sitewatch 19/05 – Talent Spring

Companies, crowdsourcing, Job Seekers, recruitment, sitewatch, Talent, technology, Tools Add comments

May 182007

TalentSpring, in beta mode during q2 2007

Founders: Bryan Starbuck, CEO – Andrew Boardman, Development Manager – ex-Microsofties, no recruitment pedigree (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Their bios on the site here

Tagline: wisdom of the crowd brought into the candidate selection processes

How it works: potential candidates enter their profiles, subject to voting on other peoples’ profiles. system algorithms are meant to pick candidates who put crappy scores. recruiters use these scores to spot top talent in their corresponding industries and pay to contact the people they like (recruiters need to enter a JD in the system)

Value prop for job seekers: you resume stands out in front of recruiters because it carries a user-generated score (the merit score)

Value prop for employers/recruiters: easier to spot top talent because of the – you guessed it – Merit score

Comments:Does it sound a bit like jobster to you? I am unsure how the merit score is a good assessor of the quality of the candidate, and if recruiters will rely on the score to make contact/interview decisions. Very early stages though.

Thank you to Kris for the tip

http://www.jobsinhr.com.au Kevin Howard

… sounds a bit like eBay to me

It’s a bit different, which anything in this market needs to be, but I can’t see it working in the current market.

Apologies for the recruiter speak, but really good candidates don’t need it because they’re constantly being headhunted. Really average candidates will flock to it, so recruiters won’t pay to use it. It may seem a bit harsh, but I don’t think these guys really understand the dynamics of the recruitment industry.

If they can get great people to sign up to it, they may as well just work as recruiters and place them – they’ll make a lot more money that way!
jorge

Kevin,

I wonder if at this time average candidates are good enough candidates, so recruiters will pay for it – I guess you can argue that there are more (paid) sources of average candidates than of really great ones, right?

… just playing devil’s advocate though, the key issue in the model for me was is ‘can you trust the ranking’. Someone from resumefit.com saw this post, and offered an alternative view re. science in resumes. I will find out more and make it a post soon
Carey Eaton

‘I wonder if at this time average candidates are good enough candidates’

I’m sure you don’t mean that good candidates aren’t moving jobs at this time Jorge, because that would not be correct.

I think you’re trying to say that good candidates are not lying around by the pool, waiting for a website to present some opportunities for them to consider?

Which raises a point: is there such thing as a good candidate? The economy might suggest that there’s a job for everyone and therefore everyone is a good candidate for the right opportunity.

Which raises another question: if you’re the type of candidate who wants to lie by the pool and wait for jobs to find you, what does it say about your suitability for employment?

I don’t know of any pool lounging vacancies.
jorge

Hi Carey:

I’d say there are entire hair-splitting treaties that attempt to define/profile candidates, so I will leave that dilemma to those who have the expertise to carry it.

My point was simple: In the context of shortage of candidates, will agencies and hirers be inclined to pay for a service like talentspring or other alternative talent sources, given that their current candidate flow channels do not produce enough of them right now?

Unless they were sure it was not a good use of their funds, why wouldn’t they?
Carey Eaton

You’re right Jorge – there are dozens of quite innovative models springing up here and there but none are gaining traction because of some quite basic things. My take is that all of the new entrants can be described by one or more of the following:

1. they copy existing successful models but lack the traffic and have no way of acquiring it
2. they copy existing successful models but lack real jobs or opportunities for consumers and have no way of attracting them without the traffic
3. they hide what they have to offer behind registration walls or a maze of questions for consumers attempting to register
4. the idea is just plain bad and doesn’t reflect the needs of consumers
5. their idea reflects the needs of one party – either jobseekers (but not employers) or employers (but not jobseekers)
6. they have a successful start-up campaign to gain either traffic or inventories but lack a sustainable long term business model that generates actual revenue

TalentSpring appears to have all six of these qualities in one way or another.