IamA (Startup CEO) who launched a platform to change how people get hired AMA!

Would a candidate be penalized for misuse of parentheses in their resume?

In short it depends. The longer explanation is that it really depends on the hiring manager, because hiring managers reflect the organization they represent. There are some who focus on details when doing resume review and they would use it against you in the consideration process. There are also plenty of level headed people who realize it's just a piece of paper and look beyond simple typos.

I'm now fixated on this title, and just came in to say that you pretty much said "I am a who launched a platform..."

Went completely over my head as well.

This is my first time using Reddit IAMA. When I created the post it had parenthesis in the title section that I thought I was supposed to fill in.

[User verified as definitely new to Reddit]

Longtime lurker, new IAMA poster.

Basically, this is me: https://imgflip.com/i/qmh06

Doesn't it make more sense to have the recruiter just search LinkedIn for people who fit the job qualifications? Especially as searching LinkedIn 1) is free (unless you pay for premium) 2) has a huge selection of candidates rather than just the ones that have signed up for your service

I get the feeling you're putting yourself in as a middleman where there doesn't need to be one

LinkedIn lets recruiters spam candidates with job offers. The candidates that everyone wants to hire are typically already happy, well paid, have interesting work, great job titles and higher levels of job satisfaction. There is no incentive for them to talk with a recruiter about another job. June creates the incentive by letting the candidate set a rate for their time to hear an offer. June users don't have to take the job they are offered, their contact information is also kept confidential so the recruiter can't pester them if it's not a good fit.

The incentive is that they would be payed higher at the other job. If a recruiter messages me on LinkedIn I can just ignore it or respond if I'm interested. Why does a recruiter need to pay me for my time?

Recruiters often have to sell a candidate on a job opportunity. LinkedIn messages are not very effective for them. They stand to earn a lot more money if they can close more deals. June is the first platform that gives Candidates a reason to get on the phone with a Recruiter when they aren't necessarily looking for a job.

Recruiters often have to sell a candidate on a job opportunity.

It's easy, tell me how much more I'll be making.

LinkedIn messages are not very effective for them.

From my perspective (a developer), LinkedIn messages are rather effective. If I get a message, that means (1) there's a position open (2) there's probably an actual interest in me.

I often reply and express interest. If a recruiter were to straight up include salary details and they were higher than what I currently make, the only reason I would not reply is if I have absolutely no interest working at said company (normally you can figure it out).

Money is usually the primary motivator for people to switch jobs but sometimes it's a mix of equity and cash or a cause they believe in. Recruiters aren't incentivized to publish the companies they represent because you can apply for the job without them and cut them out of the fee they get to charge. June brings both parties together unlike any other platform can.

Money is usually the primary motivator for people to switch jobs but sometimes it's a mix of equity and cash or a cause they believe in.

I find it interesting you say that, according to this LinkedIn study, money is usually not the primary motivator for people switching jobs.

Recruiters aren't incentivized to publish the companies they represent because you can apply for the job without them and cut them out of the fee they get to charge.

I completely understand that.

June brings both parties together unlike any other platform can.

But how does June actually do that? All I've seen is that you pay candidates for their time. That's not really bringing parties "together unlike any other platform".

No other platform enables phone calls between professionals and recruiters like June. In that sense we are able to bring the parties together unlike any other platform.

LinkedIn messages are very effective to me. When a recruiter messages me with a salary, a location, and an industry type then I can choose to ignore it or not. That is effective.

Thanks for the feedback! If you are in tech and you think getting paid for basically the same thing but over a phone call would be worth it to you then please apply at http://www.joinjune.com anytime.

Small payments wouldn't be enough to encourage me into that, for me the monetary incentive to change job would be in salary.

Also since multiple recruiters are connected with me on LinkedIn, one wall post indicating I was open to new contracts would garner me 30 job specs within 24 hours. To go through those 30 specs on phone calls would be something I would not be willing to do.

What if there is a job for you right now that pays more and is more fulfilling than what you are doing today? Ignoring recruiters is effectively shutting you out of that opportunity. June gives you an incentive to answer those calls, and you know the opportunity isn't a joke because no one is going to pay someone if they don't have a reason.

Plus you can set the rate at whatever you want so long as it's above $60.00 for a call. If you think your time is valuable you can set it at the rate you deem appropriate.

Personally I'm a contractor so I'm always looking for new contracts. I still wouldn't be up for anything over the phone though.

