> 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.
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.
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.