Comments - Recruiting is a game of failure. - RecruitingBlogs2024-03-29T15:34:51Zhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=502551%3ABlogPost%3A1545024&xn_auth=noHey, Nick . . . How about ano…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2012-04-27:502551:Comment:15514712012-04-27T19:27:14.918ZVaughn Welcheshttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/VaughnWelches
<p>Hey, Nick . . . How about another baseball analogy??? If I am a good fastball hitter, and the only pitches I ever get from the pitcher are fastballs, I could probably hit for a much higher (successful) average! And, if I am a good retainer recruiter and only work on retained searches, then I could have a much higher rate of success. And, I absolutely love to hear about success stories, whether from retained or contingency searches. Because I know, and so do all of us, that either…</p>
<p>Hey, Nick . . . How about another baseball analogy??? If I am a good fastball hitter, and the only pitches I ever get from the pitcher are fastballs, I could probably hit for a much higher (successful) average! And, if I am a good retainer recruiter and only work on retained searches, then I could have a much higher rate of success. And, I absolutely love to hear about success stories, whether from retained or contingency searches. Because I know, and so do all of us, that either way you go with this you have to make a huge investment of yourself to make it happen. And it is really great to see it pay off for everyone!</p> Hi Nick
Two trends that demon…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2012-04-26:502551:Comment:15502742012-04-26T05:50:55.835ZMitch Sullivanhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/MitchSullivan
<p>Hi Nick</p>
<p>Two trends that demonstrate the markets growing intolerance with the contingency recruitment sector (for contingency is by far the most common agency model and has been for ever) are the growing number of fixed-fee recruitment businesses and the huge trend for companies to bring their recruitment inhouse.</p>
<p>When a company hires an internal recruiter, they are paying someone to own their vacancies and pay them part of their money upfront. That's excluding their investment…</p>
<p>Hi Nick</p>
<p>Two trends that demonstrate the markets growing intolerance with the contingency recruitment sector (for contingency is by far the most common agency model and has been for ever) are the growing number of fixed-fee recruitment businesses and the huge trend for companies to bring their recruitment inhouse.</p>
<p>When a company hires an internal recruiter, they are paying someone to own their vacancies and pay them part of their money upfront. That's excluding their investment in support/marketing tools.</p>
<p>So Nick, the next time you speak to a company that has their own internal recruiter and/or has previously used a fixed-fee recruitment service, they are demonstrating their openness to paying part of their costs upfront. We as the external recruiters just have to be a little innovative in what elements of the wide range of recruitment services we sell and at what price.</p>
<p>Now, none of this makes anyone any better than anyone else - that was your inference, not mine. All I'm doing here is suggesting there is an alternative to filling the 1 in 6 jobs that is the recruitment agency average. When your client retains you or gives exclusivity, your hit rate gets pretty close to 1 in 1.</p>
<p>That's what I meant in my distinction between failure and success.</p>
<p>As to your final point, there have been no ad hominems from me. I think you'll find that most of them have come from Sandra.</p>
<p>Nick, I've enjoyed this exchange and you've made one or two good points. And thanks for sticking with the debate and mostly sticking to the issues.</p> Don’t believe I could make my…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2012-04-26:502551:Comment:15502702012-04-26T04:21:56.043ZNick Lagoshttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/Nicklagos
<p>Don’t believe I could make my case any clearer Mich. Never said anything about retained-fee transactions outnumbering contingency and not sure you understand the difference between gaining (or losing) market share Vs. transaction peg-counts based on your distortion. </p>
<p>I’ll not waist anyone’s time reiterating the same points, other than to highlight you’ve yet to identify substantive factors in support of your conjecture retained-fee results in higher quality outcome when compared to…</p>
<p>Don’t believe I could make my case any clearer Mich. Never said anything about retained-fee transactions outnumbering contingency and not sure you understand the difference between gaining (or losing) market share Vs. transaction peg-counts based on your distortion. </p>
<p>I’ll not waist anyone’s time reiterating the same points, other than to highlight you’ve yet to identify substantive factors in support of your conjecture retained-fee results in higher quality outcome when compared to contingency, unless you honestly believe spouting <i>“…it's based on real life experience - mine and several other recruiters I know”</i> qualifies as substantive. </p>
<p>I’m also waiting for you to produce the unbiased statistics showing retained search has not been losing ground that I requested earlier. Again, I’m requesting industry trend info, not isolated incidents conjured just to win a bet.</p>