A better idea might be I can give you my CV, you strip out all personal details, send that on to multiple recruiters and say if they want to talk to me they have to do it through you. I can contact recruitment agencies myself but you would probably know of more recruitment agencies that would be appropriate.

Thanks for the great feedback! We intend to improve our search engine in the near future so that candidates who like contracts can opt to only take calls for those kinds of gigs.

Firstly, kudos for setting up your own venture and making it happen. I admire that. However, I'm naturally curious if you're an ex-recruiter because some of the thought process seems a little off for a number of reasons: 1. You can't spam on LinkedIn. You only have a certain number of InMail credits per month. Yes, you are returned credits when a message is 'accepted' but the recipient has to be interested in an InMail titled 'career opportunity' to accept it in the first place. 2. LinkedIn messages are INCREDIBLY effective for recruiters. If they're not, they wouldn't use it. The recruiter is composing poor InMails if they're not effective. You need an acceptance rate over 50% to be operating at a high level. LinkedIn provides our company with the highest ROI of any platform, job board or channel and it's still the most expensive. 3. The vast majority of people do not move for more money. Contractors on a day rate maybe yes, permanent employees definitely no. Money is way down on Mazlov's hierarchy of needs. People want challenge, responsibility, power, sexier company or out of a job they're not performing well in. If you are simply aiming at the tech contract market alone then you may be able to carve yourself a niche. 4. Why would a recruiter ever pay to call someone when they can pick up the phone, navigate a gatekeeper and reach them in their office? That's how it used to work in the old days. LinkedIn offers an easier and less confrontational solution but directors running recruitment companies - at least in my experience - aren't going to pay a fee to call someone they can reach without paying it. Margins are already tight enough.

Again - great work on setting this up and good luck with it. Don't listen to the doubters like me if you genuinely believe in it.

People hate the way the recruiting process works, just look at what people type into Google: http://clicky.strapr.com/image/3w0k2O3G2J0Z

If LinkedIn messaging was so effective then we wouldn't have had such an easy time signing up some of the biggest companies on earth. People don't respond to those messages at a high enough rate to demonstrate a good return for the recruiter.

The candidates that everyone wants to hire are typically already happy, well paid, have interesting work, great job titles and higher levels of job satisfaction. There is no incentive for them to talk with a recruiter about another job. June creates the incentive by letting the candidate set a rate for their time to hear an offer

To me this really suggests that you're missing a very important detail.

I (and I think others) have very, very little interest in a one-time payment. I only care that a new position is either going to make me happier or pay make a significantly higher salary. When I talk to someone about a new position, I want to know that there's a very good chance I'll get that position - otherwise it's simply not worth my time.

While I think you're trying to target top-tier candidates, it seems like all your going to do is draw in the bottom feeders who are looking for a quick buck.

If you think your time is worth $20,000 for a phone call then set it at that rate. If you are worth it then a recruiter will pay it.

I imagine there are a number of lower level talented people who are hardly "bottom feeders" that would benefit from the lower price points but I disagree that there is no value in a one time payment if it's economically interesting for both parties.

If you think your time is worth $20,000 for a phone call then set it at that rate. If you are worth it then a recruiter will pay it.

Come on, you have to be realistic. That rate would make your platform absolutely useless - unless I'm Steven Hawking.

So what are the actual rates you see on your platform? How much do candidates typically get paid?

I agree, most people aren't worth a $20,000 phone call to recruit. Yet there are employees at big tech firms like Google that are W-2 Employees who earn $2M / year in salary. There are other companies chomping at the bits to speak with them. If they want to charge $20,000 for a call they can do it on June.

We are a brand new platform that will be collecting data on calls to help our users by suggesting rates that are more in line with what recruiters are willing to pay. Only time will tell.

Employees, not executives, making $2M base?? I'm in tech and I call total bullshit on that figure. I've seen the Compensia data and that's at least C-Level. And at that career stage, you're working with select executive search firms, not random recruiters and startups.

We live in interesting times: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-google-programmer-blew-off-a-500000-salary-at-startup--because-hes-already-making-3-million-every-year-2014-1

Dude. Read your article - RSUs - that's where you're quoting $2M from and that requires committment from employees over the vesting period. It's not straight cash in your checking account every month.

The stock turns into cash if he sticks it out per the terms of the RSO program. His compensation is very high. It'd take quite the offer to get him to move.

But isn't a concern for employees at that level that they don't want to appear to be actively interested in opportunities at different companies? My sense is that having an account on June would be of the same animal as having a profile on Monster: getting caught out, whether by your company's hiring operation or employees you manage, could be disastrous.

