4 ms·

100% this. They say individual engineers can't exercise this power, but that Triplebyte can use its weight to force their hand. As a hiring manager, I have do

100% this. They say individual engineers can't exercise this power, but that Triplebyte can use its weight to force their hand. As a hiring manager, I have dozens of recruiting platforms to choose from, most touting the same list of resumes. Yet another resume farm has zero power. Fortunately, most of the dirt thrown at recruiting teams is wrong in the first place. I don't know any hiring managers who make lowball offers that have a low chance of acceptance - the costs of the process, the risks of hiring someone who starts mad at you, and the value of winning someone who is actually worth hiring, are all way more important than some incremental cash saved.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
> As a hiring manager, I have dozens of recruiting platforms to choose from, most touting the same list of resumes. Yet another resume farm has zero power. Well, presumably the idea is that engineers, especially high quality ones, will be drawn to the recruiting platform that has more pro-engineer policies. And so if you avoid using it, you lose access to that subset of engineers. It's still a chicken and egg problem, though, because engineers have little incentive to join until there's enough companies.
- evrydayhustling 5y ago
  Yeah, I think the biggest issue is with the implication that their existing user base, which was built under their old policies, is a unique asset. I'd be willing to bet that a significant majority of current TripleByte applicants also use other platforms. However, I think that even if they build an attractive, differentiated experience, the advantage is unstable. The problem is that "traditionally strong" applicants (those who already have positive ROI from existing processes) are disadvantaged by being exclusive to one platform. So, from a hiring perspective, TripleByte's differentiation in terms of unique resumes is going to be from people who are harder to assess. I'm actually fine with that as a value case - we've had great success hiring from bootcamps. "We help you reach strong nontraditional applicants" is a great value proposition. But it's not the same as a position of power to dictate the hiring process. Maybe a better pitch would be: we run a process that helps great non-traditional talent and great non-traditional companies find each other.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

> As a hiring manager, I have dozens of recruiting platforms to choose from, most touting the same list of resumes. Yet another resume farm has zero power. Well, presumably the idea is that engineers, especially high quality ones, will be drawn to the recruiting platform that has more pro-engineer policies. And so if you avoid using it, you lose access to that subset of engineers. It's still a chicken and egg problem, though, because engineers have little incentive to join until there's enough companies.

evrydayhustling 5y ago
Yeah, I think the biggest issue is with the implication that their existing user base, which was built under their old policies, is a unique asset. I'd be willing to bet that a significant majority of current TripleByte applicants also use other platforms. However, I think that even if they build an attractive, differentiated experience, the advantage is unstable. The problem is that "traditionally strong" applicants (those who already have positive ROI from existing processes) are disadvantaged by being exclusive to one platform. So, from a hiring perspective, TripleByte's differentiation in terms of unique resumes is going to be from people who are harder to assess. I'm actually fine with that as a value case - we've had great success hiring from bootcamps. "We help you reach strong nontraditional applicants" is a great value proposition. But it's not the same as a position of power to dictate the hiring process. Maybe a better pitch would be: we run a process that helps great non-traditional talent and great non-traditional companies find each other.