<p>If nothing else Mitch, demonstrate your conviction by at least addressing my assertion that retained recruiting is based on an old paradigm, outstripped by cultural changes brought about by ready information access social media platforms afford and Internet ubiquity. </p>
<p>Please tell me I’ve not wasted my time formulating an argument you instigated, for you to run and hide behind a knit-wit defense like “I know what I’m saying to be true … because I just know it! And I’ll insult anyone who dares challenge me!”</p>
<p>Frankly Mitch, I’m tired of hearing blow-hards spewing nonsense about needing to be a “better” salesperson to sell retained agreements. Selling a buggy-whip to customers post Henry Ford does not a better salesperson make.</p>
<p>Lastly, your literal interpretation for my blog’s reference to failure indicates my premise was a bit over your head (or you were once again just distorting the discussion for effect). Either way, let me simplify.</p>
<p>Unless every call made results in a sale (1 – 1 = placement), your ratio’s (in all sales BTW) are on the side of “failure”. My blog simply illustrated that even with the ratios against you (not “getting a hit with each swing (call)) like in the Major League, the juxtaposition of closing a big deal with virtually every call (as long as you’re making the calls consistently) is worth all the effort. It’s not about “ones work being about failure and choosing success” (can’t believe you said that, you are a character), it’s simple arithmetic. </p>
<p>My blog’s message was positive, not negative and all but you (judging by other responses) understood that clearly.</p>
<p>I trust you’ll wiggle and wrangle and mischaracterize your next response and provided you spew the final insult in this volley, you’ll feel you can go home a winner and Mitch, that’s Okay. Unfortunately, we’ll be no closer to understanding true trends in our industry (retained vs. contingency and where it is all going) because this discussion has sunk to the level of ad hominem mischaracterizations which really should have no place in venues like this</p> Mitch, I ask the same questi…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2012-04-25:502551:Comment:15504282012-04-25T19:53:43.255ZVaughn Welcheshttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/VaughnWelches
<p>Mitch, I ask the same question of you . . . WHY!!!!</p>
<p>Can't you see that when you write "If you're happy working with a method that produces more failure than success,</p>
<p>good luck with that." . . . . "The way I work is all about success" . . . . . can't you see how arrogant and inflamatory your own words are? And if you really have worked on the contingency side, as you say you have, then you should know that so many of your comments simply are not true and only self-serving, …</p>
<p>Mitch, I ask the same question of you . . . WHY!!!!</p>
<p>Can't you see that when you write "If you're happy working with a method that produces more failure than success,</p>
<p>good luck with that." . . . . "The way I work is all about success" . . . . . can't you see how arrogant and inflamatory your own words are? And if you really have worked on the contingency side, as you say you have, then you should know that so many of your comments simply are not true and only self-serving, inappropriate to say the least! I have no interest in hurting anyone (with words or anything else) I am only saying things that I know to be true in defense of so many very good and very professional contingency recruiters. If you have been successful on the retainer side, then great! Enjoy your success and share that good news with all of us. But, please, don't go on with your criticism and denegrating of hard working contingency recruiters. They have earned your respect just as much as you have earned ours.</p> Why Vaughn? I mean, what's t…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2012-04-25:502551:Comment:15503352012-04-25T19:43:00.676ZMitch Sullivanhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/MitchSullivan
<p>Why Vaughn? I mean, what's the point?</p>
<p>We've both shared our thoughts and no one is going to change their point of view or the way they work. There's nothing else to do. I thought Nick's OP was fine and only responded with my thoughts as to how that failure he talks about can be mitigated, based on my own experiences. </p>
<p>That's what people do on places like this Vaughn - they share experiences.</p>
<p>It seems to me that all you want is a flame war.</p>
<p>Why Vaughn? I mean, what's the point?</p>
<p>We've both shared our thoughts and no one is going to change their point of view or the way they work. There's nothing else to do. I thought Nick's OP was fine and only responded with my thoughts as to how that failure he talks about can be mitigated, based on my own experiences. </p>
<p>That's what people do on places like this Vaughn - they share experiences.</p>
<p>It seems to me that all you want is a flame war.</p> Nick, You took the time to…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2012-04-25:502551:Comment:15503342012-04-25T19:27:05.587ZVaughn Welcheshttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/VaughnWelches
<p>Nick, You took the time to write a thoughtful and comprehensive page on the subject which was filled with truth and substance. It is unfortuntate that Mitch could only respond like a politician who knows his position is weak and cannot be supported with fact (he would have written them if he had any) and he resorted to taking cheap shots at the messenger. We see this lame tactic all the time in the political arena and I think it is a shameful waste of time and only exposes the…</p>