Edit: I saw in another thread that you compared being on June as being the same as being on LinkedIn. Not true--a lot of people have LinkedIn profiles who have no intention of talking to recruiters or searching for possible opportunities. The site's managed to create a niche where lots of people use it as a way to set up industry-specific informational interviews in their school's alumni network, stay in touch with colleagues, and provide clarity on their trajectory so that people are less frequently coming into meetings "blind." Some people use it as a job-seeking tool--but it's not associated as one in a lot of people's heads.

You don't have to activate your account for job searching unless you want to. We don't have any way for recruiters to search for you by name. There isn't much risk to being on the platform unless your employer is paranoid. If that's such a big risk you probably don't want to work there anyway. Obviously though there are going to be people who disagree with my sentiments and won't be June users.

We are a brand new platform that will be collecting data on calls to help our users by suggesting rates that are more in line with what recruiters are willing to pay. Only time will tell.

Okay, that's understandable, but you have to have some sort of estimates and predictions - otherwise you wouldn't be starting a business around this.

We have set the lowest rate at $60.00 for Candidates to sell their time on our marketplace. Anything above that is up to the candidate. Personally, I think anything above $150.00 is going to be a tough sell to a recruiter unless you have a lot to offer.

okay, interesting. I would agree with those ranges.

To me, from a candidate side, those numbers just simply aren't high enough to fix the problem you've presented (high quality, top talent candidates don't respond to recruiters). I would expecting many of those guys to be making $100k+ per year and looking for a significant change in either compensation or role. It seems like $150 isn't going to be enough to convince them to have a talk unless they're already planning to change.

Here are a couple things that I think this model looks over and you could look to address. If I were a top candidate that you describe in your problem statement, here are the things I would be worried about.

• When will I talk? I can't do it during work hours. Does that mean I need to take a half-day off?
  
• What if my current employer discovers I'm looking for a new job, even though I'm not very interested in switching? That may significantly impact me.
• Great, if I get an interview, I"m going to need to polish up my resume. It's not terrible, but I'd much rather spend time with my friends for family.
• What if they want to interview me? Do I need to take time off to do it? If I don't get the job or an attractive offer, I'll have just taken time off for no reason.

I think you have an interesting model, but I think it really overlooks some significant concerns in regards to the problem statement you've laid out for attracting top talent. I'm not saying this to rip on you. I think it's great that you are trying to solve this problem, but I truly believe you have not solved the true reasons why candidates don't accept new job prospects.

This isn't supposed to be a replacement for a Candidate's day job, it's not supposed to be supplemental income either. It's a way to hear from Recruiters whenever a Candidate sees fit and at a price both parties think is acceptable. We expect most of these calls to be short, under 30 minutes long, not a full interview but rather a "Job Pitch". As a Candidate, charging the Recruiter for your time gives you an incentive to take a call, the June platform requires both parties schedules a call.
1. We have a scheduling feature that works with both parties to determine a mutually agreed upon time, then generates a conference call bridge for both sides to call into.
2. If your employer has an issue with you being on a system like June then they probably have an issue with your LinkedIn page. Who would want to work there? The good news is that in today's job market if you are in Tech you can find another job rather quickly. 3. Then don't take a call. You can choose to reject any call requests that come through June. 4. You can say no to an interview request. The call through June is a "Job Pitch" where they try and convince you to come work for them. This is like pitching an investor as a startup, except the startup doesn't pay the investor for their time.

Even if we aren't perfect, I believe we are creating a much more amicable process for hiring professionals. We even have a blog post up on how broken the job search process is today: http://blog.joinjune.com/the-job-search-process-is-broken-from-start-to-finish

what's the hardest about starting a business?

I think it's a mix of finding both the right people and the right idea.

Sometimes, although rarely, a great idea can be enough for a business to succeed despite the people involved. Usually these companies fail shortly after their initial success though.

Businesses get started all the time that succeed with old ideas used by other companies but with better execution because of the people involved. Investors already know to invest in people, not ideas.

Sorry if this is explained on your site but what stops a candidate from listening to pitches all day long with no intention of making a career change?

We have a couple of layers of protection.

1. Candidates get paid 30 days after a call is completed, this is not a replacement for a day job.
2. Recruiters see the number of calls a Candidate has taken over the last 90 days before they decide to pay for a call.
3. Candidates who want to be paid for their calls have to provide their SSN to June for us to report earnings to the IRS, this also means they can't create multiple accounts to bypass the other protections.
4. After each call both parties have to leave feedback for one another. This will allow June to aggregate a score and provide feedback on the platform for both Candidates and Recruiters. For the first time you will know if the Recruiter you are talking with is competent and professional before you get on a call.

