RecruitiFi Wants You to Tap Into Someone Else’s Surplus Candidates

recruitifiRecruitiFi is one of many new companies (see the bottom of this post) that you may not know of yet, one that wants you to send out listings for jobs to a group of recruiters who may help you fill ’em.

You send out a JobCast, as it’s called, to a list of recruiters that can be sorted by location, industry, and more. It goes to up to 250 recruiters at a time; 5 to 10 percent recruiters respond “within 48 hours with several great candidates,” says Marketing Director Norman Clausen.

Recruiters send you back information — like a resume, LinkedIn profile, and notes — on up to four candidates (assuming they’ve gotten an OK from the candidates). If you end up hiring one, you pay 12 percent of the first year’s salary.

It is, Clausen says, “a crowd-sourced talent acquisition platform that seeks to create serendipitous matches between employers with open positions, and third party, expert recruiters who have ideal candidates who they have not yet placed.”

Article Continues Below

RecruitiFi launched privately in December in New York, where it’s focusing its efforts right now. It’s privately funded, and has nine employees, working on both U.S. coasts. More here.

Speaking of more … I promised above a rundown of few other newer companies; I’m betting there’s at least one you haven’t heard of yet.

  • Quietly building customers — about 125 so far, after raising about $6 million — is UrbanBound. It’s in the relocation business, handling it on the web, out of Chicago.
  • A new job site,, is for experienced job seekers in Canada.
  • RXinsider is a technology company involved in mobile recruiting products with an emphasis on continuing education.
  • is an online assessment tool.
  • Jobscan is for candidates to optimize their resumes.


16 Comments on “RecruitiFi Wants You to Tap Into Someone Else’s Surplus Candidates

  1. Todd there is a new offering called Scout ( that is pretty interesting. The concept is an electronic marketplace with the major corporate ATS on one side (Kenexa, Taleo, JobVite) and the major third party recruiting platforms on the other side (PCRecruiter and Bullhorn). The solution uses advanced analytics to suggest matches based on recruiter history, and this is key: Scout handles the financial end of getting recruiters paid, and recruiters can bid on the searches- like any working marketplace, price discovery is one of the results. The company is well-backed- not a shoestring operation by any means. We don’t bite on just any integration opportunity- this one struck our fancy and we think it may have some legs.

  2. Todd,

    1. Is there a mechanism embedded in this process that prevents multiple recruiters sending the same candidate/recruit?

    It can’t be said candidates/recruits ‘know better’ than to be represented by more than one recruiter because we know this is not one hundred percent true so I am curious to know if a company can, using this platform, be sent multiple resumes on the same candidate/recruit.

    Are resumes sent pre-screened to be sure they have not already been sent to a client?

    2. Can you print or post a copy of the Fee/Referral Agreement here?

    3. Would you explain this:

    “…expert recruiters who have ideal candidates who they have not yet placed…” could refer to both active and passive recruits.

    It could be said that ‘qualified professionals’ we’ve not even spoken with could be “candidates….we have not yet placed”.

    Not sure if this is sales hype or refers to some distinction in the recruitment process of which I am not aware.


  3. Hey Paul–I think I can field some of those questions.

    1. There is an embedded mechanism that’s very effective at preventing duplicate submissions. However, in the unlikely scenario that a candidate is submitted twice with totally different, but still valid information, the placement would be awarded to the recruiter who first submitted the candidate. This is expressly stated in the site’s terms.

    2. As for the Fee/Referral Agreement, the terms are pretty straightforward, but in the interest of being somewhat succinct, I can redirect you here: If there are any specific questions, I’d be more than happy to revisit the topic.

    3. To answer your question about passive recruiting–every candidate is not only notified, but must confirm their interest in a position prior to being submitted. This ensures that employers are always receiving candidates that are actively engaged in pursuing their open position.

    The thought behind the statement that we “make matches between employers and recruiters who have candidates who they have not yet placed,” refers more to the serendipitous nature of our system.

    Often times you have the perfect candidate, but can’t find their perfect job. Or you’ve recently completed a successful retained or contingency search where you’re left with several amazing candidates, but have nowhere to place them. You quickly run the risk of losing these candidates to outside opportunities, and with them, you lose all of the time and effort you’ve expended to vet them.

    By giving employers the ability to invite 250 recruiters to each JobCast, we greatly increase the opportunity to create that perfect match. Employers get a more suitable candidate, and recruiters get access to many more placement opportunities that literally knock on their door. This allows recruiters to streamline some of their more tedious and time-consuming efforts to find clients.

    I hope that answers some of your questions, Paul. If you have anymore, I’m happy to answer. Thanks for your interest!