<p>Nick, You took the time to write a thoughtful and comprehensive page on the subject which was filled with truth and substance. It is unfortuntate that Mitch could only respond like a politician who knows his position is weak and cannot be supported with fact (he would have written them if he had any) and he resorted to taking cheap shots at the messenger. We see this lame tactic all the time in the political arena and I think it is a shameful waste of time and only exposes the weakness of the one engaged in it. Your baseball analogy of success/failure in your original post is actually very good. </p> You're right Elise, it does. …tag:recruitingblogs.com,2012-04-25:502551:Comment:15502372012-04-25T19:12:22.616ZMitch Sullivanhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/MitchSullivan
<p>You're right Elise, it does. By far the most common is that the vacancy needs to be filled very quickly.</p>
<p>You're right Elise, it does. By far the most common is that the vacancy needs to be filled very quickly.</p> @ Mitch. I am of the opinion…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2012-04-25:502551:Comment:15503102012-04-25T15:23:43.576ZElise Reynoldshttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/EliseReynolds
<p>@ Mitch. I am of the opinion that depending on the positions some are better for retained and others contingency.</p>
<p>But I agree with you that I don't have the sales skills to take advantage of the opportunities I might have to go more retained. If you decide to put together any training info I would be interested.</p>
<p>@ Mitch. I am of the opinion that depending on the positions some are better for retained and others contingency.</p>
<p>But I agree with you that I don't have the sales skills to take advantage of the opportunities I might have to go more retained. If you decide to put together any training info I would be interested.</p> Nick, of course retained-fee…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2012-04-25:502551:Comment:15500252012-04-25T06:33:43.037ZMitch Sullivanhttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/MitchSullivan
<p>Nick, of course retained-fee doesn't account for the majority of agency/client transactions. That's because most recruiters don't have the sales ability and the confidence in their ability to deliver under the pressure of having to fill a vacancy.</p>
<p>Neither is anything I've said in this thread conjecture, it's based on real life experience - mine and several other recruiters I know. I have worked contingency and retained, both for many years and so am better qualified to comment on…</p>
<p>Nick, of course retained-fee doesn't account for the majority of agency/client transactions. That's because most recruiters don't have the sales ability and the confidence in their ability to deliver under the pressure of having to fill a vacancy.</p>
<p>Neither is anything I've said in this thread conjecture, it's based on real life experience - mine and several other recruiters I know. I have worked contingency and retained, both for many years and so am better qualified to comment on their relative merits than someone that hasn't.</p>
<p>Ultimately Nick, you've written a blog about how your work is all about failure. The way I work is all about success.</p>
<p>If you're happy working a method that produces more failure than success, then good luck with that.</p> Thank you Vaughn,
Sorry (all)…tag:recruitingblogs.com,2012-04-24:502551:Comment:15491052012-04-24T13:21:41.078ZNick Lagoshttps://recruitingblogs.com/profile/Nicklagos
<p>Thank you Vaughn,</p>
<p>Sorry (all) for the “long-windedness”, but despite all the “tongue-n-cheek” banter, a fundamental paradigm shift in my view that effects us all. If my conclusion is wrong, I’ll be the first to “gong” the bell! Who wouldn’t relish “pay up front” considering all the uncertainties we juggle. But unless someone can show me unbiased statistics demonstrating Retained Recruiting is winning market share over Contingency Recruiting or even remaining static (vs. what I see…</p>
<p>Thank you Vaughn,</p>
<p>Sorry (all) for the “long-windedness”, but despite all the “tongue-n-cheek” banter, a fundamental paradigm shift in my view that effects us all. If my conclusion is wrong, I’ll be the first to “gong” the bell! Who wouldn’t relish “pay up front” considering all the uncertainties we juggle. But unless someone can show me unbiased statistics demonstrating Retained Recruiting is winning market share over Contingency Recruiting or even remaining static (vs. what I see which is the opposite, retained search firm owners I talk with have seen their retained business dwindle to a few existing clients, with all (or virtually) new business in contingency)). Before someone starts “pounding their chest” with isolated examples, I’m talking industry trend, not the occasional success story.</p>
<p>I’m afraid the writings on the wall, and “wishing” it wasn’t so or spouting subterfuge in the village square does not make it so. </p>
<p>I stand firm however r<span style="line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-bidi-font-style: italic; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA;">egarding</span> my comments relating to “quality”, but that thread vortex was simple “miss-direction”, skirting the bigger issue regaining Retained Search relevance moving forward.</p>
<p>Thanks again Vaughn!</p>
<p></p>