My advisor Peteris posted this on here. I am the CEO, and to answer your question, the first customer who signed up (before we even launched) was Amazon. We have had hundreds of companies interested in paying qualified people to pitch them a job.
I owned a staffing company and found that it was less expensive to pay candidates for their time than it was to pay someone to try and get them on a phone to pitch them a job.
Something about this doesn't feel right. Unfortunately I can't express it so it's useful to you. But keywords that create conflict in my head are: elite, candidates, less expensive, recruiter, pay.
Perhaps this explains the understandably defensive posts here. The idea is interesting but the wording is a bit snobbish.
Thanks for the feedback! We are going to work on the messaging some more to ensure we strike the right balance when talking with the people we want to onboard.
We have already had some amazing candidates with world changing skills join the platform. While it may not suit everyone this is definitely popular amongst the people that companies are searching for.
7 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 18.3 ms ] threadI owned a staffing company and found that it was less expensive to pay candidates for their time than it was to pay someone to try and get them on a phone to pitch them a job.
Perhaps this explains the understandably defensive posts here. The idea is interesting but the wording is a bit snobbish.
Good luck!