  4. Thank you, Mr. Clausen.

    Only one question, #2:

    1. I see there is no Guarantee Period. Seeing as a recruiter would only receive a third of their standard recruitment fee I suppose this is only fair.

    2. I did not see a ‘due date’ for payment by a hiring company. I recently declined to recruit for six to eight or so positions for a company based on the fact their payment schedule is sixty days, entirely unacceptable.

    Thanks again.

  5. You’re very astute, Paul. We’ve changed our terms to include more specifics about payment, and these changes should be reflected tomorrow when the development team makes routine site updates.

    There is a 30-day guarantee period. We bill the employer in full upon hire, payable in net 15 days to us. Payment is then passed in full to the recruiter 30 days after hire, provided that the candidate is still actively employed by the company. If for whatever reason the candidate is not with the company in 30 days, we offer to either refund the payment or continue the JobCast at no additional cost until the position is filled.

    Thanks again for your questions. I’m always happy to answer.

  6. Mr. Clausen…

    So you have changed your policy? As a result of my questions, above?

    “There are no guarantees by RecruitiFi or the recruiter of any length of tenure of the hired candidate. All fees, as outlined above, are due in full, regardless of when or why the candidate’s employment with the company terminates.”

    And now that has changed to a ’30 day Guarantee’ and you now withhold payment to the recruiter for 30 days pending the expiration of the Guarantee period instead of your “Once RecruitiFi is able to process the payment…”?

    And “net 30” has/will be changed to “net 15 days”?

    Meaning RecruitiFi withholds payment for the duration of the Guarantee period and ends up not paying the fee at all if the hired candidate quits or is terminated prior to 31 days of employment.

    So, even if the client pays ‘promptly’ you will still withhold payment to the recruiter 30 days.

    Norman, you do know, don’t you, that the recruitment fee is legally due the recruiter even if the hired candidate quits or is terminated prior to the expiration of the Guarantee period? This would apply IF it had not been stated in advance a refund is offered in this event.

    Many, I’d like to say most but I won’t, contingency search firms do not offer refunds.

    So not only do recruiters only get paid one third of a normal recruitment fee, their payment is withheld thirty days and they are bound to refund the fee (which you handle) in the event of a quit or termination prior to 31 days of employment.

    Can’t tell you what I think of contingency recruiters who will accept one third of a standard recruitment fee- Todd here wouldn’t like it and he’d be inclined to send me another one of his notes. I’m inclined to think these ‘hungry’ recruiters are small mom-and-pop shops with no more overhead than it takes to keep their kitchen lights on.

    Well, it does sound like you owe me a box of cigars, Norman.

    If you can’t send a box, be a sport and send a five pack from . My address is listed at my LI Profile and I would prefer: HOYO DE MONTERREY DARK SUMATRA EBANO

    Thanks and You’re Welcome, Mr. Clausen.

  7. Paul, I appreciate your comments. I assure you that you in no way influenced our policies, these changes were already queued to be posted, but unfortunately web development doesn’t post as quickly as a business evolves.

    To clarify, we provide recruiters with opportunities to increase their placement volume without taking the burden of selling employers on their individual services. We greatly streamline the recruiting process by providing opportunities that literally knock on a recruiter’s door, while allowing them to capitalize on work they’ve done to source and vet candidates before they lose them to competing opportunities.

    If you would like to discuss further, feel free to reach out to me directly at info at recruitifi dot com. Thanks for your interest, Paul.

  8. Hi,

    I’m the Founder of and thank you for sharing our site.

    Jobscan was built to help double job seekers’ interview chances by automatically analyzing their resumes and job descriptions and providing feedback.

    Interestingly, a few recruiters reached out and I realized it’s also a resource for recruiters in two areas:
    1. Analyzing the candidates’ match to specific jobs in a graphical format
    2. Jobscan now has accumulated 10,000+ resumes that aren’t yet available to the public.

    If any recruiters is interested in learning more. Feel free to contact me directly at

    Also, I’d also be curious in how Jobscan can improve to help recruiters.


  9. Mr. Clausen,

    Thanks for your response…

    The advantages as you describe them do not, IMO, take the place of giving up twenty to thirty percent of a recruiting fee; recruiters who endeavor ‘live off of’ your client base are doing so in spite of the fact it is always best to be constantly prospecting for new clients for all the usual Best Practices reasons.

    You would reply by suggesting a mix of prospecting and feeding the RecruitiFi client base and although I would not find fault with that, giving away 20% to 30% of one’s fee for a quick buck dilutes the earning power of the rest of the contingency executive search consultant population.

    For example, it is a shame you choose to cut deeply into search fees in favor of an alternative offering/benefit to the employer such as suggesting quick fill time.

