Hunt Club

@nzieber Hey Nick - Thanks for the interest in what we're doing. Influencers are different because we only select people that have actually worked the job to help place for it. Marketers placing marketers, dev's to dev's etc. They actually have worked the job so they understand it exponentially better than most staffing agencies. People know who in their own network is looking vs. a recruiter cold calling, hassling and haggling. Our influencers are vetted, extremely connected and would never burn their social capital for a referral check. The carrot of "Commission" is just a way to reward them for something they do every day, and incentivizes them to act. What's to stop a recruiter for trying to convince a candidate to take a job for $30-50K? There is no barrier there. They don't get paid unless a butt is in that seat and it's their sole source of income. We feel like our model is better. It's a simple ask. Influencers aren't salespeople. They have other jobs, are doing other things, and view this is a way to have a place to help their network. Something they already do, every day. It happens internally in companies already, why can't it work externally? Should they get compensated for that action? Absolutely. Why? Because staffing agencies make double for the same, exact action. We simply created a market for something people already do, every day, and since a market already exists, why shouldn't people have the opportunity to earn something for the same action recruiters are doing? Simply put: Who's more qualified to place a VP of Marketing? 15 current Vp's of marketing, CMO's and marketers? Or a recruiter?

@andyfortson I'm pretty sure this is still an iteration of the current recruitment model. I would say there are a few assumptions that don't remedy the problem. 1) Influencers understanding the roles better doesn't inherently attract candidates. 2) There is no guarantee influencers will continually participate 3) Influencers are also compensated if a butt is in the seat Seems like the standard recruitment model to me. There are plenty of recruitment firms who hire ex-Engineers, Marketers, Lawyers, Bankers etc. to recruit. The real question for candidate to ask him/herself is whether or not the position is a great opportunity. If so, then great.

@nzieber Agree 100%. It's a definite iteration of the current recruitment model. Who said it wasn't?The same way uber is an iteration of the "book a cab" model... 1) That's fine. Traditional recruiters don't attract talent for every postion. I would bet a network outperforms a firm 99.9% of the time though. 2) Yes. That's true and where tech plays in. As the network scales so does our ability to place and guarantee participation. 3) That's true too. But compensation for Influencers doesn't mean making ends meet. Different incentives. When the VP of DIgital for company "x" refers friend "y" because he's knows he's looking and would do well, they both win. When a contingency recruiter's only way of making a dollar is to fill an open postion = misaligned incentives. There is a clear difference here. No one ever claimed it was a different model. But a better model? We stand behind that. 100%. And that's what we've built. Better talent. Faster. For less investment. That's what we guarantee.

@andyfortson Looks awesome! Have applied to be an influencer.

@andyfortson @huntclub I really hate that statement that all recruiters suck. Not all recruiters suck. From what I can see about your product, all this is sourcing funnel for an agency. There is nothing innovative here.