REDEFINING COMPETITION

ABHI

Date: 23/06/05 (1)

Diagram: A 2x2 matrix with:

• Y-axis: Corporate Subscribers (Client-Base) (Low, Med, High)
• X-axis: Job Advts Posted (Low, Medium, High)

	Low	Medium	High
High			Monster, Naukri, Jobs Ahead (Small No. of Jobsites)
Med		Jobsstreet
Low	Large No. of Jobsites

 

Conclusion:

• Using 10:90 rule, it is obvious that a large no. of jobsites are in the "LOW/LOW" corner. They have very few clients posting very few advts.
• Since jobsites derive nearly all of their revenues from Corporate-clients, it is equally obvious that these jobsites will be VERY amenable/willing to join VEE, if VEE can offer them 2 solutions, which will get them, many more "paying" clients.

Q: What (feature of these jobsites) would attract/motivate to

• Subscribe to such jobsites
• Post their advts.

Ans:

Corporates would subscribe and post their advts on only those jobsites where, they know that a very large no. of jobseekers visit regularly for jobsearch.

It is obvious that a jobseeker would visit - and conduct jobsearches - Only on those jobsites where he has posted his resume.

Corollary

If any jobsite has many more resumes posted on it, then, those are also the jobsites, more visited by jobseekers (for jobsearch).

Conclusion

Hence, unless Corporates are satisfied that a particular jobsite has thousands of resumes - and therefore, likely to have thousands of daily job-searches, - these Corporates are unlikely to post their job-advts on that site.

Conclusion

Therefore a jobsite would have to prove/satisfy its "potential" Corporate clients that

• It has a very large resume database

and

• A large no. of jobseekers DO conduct thousands of jobsearches on it daily

Therefore

• "If you post your job-advt on my site, it will get noticed/discovered by a large no. of job-seekers, who will then "Apply online" to you. You will get a huge response."

How can a jobsite prove these points to a Corporate Visitor?

• By displaying on its homepage 2 Counters :
• No. of Active Jobseekers (Resumes Database) [Blank box]
• Daily Ave. No. of Jobsearches conducted [Blank box]

[Combined fig. of all jobsites participating in VEE]

If these counters show impressive numbers, then Corporates will get attracted.

And, of course, to begin with, we will populate these counters with our own resume database of 4/5 lakh jobseekers!

On top of that, before launch of VEE, if we succeed in downloading 5/7 lakh resumes from Monster then our counter can show a very "respectable" fig. of 10/12 lakhs!

Such a fig. would put VEE in 3rd position, behind Monster & Naukri.

But getting Corporates interested in just posting their job-advts (on any partner jobsite) is still, a PASSIVE approach.

A Corporate HR manager thinks,

"Sure! If I post my job-advt on your website, it may get noticed, it may get discovered by those jobseekers who conduct a jobsearch. So, it is a matter of chance/luck.

But, for each jobseeker who visits and conducts a jobsearch, there maybe 10 others, who don't bother to log-in regularly, and conduct jobsearches. They will never get to see my job-advt!"

Therefore, although I will post my advt. in the hope of getting discovered by those 10%, I am interested in reaching out to the remaining 90%.

Pro-actively, I want to "discover" them! - by conducting a "Resume-Search" on your database / shortlisting suitable resume / contacting them / offering them jobs.

And I would/could do all of these only if you have a large resume-database that I can search. That is where 90% passive jobseekers are hiding (Those, who are not actively conducting job-searches).

Because, they are not going to discover me! I have to discover them!

So, I am less interested in posting a job-advt.

But

I am much more interested in conducting a resume-search.

And I am willing to pay for resume-search

CONCLUSIONS

• A corporate is more interested in... (The text is cut off here)

... Resume Search & less in job-advt posting

• He will subscribe to "Resume-Search" (and be willing to pay for it) if there is a large resume database
• He does not want to shortlist, same guy again & again, during each resume-search (- something that is bound to happen if the resume-database remains STATIC/STAGNANT/SAME SIZE).
• He wants to discover newer & newer faces, during each search.

This could only happen if the resume database keeps GROWING RAPIDLY.

And VEE's resume database cannot "grow" rapidly, unless all partner jobsites contribute to that growth - by making available their resumes to the COMMON/CONSOLIDATED pool.

Even if VEE rule/condition, does not insist that a partner contribute (to the common pool), his PAST/EXISTING/CURRENT database of resumes,

this rule must insist that, from... (The text is cut off here)

... the day a jobsite enrolls as a "partner", whatever resumes get posted thereafter, MUST/WILL form part of common pool.

