October 3, 2024 • 48 mins
James Mackey and Elijah Elkins speak with David Paffenholz, CEO of Juicebox, about their AI-powered talent sourcing platform.
David shares how Juicebox significantly improves sourcing and hiring outcomes, enables collaboration between recruiters and hiring managers, and provides real-time talent insights to hone in on sourcing criteria. With over 500 customers across agency and in-house recruiting teams, Juicebox is shaping the future of talent acquisition.
David was kind enough to share a 15% discount code for our audience! BRKTHRU15
Thank you to our sponsor, SecureVision, for making this show possible!
Our host James Mackey
Follow us:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/82436841/
#1 Rated Embedded Recruitment Firm on G2!
https://www.g2.com/products/securevision/reviews
Thanks for listening!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello, welcome to the Breakthrough Hiring Show.
I'm your host, james Mackey.
I got my co-host with me today,elijah, how's it going?
Doing well?
How are you, james?
Good.
And today we have DavidPaffenhals with us today, david,
thanks for joining us.
Thanks for having me.
David is the CEO of Juicebox.
David, I think you started thecompany what a couple years ago
(00:22):
at this point.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
That's right Two years ago and launched our
product one year ago.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Okay, cool.
So looking forward to learningall about your product and what
you're up to.
Before we get into that, I'dlove to just learn a little bit
about you.
Where are you dialing in fromtoday?
I'm in San Francisco.
Okay, cool, nice.
And what were you up to beforeyou started Juicebox?
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Yeah.
So both my co-founder and Istarted the company right out of
college.
I had just graduated and myco-founder dropped out of
college to start the business.
We had this mutual thesis thatwas largely stemmed from us
going through a number of hiringprocesses where we thought, hey
, it's essentially a matchingproblem of matching the right
talent for the right roles.
And from the applicantperspective, we felt that it was
not being solved in the bestway possible and at the same
(01:10):
time we realized we wanted tobuild something that sells to
the business side.
And so we've had that problemstatement in mind and that
framework, and that's where wegot started with the business
over two years ago.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Yeah, love it, love it.
And I was actually able to takea look at the demo on your
website.
I like the very like short one,a couple minutes long, so I had
a chance to take a look at that.
But yeah, I mean I guess, justto start us off, could tell us
let's dive into your product alittle bit more.
Tell us about the problemyou're solving today, how it's,
maybe about how the product hasadvanced since over the last
(01:43):
couple years, and how you'rethinking about the space and to
take the product to the nextlevel, what your customers are
thinking wherever you reallywant to start.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Just more context would be great.
Yeah, for sure.
So we're an AI-powered talentsourcing platform.
That means we help go frominitial search setup, reviewing
and assessing profiles toengaging them, typically via
email sequences, and then wehave a bunch of data and
analytics on top, so rangingfrom talent insights to sequence
tracking and more, all builtinto the platform.
Overall, our vision is to beable to build both software and
(02:15):
automations to help recruitersor sourcers using the platform
in that workflow, and soultimately, we think there's a
lot of potential to go morein-depth, to do better sourcing
than what is possible right nowby using that technology.
And that's done one throughdriving efficiency in the
existing sourcing, but then two,providing the capabilities to
go deeper.
So how much more data is thereon companies, how much data can
(02:36):
we infer about people, and howcan we have AI assist us in
doing that review and thatsearch?
Speaker 1 (02:47):
And so that's what we're building at Juicebox and
what we've built the product forAwesome.
And, elijah, do you have anyinitial questions?
Just based off the primaryvalue, prop and the product.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Yeah, sure, I'd love to dive a little bit in to yeah,
where you see your guys, yourproduct positioning in the
market.
I'm really familiar withsourcing tools.
I've used FireEasy, hiretoolback in the day, seekout, lots
of different sourcing platforms.
I actually had the pleasure ofusing Juicebox as well, so great
(03:13):
product.
I'm just curious as you wereentering the market, where did
you see Juicebox fitting in withthe existing players, and were
there any gaps in the marketthat you saw that you really
wanted to make the most of?
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Yeah for sure.
So I think the and youmentioned a few examples of all
of the existing sourcingsolutions.
I think there's the existingapproach, and which has been
refined over the past years ofone.
You have a data set of profiles, and you put a lot of work into
making sure the best datapossible, and you maybe
aggregate some additional datasources and then let the user
essentially search through thatdata, and so typically that's
(03:50):
done through filtering, and bethat searching by keyword, job
title, some really good machinelearning algorithms that help
rank the profiles, all based onthose initial keywords.
In the end, though, that's stillwhat it is it's filtering
essentially a resume database orprofile database, and then
reviewing those.
We have that same functionality, so we have the same filtering
and search piece, but then wetry to go one step further, and
(04:11):
that's where we think the futureis heading is not just in
filtering and showing them toyou, but then actually assessing
those profiles and saying, hey,this profile matches your
criteria for these reasons or ismissing this specific part of
your criteria.
I'm going through all of thoseprofiles, and so that's the next
step that we take, which istypically work done currently
manually by the recruiter or bythe sourcer of reviewing those
(04:31):
profiles and what existingsolutions don't do.
Another way to think about thatis existing solutions maximize
for the amount of time spent onthe platform.
We try to automate as much ofthat time as possible so you get
straight to the results ratherthan having to spend that time
on the platform.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
And what do you do with, let's say, a profile that
doesn't have a lot of dataavailable?
What does the platform do incases where there just isn't?
Speaker 2 (04:59):
that much data on a candidate, yeah, so I guess
overall we try to minimize thosecases as much as we can, but in
the end that's often going tobe the case, and will always be
the case in the future too, isthat there's some profiles where
there's just not sufficientinformation out there, and so,
on the first level, there's somethings that we can do in terms
of drawing inferences.
For example, if a criteria issomeone who has done B2B SaaS
sales and we know that theyworked at a B2B SaaS company, we
(05:21):
can infer that based on thecompany name perhaps their
investors, their funding, etcetera and then infer that they
likely have B2B SaaS salesexperience based on where they
worked.
Now, in other cases that mightnot be possible.
Let's say we want someone wholed a team of 20, but we don't
have any data on how large theirteam was, or we can't
reasonably infer that.
In that case, what our modelcurrently does is it basically
tells that to the user.
In our middle score it sayspotential fit, but not
(05:42):
sufficient information, at whichpoint we encourage either going
deeper on that on an initialphone screen or doing some
additional research beyond that.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
Cool and how have you seen?
I'm curious, like internalteams right, let's say they're
using LinkedIn Recruiter,because many of them are have
you seen Juicebox changing theirworkflow of like, where they're
sourcing the candidates, and orare you seeing them like
finding the candidates onLinkedIn Recruiter and then
maybe moving them into Juiceboxto do an email drip campaign?
(06:12):
I'm curious how you see thatworkflow changing for people
using Juicebox that are alreadyon something like LinkedIn
Recruiter.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Yeah, our goal is to own that search process end to
end, so we want to be the bestplace to start your search and
the best place to engagecandidates all the way through
to getting that first call withthem scheduled.
The way, or what we have to doin order to achieve that, is
just provide undoubtedly thebest search experience, and so
that's kind of the bar that wehold ourselves against, too, and
also what we measure internally.
So one of the key metrics thatwe look at is, of our customers,
(06:42):
how many use the platform daily, or how many start their
searches with us every day, andso those are like, typically,
metrics that more like consumerproduct founders or even like
social app founders would lookat.
We track that quite closelybecause we think that's
representative of what the userhabit is and are we actually
delivering the best productexperience?
And so right now, of ourcustomers who use us, 30% use us
(07:03):
every single day, and that's anumber that we want to continue
benchmarking off of to ensurethat not only are we providing
the best search experience, butalso the best place to start
your search.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Nice.
Yeah, that's probably one ofthe biggest challenges I've seen
when I was trying to implementdifferent sourcing tools.
When the search was intended tonot be done on LinkedIn
Recruiter right, and that's whatthey were most familiar with
they tended to not use the toolas much, right?
I'm not saying those searchexperiences were amazing, I'm
just saying it's hard to breakthat workflow.
(07:35):
The tools that we found working, at least at the time right,
because Juicebox didn't existwas to have something that ran
alongside of LinkedIn recruiterright, so the search experience
was done on LinkedIn recruiterright, so the search experience
was done on LinkedIn recruiterand then candidates were moved
into campaign tools, where thetools were geared more for the
campaign experience.
So it sounds like juice boxesfocus more on amazing search
(07:58):
experience, like owning thesearch experience, and then
forgive me if I'm wrong, but thesequencing is actually still
being built out more likethere's more features you want
to add on the engagement and theoutreach experience.
Is that right?
Speaker 2 (08:13):
That is right.
Yeah, the sequencing is one ofour newer features.
We launched the first versionin June.
Since then, we've added a tonof stuff, so we have AI
personalization in the sequencesteps we have sent on behalf of
and more, but there's also morefeatures coming soon.
Sequencing can continue to bemore advanced in order to
reflect that kind of full flowthat we want to help bring our
users through.
It's also the kind of advantageof starting with the first step
(08:36):
in the process, of startingwith the search and trying to
hold that workflow, is it verynaturally funnels into the next
step, so when you're searching,it becomes very easy to just one
click add someone into an emailsequence, and that's the
behavior that we want toencourage as well, because it's
what drives a lot of theefficiency.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
Have you noticed any challenges with email
deliverability or anything?
Because I noticed a lot ofsourcing platforms don't seem to
touch that to the same levelthat a sales outreach platform
might.
Right, like Limlist or any ofthose that are more sales
oriented.
Right, they have, like emailinbox, warmup periods and
(09:13):
deliverability rates.
The sourcing tools that aredoing email outreach seem to
have not touched that as much,at least in the products that
I've used.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Yeah, no, that's very true.
I've noticed the same thing andI think the kind of in many
ways, especially like the CRMand engagement side.
It seems that recruiting isoften like a step behind sales
in terms of the tech used andlike how the tech has developed.
And then it's almost like youcan kind of see into the future
of recruiting tech by seeingwhat sales tech is doing right
now.
And I think a lot of thosethings of email warmups,
deliverability maximization, etcetera, is going to come into
(09:43):
the recruiting space soonerrather than later.
In fact, we're working on manyof those things right now and
want to be able to continue tobring some of those things to
our customers.
And yeah, I think overall thatis representative of where it
will go.
Now.
The one nuance is that in salesthere is no such thing as too
much volume.
You always want more leads.
You always want more qualifiedleads to reach out to.
(10:04):
In recruiting, there's morenuance to it.
If you have a higher responserate and even a smaller set of
candidates, but they'reextremely qualified and they're
extremely well-matched to thesearch, that's probably a better
outcome than having a huge topof funnel volume but poor
response rates and perhaps notvery qualified candidates, which
then results in poorpass-through rates as well, and
(10:26):
so I think that's like one ofthe reasons perhaps why we
haven't seen as much focus onthat in the recruiting side,
because typically the volume isa bit lower too.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Yeah, that makes sense.
As James knows, I can geek outon this all day, so let me pass
it back over to you, james, soyou can get some information.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Well, actually I think you have a lot more
experience working with sourcingtechnology so you can get some
information.
Well, actually, I think youhave a lot more experience
working with sourcing technology, so I'm hoping to take more of
the backseat here.
I'll chime in with questions asthey come up.
But yeah, elijah, just based onyour experience and the
research you're doing, puttingtogether the company list for
the series and everything elsewhere does your head go next?
And I'll jump in if I have to.
But I'm still going to take thebackseat for now.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
Yeah, absolutely.
One thing I've thought a lotabout over the past six to 12
months and would love both ofyour feedback on is the use of
target company lists in sourcingplatforms.
So there's almost no companythat does it well outside.
There's sales platforms rightthey do it really well where you
can build out your ICP and kindof create a target company list
(11:24):
, like Apollo and others.
But sourcers right internalsourcing teams.
I've led sourcing teams of 10people, recruiting teams of 20
people and we love to use targetcompany lists right.
Building a list of SaaScompanies and I've noticed you
have a little bit of that flavorin the platform already, which
is brilliant.
Right, with the AI, findanother.
(11:47):
I think I did one where I hadlike eight to 10 target
companies and it's sourcingthrough those.
I'm curious do you see thatbeing used a lot, or do you have
any thoughts on building thatout more for companies who
actually would prefer to takethat target company list
approach?
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's almost like you have our
product roadmap on paper.
Yes, the companies are superpopular Right now.
We have some of that AIsuggested companies or find
similar companies and they'requite powerful, but there's
perhaps also some more controlthat we could give to the user
in terms of being able tocustomize that further or set a
target number of companies tosource through, etc.
(12:23):
Of companies to source through,et cetera, and so there's some
things we have in the work there.
And then the other thing that Ifound pretty interesting, that
we see being used more and more,is like saving those company
lists and sharing those companyinternally, and so both with
in-house recruiting teams, butalso with agency recruiting
teams really popular in terms ofhey, this is our target list of
(12:44):
dev tool companies, as anexample, or this is our target
list of consumer marketplacecompanies and being able to
build on those lists, save themand then use them in searches
recurringly.
One, it's a behavior that justmakes a lot of sense, but two,
it's also something thathopefully we'll be able to
provide more technology on inorder to do that more and more
make sure those lists are fullycomprehensive, and I think the
(13:06):
kind of final step to that is,it's almost goes in the
direction of executive searchand kind of bringing even deeper
level of searches into regularsourcing processes.
Think about like an executivesearch process often starts off
by mapping all competitivecompanies in the space or like
what could be adjacent, and thengoing backwards from there and
finding the relevant targets.
In my opinion, almost allsourcing in the future is going
(13:27):
to look closer to what executivesearch looks like today, where
you have that level of depth andthe level of time that you can
spend on each role.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Yeah, I completely agree.
I've seen internal sourcingteams.
They have that list ofcompanies, right, but some of
the bigger ones that have morethan, let's say, one to two
sourcers, they're actuallycreating tiers, right.
So you have, let's say, the toptier is very general, so let's
say it's like B2B SaaS companiesright Under 5,000 or 2,000
(13:57):
employees, and then they'regoing, let's say, okay for our
sales org, actually we want themto have sold to enterprise, so
like they're then finding allthe companies within that larger
list that have actually sold toenterprise, that where the
product is sold to enterprise,then maybe they have for their
R&D team there's some otherrequirements.
(14:19):
So they almost have differenttiers or target company lists
that like overlap but aredifferent.
So that's one piece of what I'veseen.
That's super interesting.
The other thing that's beenfascinating is seeing sourcing
teams and recruitment teamsactually tracking layoffs and
like tracking events kind ofreal time and updating that on.
(14:42):
Usually it's some sort ofspreadsheet right, like all
these target company lists andevents that are happening are
all being tracked together in aspreadsheet.
But it'd be fascinating to seehow that plays out in a platform
like Juicebox, as your productvelocity just seems to be a lot
faster than some of yourcompetitors to be transparent.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Elijah, I'm really happy I'm not talking right now.
This is good stuff.
I'm going to keep myself onmute a little bit longer.
You guys are crushing it.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
I just love this stuff.
So, yeah, I'm geeking out here.
No, I think.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
I circle back a little bit on, like the company
tiers of less sourcing.
I fully agree and I thinkactually that same approach is
not only applicable to likecompany lists but everything in
the search.
So the same with job titleswe're hiring like an AE, maybe.
Job titles we're hiring like anAE.
Maybe we want to prioritizesomeone who's actually been an
enterprise AE.
We'll also look at other AEs,but that kind of puts them in
another tier in that sourcing.
(15:32):
And I think that level ofsophistication and depth that's
where, in my mind, the future ofsourcing is going to go and
what lets you actually buildreally sophisticated and really
well mapped out target lists.
And I think the one thing thatis often forgotten is that it
feels like, oh, we're spendingso much time on the sourcing and
that means we're not spendingthat time actually engaging with
the candidates.
But what's often lost in thatis that the engagement
(15:55):
afterwards becomes so much moreefficient and so much higher ROI
, because we're being extremelythoughtful about who we want to
reach out to and who we want toengage.
So we're going to see higherresponse rates, we're going to
see better pass-throughafterwards, the client's going
to be happier, everythingbecomes a lot more targeted and
a lot more nuanced in that too.
Yeah, I'm really excited forthat, and our goal is to be able
to build out the functionalityto support that as much as we
(16:17):
can.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
Yeah, that's great how much demand.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Oh, I have one.
No, go ahead Don't worry, I'llmake it quick.
I'll make it quick, hopefullyit's interesting.
How much demand are you seeingon the Talent Insights
functionality?
I know it's like you're puttingtogether searches and whatnot
and populating a ton of datawhich already is very insightful
in and of itself just likedoing searches and seeing what
comes up.
But you have this whole TalentInsights aspect to the product.
(16:42):
How exactly is it beingleveraged?
Is it being leveraged the waythat you thought it would?
What product requests are yougetting when it comes to
insights?
How's that evolving?
Just curious to learn moreabout that function or feature.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
And I think then, for teams that do use Talent
Insights, often they use it as abeginning exercise Okay, here's
the market map and maybealigning with the hiring manager
and configuring the initialsearch.
Our take is that is useful, butthere's actually a lot being
left on the table with that andthat kind of then also fed into
how we designed our TalentInsights features.
So in many products, TalentInsights is like completely
(17:25):
separate or a different tab.
In our case it's within thesearch tab, and so you actually
first configure your search andthen you get to see the Talent
Insights.
And that's intentional, becausewe want you to use the Talent
Insights in crafting yourshortlist, in searching through
profiles, and so what does thatmean product-wise?
Our Talent Insights are actuallyinteractive.
You can click every row in thechart.
You can open up new searchesbased on the Talent insights and
(17:47):
use those as part of yoursourcing.
And so, for example, if, goingback to that target company list
example, we notice our talentpool is mostly employed at the
three companies that we weretargeting, but actually there's
a really common past employeracross all of them.
Maybe that past employer is areally high value signal and we
can look at that past employerinstead and add that to our
(18:08):
company list, or even do a wholenother search strategy focused
on that, and so I think thoseare the types of insights or
data points that we hope to getout of the time insights and how
we hope to use it in thosesearches too.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Yeah, that's really cool.
So that actually shows up.
So it's okay, because on thescreen right now on your website
, which I've been doing somedigging around while you guys
were talking so I see thecurrent employers spot.
So what you're saying isthere's another section that
shows past employers.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
Yes, yeah, if you're in the product, it's basically
right below it.
So we have current employersand we have current plus past.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
Nice, that's awesome.
Yeah, and I like how the TalentInsights populates after a
search and it's integrated intothe search feature.
It populates after a search andit's integrated into the search
feature.
I know, honestly, I haven'tlooked at this feature from.
I suppose it might beconsidered a different product
at LinkedIn Talent Insights.
Yeah, it's been a few yearsbecause, quite honestly, it
(19:02):
seems pretty expensive.
I didn't know 15K.
Starting and that's likestartup price, so I'm assuming
it's much more for larger orgs,right?
Speaker 3 (19:13):
I'm not sure for larger orgs, but I know it was a
15K for kind of the wholecompany.
Then LinkedIn said that theywere going to make it either
free or integrated intosomething else, but I don't
think that's ever happened.
I think it's still around 15K.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Yeah, I don't know.
So it seems like this issimilar to that, but it's just
integrated into your product andit's not an additional I don't
know what.
But if you have it segmented asan upsell package or whatever
else, we don't have to get intoall that.
You don't want to.
But yeah, it's just.
It's cool to see that in yourproduct because it does feel
like it takes a little bit ofpower away from LinkedIn, which
(19:49):
I love.
I built a business aroundLinkedIn, but at the same time,
it's nice to have some otherplayers adding some value when
it comes to Talent Insights andwhatnot.
Right?
Speaker 2 (19:59):
For sure.
Yeah, and to clarify for us,there's no upsell on the Talent
Insights.
It's integrated as part of thesearch and I think that's also
like the main differentiatorwith linkedin's talent insights
product is it's not interactive,it's like designed to give you
an overview.
It's very much meant for thatkicking off the search or even
planning where to hire process,which is important but, in our
view, leaves a lot on the tableyeah, I think like one of the
(20:20):
things it's.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
I know the way that we do it for our customers as an
rpo company.
When we're looking at talentinsights, it can be a lot more
sophisticated than it is.
It's essentially we look at.
Typically, we're looking attalent insights quite honestly
when we need to expand ourcandidate pool.
It's usually not sometimes it'sproactive, but a lot of the
times it's customer has a veryclear view in mind and so,
(20:43):
whether it's at the beginning ofthe search we need to show them
data to expand or it's furtheralong in the search, a few weeks
into it, where we show look,we've saturated this entire
candidate pool, we need toexpand.
But it's typically a result ofokay, let's find out two to
three different ways they couldexpand the search.
We get a pulse on what they feelis most important.
(21:03):
They're willing this is amust-have, this is a
nice-to-have, and so you provideokay if we open this up and
this is a must have, this is anice to have, and so you provide
okay if we open this up andthis is what it does to our
talent pool.
We open this up, this is whatit does and providing different
insights there, but it's likeway that we do.
It is just it's pretty basicwhere we're just looking at
changing the search criteria alittle bit with LinkedIn, seeing
how many more candidatespopulate.
(21:24):
That's like that's literally itand then we're just basically
looking at that data and thenmaking estimates right the
estimation on what to do withthat.
It would be cool to havesomething a little bit more
sophisticated, right, that's alittle bit more interactive and
also package.
This also looks I don't know ifit's in a reporting package or
(21:45):
whatnot but even just thepresentation on the product
itself would be something that'dbe really nice to show hiring
managers to help sway them inthe direction of making
important shifts to theirsourcing strategy.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
For sure, and I think the I think hiring manager like
collaboration is alsohistorically been something
that's been pretty difficult todo with like different tech
tools out there.
We have a little bit of that, soyou can share a search, even
for people who don't have anaccount like not even a free
account they can even access it,and then we do have like free
trial available too for hiringmanagers who want to get
(22:19):
involved.
One thing we've started seeingwith different companies that
I'd be curious if it's a trendthat's expanding is hiring
managers actually gettinginvolved in some of the sourcing
too, and so a few of the techcompanies we work with they
purchase seats not only for therecruiters but also for parts of
their hiring manager teams, andso in those cases, with hiring
managers getting involved,iterating on search strategies,
(22:40):
reviewing candidates togetherand looking at those insights
together too a reallyinteresting area I'm like I
don't think every organizationwill do that or want to go in
that direction, but for the onesthat do, I think it can be a
cool superpower to being able tohave that collaboration and
then be even more on target withtheir searches.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Yeah, I've been giving that a lot of thought to
like how is particularly AItechnology going to impact the
amount of time or point ofimpact of hiring managers?
I think a lot of theconversation is how it's going
to impact recruiters, but Idon't know how much we really
stopped to think about how it'sgoing to impact hiring managers.
So that's a brilliant point youbrought up and we could
probably I may be just like dialin on that a little bit.
(23:17):
Yeah, I mean, I've beenthinking a lot about that too.
I'm wondering it's like nomatter how efficient the
technology comes, you know, Idon't know if hiring managers
are going to try to push more ofthe top of funnel to the
recruiting team.
I'm not sure.
I mean, you're right, ifthere's automation and there's
AI technology that's able to puttogether short lists of talent
(23:38):
that are more relevant, thenit's less time I think they need
to spend.
Of course, if they didn't havethe support, then it would take
way too much time to source.
I mean, sourcing is a full-timejob, right?
Yeah, I'm curious if you haveany more thoughts on that.
Elijah, anybody who wants to,maybe david first.
I would be really curious toget your thoughts if you do have
any other thoughts on, like howa higher manager role is going
(23:58):
to change?
Uh, given ai technology andtheir point of impact?
Speaker 2 (24:04):
Yeah, I think the biggest piece on the hiring
manager, recruiter or sourcerrelationship is communication,
and I think that's liketraditionally where a lot of the
perhaps there's a hiddencriteria or things that they are
assessing for unconsciously,that they don't realize or that
(24:30):
they don't communicate to therecruiter or sourcer.
And so I think being able to bemore hands-on in those
processes like actually seeingthe talent pool live together,
being able to align on that andconfine it while still in that
alignment and collaborationphase, will make that
communication a lot better and,I think, also lead to like
faster cycles on the sourcingand recruiting front.
(24:50):
And so I think the technologycan be a huge assistant to that,
in the sense that it's ratherthan describing what you're
looking for, you can actuallylook for that person together
and go through those criteriahand in hand and side by side.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
Yeah, for sure.
I see this as a tool that Icall.
I have this process which Idon't have a recruiter out there
called it.
It's a kickoff, a calibrationmeeting.
I don't know if that's like aterm that everybody uses.
That's what we call it.
Is that what you guys call it?
Speaker 3 (25:18):
I probably started calling it that because you
called it that when we workedtogether.
Yeah, that's what I call it Allright.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
I guess, just to define what we're talking about,
is I usually, two days afterkicking off the search, I pull
together, our team typicallypulls together 10 LinkedIn
profiles of candidates and doesa share screen and walks the
hiring manager through thoseprofiles and gets our feedback
live Like hey, what do you thinkof this person, why?
(25:46):
And gets our feedback live Likehey, what do you think of this
person, why?
And I think that this is just afurther essentially iteration
of that.
In an extent, it's basicallybeing able to manipulate the
search.
Showing the live impact ontalent insights would actually
be really cool to do upfront,now that I'm thinking about it,
because I could see us, like, ona kickoff, going like all right
(26:07):
, based on the search criteriathat you currently have,
punching it into your productlike all right, this is what we
got.
So it's opposed to this manualmotion of offline recruiters
trying to crunch data on howcertain search criteria would
change the candidate pool andwhatnot, the difficulty of the
search and all those types ofthings.
(26:27):
You're right, this could bedone live with the hiring
managers.
I'm of the mindset, david, justto touch on where we think
hiring managers should beinvolved.
They should be very involved.
It's their team.
I would think that hiringmanagers would want to be
involved with every stage of theprocess.
I think the best ones areacross the board.
(26:48):
Every great leader I've knownis very hands-on with talent
acquisition.
But I'm wondering.
It's like from a productstandpoint.
It's like we know that there'smore value there for hiring
managers to be more hands-on,but I wonder if they're at scale
.
I don't know.
I still think it's like talentacquisition for recruiters
driving this.
I see this as definitely a toolto jump on and tell me if I'm
(27:12):
wrong, but I would assume like,more often than not, it's the
recruiters sourcers and to theextent that it's really, I'd say
, the majority of the time, Iwould assume when hiring
managers are interacting, atleast at the beginning of the
searches, it's like a sharescreen situation, uh, in which
the recruiters are walkingthrough.
That's really how I wouldleverage it.
Um, that kind of align withwhat you're saying.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
Yeah, 100%.
And I think also what youmentioned in terms of the best
hiring managers are moreinvolved.
I agree with that.
I think it really shows thatthey're engaged in it.
And then on the flip side too,on the recruiter and sourcer
side, the best recruiters andsourcers are not only excellent
at finding the right candidates,they're also excellent at
project managing the hiringmanager in terms of how you
think about the search, whatyou're looking for, being able
(27:49):
to pass through those candidateslike your calibration meeting
being a great example of that,it's like not only can that be
one meeting, but that can be anongoing process too.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
Yeah, for sure, which are the whole sourcing aspect,
but the talent insights aspect,which, particularly when you
start to get to larger companies, you need data in order to sway
hiring teams to make betterdecisions, and this is a great
(28:24):
way to do that.
And a lot of the times there'sdifferent parts of the funnel
where you need to be able to tryto explain to them why changes
need to occur.
But often the most challengingstage is when it comes to role
profile and some of the aspectsaround requirements.
It's in my experience it's beena little easier to change down
funnel behavior or process, butpeople get really attached to a
(28:48):
certain aspect of their searchcriteria and I try to use the
talent insights, the manual waythat my team does it.
That's not nearly assophisticated as your product
can do, but we'll try to explainthe reasoning and the strategy
behind why an aspect maybe it'sa requirement, like any
(29:10):
requirement.
I guess one could be industryexperience.
