4 ms·

I think there’s a legitimate market opportunity here. I am seeking a cofounder to build the job board that vets employers, and makes money by charging candidat

I think there’s a legitimate market opportunity here. I am seeking a cofounder to build the job board that vets employers, and makes money by charging candidates to access it. The problem to be solved, imo, is ghost listings. - I don’t care if a company ghosts me because they hired someone else - I care if I spend time filling out applications for jobs that don’t exist I’m not sure how to make participation by the employer tractable. They can’t exactly be mandated to hire, can they? Unless I’m trapped in a prison of the mind that seems like too risky of a proposition for them. That said, as a candidate I would happily pay $USD/month for access to a job board where I know that the job as posted is definitely for real and definitely getting filled in a certain timeframe. I don’t care if my particular resume gets read, or replied to. I only care that the phenomena of “ghost job” is nonexistent in the walled-garden that I’m paying for access to.

hiatus 2y ago
This sounds similar to a problem dating sites face—solving the user's problem leads them away from the service. But you have the added difficulty that people looking for employment may not have the resources to spend on another monthly subscription. It sounds interesting though, good luck!
tmn 2y ago
Incentivize the employer to only provide real listings by having them pay to advertise a listing. Let them be reimbursed if it's filled via the platform. You don't need to solve the problem 100%. An employer can still drag their feet and not fill a listing. But by aligning all incentives you can drastically reduce the problem.
- singlepaynews 2y ago
  My understanding is that employers already do pay to post on LI, indeed, etc. It simply works out that paying for ghost jobs is worth it, so the enforcement mechanism needs to be a ban/other thing that doesn't rely on pricing
johnnyanmac 2y ago
>. I am seeking a cofounder to build the job board that vets employers, and makes money by charging candidates to access it. Sounds like awful monetization. Dating site issue is right. Your best candidates (so ideally, all the ones you vet) won't be long term subscribers. And sadly, there's way too many grifts in the job system where a candidate paying is a red flag. You'd need to offer the candidates something of value to justify that. Not just "a promise of no ghost jobs"). Is there an issue with the usual recruiter pipeline where you can charge the company some percent of the hire once they get hired? Candidates get hired, company pays a little extra on a successful hire, and your profit incentives come from quality to offer for the companies (hopefully). The main issue is that it assumes that companies genuinely care about an efficient hiring pipeline. And I've been very cynical in recent times...
- dawnbreez 2y ago
  What if the employer was charged a subscription fee, instead of waiting until they find a hire to charge? Then the incentive is for the company to find a hire quickly, since they're now paying per month instead of per head. Some companies will balk at this, obviously, since existing services charge them per head and they don't know how fast a viable hire will appear...but I'd guess that this would be highly effective at weeding out 'employers' who have no interest in employing any new hires. (Also, seconding the part about grifts where a candidate is charged upfront. Charging upfront for access to training materials, equipment, or some kind of licensing agreement is often a sign that you're about to get roped into a multi-level marketing scam.)
  - em-bee 2y ago
    having been on the employers side, i agree with that idea because i think it aligns incentives a bit better. with paying per head only, the recruiters are motivated to get me to accept the first candidate they can find with the least amount of work. with a monthly subscription the recruiter can take more time to find a good candidate because it won't hurt their bottom line.
    - singlepaynews 2y ago

hiatus 2y ago

This sounds similar to a problem dating sites face—solving the user's problem leads them away from the service. But you have the added difficulty that people looking for employment may not have the resources to spend on another monthly subscription. It sounds interesting though, good luck!

tmn 2y ago

Incentivize the employer to only provide real listings by having them pay to advertise a listing. Let them be reimbursed if it's filled via the platform. You don't need to solve the problem 100%. An employer can still drag their feet and not fill a listing. But by aligning all incentives you can drastically reduce the problem.

singlepaynews 2y ago
My understanding is that employers already do pay to post on LI, indeed, etc. It simply works out that paying for ghost jobs is worth it, so the enforcement mechanism needs to be a ban/other thing that doesn't rely on pricing

johnnyanmac 2y ago

>. I am seeking a cofounder to build the job board that vets employers, and makes money by charging candidates to access it. Sounds like awful monetization. Dating site issue is right. Your best candidates (so ideally, all the ones you vet) won't be long term subscribers. And sadly, there's way too many grifts in the job system where a candidate paying is a red flag. You'd need to offer the candidates something of value to justify that. Not just "a promise of no ghost jobs"). Is there an issue with the usual recruiter pipeline where you can charge the company some percent of the hire once they get hired? Candidates get hired, company pays a little extra on a successful hire, and your profit incentives come from quality to offer for the companies (hopefully). The main issue is that it assumes that companies genuinely care about an efficient hiring pipeline. And I've been very cynical in recent times...

dawnbreez 2y ago
What if the employer was charged a subscription fee, instead of waiting until they find a hire to charge? Then the incentive is for the company to find a hire quickly, since they're now paying per month instead of per head. Some companies will balk at this, obviously, since existing services charge them per head and they don't know how fast a viable hire will appear...but I'd guess that this would be highly effective at weeding out 'employers' who have no interest in employing any new hires. (Also, seconding the part about grifts where a candidate is charged upfront. Charging upfront for access to training materials, equipment, or some kind of licensing agreement is often a sign that you're about to get roped into a multi-level marketing scam.)
- em-bee 2y ago
  having been on the employers side, i agree with that idea because i think it aligns incentives a bit better. with paying per head only, the recruiters are motivated to get me to accept the first candidate they can find with the least amount of work. with a monthly subscription the recruiter can take more time to find a good candidate because it won't hurt their bottom line.
  - singlepaynews 2y ago