Let us examine

Diagram: A 2x2 matrix similar to Scan_0001.jpg.

• Y-axis: Corporate Subscribers (Client-Base) (Low, Med, High)
• X-axis: No. of Resumes Posted (Low, Medium, High)

	Low	Medium	High
High			Monster, Naukri, Jobs Ahead (Some 3/4 jobsites)
Med
Low	40/50 Jobsites

 

This representation / visual is even much more true as compared to the visual on p:1.

Those 3/4 jobsites who have resume-databases running into a few millions are also the ones having largest no. of Corporate clients (-who want to conduct resume searches).

Next see, what could happen!

Diagram: A 2x2 matrix with a curve.

• Y-axis: No. of Clients (Low, High, Huge $\uparrow$)
• X-axis: No. of Resumes (Low, Med, High, Huge $\rightarrow$)

	Low	Med.	High	Huge
Huge			Monster/Naukri	VEE (Collectively)
High
Med
Low	Individually (30/40 Jobsites)

 

(A curve starts near "Low" on both axes (30/40 Jobsites) and moves up and right, past Monster/Naukri, ending at "VEE (Collectively)" in the Huge/Huge quadrant.)

Individually these 30/40 jobsites were no where - a mere speck on horizon - totally "ignorable" by giants like Monster/Naukri - not worth a second look!

No competition to Monster/Naukri!

As far as Corporates are concerned, these 30/40 jobsites do not merit a second look. These are NOT worth investing their time - effort - money!

But what happens when they choose to form a VEE?

Collectively / Unitedly, - and pooling together their resume databases (forget duplication!), they could overtake Monster/Naukri!

Now their Collective resume database could well rival those of... (The text is cut off here)

... Monster or Naukri. Such a collective resume database would be large enough to interest the Corporates - make them think seriously to subscribe to VEE. (- even though a Corporate cannot "directly" subscribe to VEE and can only subscribe to an individual jobsite).

But, still, in effect, a Corporate Subscriber of any partner jobsite has full/unrestrained "access" to the collective/common database of VEE.

Diagram: A lever diagram.

• Fulcrum (Pivot): Small triangle slightly closer to the right side.
• Left End: Resume Database of an individual jobsite (Small downward arrow with $\downarrow$ symbol).
• Right End: VEE's Collective Resume Database (Larger downward arrow with $\downarrow$ symbol).
• Leverage Line: Labeled "Membership Leverage" with an arrow pointing from the left side towards the right side/fulcrum.

What is the clear/unambiguous message?

• By Contributing its own/small resume database to VEE, a relatively marginal/unimportant jobsite, is able to leverage its "membership" a "thousand fold" in terms of attracting Corporates.

• Whereas, Individually, none of these insignificant jobsites could ever dream of competing with Monster/Naukri, now, collectively they could "take-on" anyone! Those, who, till yesterday were "underdogs" suddenly acquire respectability! This could be a powerful incentive/motivator to some of these smaller sites.
• By forming VEE, it is possible that market-share of partner job-site goes up.

Diagrams: Two pie charts.

BEFORE

• Chart: Slices labeled Monster and Naukri are significantly larger.
• Remaining area is broken into many small slices labeled Small Jobsites.

AFTER

• Chart: The slices for Monster and Naukri are smaller than before.
• A large new slice is labeled VEE Members.
• Remaining area is labeled Other/Non-Members.
• But, in trying to convince many small jobsites to join VEE, our more important/powerful argument will be:
• Each of you are, today fighting... (The text is cut off here)

with the rest of you (—never with Monster / Naukri, because there is no way you can).

Even after formation of VEE and your becoming a partner, you will still need to compete with the rest for attracting Corporate Clients. There is no running away from this fact.

But, VEE will expand the PIE!

Even if your market-share remains SAME (say 5%) as BEFORE, now this 5% means

Many more clients

Much higher subscription-revenue.

So, let us not fight on "gaining/losing" our individual market-share % to each others.

Rather, let us join hands to form VEE to increase the SIZE OF THE PIE.

How will this happen?

How will PIE grow bigger?

As of today, maybe, altogether there are no more than 5000 corporate-subscribers between all jobsites put together (including Monster + Naukri).

Maybe 4000 out of these 5000 are subscribing to Monster/Naukri (80:20 Rule).

