7 ms·

The reason why recruiters don't want to share the company name is because they are afraid you will circumvent them, apply directly to the company and they won't

The reason why recruiters don't want to share the company name is because they are afraid you will circumvent them, apply directly to the company and they won't get their commission. It's a pretty unfounded fear IMO and they would be better off just sharing the company name. I have friends who are recruiters who get a much higher response rate when they share more details about the job. Hopefully it becomes the new norm. Shameless plug: I'm building a job search tool for developers that screens out jobs from 3rd party recruiters and staffing agencies: http://www.codejobs.io/ http://www.codejobs.io/

jonnathanson 12y ago
"I have friends who are recruiters who get a much higher response rate when they share more details about the job. Hopefully it becomes the new norm." Yeah, I'd think the fear would be mostly unfounded. It's understandable, but it strikes me as an edge case. If you're telling me about a role, and I wasn't aware the company was hiring for that role, then it logically follows that I don't have deep, active connections into that company. So the danger that I'm going to maneuver around you is low. I'm sure it happens from time to time, but disclosure probably has a higher expected value than secrecy. Especially if disclosure improves response rates. I realize things are different on job sites. If you disclose the company, then anyone who comes across your posting can just go to the company's site and circumvent you. But axiomatically, you shouldn't be relying too heavily on job sites if you're a recruiter. The company hired you for your network, and for your ability to find (and vet) interesting people. If it wanted to post listings online, it wouldn't need a third party to do so.
dbbolton 12y ago
Why not just give the recruiter the commission if they can prove they contacted the prospect before the prospect contacted the company (i.e. that they were circumvented), or at least redirect the prospect back to the recruiter for any negotiations?
- seanflyon 12y ago
  It can't be a simple as "contacted" because a recruiter could then contact every dev they can find and claim a fee whenever one of them gets a job.
- redmattred 12y ago
  What @seanflyon said. Plus part of the perceived value of working with a 3rd party recruiter as a company is that they are actively sourcing and screening candidates to make sure they are a good fit. Just simply contacting them doesn't mean you screened them up front. There are situations where a candidate learns about the job through a recruiter, speaks with them, and then applies to the job on their own. In those cases a recruiter have a more legitimate claim, depending on the contract they've negotiated with the company. For the company, there is a strong incentive not to pay a 20-25% finders fee if they don't have to so recruiters have to be their own advocates in these situations.
  - dbbolton 12y ago
    I agree 20% is excessive if the recruiter just told someone about the job, but it seems like they should still get something for finding the future employee in the first place.
mathattack 12y ago
Many times it's also because the companies want to keep the positions secret. If a company wants to quietly replace their VP of Engineering, it won't be on any job boards, and they don't want anyone who isn't interviewing for the position to know about it. Everyone will ultimately give up the firm name prior to sending the resume, but there are reputable firms who wait until they know you're serious. (If 100 candidates know the firm name, word will leak out. If only 5 do, then perhaps not)
- redmattred 12y ago
  That's true. There are plenty of jobs that are never posted online either because they are trying to fill a role on the sly or the company just simply does not want to deal with the flood of unqualified applicants they'll get from job boards.
  - mathattack 12y ago
    1/3 of a year's salary (headhunter fee) is rarely justified by just sorting through resumes. The headhunter has to provide one of the following: 1) Confidentiality in the search 2) Access to people not currently looking 3) Access to candidates that are perfectly suited for the job 4) Strategic advice For better or worse, most are only capable of #1. The ones that can do #3 and #4 are worth their weight in gold.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  "If 100 candidates know the firm name, word will leak out. If only 5 do, then perhaps not" I would imagine that after a certain inflection point, p(leak) scales exponentially as n(people you've told) scales linearly. Obviously your probability of a leak is extremely high if you've told 100 people -- but after a certain number n, practically speaking, your probability is high enough. That n might be as few as 5 people, or as many as 50, but it's probably pretty low.
  - thesteamboat 12y ago
    Since probability is between 0 and 1, more likely is that the odds of a leak scale exponentially.
mmmooo 12y ago
Sooner or later I'm going to need to know the name of the company (unless they want to hire me sight unseen). What stops me from circumventing them then? I think this is a ridiculous fear, and I've often told recruiters 'no thanks', because of this practice. I don't know you, you don't know me. If you don't want to trust me w/ the details which can directly impact both our lives (my potential future employer, your potential commission), why would I trust you with the details that impact just my life (my future career)?
- bronson 12y ago
  To set up the interview, the recruiter sends your contact details to the company. Once that happens, as far as that company is concerned, the recruiter owns you.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
fecak 12y ago
Actually, the fear of circumventing wasn't the historical reason. I believe the bigger fear for most recruiters was other recruiters coming in and taking that client's business. Now that applying for jobs has become so easy, circumventing is an issue, but the trend of hiding company names goes back to when applying for jobs was much more time consuming. I do list my clients names publicly, but they also provide me some fee up front which helps justify this risk. Pure contingency search, which makes up the large majority of recruiting, comes with 100% risk on the recruiter and contingency firms are less likely to post names.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
bigtunacan 12y ago
For the longest time I thought this was entirely unfounded as well. Then I applied for a position with a start-up that seemed quite interesting and I had only found out about it due to the recruiter. I went through the whole interview process and the company, who I shall leave unnamed, wanted to hire me. They didn't however want to pay the recruiter fee even though they had explicitly reached out to the agency to do their recruiting. The company's take was that recruiters were worthless and just fucking them out of money; so now that the work was done they wanted to bypass the recruiting firm and hire me directly and pocket the fees. Ultimately I walked away from the whole thing because I didn't want to work somewhere with such questionable ethics at the top.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  Yeah, I would definitely consider that a red flag, and it sounds as though you made the right decision. If a company is willing to "cheat" on that front, what else is it willing to do to gain marginal advantage over employees and partners? There's a fine line between being a scrappy, rule-breaking kind of company and being a company without an ethical compass.