That comes up in a lot ofgo-to-market SaaS companies
where sometimes companies willrequire very specific industry
experience, like not just HRtech but something very hyper
specific, for instance, right,like within that space, and it's
like, based on working with 200companies over the past decade
(29:35):
I've learned a thing or two.
It's just not what drivesresults 99% of the time.
Let's say 95%, let's just givethem.
Maybe 5% of the time they'reright, but the majority of the
time it's just not the biggestfactor to determine success.
And so we'll do those types ofconversations.
But alongside of that we havethis whole data argument of,
(29:59):
look, this isn't the right thingfor you guys to be doing.
Here are the reasons.
We might walk them through allthe explanations, but then we'll
also say look, you have gonethrough X amount of screening.
Calls this that your hiringteam has dedicated X amount of
hours.
Right, we've saturated thetalent pool in this market for
(30:20):
this industry experience.
You've gone through source of200 people.
You've passed on all of them.
We've dedicated this much timeand we let you know for X, y and
Z reasons, this isn't even theprimary thing that's going to
drive success, right, it's notnearly as important as so many
other things.
And here's the data.
You're out of candidates.
So clearly this isn't a modelfor success.
(30:44):
You say this is the mostimportant, but you've spoken to
everybody and this isn't a modelfor success.
You say this is the mostimportant, but you've spoken to
everybody, and obviously they'renot making the cut.
So we have the data plus theexplanation and everything else.
We put that qualitative,quantitative and then putting
that together and packaging andpositioning to the customer is a
much more effective argument,and if you put that in front of
a smart executive or a smarthiring team, when you show them
(31:05):
the data, if they don't changeafter that, that's unusual to an
extent.
If you do a good job,positioning that, unless they
accept, this is a really justhard to fill role.
We just got to keep it open.
If they have that expectation,then I'm a little more okay with
it To an extent.
The problem with that, though,is if it takes seven months to
fill a role and then that personleaves three months later,
(31:25):
you're screwed.
So it's like you're too highlyleveraged on one candidate, but
that's anyways.
That's one higher.
That's a different conversation, though.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
But, yeah, interesting stuff.
Yeah, I would almost imagine,because I know, david, you guys
have some new features comingout with the scoring right where
you can put differentweightings in right.
I would imagine, james, likeyou're saying, you could
actually go into that intakecall or the weekly sync change
the weights, change the scoringcriteria, show them the talent
pool that's going to give them,even show them.
Hey, your top three candidatesthat we talked about in the
(31:57):
beginning mentioned a few peopleyou knew that you like their
profiles.
They're actually not matchingup with that criteria that we
have, and here's the outcome.
So I think that's interesting,right, being able to dial in on
the intake call with theinsights and the scorecard,
essentially, that they build atJuicebox I think.
The other interesting piece I'dlove to know more about, david,
(32:19):
is are you guys pulling any compdata in?
Because that's always somethinglike companies are asking like
oh, do you guys have any compbenchmarking data?
And then I go manually pullright like all these comp
benchmarks from across the web.
How are you all thinking aboutcomp benchmarking related to
Talent Insights?
Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
So just before I hop into the comp piece, would love
to add one more thing on thediscussion with the hiring
manager line.
I think another way to thinkabout it in the hiring process
is like the hiring manager oftenhas stated preferences or like
what they think theirpreferences are in the beginning
, but then another set ofrevealed preferences that we
only see once we start showingcandidates.
And it's like what process orsteps do we have to go through
(33:02):
to get those revealedpreferences as fast as possible
so that we have calibrated thesearch as efficiently as
possible?
And I think in the end theanswer to that is like showing
profiles together and looking atthem together, and that often
brings so much more data thanone can find out, or maybe even
more data than the hiringmanager thought about in the
beginning as well.
And sorry, further distractedthere, go to the comp
benchmarking piece.
(33:22):
We don't have the data yet I'dlove for us to have that data.
It's something we're veryinterested in.
I think it would be hugelyvaluable in a lot of ways, both
in terms of the direct way ofbeing able to search by that,
but then also to get a feelinglike where's the market going,
how competitive are these rolesand more?
And so the tricky bit with compdata is, one, it's hard to get
overall, and then, two, it'seven harder to get accurate data
(33:42):
, and so, yeah, we've beenlooking at a few different
potential paths for that.
I can't make any promises, butit's something that I'd be very
keen on too.
Yeah, yeah, that is achallenging one thing.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
Yeah, it's a good for sure.
I know a lot of people areusing pave radford.
Right, there's all these comptools that companies as they
grow in place.
But until then, I think most ofus are looking on glassdoor and
built-in.
If you're working with techstartups and you just try to
(34:14):
find a rough range that you thenshare the hiring manager with
some data points, but, yeah, itcould be really helpful at some
point to have that for sure, aslong as it's accurate and not,
yeah, just a massive, unhelpfulrange.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
So I would be curious to dive a little bit more into
the weighting aspect ofcandidates.
Where you start to.
I don't know if we considerthat Is that getting into like
evaluation territory where AI ismaking decisions on who to move
forward with?
I still sometimes struggle.
There's like a spectrum, right,of course you're putting in
(34:44):
search criteria and, based offthat, results are coming in, but
then are we getting?
Would we consider this gettingmore so into a valuation, or no?
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Hmm, applicants, david.
Sorry, I didn't catch that.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
Well, I was just going to say they're not
applicants, right?
So they're, yeah, they haven'tactually applied.
So you're just helping, you'rejust doing better filtering
Right.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
Almost what you're doing in your mind as your
source.
Speaker 3 (35:06):
you're just helping do better filtering right Almost
what you're doing in your mindas your source.
Yeah, what do you think, David?
That's my guess.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
Yeah, I think there's like the legal piece and the
practical piece.
In terms of the legal piece,the clear answer is no, because
they're not applicants.
Yet You're not evaluating thembecause they aren't applicants.
And that's usually all the lawsare based on too, but then in
the practical piece, I alsothink the answer is no, and the
reason why I think that is that,at least in our case, what the
criteria assessment does is itbasically does the same thing a
(35:34):
human would do.
When looking at it, it'sultimately a yes, maybe or no
answer, and the maybe istypically we don't have enough
information.
And so does this person havefour years of experience working
with Python?
It's an objective, yes or no.
Either they have that or theydon't, and that's actually the
case for the majority ofcriteria, even the ones that are
more fuzzy.
A black person has managed asales team of more than 20
people or has brought in morethan a million dollars in
(35:56):
revenue?
There are answers, in the end,that either a recruiter would
come to or now, a lot of that AItechnology is able to do as
well.
I think the part where it thengoes into evaluation, which is
what we don't do, is thiscandidate is a better candidate
for these reasons.
So we won't do an explicitthing of hey, person A would be
a better fit for the role thanperson B.
(36:17):
All we can tell you is person Amatches criteria one, two and
three and candidate B matchescriteria one and three, and so
that's the data that we provide.
The decision making or theevaluation after that is still
the next step and kind of therecruiter or the sourcer does in
that case.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
That makes a lot of sense.
Like I said, yeah, it'sdifferent, because I was just
thinking about our episode withBrainerd co-founders of Brainerd
.
And they're doing it's like AIdriven resume matching doing
it's like ai driven resumematching.
So it's actually and it's a lotmore sophisticated than I don't
know.
I honestly initially would haveassumed for a resume matching,
which was really cool, reallyenjoyed that episode and learned
(36:57):
a lot.
But yeah, I mean it was likethat is inbound applicants and
then they're matching based onthat and weighing that, and I
feel like that starts to getinto evaluation territory
because it's inbound.
So that would be the importantdistinction when it's outbound,
it's they're not applying forthe job, versus inbound they are
(37:17):
, which I think makes things alittle bit more complicated,
right.
Speaker 3 (37:23):
Yeah, there's no laws , right as far as I know, who
you can or can't reach out to.
You legally have to, becausethere's all these DE&I
initiatives that are actuallypushing you to reach out to
candidates based on a factorthat you're not legally allowed
to consider when they're inboundstandard disclaimer.
Speaker 2 (37:43):
I'm not a lawyer but, to my best understanding, the
way we think about things iswe're thinking about who to
reach out to, we're thinkingabout who to invite to apply for
a position, and so how can wemake sure that the people we
reach out to match the criteriathat we're setting for this job?
And so that's ultimately whatour platform is designed to do,
and I think, in generally, whatwe want to do.
(38:03):
And I guess the twodistinctions there, like one
that we already touched on, islike are they an applicant or
are they inbound or are theyoutbound?
And then two are you directlycomparing them against another
profile or are you directlydoing that comparison using AI?
And so I'd say those are likethe two things that are my gut
checks of whether something'susing that evaluation in a
hiring process.
Speaker 1 (38:24):
Do you guys, do you see yourself getting involved
with re-engaging with candidatesthat are in the CRM of your
customers, going down that pathfor enterprise customers, folks
that have large databases ofapplicants and folks that have
interviewed with the team before, that kind of thing?
Speaker 2 (38:41):
Yes, yeah, we have started deploying that with some
of our customers.
It basically integrates rightinto the regular search and then
it'll give some additionalweighting to people you have an
existing relationship with andit'll show you like a quick tag
alongside the view in ATS.
I think it's pretty powerful.
I think the most importantpiece of that functionality is
that it's still integrated intothe regular recruiter search
flow, because if it's a separateprocess, if it's a separate
(39:03):
step, it ends up being the thingthat one wants to do or thinks
is interesting, but then neveractually goes through the time
of doing that, and so that'skind of we've thought about that
so far, and the other thingthat goes in that direction that
I'm really excited about we'reactually launching this week is
that you can import not onlyyour own LinkedIn connections,
but you can also invite otherpeople to import their LinkedIn
connections, and so you canactually import all of that data
(39:25):
and then use that as a similarsourcing field, just like you
would with past applicants.
