Doesn’t it just P*** you off when corporate companies have a complete disregard to their clients. Here we have the perfect example of “biting off the hand that feeds you”, except in this case the Guardian are trying to keep it quiet, because they are placing our candidates to our competitors.
Fortunately John Reilly the MD of Reilly People spotted this and has brought it to my attention, and rightly so he is very annoyed!
For some reason the Guardian thinks it is ethical to set up their own recruitment company, using all the candidates that where generated from the revenues, artwork and creativity supplied by us the recruiter.
Obviously as John is a customer of the Guardian it makes more sense to get his take on the situation, which is below:
The Guardian job board competing with recruiters with the help of our money
It has emerged that five months ago The Guardian set up an ‘Emerging Revenues’ group, which pitches out candidates from its database, the database that we pay to attract candidates to, and arranges interviews for a fee, effectively acting as a recruitment agency and thereby competing against its clients.
When I, as a recruitment agent, pay to advertise a job on Guardian.co.uk and a candidate responds, they are invited to post their CV on the Guardian database as well as send it to me, the advertiser. Since approx five months ago, these CVs have been used as a basis for The Guardianâ€™s own recruitment â€˜agencyâ€™ unbeknownst to many of their advertisers. So although I’ve paid to attract the candidate, they are now not only replying to me but also to a competitor. I have been paying to load a competitor’s database and the CVs my ads have attracted can be potentially pitched to my clients and potential clients.
This has implications for direct advertisers also. They may get a response from an ideal candidate only to find he or she may have alternative job opportunities presented to them also.
I am very disappointed by this and feel that a moral line has been crossed. The Guardian has continued to take my money without letting me know that their business model had changed and they would use the CVs I paid to attract to compete against me.
I agreed to pay The Guardian on the basis it is a job board and not a recruitment agency. Reed.co.uk has always done this of course but we all know they are recruiters and their site has been free of charge. The Guardian is charging us and then competing against us, so the terms ‘cake’ and ‘eat it’ come to mind. Recruiters like me have paid very significant sums to help launch and support the Guardian internet job board and to get it to this point. To have that board now bite, rather than support the recruitment industry in very tough times smacks of sharp practice to me and is capitalism of the most ruthless sort. How exactly does that chime with the Guardian’s editorial stance and brand image?
All Guardian advertisers, agency and direct, need to raise concerns about this. Response to ads we pay for ought to be private.
I am sure there are a few who will agree with JohnÂ´s sentiments and if so feel free to comment.