http://recruitingblogs.ning.com/forum/topics/a-couple-million-in-counting

Well let me now agree with you… And still hold fast to my point.

So we’re agreed, Onrec, Human Resource Executive, and others award vendors for “game changing” or “top” products have a legitimate role to play… I’ve known many who especially covet the later… these year’s to be announced at the end of the month.

And we’re agreed, a great product can’t overcome a lack of marketing. Nor an abundance of marketing make up for a bad product (though some can argue that one…)

In the case of Dayak, et al, a “two-sided market” business model is especially tricky to launch and difficult to sustain over the long haul. Keeping two distinct groups happy and serving both equally well is a big task, even more so when the two groups are already used to working with one another via another model (call it status quo), as we have today with recruiting firms and employers.

I did read Jason’s post… and I especially value his perspective as he wants to see third party recruiters rewarded for their hard work. I’m on board with that.

I will agree with you but still hold true to my belief on this one.

I am not saying in any way that OnRec is not a credible resource for small technology firms & that their awards don’t hold merit. I am saying that as an industry the BUYERS are often sold on the awards, marketing & press more than the actual product itself.

Look at the ATS industry – I know of lots and lots of ATS’s that went out of business not because they didn’t have an amazing product – but because they didn’t have the marketing budget and skills to really get it out there and gain industry respect. You and I have worked together with some companies when I was consulting where that was the case – great product – couldn’t effectively go to market.

My reference to jobster with these companies wasn’t that these companies even had a fraction of the money jobster had – rather the concept wasn’t as clearly defined and truly marketable on the larger scale without some inherent flaws as it could have been. It was a go big or go home scenario.

Check out the blog post by Jason Davis on recruitingblogs.com

As I reported last year from the Onrec Expo, I believe Dayak and BountyJobs were both nominated for the “Game Changing” Technology Award, but the prize went to JobStick.

In any case, I suspect the principals of Dayak would challenge the notion that “deep pockets” bought them publicity. I’m sure the editorial team at Onrec would as well.

Are news coverage, analyst coverage, and industry awards bought and paid for in our industry? Well, no more than the legislation that comes out of Congress… And until proven otherwise, I prefer to give all of these players the benefit of the doubt.

None of the award nominees from last year were wealthy brands that I can recall… Checkster, BountyJobs, Dayak, and JobStick can best be described as startups. Some are or were venture funded, but none of these companies are spending money or making a splash in the way of Jobster.

Onrec by the description of the award category is highlighting technologies that hold great promise. It’s somewhat predictive in nature.  Predictions by definition are often wrong. Since it’s precisely these startup companies that don’t have the same media access as the established brands, I think it’s a good move by Onrec to offer them exposure.

I couldn’t agree more. Sadly, this industry is often all about the name and the deepest marketing pockets when it comes to who gets publicity, awards and recognition – it isn’t always about the best products.

Btw – when can I do a story on verbal summary for the blog? Lets talk in Toronto!

Kinda shows that there are plenty of spectators who know very little about “the game” they are watching.