And so, example if you're doingan engineering search and you
invite the existing engineeringteam to upload their connections
, can be a really cool, powerful, additional search filter to
surface some candidates.
Speaker 1 (39:41):
Oh, I like that a lot .
That's really cool, so we got afew minutes left here.
David, is there anything elseyou want to touch on related to
your product roadmap, or justimportant insights for future
current customers that aretuning in?
Anything that you really wantto drive home?
I have a couple more ideas ofstuff we can cover, but I'd love
for you if there's anythingspecific that you want to
(40:01):
discuss.
Let's focus on that first.
Speaker 2 (40:04):
Nothing super specific, I think.
Overall, I guess the thing thatI'm most excited about for the
future of recruiting, andparticularly the future of
sourcing, is, with all the newtechnologies in place and all
the new capabilities that wehave, how can our processes
evolve too?
How can we get even better atdoing what we do and identifying
(40:25):
right candidates, reaching outto them, engaging them and I
think that's what a lot of thathappens organically already.
Like we just have someadditional time to be able to
spend on a role, we're able todo some additional mapping or
think about the additionalcompany that we could source
from.
But a lot of that also needslike a conscious effort of the
recruiting team going and saying, hey, we have these new
capabilities or we have thisextra time that we saved.
How do we deploy that?
(40:46):
Like, how do we go one stepfurther beyond what we do right
now, and what does that actuallylook like?
And so I think that's the thingwe spend a lot of time talking
with our customers about.
And also that I like to thinkabout in general is, like we
think, three, four years downthe line, what will a great
sourcing or recruiting processlook like, and how's that
different from what we havetoday cool, awesome.
Love it.
Love it, elijah.
How?
Speaker 1 (41:05):
about you any final thoughts look like?
And how's that different fromwhat we have today?
Cool, awesome, love it.
Love it, elijah.
How about you?
Any final thoughts on today?
Speaker 3 (41:11):
Yeah, two quick questions before we wrap up.
One is so when you're speakingto, let's say, a talent
acquisition leader, they've gota team of sourcers.
They're like deeply embedded inLinkedIn recruiter.
Maybe they're looking foradditional tools.
I think the big question isalways around response rate.
Right, like most of us arestill getting more traction with
(41:34):
in-mails, even though we hatepaying so much money.
Right, we're still getting moretraction with in-mails than we
are with, like, personal emails.
Even if you use GIFs orwhatever and memes and all the
creative things you can use bestobject lines, etc.
We still seem to get moretraction with in-mails.
What, what you know?
(41:55):
What do you say about howjuicebox is currently performing
in that area versus in-mailresponse rates, or what you
think you'll see in the futurethat would enable someone to
maybe even not have LinkedInrecruiter corporate and just go
all in on a platform likeJuicebox for their sourcing?
Speaker 2 (42:13):
Yeah, I think the setting first off what you
mentioned in terms of some folksseeing higher response rates on
email definitely resonates Likewe have some customers who get
better response rates on emails,but also many customers who get
better response rates on emails, and that's a part of it.
I think, ultimately, the bestresponse rate is going to be
through a blended approach ofusing both emails and InMails,
potentially also other channels,depending on that being said,
(42:36):
in the future, I guess thereason why do InMails get better
response rates and there's noabsolute data on this.
My personal thesis is thatLinkedIn makes it very easy to
give credibility to the personreaching out because you can
just click their profile, yousee their profile, you see their
company, and so how can onerecreate that outside of
LinkedIn?
How can one also create thatcredibility for the person
reaching out, give someadditional data to them, make it
(42:59):
clear that, hey, this is not aspam message or like a message
going out to tens of thousandsof people, but actually
something very curated, verypersonal, to why they could be a
good fit for that role.
And so I think, as we thinkabout more of the credibility of
that email outreach and then toalso the content in there.
I think long-term, that'swhat's going to get us the best
response rates, and long-termalso should be channel agnostic,
(43:20):
whether that's LinkedIn,whether that's email, whether
that's a combination of the two.
Speaker 3 (43:23):
So you guys may actually play in the lag growth
machine limbless, multi-channel,dripify type space at some
point automating in-mailoutreach, potentially not asking
you to commit, just curious.
Speaker 2 (43:37):
It's something we're curious about.
It's also something thatLinkedIn's terms of service are
quite strict on, and I want tobe careful that we don't create
any violations there and sothat's something that we have to
look at and see what's feasible.
Cool yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker 1 (43:53):
Actually, one question that just came to my
mind is where are you seeing themost traction in your customer
base?
What industry, what sizecompany?
Speaker 2 (44:01):
Yeah, it's pretty diverse.
So we just crossed the 500customer mark, which also means
that we have quite a wide rangeof customers now.
So roughly 40% of them areagencies, 60% are in-house teams
and 90% of them are largerteams, and so that really ranges
.
Initially it was a lot of tech.
We're a lot of tech recruiting.
(44:21):
Nowadays we're seeing more andmore interest from non-tech
firms as well, especiallysourcing teams that are being
newly created at largeenterprises, like especially a
lot of big corporates thatdidn't have a sourcing function
and are now building that outall the way to agencies that are
really looking to driveefficiency or working with a
wide number of different clients, and so I know it's not a great
response, but the answer isit's pretty distributed now yeah
(44:45):
, it's been.
Speaker 1 (44:46):
Interesting is that a lot of the podcasts we've done
for the series thus far isthere's a somewhat significant
portion of a lot of the productcustomers are staffing seeing
that.
Speaker 3 (44:58):
It's a big risk too, though, right to get pulled in
that direction that was actuallygoing to be.
My next question was like howdo you build a product for two
similar but pretty different usecases and candidate experience?
Speaker 1 (45:10):
focus.
It makes it before you diveinto that.
It makes sense, though, right,because staffing companies are
always hiring if they alwayshave that turned on.
So it's like you're not gettinginto those customers that are
like stop, start, stop, start,yeah it's an interesting one.
Speaker 2 (45:28):
So staffing is, I think, going to be an important
part of the market but at thesame time, just like other parts
of the market be it executivesearch, be it in-house teams, be
it technical recruiting teamsand more is one specialization
that we have to be able to serve.
And so, if you look at, likeTotalMap actually recently
pulled this data based on ourown talent insights feature,
there's roughly 150K agency orstaffing recruiters in the US
(45:52):
and there's roughly 700,000in-house recruiters, and so I
think that also goes a littlebit in the direction of like hey
, it's quite large distribution,but in the end, it's a
specialization within it and aspecialization that our product
has to be able to serve, justlike other specializations that
we want to be able to support.
Speaker 1 (46:08):
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me.
Hey, david, this has been areally fun episode.
I definitely learned a lot.
Elijah, thanks for all thegreat questions and, between the
two of you guys, a ton of valueon this episode.
So, david, thank you so muchfor joining us today.
Thanks so much for having me,this was fun.
Yeah, it's a great time.
(46:30):
Everyone thanks so much forjoining us and we will see you
next time.
Hello, welcome to the Breakthrough Hiring Show.
I'm your host, james Mackey.
I got my co-host with me today,elijah, how's it going?
Doing well?
How are you, james?
Good.
And today we have DavidPaffenhals with us today, david,
thanks for joining us.
Thanks for having me.
David is the CEO of Juicebox.
David, I think you started thecompany what a couple years ago
(00:22):
at this point.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
That's right Two years ago and launched our
product one year ago.
Speaker 1 (00:27):
Okay, cool.
So looking forward to learningall about your product and what
you're up to.
Before we get into that, I'dlove to just learn a little bit
about you.
Where are you dialing in fromtoday?
I'm in San Francisco.
Okay, cool, nice.
And what were you up to beforeyou started Juicebox?
Speaker 2 (00:49):
Yeah.
So both my co-founder and Istarted the company right out of
college.
I had just graduated and myco-founder dropped out of
college to start the business.
We had this mutual thesis thatwas largely stemmed from us
going through a number of hiringprocesses where we thought, hey
, it's essentially a matchingproblem of matching the right
talent for the right roles.
And from the applicantperspective, we felt that it was
not being solved in the bestway possible and at the same
(01:10):
time we realized we wanted tobuild something that sells to
the business side.
And so we've had that problemstatement in mind and that
framework, and that's where wegot started with the business
over two years ago.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Yeah, love it, love it.
And I was actually able to takea look at the demo on your
website.
I like the very like short one,a couple minutes long, so I had
a chance to take a look at that.
But yeah, I mean I guess, justto start us off, could tell us
let's dive into your product alittle bit more.
Tell us about the problemyou're solving today, how it's,
maybe about how the product hasadvanced since over the last
(01:43):
couple years, and how you'rethinking about the space and to
take the product to the nextlevel, what your customers are
thinking wherever you reallywant to start.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Just more context would be great.
Yeah, for sure.
So we're an AI-powered talentsourcing platform.
That means we help go frominitial search setup, reviewing
and assessing profiles toengaging them, typically via
email sequences, and then wehave a bunch of data and
analytics on top, so rangingfrom talent insights to sequence
tracking and more, all builtinto the platform.
Overall, our vision is to beable to build both software and
(02:15):
automations to help recruitersor sourcers using the platform
in that workflow, and soultimately, we think there's a
lot of potential to go morein-depth, to do better sourcing
than what is possible right nowby using that technology.
