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.

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?

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.

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

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!