[deleted]

That's really not up to us. In order to comply with the laws of the United States paying Contractors we have to collect this. We do not require a SSN to sign up. We only require it when you want to get paid.

Wow. Very interesting. What is the pricing model?

Candidates set a rate on the platform. Recruiters pay that rate to have a conference call generated by June. June takes 30% of the fee Candidates charge to Recruiters.

As somebody that has recently left university with a Bsc in Software Engineering, but with only two years previous experience working in the sector- Is this platform suitable for somebody like me?

Additionally, how likely is it that companies and recruiters are going to adopt this platform as an alternative to their current methods?

Thanks in advance.

Top talent is a loose term. It really differs by the needs of each organization. If you have a tech background you should apply. Especially if you have work you have published even as a student.

The best comparison I can offer is from real world experience. I know a developer we will call Ralph. Ralph is by all accounts a great developer who passes all the competency tests organizations use to assess talent. Ralph has no trouble getting hired at a company I'll call Acme, Inc. He was put on a team with a girl we will call Jessica. Jessica was the project manager and he was responsible for delivering the results she expected. Unfortunately Ralph doesn't like to talk to people. He took the feature requirements and built the product. It infuriated Jessica that Ralph hadn't discussed the project requirements beforehand. After some internal debate they fired Ralph from Acme, Inc. because of his lack of communication. To Acme, Inc. Ralph was a Bozo.

Within a week Ralph had another job with a company we will call InnoTech, Inc. run by a guy named Frank. Frank hated having to talk with his developers. He wanted them to be free thinkers. Within a month of being at InnoTech, Inc. Ralph had been promoted. He was the Top Talent that Frank had been looking for!

Moral of the story is that to some companies you might be a bozo, to other companies you might be Top Talent!

What problem are you solving/what's the challenge you're overcoming by paying candidates?

The cost of hiring is really high. We have seen statistics that show it now costs $26k to hire someone for an $80k/year job before you pay to train them. That's not sustainable especially when Millennials want to change jobs every 2-3 years. Something has to lower the cost of hiring. I believe compensating candidates is the best way to approach hiring for qualified people.

We have seen statistics that show it now costs $26k to hire someone for an $80k/year job before you pay to train them.

Can you cite those? I run an IT company and pay ~20/hour. It costs me about 200 dollars of my time to find a new employee. Your claim seems spurious and silly, especially that you aren't in a field that requires any level of certification. Juggling resumes does not strike me as 80k/year work in the first place...

I started this IAMA without expecting much so I didn't prepare the sources to cite but I Googled real quickly on the True Cost of Hiring and found this link: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonhesse/2014/10/30/here-is-the-true-cost-of-hiring-an-employee/

Small companies tend to rely on referrals which are free or cheap. As a company grows it become impossible to scale with referrals and the true cost of hiring sets in.

What is the current cost of recruiting and how does your platform impact that? Is "JoinJune" more affordable or expensive?

The current cost of recruiting fluctuates depending on the role but an average agency recruiter charges between 20% and 35% of the candidates first year salary to help you recruit talent into your organization. That means on the low end of the pole a recruiter charges a company $30k USD to fill a $150k/year role.

Even for a low wage $8/hour employee it costs a company around $3,500 according to some of the statistics we have seen.

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0711/the-cost-of-hiring-a-new-employee.aspx

June should lower the cost and time required to recruit talent. It will give companies more budget back in their pockets to help employ more people. We believe it will also help smaller companies compete with bigger institutions by helping them get their message to top talent which is something they struggle with every day.

OP's assessment of recruiting fees is misleading. 20-35% is for a retained structure where the recruiter gets paid regardless if a person the suggest is the person actually hired. Contingency firmS get paid if the person the recommend is hired and they work for 10-20%. On top of that many firms give clients volume deals on the percentage take.

Good recruiters don't need to pay a candidate to hear about a new opportunity. Strong recruiters are really good at matching up qualifications and experience to job requirements and culture and angling the opportunity to sell it to a candidate.

It seems like the people this will attract at people wanting to be paid for hearing about jobs they won't take or appeal to refugees who spam people with jobs they are not a strong fit for.

Good recruiters charge for their time and spend a lot of time finding quality candidates. The best recruiters are able to communicate the details about a job effectively convincing a Candidate to talk with their customer (the Employer).