And that's done one throughdriving efficiency in the
existing sourcing, but then two,providing the capabilities to
go deeper.
So how much more data is thereon companies, how much data can
(02:36):
we infer about people, and howcan we have AI assist us in
doing that review and thatsearch?
Speaker 1 (02:47):
And so that's what we're building at Juicebox and
what we've built the product forAwesome.
And, elijah, do you have anyinitial questions?
Just based off the primaryvalue, prop and the product.
Speaker 3 (02:52):
Yeah, sure, I'd love to dive a little bit in to yeah,
where you see your guys, yourproduct positioning in the
market.
I'm really familiar withsourcing tools.
I've used FireEasy, hiretoolback in the day, seekout, lots
of different sourcing platforms.
I actually had the pleasure ofusing Juicebox as well, so great
(03:13):
product.
I'm just curious as you wereentering the market, where did
you see Juicebox fitting in withthe existing players, and were
there any gaps in the marketthat you saw that you really
wanted to make the most of?
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Yeah for sure.
So I think the and youmentioned a few examples of all
of the existing sourcingsolutions.
I think there's the existingapproach, and which has been
refined over the past years ofone.
You have a data set of profiles, and you put a lot of work into
making sure the best datapossible, and you maybe
aggregate some additional datasources and then let the user
essentially search through thatdata, and so typically that's
(03:50):
done through filtering, and bethat searching by keyword, job
title, some really good machinelearning algorithms that help
rank the profiles, all based onthose initial keywords.
In the end, though, that's stillwhat it is it's filtering
essentially a resume database orprofile database, and then
reviewing those.
We have that same functionality, so we have the same filtering
and search piece, but then wetry to go one step further, and
(04:11):
that's where we think the futureis heading is not just in
filtering and showing them toyou, but then actually assessing
those profiles and saying, hey,this profile matches your
criteria for these reasons or ismissing this specific part of
your criteria.
I'm going through all of thoseprofiles, and so that's the next
step that we take, which istypically work done currently
manually by the recruiter or bythe sourcer of reviewing those
(04:31):
profiles and what existingsolutions don't do.
Another way to think about thatis existing solutions maximize
for the amount of time spent onthe platform.
We try to automate as much ofthat time as possible so you get
straight to the results ratherthan having to spend that time
on the platform.
Speaker 3 (04:48):
And what do you do with, let's say, a profile that
doesn't have a lot of dataavailable?
What does the platform do incases where there just isn't?
Speaker 2 (04:59):
that much data on a candidate, yeah, so I guess
overall we try to minimize thosecases as much as we can, but in
the end that's often going tobe the case, and will always be
the case in the future too, isthat there's some profiles where
there's just not sufficientinformation out there, and so,
on the first level, there's somethings that we can do in terms
of drawing inferences.
For example, if a criteria issomeone who has done B2B SaaS
sales and we know that theyworked at a B2B SaaS company, we
(05:21):
can infer that based on thecompany name perhaps their
investors, their funding, etcetera and then infer that they
likely have B2B SaaS salesexperience based on where they
worked.
Now, in other cases that mightnot be possible.
Let's say we want someone wholed a team of 20, but we don't
have any data on how large theirteam was, or we can't
reasonably infer that.
In that case, what our modelcurrently does is it basically
tells that to the user.
In our middle score it sayspotential fit, but not
(05:42):
sufficient information, at whichpoint we encourage either going
deeper on that on an initialphone screen or doing some
additional research beyond that.
Speaker 3 (05:50):
Cool and how have you seen?
I'm curious, like internalteams right, let's say they're
using LinkedIn Recruiter,because many of them are have
you seen Juicebox changing theirworkflow of like, where they're
sourcing the candidates, and orare you seeing them like
finding the candidates onLinkedIn Recruiter and then
maybe moving them into Juiceboxto do an email drip campaign?
(06:12):
I'm curious how you see thatworkflow changing for people
using Juicebox that are alreadyon something like LinkedIn
Recruiter.
Speaker 2 (06:19):
Yeah, our goal is to own that search process end to
end, so we want to be the bestplace to start your search and
the best place to engagecandidates all the way through
to getting that first call withthem scheduled.
The way, or what we have to doin order to achieve that, is
just provide undoubtedly thebest search experience, and so
that's kind of the bar that wehold ourselves against, too, and
also what we measure internally.
So one of the key metrics thatwe look at is, of our customers,
(06:42):
how many use the platform daily, or how many start their
searches with us every day, andso those are like, typically,
metrics that more like consumerproduct founders or even like
social app founders would lookat.
We track that quite closelybecause we think that's
representative of what the userhabit is and are we actually
delivering the best productexperience?
And so right now, of ourcustomers who use us, 30% use us
(07:03):
every single day, and that's anumber that we want to continue
benchmarking off of to ensurethat not only are we providing
the best search experience, butalso the best place to start
your search.
Speaker 3 (07:13):
Nice.
Yeah, that's probably one ofthe biggest challenges I've seen
when I was trying to implementdifferent sourcing tools.
When the search was intended tonot be done on LinkedIn
Recruiter right, and that's whatthey were most familiar with
they tended to not use the toolas much, right?
I'm not saying those searchexperiences were amazing, I'm
just saying it's hard to breakthat workflow.
(07:35):
The tools that we found working, at least at the time right,
because Juicebox didn't existwas to have something that ran
alongside of LinkedIn recruiterright, so the search experience
was done on LinkedIn recruiterright, so the search experience
was done on LinkedIn recruiterand then candidates were moved
into campaign tools, where thetools were geared more for the
campaign experience.
So it sounds like juice boxesfocus more on amazing search
(07:58):
experience, like owning thesearch experience, and then
forgive me if I'm wrong, but thesequencing is actually still
being built out more likethere's more features you want
to add on the engagement and theoutreach experience.
Is that right?
Speaker 2 (08:13):
That is right.
Yeah, the sequencing is one ofour newer features.
We launched the first versionin June.
Since then, we've added a tonof stuff, so we have AI
personalization in the sequencesteps we have sent on behalf of
and more, but there's also morefeatures coming soon.
Sequencing can continue to bemore advanced in order to
reflect that kind of full flowthat we want to help bring our
users through.
It's also the kind of advantageof starting with the first step
(08:36):
in the process, of startingwith the search and trying to
hold that workflow, is it verynaturally funnels into the next
step, so when you're searching,it becomes very easy to just one
click add someone into an emailsequence, and that's the
behavior that we want toencourage as well, because it's
what drives a lot of theefficiency.
Speaker 3 (08:52):
Have you noticed any challenges with email
deliverability or anything?
Because I noticed a lot ofsourcing platforms don't seem to
touch that to the same levelthat a sales outreach platform
might.
Right, like Limlist or any ofthose that are more sales
oriented.
Right, they have, like emailinbox, warmup periods and
(09:13):
deliverability rates.
The sourcing tools that aredoing email outreach seem to
have not touched that as much,at least in the products that
I've used.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
Yeah, no, that's very true.
I've noticed the same thing andI think the kind of in many
ways, especially like the CRMand engagement side.
It seems that recruiting isoften like a step behind sales
in terms of the tech used andlike how the tech has developed.
And then it's almost like youcan kind of see into the future
of recruiting tech by seeingwhat sales tech is doing right
now.
And I think a lot of thosethings of email warmups,
deliverability maximization, etcetera, is going to come into
(09:43):
the recruiting space soonerrather than later.
In fact, we're working on manyof those things right now and
want to be able to continue tobring some of those things to
our customers.
And yeah, I think overall thatis representative of where it
will go.
Now.
The one nuance is that in salesthere is no such thing as too
much volume.
You always want more leads.
You always want more qualifiedleads to reach out to.
(10:04):
In recruiting, there's morenuance to it.
If you have a higher responserate and even a smaller set of
candidates, but they'reextremely qualified and they're
extremely well-matched to thesearch, that's probably a better
outcome than having a huge topof funnel volume but poor
response rates and perhaps notvery qualified candidates, which
then results in poorpass-through rates as well, and
(10:26):
so I think that's like one ofthe reasons perhaps why we
haven't seen as much focus onthat in the recruiting side,
because typically the volume isa bit lower too.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Yeah, that makes sense.
As James knows, I can geek outon this all day, so let me pass
it back over to you, james, soyou can get some information.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
Well, actually I think you have a lot more
experience working with sourcingtechnology so you can get some
information.
Well, actually, I think youhave a lot more experience
working with sourcing technology, so I'm hoping to take more of
the backseat here.
I'll chime in with questions asthey come up.
But yeah, elijah, just based onyour experience and the
research you're doing, puttingtogether the company list for
the series and everything elsewhere does your head go next?
And I'll jump in if I have to.
But I'm still going to take thebackseat for now.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
Yeah, absolutely.
One thing I've thought a lotabout over the past six to 12
months and would love both ofyour feedback on is the use of
target company lists in sourcingplatforms.
So there's almost no companythat does it well outside.
There's sales platforms rightthey do it really well where you
can build out your ICP and kindof create a target company list
(11:24):
, like Apollo and others.
But sourcers right internalsourcing teams.
I've led sourcing teams of 10people, recruiting teams of 20
people and we love to use targetcompany lists right.
Building a list of SaaScompanies and I've noticed you
have a little bit of that flavorin the platform already, which
is brilliant.
Right, with the AI, findanother.
(11:47):
I think I did one where I hadlike eight to 10 target
companies and it's sourcingthrough those.
I'm curious do you see thatbeing used a lot, or do you have
any thoughts on building thatout more for companies who
actually would prefer to takethat target company list
approach?