    Rapid fill time is money saved and productivity captured. A model where you select recruiters based on their ability to respond to a search in rapid fashion instead of being willing to give their money away would, IMO, preserve recruiting fees and enhance the quality of the recruiter base who serve your client base.

    Clearly, this would be a win-win for both parties and would also see to it that only the most qualified recruiters would be participants in your program.

    Part of the reason for my suggestion is because those search consultants who are adept at quick fill are more than likely going to be those who carefully screen their recruits for suitability/fit and finish.

    Subsequently, there would be less of a fall-out rate amongst your clients.

    Your intent is to bring in recruitment fees whereas my interest here is in seeing the profession of executive search be as professionally executed as possible.

    I am not debating with you; I’ve seen your model before, elsewhere. I am just putting in my two cents.


  10. Norman,


    Quick fill would be based on search consultants having a data base of highly qualified candidates on file who are waiting for the ‘next best’ opportunity vs. a recruiter doing a fast recruit job and tossing that person into the mix and hoping s/he sticks.

    It would be helpful to know what your fall-out rate is.

    From the comments I’ve heard here at ERE about candidates who make it just past the Guarantee period, I would think that stickiness would be a relevant metric.

    Otherwise, clients would be thinking twice about using your service.

    It should be stated that executive search is not necessarily about ‘filling a position’ so much as helping a company build an infrastructure of ‘highly qualified’ people who have the capacity to both fill the shoes of today’s needs as well as be able to grow into the long-term needs of the organization.

    Keeping this in mind, it becomes more clear why it is important to not cater to amateur search consultants who are mostly only interested in the quick buck. From your model, there appears to be no accountability past the thirty day Guarantee which, by the way, is only about one third the length of time than is traditional for our business.

    Do you have a Quality Control program so as to be able to screen out recruiters who consistently send you candidates who do not last a reasonable duration of their employment?

    Are you even tracking this?

    Naturally, search agents who send you candidates who last only long enough to exceed a mere thirty days are not doing your company any favors.

    And, by the way, how much does your “net of any transaction fees” amount to?

    Are these fees your venue for profitability?

    How much of the 12% recruitment fee is your ‘transaction fee’?

    Thank You.

  11. Mr. Clausen….

    Hello, again.

    In case you are wondering/In case everyone here is wondering…

    There are no mechanisms for self-policing the Employment Agency and Executive Search businesses.

    The Bullhorn Survey recently posted here at ERE proves this.

    So, part of my interest is in seeing if a Quality Control mechanism can be embedded into programs such as yours.

    Yes, the ‘CPC’ and ‘SPHR’ designations go a long way toward identifying motivated individuals but do not insure competency in Search.

    Keeping in mind the Bullhorn survey posted here at ERE, showing for example an unacceptable percentile of incomplete searches, it is important to me -as a professional in the executive search business- that checkpoints for integrity be built into the search process whenever possible.

    Elevating the barrier to entry to the contingency search business elevates my status with [potential] clients.

    Your thirty day Guarantee is an example of a system that asks for the minimum possible performance expectations of a search consultant.

    Alternately, a three or four month Guarantee would be a value added benefit that would probably increase your client population and would at the same time provide a built-in QC factor by insuring only the most qualified search agents are participating in your program.

    Frankly, whenever I see a ’30 day’ Guarantee I know automatically that person/entity is making a bare-bones promise for fulfillment.

    Speaking for myself, I provide a ninety day Guarantee but when on occasion I’ve been asked to extend that to one hundred twenty days I have done so, calculating that since my placements are reasonably assured of being medium to long term there is no danger to me by extending the length of my Guarantee.

    I’ve gone so far as to suggest, jokingly, I would be happy to extend my Guarantee to six months but for the fact you never know when that bus, coming around the corner, is going to come by and, well, you know.

    By extending your Guarantee, you would be building a corp of high performance recruiters and would also be screening out quick-buck recruiters who have no loyalty to your process.

    That ‘high performance corp’ could be put into a ‘primary tier’ of search agents. As such, they could be paid at a higher rate than (Ugh!) twelve percent. Your clients would pay slightly (!) more but would be more assured of long term success in having hired their particular recruits.

    There are more possibilities here than you are allowing for with your ‘thirty day’ Guarantee and a pond of recruiters who are breaking the surface, waiting for some crumbs of TetraMin.

  12. Really?
    Nothing more enjoyable than chasing the same carrot as 250 other rabbits.
    I remember the first time this inane concept came out : we called it VMS.
    Sounds like another quick fix that delivers results to the end client by playing both ends against the middle; and leaving a Hell of a lot of collateral damage in it’s wake.

    Ideas like this have destroyed the industry.

    RW Stoufus

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *