Reply to: Found - recruitment app

[SueEllen]

Not sure why you quoted my post. I'm not saying they are disrupting the space.

Simply cos you mentioned the term "disrupted".

I didn't notice you weren't the OP who started the thread.

[jmo21]

You aren't disrupting anything.

Companies can and do use the existing job boards to hire direct. I've got a couple of contracts this way. However most prefer to use agencies simply because decent agents have a list of potential candidates. So yes while they do post roles in on job boards they normally spam their mailing list before the role goes live on the job board. Again I've got contracts that way.

Not sure why you quoted my post. I'm not saying they are disrupting the space.

[MrMarkyMark]

You aren't disrupting anything.

Companies can and do use the existing job boards to hire direct. I've got a couple of contracts this way. However most prefer to use agencies simply because decent agents have a list of potential candidates. So yes while they do post roles in on job boards they normally spam their mailing list before the role goes live on the job board. Again I've got contracts that way.

+1.

Some roles are long gone, these days, by the time they reach the boards anyway.

[Andy Hallett]

This app seeks to address an already crowded space. Some really good points above, the most notable are that this is a techie view of the problem and a miss understanding of where the value in the recruitment process lies.

It's a bit like trying to start an internet bank, they build a lovely front end and then forget why people actually use a bank.

It would better suit an existing company, with an existing client and contractor base to bolt this tech on.....

[SueEllen]

that's not the difficult part though. All this app does is maybe make it a bit more streamlined, similar to the aforementioned tindr etc.

Companies can post job ads themselves on the job boards, and candidates can submit themselves already, and have been able to for over a decade. It's everything after that that is the difficult part for companies.

Yet they still use agencies, for filtering, arranging interviews, re-arranging interviews, scaling contracts of, and payments to, multiple contractors. Yes, they have to pay for that service, but it's like anything else, it grew out of a need.

Can it be disrupted? (that's the cool kid term right?)

Maybe, but not just by tindr'ing the "match" part.

You aren't disrupting anything.

Companies can and do use the existing job boards to hire direct. I've got a couple of contracts this way. However most prefer to use agencies simply because decent agents have a list of potential candidates. So yes while they do post roles in on job boards they normally spam their mailing list before the role goes live on the job board. Again I've got contracts that way.

[northernladuk]

current clientco could have saved £50k in agency fees going direct. might have got a better candidate too

Using existing methods. That method seems to work so there isn't a problem. That's my point. Clients can find people, they don't need a tinder app.

All the other threads go this way with the OP floundering about trying to justify it and failing.

[jmo21]

I wondered if it could be adapted to higher skill jobs, making it easier to go direct. it's not something they're currently looking at as their model is small fees for filling lots of positions. it's purely my own musings. from an employer's point of view i'd see the ability to digitally search/filter lots of candidates rather than scan paper CVs as a plus

that's not the difficult part though. All this app does is maybe make it a bit more streamlined, similar to the aforementioned tindr etc.

Companies can post job ads themselves on the job boards, and candidates can submit themselves already, and have been able to for over a decade. It's everything after that that is the difficult part for companies.

Yet they still use agencies, for filtering, arranging interviews, re-arranging interviews, scaling contracts of, and payments to, multiple contractors. Yes, they have to pay for that service, but it's like anything else, it grew out of a need.

Can it be disrupted? (that's the cool kid term right?)

Maybe, but not just by tindr'ing the "match" part.

[MrMarkyMark]

But your belief that the "agent" is doing very little is completely misguided. He has an office to run, payroll to run, he has to spend hours sourcing both clients and candidates. He has to vet candidates.

Getting candidates costs him money. Getting clients costs him money. There is a high risk that he will source both and then not fill the role for whatever reason ( lost to another agent, role pulled etc etc ).

He has to pay contractor staff ( sometimes weekly ) in advance of receiving payments from the end-client. If the end-client goes under, the agent is in a hole.

You might not like the fact that he is taking a %age of your rate. But firstly it is not "your money" but the end-clients. They should be the ones who are annoyed. And secondly it is far, far better to be working in a role where the agent is making money as to one where the agent is barely breaking even.

Your client would not save £50k. Because the tasks that the agent does, would still need doing. For example most companies of any repute have stringent "supplier" policies. They have to carry out due-dilligence on each new supplier prior to onboarding them. These have a cost.

They would also be exposed to HMRC / HMG legislation changes that would put them in the firing line for employers NICS and the requirement to provide pensions and benefits to temporary staff.

If you want to change the recruitment market you need to approach it from the clients end ... not the contractor.

+1.

I don't work with many agents anymore, but if I do they tend to be at the more senior end of the spectrum.
As they are professionals they take care of all you say and more.