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's almost like you have our
product roadmap on paper.
Yes, the companies are superpopular Right now.
We have some of that AIsuggested companies or find
similar companies and they'requite powerful, but there's
perhaps also some more controlthat we could give to the user
in terms of being able tocustomize that further or set a
target number of companies tosource through, etc.
(12:23):
Of companies to source through,et cetera, and so there's some
things we have in the work there.
And then the other thing that Ifound pretty interesting, that
we see being used more and more,is like saving those company
lists and sharing those companyinternally, and so both with
in-house recruiting teams, butalso with agency recruiting
teams really popular in terms ofhey, this is our target list of
(12:44):
dev tool companies, as anexample, or this is our target
list of consumer marketplacecompanies and being able to
build on those lists, save themand then use them in searches
recurringly.
One, it's a behavior that justmakes a lot of sense, but two,
it's also something thathopefully we'll be able to
provide more technology on inorder to do that more and more
make sure those lists are fullycomprehensive, and I think the
(13:06):
kind of final step to that is,it's almost goes in the
direction of executive searchand kind of bringing even deeper
level of searches into regularsourcing processes.
Think about like an executivesearch process often starts off
by mapping all competitivecompanies in the space or like
what could be adjacent, and thengoing backwards from there and
finding the relevant targets.
In my opinion, almost allsourcing in the future is going
(13:27):
to look closer to what executivesearch looks like today, where
you have that level of depth andthe level of time that you can
spend on each role.
Speaker 3 (13:34):
Yeah, I completely agree.
I've seen internal sourcingteams.
They have that list ofcompanies, right, but some of
the bigger ones that have morethan, let's say, one to two
sourcers, they're actuallycreating tiers, right.
So you have, let's say, the toptier is very general, so let's
say it's like B2B SaaS companiesright Under 5,000 or 2,000
(13:57):
employees, and then they'regoing, let's say, okay for our
sales org, actually we want themto have sold to enterprise, so
like they're then finding allthe companies within that larger
list that have actually sold toenterprise, that where the
product is sold to enterprise,then maybe they have for their
R&D team there's some otherrequirements.
(14:19):
So they almost have differenttiers or target company lists
that like overlap but aredifferent.
So that's one piece of what I'veseen.
That's super interesting.
The other thing that's beenfascinating is seeing sourcing
teams and recruitment teamsactually tracking layoffs and
like tracking events kind ofreal time and updating that on.
(14:42):
Usually it's some sort ofspreadsheet right, like all
these target company lists andevents that are happening are
all being tracked together in aspreadsheet.
But it'd be fascinating to seehow that plays out in a platform
like Juicebox, as your productvelocity just seems to be a lot
faster than some of yourcompetitors to be transparent.
Speaker 1 (15:01):
Elijah, I'm really happy I'm not talking right now.
This is good stuff.
I'm going to keep myself onmute a little bit longer.
You guys are crushing it.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
I just love this stuff.
So, yeah, I'm geeking out here.
No, I think.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
I circle back a little bit on, like the company
tiers of less sourcing.
I fully agree and I thinkactually that same approach is
not only applicable to likecompany lists but everything in
the search.
So the same with job titleswe're hiring like an AE, maybe.
Job titles we're hiring like anAE.
Maybe we want to prioritizesomeone who's actually been an
enterprise AE.
We'll also look at other AEs,but that kind of puts them in
another tier in that sourcing.
(15:32):
And I think that level ofsophistication and depth that's
where, in my mind, the future ofsourcing is going to go and
what lets you actually buildreally sophisticated and really
well mapped out target lists.
And I think the one thing thatis often forgotten is that it
feels like, oh, we're spendingso much time on the sourcing and
that means we're not spendingthat time actually engaging with
the candidates.
But what's often lost in thatis that the engagement
(15:55):
afterwards becomes so much moreefficient and so much higher ROI
, because we're being extremelythoughtful about who we want to
reach out to and who we want toengage.
So we're going to see higherresponse rates, we're going to
see better pass-throughafterwards, the client's going
to be happier, everythingbecomes a lot more targeted and
a lot more nuanced in that too.
Yeah, I'm really excited forthat, and our goal is to be able
to build out the functionalityto support that as much as we
(16:17):
can.
Speaker 3 (16:18):
Yeah, that's great how much demand.
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Oh, I have one.
No, go ahead Don't worry, I'llmake it quick.
I'll make it quick, hopefullyit's interesting.
How much demand are you seeingon the Talent Insights
functionality?
I know it's like you're puttingtogether searches and whatnot
and populating a ton of datawhich already is very insightful
in and of itself just likedoing searches and seeing what
comes up.
But you have this whole TalentInsights aspect to the product.
(16:42):
How exactly is it beingleveraged?
Is it being leveraged the waythat you thought it would?
What product requests are yougetting when it comes to
insights?
How's that evolving?
Just curious to learn moreabout that function or feature.
Speaker 2 (17:02):
And I think then, for teams that do use Talent
Insights, often they use it as abeginning exercise Okay, here's
the market map and maybealigning with the hiring manager
and configuring the initialsearch.
Our take is that is useful, butthere's actually a lot being
left on the table with that andthat kind of then also fed into
how we designed our TalentInsights features.
So in many products, TalentInsights is like completely
(17:25):
separate or a different tab.
In our case it's within thesearch tab, and so you actually
first configure your search andthen you get to see the Talent
Insights.
And that's intentional, becausewe want you to use the Talent
Insights in crafting yourshortlist, in searching through
profiles, and so what does thatmean product-wise?
Our Talent Insights are actuallyinteractive.
You can click every row in thechart.
You can open up new searchesbased on the Talent insights and
(17:47):
use those as part of yoursourcing.
And so, for example, if, goingback to that target company list
example, we notice our talentpool is mostly employed at the
three companies that we weretargeting, but actually there's
a really common past employeracross all of them.
Maybe that past employer is areally high value signal and we
can look at that past employerinstead and add that to our
(18:08):
company list, or even do a wholenother search strategy focused
on that, and so I think thoseare the types of insights or
data points that we hope to getout of the time insights and how
we hope to use it in thosesearches too.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Yeah, that's really cool.
So that actually shows up.
So it's okay, because on thescreen right now on your website
, which I've been doing somedigging around while you guys
were talking so I see thecurrent employers spot.
So what you're saying isthere's another section that
shows past employers.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
Yes, yeah, if you're in the product, it's basically
right below it.
So we have current employersand we have current plus past.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
Nice, that's awesome.
Yeah, and I like how the TalentInsights populates after a
search and it's integrated intothe search feature.
It populates after a search andit's integrated into the search
feature.
I know, honestly, I haven'tlooked at this feature from.
I suppose it might beconsidered a different product
at LinkedIn Talent Insights.
Yeah, it's been a few yearsbecause, quite honestly, it
(19:02):
seems pretty expensive.
I didn't know 15K.
Starting and that's likestartup price, so I'm assuming
it's much more for larger orgs,right?
Speaker 3 (19:13):
I'm not sure for larger orgs, but I know it was a
15K for kind of the wholecompany.
Then LinkedIn said that theywere going to make it either
free or integrated intosomething else, but I don't
think that's ever happened.
I think it's still around 15K.
Speaker 1 (19:28):
Yeah, I don't know.
So it seems like this issimilar to that, but it's just
integrated into your product andit's not an additional I don't
know what.
But if you have it segmented asan upsell package or whatever
else, we don't have to get intoall that.
You don't want to.
But yeah, it's just.
It's cool to see that in yourproduct because it does feel
like it takes a little bit ofpower away from LinkedIn, which
(19:49):
I love.
I built a business aroundLinkedIn, but at the same time,
it's nice to have some otherplayers adding some value when
it comes to Talent Insights andwhatnot.
Right?
Speaker 2 (19:59):
For sure.
Yeah, and to clarify for us,there's no upsell on the Talent
Insights.
It's integrated as part of thesearch and I think that's also
like the main differentiatorwith linkedin's talent insights
product is it's not interactive,it's like designed to give you
an overview.
It's very much meant for thatkicking off the search or even
planning where to hire process,which is important but, in our
view, leaves a lot on the tableyeah, I think like one of the
(20:20):
things it's.
Speaker 1 (20:21):
I know the way that we do it for our customers as an
rpo company.
When we're looking at talentinsights, it can be a lot more
sophisticated than it is.
It's essentially we look at.
Typically, we're looking attalent insights quite honestly
when we need to expand ourcandidate pool.
It's usually not sometimes it'sproactive, but a lot of the
times it's customer has a veryclear view in mind and so,
(20:43):
whether it's at the beginning ofthe search we need to show them
data to expand or it's furtheralong in the search, a few weeks
into it, where we show look,we've saturated this entire
candidate pool, we need toexpand.
But it's typically a result ofokay, let's find out two to
three different ways they couldexpand the search.
We get a pulse on what they feelis most important.
(21:03):
They're willing this is amust-have, this is a
nice-to-have, and so you provideokay if we open this up and
this is a must have, this is anice to have, and so you provide
okay if we open this up andthis is what it does to our
talent pool.
We open this up, this is whatit does and providing different
insights there, but it's likeway that we do.
It is just it's pretty basicwhere we're just looking at
changing the search criteria alittle bit with LinkedIn, seeing
how many more candidatespopulate.
(21:24):
That's like that's literally itand then we're just basically
looking at that data and thenmaking estimates right the
estimation on what to do withthat.
It would be cool to havesomething a little bit more
sophisticated, right, that's alittle bit more interactive and
also package.
