| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: Jobs - direct hire -vs- applying w/recruiter |
Topic: Jobs - direct hire -vs- applying w/recruiter
| Author | Message |
| Magazine Mania | Posted – 5/5/2008 12:40:08 PM | show profile I've seen the same job advertised both on a company's Web site and on employement site with a recruiter's contact info. Do you think one way is better? I'm thinking that applying directly through the company is the better option, but I was wondering if anyone has had greater success applying and getting jobs through recruiters??? |
| astrahook | Posted – 5/5/2008 12:47:53 PM | show profile in my experience at a very large interactive media company it simply didn't matter. jobs could be posted on corporate site or external site and would all end up at the appropriate recruiter and none was given any more preference then the other. |
| foodlit | Posted – 5/5/2008 1:53:48 PM | show profile Are you a perfect fit for the job in terms of experience? If so, you may be better off going through the recruiter, because they will get your resume in front of the right person and if they have a good relationship it can be an immediate response and interview for you. So, the question I would ask if I were you when you call that recruiter is 'how long have you worked with this company and have you placed people here?' As long as they have some kind of a track record, I'd go through them. Otherwise, if you apply directly to the company, you could get lost in the shuffle....I've seen that happen a million times. I'm a recruiter and I have placed people at companies who had applied there in the past and never heard a thing....because the internal hr people are swamped with tons of emails. The recruiter will make sure your resume gets to the head of the line. However.....and this is a big however, if you are a stretch for the job, very overqualified or underqualified, then I would apply directly as the company will be more flexible when they are not using a recruiter. When they are using a recruiter they expect to see people who are excellent fits, great backgrounds for the job, and that is why they respond quickly, as they trust the recruiter's opinion. Don't do both. If you apply directly to the company, then a recruiter cannot submit you....and I've seen this happen many times where a phenomenal candidate doesn't get an interview because the hr people never get to her resume as it gets lost in the sea of email/applications. The recruiter can't submit you if you've already applied because the company 'owns' you if you go directly, so they won't pay the recruiter a fee....and if you do both, what I've seen many companies do is let's say you apply directly and try to get in through a recruiter....well, the first thing the company usually does is check their database to see if you've applied, so there will be record, and then they'll tell the recruiter, 'sorry we already have her'....and if they have a good relationship with that recruiter, they will usually just not call you at all! Because they feel bad for the recruiter....so I wouldn't go there. A good recruiter can speed up the process for you.....as long as you are a strong fit for the role. Good luck! Pam |
| Magazine Mania | Posted – 5/5/2008 2:57:27 PM | show profile Foodlit - I meet some but not all of the stated requirements. Based on the job description I definitely feel confident that I am qualified...it's just one or two things that I haven't had experience with...yet. So, in that respect would you say go through the recruiter? Thanks for the detailed response. |
| astrahook | Posted – 5/5/2008 3:51:24 PM | show profile wow..I totally misread your question! In the case of my company you are way better off NOT coming in from a recruiter. If it comes down to 2 candidates for the same role, one requires a fee and the other does not, well the decision is easy. I think if your background needs a little bit of explaining, then you might be better off through the recruiter. You will also likely have less negotiating room with a recruiter |
| Magazine Mania | Posted – 5/5/2008 4:05:23 PM | show profile Astrahook - Good point. Due to the need for "explaining" I think I will try the recruiting route and see how that goes. The experience may provide good insight for future reference with other like-jobs. |
| foodlit | Posted – 5/5/2008 5:41:35 PM | show profile Astrahook, Are you assuming that your company would go with the non-fee candidate? Or has that actually been the case? I'm asking because I've been on both sides of the fence, in HR and as the recruiter and it has never been a factor. If the position is approved to go through a recruiter, there is money in the budget for it. That allows the hiring manager to hire whoever they want, and it doesn't affect the salary for the candidate either. You would think it might, but it really doesn't. The salary range is a separate number and sometimes the fee for the recruiter comes out of a different bucket. Pam |
| astrahook | Posted – 5/6/2008 3:45:39 PM | show profile if all things are equal between two candidates, we will go with the candidate we will not have to pay a fee for. True the money has been budgeted but by not paying a fee to a recruiter it gives us more negotiating room with the candidate and lets us use those $ for other searches in which we don't have multiple candidates. To be clear, it doesn't influence us in terms of lowering our expectations on a candidate to avoid a fee. Only in the cases of when all things are equal (which for mid level roles, happens pretty frequently). |
| foodlit | Posted – 5/6/2008 9:01:51 PM | show profile Astrahook, That makes sense when all things are equal. My suggestion though, if this is happening frequently, is to only give the searches to a recruiter when you don't have a good pipeline of candidates, on the more difficult searches. |
| astrahook | Posted – 5/6/2008 10:24:54 PM | show profile we are selective about the searches we give out to external recruiters, but we do offer our employees a great referral program so often times candidates are unexpectedly brought into the fold |
| foodlit | Posted – 5/7/2008 8:57:46 AM | show profile Astrahook, I don't know how involved you get with recruiting, but here's a tip to generate even more good employee referrals. The best time to ask for them is when they start with the company, just ask 'who do you know that is great at what they do? Even if they're not looking. We want to keep them in mind for future needs.' It's a great time to ask because people are usually excited and positive about their new employer at that point and willing to share this kind of info. When I was onsite at a big bank, we made so many great hires this way...just tuck the names away, and then reach out to them when an appropriate opening came in. :) Pam |
