The Job Site For Pretty Applicants Only - Are you pretty enough?

Most of you probably heard or felt the uproar yesterday on this new job board, but for anyone that might have missed;

Beautiful people get more opportunity in life. This is pretty widely accepted.

Now an online recruitment site is taking that assertion to the next level by allowing only beautiful people on their new job board.

BeautifulPeople.com, the online dating site for the aesthetically pleasing, is exptending its elitist tentacles into a staffing service for employers.

The company told Mashable this week that it is about to launch a job site for employers wanting to hire "good-looking staff."

"An honest employer will tell you that it pays to hire good-looking staff," says Greg Hodge, managing director of BeautifulPeople.com.

"Attractive people tend to make a better first impression on clients, win more business and earn more."

But before you blast it as a gimmick, or jump on to the site for a leer, Hodge says it’s serious, and certainly not a creep fest.

"This isn't an invitation for crackpots to come and ogle our beautiful members."

BeautifulPeople.com’s new site will allow employers access to its database of over 750,000 attractive potential applicants.

So who says who’s hot and who’s not?

It’s actually a self regulating system where only members voted beautiful by others on the site are allowed to keep their listing up.

Source: Yahoo Finance

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what is your take recruiters? Pure gimmick? Would any of your clients take this seriously? Do you plan to source for the beautiful people?

Comment by Derdiver on June 4, 2013 at 10:14am: I can hardly wait for the lawsuits to begin with this one...SMDH

Comment by Tim Spagnola on June 4, 2013 at 10:29am: I agree with you Derdiver. As a recruiter that worked in the world of OB/GYN for years, we had gender, age, and American Trained discrimination all the time. Not even sure where to begin in factoring in this type of approach.

Comment by Derdiver on June 4, 2013 at 10:46am: Honestly, LinkedIn is having its problems in the US right now. They are good at keeping it under wraps but I have heard there are some issues for them with the picture on the site so to speak. They get away with it saying that it is NOT a resume site and does not advertise that but now with recruiting packages etc. being sold it is raising eyebrows.

Comment by Stephen Nehez, Jr. on June 4, 2013 at 11:36am: I wonder who's the judge.

Didn't Ambercrombe & Fitch try this? (Sorry if I didn't spell the name right. I don't shop there.)

Comment by Tim Spagnola on June 4, 2013 at 11:51am: Come on you shop there...admit it ; )

Not sure, but I do know they have their own issues at the moment. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/04/abercrombie-protesters-bra...

@Derdiver - very interesting....makes sense, but I had no idea about this issue with IN.

Thanks to you both for your comments/feedback.

Comment by Amy Ala Miller on June 4, 2013 at 2:14pm: hahahahaha Steve beat me to the A & F comment! :)

Simply put, this is a dumb idea. But so are lots of things that make a lot of noise, a little money, and eventually go away. The real problem will be if / when hiring managers start asking us to use this site for sourcing. No "real" recruiter would allow that. If any of my HMs came to me with this nonsense we'd be having some words.

Comment by Tim Spagnola on June 4, 2013 at 2:37pm: I wish I was a fly on the wall for that hypothetical conversation.

Comment by Will Thomson on June 4, 2013 at 3:06pm: Wow! I did miss this. Crazy. Yea- lawsuits are all over this one. Can we call it "Prettyism" like "Ageism"

Comment by Will Thomson on June 4, 2013 at 3:07pm: BTW- like the Marylyn Manson picture, Tim.

Comment by Amy Ala Miller on June 4, 2013 at 3:12pm: lol Prettyism. :) What about the cultural implications? I can tell you what is considered "pretty" back in my hometown is NOT the urban/hipster/occupy look we see quite a bit of around here. And that's just here in the US... surely much broader globally. Anyway, stupid.

Comment