As a developer I won't use this. I would rather charge myself for someone to contact me with job offer considering the market right now.
[deleted]
Please Poach Me
41–50 of 126 posts
Re: Please Poach Me
#42I mistyped my e-mail address, so, presumably, the confirmation will bounce. There's no mechanism I can see to change it, even though I can still get to the Settings page.
Re: Please Poach Me
#43As a hiring manager, why would I hire people who advertise themselves to be poached?
In a couple of months, I'm not really sure if they will still be interested, or if they are already on the site again.
I guess that depends if you can keep them interested first.
Re: Please Poach Me
#44I went to sign up as an employer, but stopped since I didn't want to fork over $50 before even seeing what quality of engineers you have. I'll bet you'd get a lot more employer interest if you let people inspect the goods before entering a credit card number.
Re: Please Poach Me
#45I like the idea. Two implementation critiques:
1) Let recruiters see the value before making them pay (e.g. wait until people want to reach out to somebody).
2) Come up with payment terms that don't discourage use. You want people to pay you and then use your service religiously. Per-use pricing forces people to ration the extent that they use your service which gets in the way of maximizing the value you provide them.
Re: Please Poach Me
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
$50 is really nothing for recruiting.
Actually, in recruiting you pay nothing until one lump sump when you hire someone. Here, you pay EACH TIME, and it adds up (even if it adds up to less than 20% recruiting fee, it still feels like constantly paying)
Sites like Monster charge employers quite a bit. Even LinkedIn has services for employers that are more expensive.
Re: Please Poach Me
#47I work at LinkedIn, so I think I'm reasonably qualified to provide my opinion. I'm certain that this won't work well. Charging $5 per profile view ($50 per 10) is simply outrageous. Most profiles will be junk or irrelevant - recruiters work very hard to sift through the chaff. Even of those that ARE relevant, there's a small chance they'll wind up working at your company. You'd have to have an unprecedented algorithm here. It's unlikely that you do, given we've had engineers working on optimizing search for recruiters for years.
That said, LinkedIn doesn't do the best job of allowing employees to anonymously signal that they are looking for a job. I think there's space for you to make an impact, but I think your payment model will hold you back.
Re: Please Poach Me
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since the emails are anonymous (e.g. q8XR1BB2TokDXslewseDlGc9E@pleasepoach.me) and your name isn't provided, there's no way your company can find out if you're on the site--unless it's just you and your co-founder :(
Unless they happen to read your resume and see that your experience directly lines up with what your company/team is working on?
Or they see requests to pleasepoach.me in their network logs, which depending on their resolution can nail you to a wall pretty easily.
Re: Please Poach Me
#49As someone who would consider signing up to be poached, I would really want to know more about these "high quality job offers" before giving you my personal information.
Re: Please Poach Me
#50I'm not trying to crush your startup dreams but you should stop right now and immediately talk to 20+ recruiters or hiring managers about your app before you invest any more time or money.
I built a prototype for a similar idea about 18 months ago - it imported your linked in profile, your network could write skill specific references which back-linked and allowed recruiters/employers to search for skills/experience/geography/salary range they wanted to generate an anonymous short list of candidates in seconds; they could browse shortlisted CVs, read references and they only paid when a candidate agreed to release their details to the recruiter. Great idea eh?
The problem was, just about all the recruiters & employers I talked to about it (in Australia) weren't that positive. Their reasons were: * network effects - it only becomes useful once plenty of candidates were in it. * many recruiters already had their own database of candidates that they didn't want to share or duplicate. * many recruiters needed near immediate response (they had 48hrs to fill a role). Waiting for candidates to respond to a request was a negative for them. * some recruiters saw it as a threat and didn't want to support that kind of system. * Companies often wanted a full service solution so while this could generate a quality shortlist for them, many wanted hand holding.
HR is ripe for disruption but execution is everything. What does your app do that paid access to searchable linkedin profiles doesn't?