Its a bit like going to a premier car dealership, you will (hopefully!) be treated as a valuable customer, the same goes for recruitment.

[tomtomagain]

current clientco could have saved £50k in agency fees going direct. might have got a better candidate too

every time I renew a contract it occurs to me how much the agent is doing to earn the commission over the following months so when I saw this I wondered if it could be adapted to higher skill jobs, making it easier to go direct. it's not something they're currently looking at as their model is small fees for filling lots of positions. it's purely my own musings. from an employer's point of view i'd see the ability to digitally search/filter lots of candidates rather than scan paper CVs as a plus

But your belief that the "agent" is doing very little is completely misguided. He has an office to run, payroll to run, he has to spend hours sourcing both clients and candidates. He has to vet candidates.

Getting candidates costs him money. Getting clients costs him money. There is a high risk that he will source both and then not fill the role for whatever reason ( lost to another agent, role pulled etc etc ).

He has to pay contractor staff ( sometimes weekly ) in advance of receiving payments from the end-client. If the end-client goes under, the agent is in a hole.

You might not like the fact that he is taking a %age of your rate. But firstly it is not "your money" but the end-clients. They should be the ones who are annoyed. And secondly it is far, far better to be working in a role where the agent is making money as to one where the agent is barely breaking even.

Your client would not save £50k. Because the tasks that the agent does, would still need doing. For example most companies of any repute have stringent "supplier" policies. They have to carry out due-dilligence on each new supplier prior to onboarding them. These have a cost.

They would also be exposed to HMRC / HMG legislation changes that would put them in the firing line for employers NICS and the requirement to provide pensions and benefits to temporary staff.

If you want to change the recruitment market you need to approach it from the clients end ... not the contractor.

[tomtomagain]

It's funny .... this "idea" comes up every 2 - 3 months and has done for at least a decade.

But it's always suggested from the perspective of the "contractor". Something to make the contractors life easier.

Whereas we all know that in most cases the power in the relationship lies with the person who's actually trying to fill a role. They are the person with money to spend.

[deebeegee]

a problem that doesn't seem to exist.

current clientco could have saved £50k in agency fees going direct. might have got a better candidate too

Are you telling us about an app or gathering requirements for your "friend"?

every time I renew a contract it occurs to me how much the agent is doing to earn the commission over the following months so when I saw this I wondered if it could be adapted to higher skill jobs, making it easier to go direct. it's not something they're currently looking at as their model is small fees for filling lots of positions. it's purely my own musings. from an employer's point of view i'd see the ability to digitally search/filter lots of candidates rather than scan paper CVs as a plus

[tomtomagain]

Apart from filtering/screening candidates what else would you lose from cutting out the middleman?

You clearly have no idea about the UK recruitment market.

The "contractor" may wish to cut out the middleman. But the company who actually places the "job" does not. The absolutely last thing most UK companies want to do in the current climate is to be hiring contract staff directly.

And the contractor may believe he wants to cut out the middleman ... until he realises that he's going to have to wait 60 - 90 days for payment.

This idea will fail because:

* You will not have a list of quality candidates

* You will not be carrying out the appropriate level of vetting to ensure that a candidate is legitimately allowed to take the contract. Exposing the end-client to substantial legal costs.

* You expect the clients to manage dozens or even hundreds of individual contractors ( rather than passing that cost on to the agency )

* You won't get enough recognition with clients in order for them to post jobs in the first place.

* There's nothing in this for the agents. And since they spend hours cultivating clients, getting on the PSL, ferreting out jobs ( through fair means and foul ), they are in a very strong market position.

* JobServe and LinkedIn et al could emulate your "Tinder" style app with very little effort.

For good or bad the agency model exists because it is beneficial to the companies who are paying agents for sourcing temporary staff.


So I don't think it's a goer in it's current form. And for that reason I'm out ....

[northernladuk]

Oh you are so yesterday.

Doesn't this ring a bell? Young people coming up with completely naive ideas, smiling, donning t-shirts and jeans. Next minute they're pulling in £x million of VC cash.

All you have to do is put 'tech' at the end of a word and the world is your oyster.

I'm in. Take my money!!!

[Cirrus]

The birth of ... Contech

This seems to have gone exactly the same way as every other miracle app

Oh you are so yesterday.

Doesn't this ring a bell? Young people coming up with completely naive ideas, smiling, donning t-shirts and jeans. Next minute they're pulling in £x million of VC cash.

All you have to do is put 'tech' at the end of a word and the world is your oyster.

[tomtomagain]

so you'd need to be able to apply filters on matches. what else?

Are you telling us about an app or gathering requirements for your "friend"?