jonnathanson 12y ago

"I have friends who are recruiters who get a much higher response rate when they share more details about the job. Hopefully it becomes the new norm." Yeah, I'd think the fear would be mostly unfounded. It's understandable, but it strikes me as an edge case. If you're telling me about a role, and I wasn't aware the company was hiring for that role, then it logically follows that I don't have deep, active connections into that company. So the danger that I'm going to maneuver around you is low. I'm sure it happens from time to time, but disclosure probably has a higher expected value than secrecy. Especially if disclosure improves response rates. I realize things are different on job sites. If you disclose the company, then anyone who comes across your posting can just go to the company's site and circumvent you. But axiomatically, you shouldn't be relying too heavily on job sites if you're a recruiter. The company hired you for your network, and for your ability to find (and vet) interesting people. If it wanted to post listings online, it wouldn't need a third party to do so.

dbbolton 12y ago

Why not just give the recruiter the commission if they can prove they contacted the prospect before the prospect contacted the company (i.e. that they were circumvented), or at least redirect the prospect back to the recruiter for any negotiations?

seanflyon 12y ago
It can't be a simple as "contacted" because a recruiter could then contact every dev they can find and claim a fee whenever one of them gets a job.
redmattred 12y ago
What @seanflyon said. Plus part of the perceived value of working with a 3rd party recruiter as a company is that they are actively sourcing and screening candidates to make sure they are a good fit. Just simply contacting them doesn't mean you screened them up front. There are situations where a candidate learns about the job through a recruiter, speaks with them, and then applies to the job on their own. In those cases a recruiter have a more legitimate claim, depending on the contract they've negotiated with the company. For the company, there is a strong incentive not to pay a 20-25% finders fee if they don't have to so recruiters have to be their own advocates in these situations.
- dbbolton 12y ago
  I agree 20% is excessive if the recruiter just told someone about the job, but it seems like they should still get something for finding the future employee in the first place.

mathattack 12y ago

Many times it's also because the companies want to keep the positions secret. If a company wants to quietly replace their VP of Engineering, it won't be on any job boards, and they don't want anyone who isn't interviewing for the position to know about it. Everyone will ultimately give up the firm name prior to sending the resume, but there are reputable firms who wait until they know you're serious. (If 100 candidates know the firm name, word will leak out. If only 5 do, then perhaps not)

redmattred 12y ago
That's true. There are plenty of jobs that are never posted online either because they are trying to fill a role on the sly or the company just simply does not want to deal with the flood of unqualified applicants they'll get from job boards.
- mathattack 12y ago
  1/3 of a year's salary (headhunter fee) is rarely justified by just sorting through resumes. The headhunter has to provide one of the following: 1) Confidentiality in the search 2) Access to people not currently looking 3) Access to candidates that are perfectly suited for the job 4) Strategic advice For better or worse, most are only capable of #1. The ones that can do #3 and #4 are worth their weight in gold.
jonnathanson 12y ago
"If 100 candidates know the firm name, word will leak out. If only 5 do, then perhaps not" I would imagine that after a certain inflection point, p(leak) scales exponentially as n(people you've told) scales linearly. Obviously your probability of a leak is extremely high if you've told 100 people -- but after a certain number n, practically speaking, your probability is high enough. That n might be as few as 5 people, or as many as 50, but it's probably pretty low.
- thesteamboat 12y ago
  Since probability is between 0 and 1, more likely is that the odds of a leak scale exponentially.

mmmooo 12y ago

Sooner or later I'm going to need to know the name of the company (unless they want to hire me sight unseen). What stops me from circumventing them then? I think this is a ridiculous fear, and I've often told recruiters 'no thanks', because of this practice. I don't know you, you don't know me. If you don't want to trust me w/ the details which can directly impact both our lives (my potential future employer, your potential commission), why would I trust you with the details that impact just my life (my future career)?

bronson 12y ago
To set up the interview, the recruiter sends your contact details to the company. Once that happens, as far as that company is concerned, the recruiter owns you.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

fecak 12y ago

Actually, the fear of circumventing wasn't the historical reason. I believe the bigger fear for most recruiters was other recruiters coming in and taking that client's business. Now that applying for jobs has become so easy, circumventing is an issue, but the trend of hiding company names goes back to when applying for jobs was much more time consuming. I do list my clients names publicly, but they also provide me some fee up front which helps justify this risk. Pure contingency search, which makes up the large majority of recruiting, comes with 100% risk on the recruiter and contingency firms are less likely to post names.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

bigtunacan 12y ago

For the longest time I thought this was entirely unfounded as well. Then I applied for a position with a start-up that seemed quite interesting and I had only found out about it due to the recruiter. I went through the whole interview process and the company, who I shall leave unnamed, wanted to hire me. They didn't however want to pay the recruiter fee even though they had explicitly reached out to the agency to do their recruiting. The company's take was that recruiters were worthless and just fucking them out of money; so now that the work was done they wanted to bypass the recruiting firm and hire me directly and pocket the fees. Ultimately I walked away from the whole thing because I didn't want to work somewhere with such questionable ethics at the top.

jonnathanson 12y ago
Yeah, I would definitely consider that a red flag, and it sounds as though you made the right decision. If a company is willing to "cheat" on that front, what else is it willing to do to gain marginal advantage over employees and partners? There's a fine line between being a scrappy, rule-breaking kind of company and being a company without an ethical compass.