resources-stretched mainstream media are always a sucker for the latest
‘internet entrepreneur’ hoping to put a dent in the traditional recruitment
industry. If you are a young female entrepreneur with the older blokes in private
equity backing you, then all the better.
former Bain & Company associate-turned-entrepreneur Bridget Loudon
was the beneficiary of these sorts of soft free kicks with Fairfax Media giving
her and her business, Expert360 (‘an online matchmaking service for
executive consultants’) the sort of write-ups that PR firms absolutely
Both BRW and the AFR devoted plenty of
uncritical column centimetres to a business not yet two years old with
(unverified) turnover of around $1 million from an unspecified number of
Media describes the business thus:
Expert360 is an online freelance marketplace but unlike more general
competitors such as Freelancer.com, oDesk-Elance and Airtasker, it concentrates
on freelance projects for senior business consultants. Expert360 uses algorithms and
staff input to produce a shortlist for time-poor businesses seeking experts.
Hmm, I thought this is exactly how most recruitment agencies operate
when clients request consultants/contractors? Maybe it was the use of that
multi-purpose technology word ‘algorithms’ that suckered the journalists.
It is also
revealed that ‘Expert360 is starting to cut
in on the wobbly middle tier of the executive recruiting industry’.
evidence this claim is made, we are not told other than Ms Loudon’s quotable
quote that ‘People have just gone nuts for
Then we are told that, according to Peter Wilson, the chairman of the Australian Human Resources Institute
Expert360’s commission is far lower than the consulting fees charged by
the likes of traditional headhunters. Not only does Expert360 take less than
the usual 20 per cent of the consultant’s salary, Wilson notes,
hirers-turned-employers also need not stomach the 30 per cent “poison
pill” recruiters traditionally charge if a client wants to employ the
consultant at the end of the contract.
our industry ‘takes’ twenty per cent of what Mr Wilson seems to suggest
‘belongs’ to the consultant.
a very one sided way to view what a recruiter does.
mentioning that the recruiter actually worked his or her backside off (probably
for many hours) to find said ‘consultant’ a paying assignment at a rate that
the consultant agreed to . Then the recruiter negotiated an agreed rate
with the client, that included a fair return (ie margin) for finding,
paying and managing said ‘consultant’.
Then we are told that if a recruiter does their job so effectively to the level that the consultant they found for the client is worthy of a permanent job, we have the gall, according to
Mr Wilson, to charge a ‘poison pill’ (how this is an appropriate metaphor is
beyond me) of 30 per cent. I would be fascinated to know how many recruitment
agencies or search firms in Australia received a 30% temp-to-perm fee in the
past financial year.
At least the AFR journalist (Ky Chow)
spoke to a traditional recruiter (Michael
Markiewicz, CEO of Carmichael Fisher) and printed his response (well, one
sentence of it at least); the BRW journalist (Caitlin Fitzsimmons) did
Maybe I am a
bit simple but by the time I had read both articles, I was no clearer as to exactly
how Ms Loudon’s enterprise was significantly different to a traditional
side of me might suggest because Ms Loudon is young, female, good looking, an
ex-management consultant and has an ‘internet business’ based on ‘algorithms’ that she provides a user-friendly package
for resource-poor journalists.
This is no criticism of Bridget Loudon. Good on her. If I was in her
position, I would be doing exactly the same – doing everything I could to
generate some free publicity, especially in the mainstream media. It’s (yet
again) the journalists that facilitate this sort of story, and their employers
that decide to publish it, that dishearten me.
Given our industry has recently been subject to a spate of one-sided and generally negative stories, it’s not
hard to see to see how ‘real’ journalism has been replaced with
easy-to-manufacture outrage or PR-prompted feel-good stories about an
industry’s supposed Next Big Thing.
positive side, I was encouraged by this BRW article earlier in the year
that took a harder edged and more realistic look at the downsides of internet
based job marketplaces.
these sort of articles are not going to become less common as publishers look
for more ways to grow profitable output with the same or fewer resources.
In the meantime can the mainstream media please stop giving soft free kicks, and start applying some journalistic rigour, to ‘internet entrepreneurs’, especially in the recruitment industry.