But, if VEE is able to offer a viable/sizeable "alternative", with its collective resume matching those (databases) of Monster/Naukri,

But, at 50% subscription-rates (as compared to what Monster/Naukri are charging currently),

then,

two things will happen

Monster/Naukri may be forced to drop their subscription-rates

drastically (to meet competition from VEE), to prevent migration of their existing corporate subscribers to VEE.

and

Another 10,000 Corporates, who earlier never thought of using jobsites [for ad-posting/resume-searching] because of high subscription-rates, would now become subscribers (mostly of VEE).

E-recruitment PIE could very well double-or triple!

We just signed-up with Monster for job-posting + resume search for Rs. 1 lakh/year.

Even for a recruitment company like us (whose business entirely revolves around resume-search/job-posting), amount of Rs. 1 lakh was felt quite "high".

Then what about thousands and thousands of End-Employers, who need to appoint no more than 10 executives/year?

They don't need to post more than 10 job-ad- / year and/or conduct 10 resume-search per year.

Will they ever spend Rs. 1 lakh/year?

On the other hand,

for such "low usage" corporates, would Monster/Naukri agree for a subscription of Rs. 1000/- per year?

But, what would happen if VEE offers them

Rs. 100 for each job ad-posting

Rs. 100 for each resume-search

("Pay-per-use" instead of a huge/fixed time-based - annual-subscription).

Would not e-recruitment market EXPLODE?

Even your neighborhood "pharmacy-store" would happily post a job or conduct a resume search!

There are millions of such small businesses in India - who have never heard of Monster/Naukri

but, at such (pay-per-use) prices, they would hear about VEE!

Q: Who (which jobsites) would be willing to share/pool its own resume database with VEE?

Ans:

It is obvious that those who have least to lose but most to gain (by joining), will happily join.

These will be job-sites having a very small resume database... just not "enough to attract Corporates".

By joining VEE, now they are able to tell potential Clients

"Look, on my jobsite, you can conduct resume-search on 10 lakh resumes and for a meagre Rs. 100 per search! What do you say?

And what is more - based on no. of searches conducted, I will send you a quarterly bill when you pay up. NO upfront down payment (one year) of Rs. 1 lakh!"

But he cannot say this to any Corporate unless he joins VEE!

Of course, VEE shall not/must not dictate to a partner jobsite what it wants to charge its clients and how (when) it wants to charge. VEE

has no role to play in the "PRICING" decisions of its partners - nor any role to play in the "MARKETING/PROMOTION" decisions of its partners. We can suggest but these (decisions) are their prerogatives.

But one thing is clear.

If a jobsite can exchange a brick for a jade, it will!

If it has nothing to lose and everything to gain, it will join VEE.

And then, we are not asking them to "deposit/pool" their past/current resumes (—but they are welcome, if they want to).

If, as a small/insignificant jobsite, I know that I am getting no more than 20 resumes/day, would I object to deposit/pool these, if, in return, my Corporate client can search 10 Lakh resumes?

I would simply jump/grab such an opportunity.

For VEE, this is then the "Target Group". The "quality" of the group is Immaterial. What matters

most (to VEE at the beginning is the QUANTITY - of partnering jobsites.

VEE must be able to show to the world - and especially to potential partners - that it has succeeded in tying-up with a large no. of jobsites - even if these are

• no more than "brochures"
• no more than URL's

A large no. Impresses. It lends credibility.

A large queue makes people believe that there must be something "valuable" for which such large no. of people have queued-up!

Once, we can sign-up enough no. of "LOW/LOW" jobsites, it would become easy to rope-in "Medium/Medium" sites.

This is also the logic behind offering TAS to a large no. of low circulation/small town newspapers.

Once we get a large no. of such "what Do I lose?" jobsites to sign-up, our bargaining power (vis-a-vis medium size jobsites) goes up.

Then, we can tell them

"We can have only one rule for all partners. We cannot make exception now - when already 25 jobsites have already joined up.

They have all agreed to pool, not only their job-ads but also their resumes.

If we make an exception in your case, it would be unfair to them. VEE is a fair/transparent organisation, where, thru ADMIN TOOL, each & every partner will know the Corporate activities & statistics, not only of his own jobsite but of all partner sites. In a partnership, there can be no hiding of facts. Without total transparency, there can be no trust & no team-work.

We would be happy to welcome you as a partner of VEE, only if you fully subscribe to our "value" viz:

Wealth can only get "co-created" thru co-sharing of information/knowledge, on an equal footing by all participants"

[Signature and date: 22/06/05]