I've seen recruiters work on a 3% contingency fee in the past. They just weren't good at their job. The best recruiters I've seen charge 20%-35% of a first year salary as a contingency fee for their time.

How do you feel about tech's impact on the City of San Francisco (driving rental prices below affordability, crowding out low wage workers, etc.)?

Its sad to see the decay of San Francisco happening. I live in Chicago but I've been to the Bay Area frequently over the last decade and it's got serious homeless and cleanliness problems. I hope the residents of San Francisco realize they can't create an app to solve all that.

What's your view on Holacracy?

I tilt my hat to Tony Hsieh for trying it at Zappos. We are not using such a new structure at June, though like at most startups each member of our team wears many hats.

Ninjas or Pirates?

Pirates. I even flew the Jolly Roger in my living room at one time.

I'm a kid in high school looking to start a business. I'm currently teaching myself Web Development.

What would you say, as a kid in school, would be the most difficult part of starting a company?

Nothing is hard about starting a company. Everything is hard when it comes to growing and building the company.

Ben Horowitz says it best in his book "The Hard Thing about Hard Things". To be good at being a CEO you have to learn on the job.

The hardest part about that in my opinion is that you can make some really big mistakes in the process. It's important to realize though that everyone makes mistakes, that you can overcome them, and that being polite and persistent is the best way to get to your goals.

The best thing you can do to grow your business and your network is to end every call you have with a couple of quick questions. What are your needs today? And, how can I help you?

Winners get to their goals because others help them get there.

Do you have any other books to recommend to me?

I typically recommend, The Way Google Works, Rework, The Clean Coder, and The Steve Jobs Way.

How about on psychology, or dealing with people in general?

I just re-read your last comment and realized you were asking about another book recommendation on these topics. That's my bad for not realizing this when I saw your post. I thought you were asking if we were going to enter those industries for helping companies hire in those fields.

I'm a believer in the "trust but verify" mantra for management. Find good people you can delegate to but verify they are doing the work the way you as the CEO set the vision.

At this time we are focused on people who have technical backgrounds or have worked for technology companies. We love hearing about other industries that demand this kind of service. Feedback thus far has told us that many industries are interested in having such a tool at their disposal. Recently I was told how hard it is to even recruit Chef's.

Feel free to follow us on www.Facebook.com/gojoinjune or www.Twitter.com/gojoinjune for more updates.

It appears that you HAVEN'T read anything on people skills. Thanks for the responses to my questions though, except for that last one. That felt like a computer responded to me.

I promise I'm real! I'm just a big nerd who uses Reddit too much!

Can I have a job?

We are helping major companies with their recruiting efforts. The first company to agree to use our platform was Amazon and that was before we even launched. We are talking with several hundred other companies at this time. If you want a job, and you have a technical background, sign up!

Why should I sign up for your service instead of using sites like angel.co?

Also, are you only placing devs, or are you open to other positions like operations, marketing, design, etc?

We place all positions so long as you have worked for a tech company. We appreciate the feedback everyone has been giving on here. We are going to adjust the messaging on the homepage to make that more clear.

Angel.co is a great place to learn more about companies that are hiring and to apply for jobs. June is for people who aren't necessarily looking for a job. We are here to represent passive talent that is already employed.

Do you have any preliminary data on how many recruiters are actually using your service?

It sounds like they're having to do all the legwork already by searching through your system, trying to vet candidates, and then on top of that have to pay a minimum of $60 (or potentially much more) to even have a conversation to let them know a job exists.

It'd be different if the charge were for making an offer as things would have progressed to the point where it is worth spending a small amount of money to try to close a deal with a high commission for the recruiter.

But given the volume recruiters throw jobs at people, I can't fathom any of them using this with any frequency. Particularly given many people who are on job sites aren't actively looking and are just there "in case."

As of this writing we have over 300 hundred companies all with recruiters ready to use the platform. Everyone from startups to some of the biggest names in business. One of the first customers we had agree to use the platform was Amazon and that was before we even launched. Basically, every single corporation and every recruiting agency that we have approached has agreed to use the platform. It is the first thing I have ever heard of offered that wasn't free and had 100% market adoption.

The Chicago Tribune covered our launch and interviewed a couple of different companies, they managed to find an owner of a mobile development company who said he didn't like the idea.

www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/originals/ct-june-lane-campbell-bsi-20150820-story.html

Recruiting isn't free or cheap. Most companies are paying a recruiter to source candidates, paying for all the job board postings, paying for the ATS system, then committing to the labor for that department's hiring manager to interview the candidates. June is a direct shot to the talent cutting out the other systems.

Took a look and had two questions:

1. So far on the site it stated you were just looking for technical engineering candidates. As someone who transitioned from an architect into management, when do you anticipate expanding up the chain?

2. I'd feel much safer not giving you my social, our really much of anything beyond what people would find on linked in. Have you considered an option where I can just bank any fees and then just donate my accumulated funds to a charity like the FSF? I imagine you require the social for the 1099 disbursement, which means I wouldn't have to give it until I wanted to cash out, but since I got stopped at the audience message I didn't run any further.

1. Yes we are accepting anyone who has worked for a tech company not just people who are technical. We are going to update the messaging on the website.
   
2. You do not need to give your social to sign up. Only when you want to get paid. It's not a limitation we imposed, it's a rule imposed by the United States Government.
   
3. Yes we intend to integrate some charitable organizations as options to donate your proceeds to instead of getting paid yourself.
   

How does your business differ from the failed business plan of NotchUp, who paid developers $200 to $500 for every interview they attended?

NotchUp had a couple of big issues. They raised money for the idea and they spent it wrong. Their model required hiring employees who were recruiting candidates for their clients. They had a lot of cost associated with performing such services but not enough revenue/profit to support the business. June is a fully automated platform that has much lower overhead. June is comprised of a global team with no intention of opening an office. We are going to run lean, that means we have no intention of hiring recruiters to bring talent to the platform.

In another analogy I could liken their failure to that of Friendster which famously failed even though it was well funded while Facebook succeeded.

Can you somehow redirect all the recruiters I get coming at me via LinkedIn to these paid requests? :-)

I get about 20-30 communications from recruiters per week, via email, LinkedIn and phone. I ignore most all of them. I just signed up on your site. I'll be interested to see what you have going.

Yes! We are very shortly launching a private URL service you will be able to send to recruiters so they can opt to sign up and pay to talk with you. On June we want Candidates to get treated fairly so Recruiters are required to create a profile. Recruiters are held accountable on June for the way they interact with Candidates. Candidates make them accountable because they leave feedback after each call.

I'd love to help you convert all those recruiters to dollars in your pocket. I'm sure a few of them are legit and you may even be interested in what they are offering.

Tech question: I noticed that you guys are using React on the client side. Why are you not just rendering your site on the server side for better SEO? Most of the content on your static pages is not dynamic anyways.

As for your product itself, I get contacted on a regular basis from recruiters and I can't tell the good opportunities from the bad ones. What differentiates June from recruiters on linked in? Do recruiters have "merit"?

Thanks for the great questions!

1. We are indeed using REACT for our current iteration of the platform. We consider this an MVP that will be seeing rapid improvement over the coming weeks/months.
   
2. At this point you get paid regardless of how professional the recruiters behave. After each call we ask you to leave feedback on the recruiter. This will allow us to aggregate a score and provide a rank for recruiters. June will be the first platform to provide a ranking system for recruiters.

Will you hire me?

At this time June isn't hiring (we launched 5 days ago), but if you have a tech background you should sign up and see if one of our clients is looking for you.

I have worked in the IT industry for some years, I am younger and currently am involved as a customer service director position for an ISP. Is this for technical positions only? How could someone like myself utilize this platform. I work and have only for tech companies providing CS management so this is why I ask.

I highly recommend you visit the website and apply, be sure to fill out the second page of the application with your LinkedIn and/or any other information about yourself. Having worked for a technology company you have a strong chance for getting on the platform.

A good friend and fellow student of mine started EmployUs not too long ago, with the same goal of improving a very difficult to navigate system. http://www.employus.co/ Any thoughts on their approach vs yours, and if you see them as competition vs. a completely different solution?

There are a number of companies that offer rewards when a job is filled. We are the worlds first platform that offers compensation regardless of if you take the job.

How much compensation? You set the rate! If the market agree's that it's reasonable then you get paid to hear a job offer. Simple as that.

We take no contingency fee for hiring, so after the call companies don't have to pay June if they hire someone through our platform.

What is your pricing structure to recruiters? What are charging them to use the platform?

They can search for free with a basic search that only enables searching by skill and location. Paid search options start at $500/month that enable searching for candidates on everything from education and certifications to all the other information we collect about candidates.

Is this available in other countries outside of the USA (aka. Canada, Australia, UK)?

We have companies interested in using it throughout the world. One of the first companies to onboard recruiters was in the UK. Some of the terminology is USA specific but we will fix this in the coming weeks. Pardon our dust in the meantime!