Would you pay interviewees for their time?
May 20, 2008 by Sam NarisiPosted in: In This Week's E-Newsletter, Interviewing, Latest News & Views
It’s one of the biggest recruiting challenges: luring passive candidates to a new company. Some online services claim they can help — by paying people to put themselves on the job market.
The first example is NotchUp.com. Basically, it’s an online resume bank with a catch: You have to pay the job-seekers to set up an interview. When people post resumes, they set a price for how much their time is worth (there’s a calculator that computes a “reasonable” amount, based on experience and field). The going rate seems to be somewhere around $500 per interview.
A similar site is ApplicantTree.com. There, recruiters can see resumes, and have to pay a fee (between $15 and $100, depending on experience) to get the person’s contact info. The candidate gets half of that fee.
Is it worth it?
Both sites claim that paying people for their time is a way to attract potential employees who otherwise wouldn’t even have a resume posted. They also have a user feedback system set up to weed out people who try to become “professional interviewees.” But does that mean companies are going to find people who are serious about taking a new job, or just people who will pretend to be serious in order to get paid?
Who knows. We’re guessing it’s the latter, but it’s too early to tell if this is a successful model. What do you think? Would you pay a candidate just to come in for an interview. Let us know in the comments section.
Tags: applicanttree, notchup, paying candidates
May 21st, 2008 at 10:27 am
I think the real benefit for recruiters is supposed to be the reduced cost as opposed to Career Builder or Monster. Have you checked their prices lately? Just to read resumes on their site requires a hefty upfront fee. For either of these new guys you can search the databases for free, and then only contact and pay for the people that fit the bill. I’m not saying that will always work — I’m sure you’ll get some duds — but it’s much easier to manage your budget with the extra control these guys offer.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:49 am
I’m a bit leary of this type of arrangement. Yes there may be a higher quality of candidates off the market that can be persuaded to enter the job market, but what’s to say they aren’t in it strictly for the money? Who wouldn’t pass up the opportunity to provide a few hours or even a day from their regular schedule to sit through an interview knowing they will receive $500. Is their only commitment to this arrangement to show up and go through interview process? It’s not advantageous to the employer if the applicant has no intention of leaving their current job. Again, easy money for the candidate and the employer ends up without a viable candidate and $500 down the drain.
I would think offering a $500 hiring bonus after 6 months with the company would benefit both parties.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Absolutely not! I would not pay to reach potential candidates this way. We’re in the creative business and with all sorts of freelancers and highly technical creative types out there I would think this service would just encourage them to post their resumes to just get paid when times are slow. I would rather reimburse someone for travelling expenses related to interviewing including paying for “testing” days. Just my two cents.
HR
Merrick Towle Communications
http://www.merricktowle.com
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Good point, John. I did not consider the cost effectiveness for companies with a small budget. However, it still seems like the candidates are motivated by getting paid and l believe that they may not actually be in the job market.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I would not pay in interviewee for their time. Sets a bad precedent.
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Notchup is a legitimate site, even if the sustainability of the business model is questionable. However, Applicant Tree is part of internetsolutionscorp.com who have a very poor record at the BBB. There’s no definite proof that Applicant Tree actually has a relationship with any employers, so the question is why are they collecting all this personal information?