williams on January 22, 2009 at 5:40pm: I have a similar case to Scott's this summer. I met a candidate 18 months ago did not have anything for him at the time then 18 months later met him from a senior position. This 2nd meeting was to validate somethings from the 1st meeting. He had been called by another recruiter in between the time that we ste our meeting and the actual meeting. The other recruiter and I were working the same mandate and figured out that if I was meeting him then it was for the same mandate.

I sent in my candidate's resume and was told by the client that she had received the resume the day before. I double checked with my candidate who had no even met the recruiter nor had a phone interview. He had not given the recruiter permission to send in his resume. After the client heard that, I got the fee and the other recruiter no longer works with my client.

Dig a little deeper with both your candidate and your client. I have also seen it happen where candidates are not 100% honest and come to your interview having either interviewed for the same position with another recruiter or figured out who your customer is and sent their resume directly.

This of course happens when you are working on contingency and on a non-exclusive mandate. Sometimes we have no choice but to work on these kinds of mandates.

Good luck with your investigation.

Comment by Joshua Letourneau on January 22, 2009 at 8:25pm: As an adjunct to this discussion, I offer a small piece of advice to my fellow third-party Recruiters here:

DO NOT SEND BLIND RESUMES BECAUSE IT'S SIMPLE TO ASCERTAIN CANDIDATE IDENTITY WITH TODAY'S INTERNET TOOLS.

I find it odd today that so many firms market candidates through 'blind resumes' (i.e. no contact information) in the hopes of earning a search assignment. Part of the issue is using email as a first contact point with potential Clients. If you're not making verbal candidate presentations, you're off to a bad start.

I have several friends who are Internal Recruiters who openly admit that Researchers (and in some cases, Recruiters) are tasked with 'deciphering' the identity of blind resumes and/or tracking every job board database for a candidate name when submitted by a TPR, regardless of how long ago that resume was added to the job board (yes, it could have been 8 yrs ago.)

And I'll tell you what - it's a lot easier to play this game when the relationship starts off through an online VMS. Yes, it's psychologically easier to take advantage of another's efforts if they're completely anonymous. Think about it.