This also looks I don't know ifit's in a reporting package or
(21:45):
whatnot but even just thepresentation on the product
itself would be something that'dbe really nice to show hiring
managers to help sway them inthe direction of making
important shifts to theirsourcing strategy.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
For sure, and I think the I think hiring manager like
collaboration is alsohistorically been something
that's been pretty difficult todo with like different tech
tools out there.
We have a little bit of that, soyou can share a search, even
for people who don't have anaccount like not even a free
account they can even access it,and then we do have like free
trial available too for hiringmanagers who want to get
(22:19):
involved.
One thing we've started seeingwith different companies that
I'd be curious if it's a trendthat's expanding is hiring
managers actually gettinginvolved in some of the sourcing
too, and so a few of the techcompanies we work with they
purchase seats not only for therecruiters but also for parts of
their hiring manager teams, andso in those cases, with hiring
managers getting involved,iterating on search strategies,
(22:40):
reviewing candidates togetherand looking at those insights
together too a reallyinteresting area I'm like I
don't think every organizationwill do that or want to go in
that direction, but for the onesthat do, I think it can be a
cool superpower to being able tohave that collaboration and
then be even more on target withtheir searches.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Yeah, I've been giving that a lot of thought to
like how is particularly AItechnology going to impact the
amount of time or point ofimpact of hiring managers?
I think a lot of theconversation is how it's going
to impact recruiters, but Idon't know how much we really
stopped to think about how it'sgoing to impact hiring managers.
So that's a brilliant point youbrought up and we could
probably I may be just like dialin on that a little bit.
(23:17):
Yeah, I mean, I've beenthinking a lot about that too.
I'm wondering it's like nomatter how efficient the
technology comes, you know, Idon't know if hiring managers
are going to try to push more ofthe top of funnel to the
recruiting team.
I'm not sure.
I mean, you're right, ifthere's automation and there's
AI technology that's able to puttogether short lists of talent
(23:38):
that are more relevant, thenit's less time I think they need
to spend.
Of course, if they didn't havethe support, then it would take
way too much time to source.
I mean, sourcing is a full-timejob, right?
Yeah, I'm curious if you haveany more thoughts on that.
Elijah, anybody who wants to,maybe david first.
I would be really curious toget your thoughts if you do have
any other thoughts on, like howa higher manager role is going
(23:58):
to change?
Uh, given ai technology andtheir point of impact?
Speaker 2 (24:04):
Yeah, I think the biggest piece on the hiring
manager, recruiter or sourcerrelationship is communication,
and I think that's liketraditionally where a lot of the
perhaps there's a hiddencriteria or things that they are
assessing for unconsciously,that they don't realize or that
(24:30):
they don't communicate to therecruiter or sourcer.
And so I think being able to bemore hands-on in those
processes like actually seeingthe talent pool live together,
being able to align on that andconfine it while still in that
alignment and collaborationphase, will make that
communication a lot better and,I think, also lead to like
faster cycles on the sourcingand recruiting front.
(24:50):
And so I think the technologycan be a huge assistant to that,
in the sense that it's ratherthan describing what you're
looking for, you can actuallylook for that person together
and go through those criteriahand in hand and side by side.
Speaker 1 (25:04):
Yeah, for sure.
I see this as a tool that Icall.
I have this process which Idon't have a recruiter out there
called it.
It's a kickoff, a calibrationmeeting.
I don't know if that's like aterm that everybody uses.
That's what we call it.
Is that what you guys call it?
Speaker 3 (25:18):
I probably started calling it that because you
called it that when we workedtogether.
Yeah, that's what I call it Allright.
Speaker 1 (25:24):
I guess, just to define what we're talking about,
is I usually, two days afterkicking off the search, I pull
together, our team typicallypulls together 10 LinkedIn
profiles of candidates and doesa share screen and walks the
hiring manager through thoseprofiles and gets our feedback
live Like hey, what do you thinkof this person, why?
(25:46):
And gets our feedback live Likehey, what do you think of this
person, why?
And I think that this is just afurther essentially iteration
of that.
In an extent, it's basicallybeing able to manipulate the
search.
Showing the live impact ontalent insights would actually
be really cool to do upfront,now that I'm thinking about it,
because I could see us, like, ona kickoff, going like all right
(26:07):
, based on the search criteriathat you currently have,
punching it into your productlike all right, this is what we
got.
So it's opposed to this manualmotion of offline recruiters
trying to crunch data on howcertain search criteria would
change the candidate pool andwhatnot, the difficulty of the
search and all those types ofthings.
(26:27):
You're right, this could bedone live with the hiring
managers.
I'm of the mindset, david, justto touch on where we think
hiring managers should beinvolved.
They should be very involved.
It's their team.
I would think that hiringmanagers would want to be
involved with every stage of theprocess.
I think the best ones areacross the board.
(26:48):
Every great leader I've knownis very hands-on with talent
acquisition.
But I'm wondering.
It's like from a productstandpoint.
It's like we know that there'smore value there for hiring
managers to be more hands-on,but I wonder if they're at scale
.
I don't know.
I still think it's like talentacquisition for recruiters
driving this.
I see this as definitely a toolto jump on and tell me if I'm
(27:12):
wrong, but I would assume like,more often than not, it's the
recruiters sourcers and to theextent that it's really, I'd say
, the majority of the time, Iwould assume when hiring
managers are interacting, atleast at the beginning of the
searches, it's like a sharescreen situation, uh, in which
the recruiters are walkingthrough.
That's really how I wouldleverage it.
Um, that kind of align withwhat you're saying.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
Yeah, 100%.
And I think also what youmentioned in terms of the best
hiring managers are moreinvolved.
I agree with that.
I think it really shows thatthey're engaged in it.
And then on the flip side too,on the recruiter and sourcer
side, the best recruiters andsourcers are not only excellent
at finding the right candidates,they're also excellent at
project managing the hiringmanager in terms of how you
think about the search, whatyou're looking for, being able
(27:49):
to pass through those candidateslike your calibration meeting
being a great example of that,it's like not only can that be
one meeting, but that can be anongoing process too.
Speaker 1 (28:01):
Yeah, for sure, which are the whole sourcing aspect,
but the talent insights aspect,which, particularly when you
start to get to larger companies, you need data in order to sway
hiring teams to make betterdecisions, and this is a great
(28:24):
way to do that.
And a lot of the times there'sdifferent parts of the funnel
where you need to be able to tryto explain to them why changes
need to occur.
But often the most challengingstage is when it comes to role
profile and some of the aspectsaround requirements.
It's in my experience it's beena little easier to change down
funnel behavior or process, butpeople get really attached to a
(28:48):
certain aspect of their searchcriteria and I try to use the
talent insights, the manual waythat my team does it.
That's not nearly assophisticated as your product
can do, but we'll try to explainthe reasoning and the strategy
behind why an aspect maybe it'sa requirement, like any
(29:10):
requirement.
I guess one could be industryexperience.
That comes up in a lot ofgo-to-market SaaS companies
where sometimes companies willrequire very specific industry
experience, like not just HRtech but something very hyper
specific, for instance, right,like within that space, and it's
like, based on working with 200companies over the past decade
(29:35):
I've learned a thing or two.
It's just not what drivesresults 99% of the time.
Let's say 95%, let's just givethem.
Maybe 5% of the time they'reright, but the majority of the
time it's just not the biggestfactor to determine success.
And so we'll do those types ofconversations.
But alongside of that we havethis whole data argument of,
(29:59):
look, this isn't the right thingfor you guys to be doing.
Here are the reasons.
We might walk them through allthe explanations, but then we'll
also say look, you have gonethrough X amount of screening.
Calls this that your hiringteam has dedicated X amount of
hours.
Right, we've saturated thetalent pool in this market for
(30:20):
this industry experience.
You've gone through source of200 people.
You've passed on all of them.
We've dedicated this much timeand we let you know for X, y and
Z reasons, this isn't even theprimary thing that's going to
drive success, right, it's notnearly as important as so many
other things.
And here's the data.
You're out of candidates.
So clearly this isn't a modelfor success.
(30:44):
You say this is the mostimportant, but you've spoken to
everybody and this isn't a modelfor success.
You say this is the mostimportant, but you've spoken to
everybody, and obviously they'renot making the cut.
So we have the data plus theexplanation and everything else.
We put that qualitative,quantitative and then putting
that together and packaging andpositioning to the customer is a
much more effective argument,and if you put that in front of
a smart executive or a smarthiring team, when you show them
(31:05):
the data, if they don't changeafter that, that's unusual to an
extent.
If you do a good job,positioning that, unless they
accept, this is a really justhard to fill role.
We just got to keep it open.
If they have that expectation,then I'm a little more okay with
it To an extent.
The problem with that, though,is if it takes seven months to
fill a role and then that personleaves three months later,
(31:25):
you're screwed.
So it's like you're too highlyleveraged on one candidate, but
that's anyways.
That's one higher.
That's a different conversation, though.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
But, yeah, interesting stuff.
Yeah, I would almost imagine,because I know, david, you guys
have some new features comingout with the scoring right where
you can put differentweightings in right.
I would imagine, james, likeyou're saying, you could
actually go into that intakecall or the weekly sync change
the weights, change the scoringcriteria, show them the talent
pool that's going to give them,even show them.
Hey, your top three candidatesthat we talked about in the
(31:57):
beginning mentioned a few peopleyou knew that you like their
profiles.
They're actually not matchingup with that criteria that we
have, and here's the outcome.
So I think that's interesting,right, being able to dial in on
the intake call with theinsights and the scorecard,
essentially, that they build atJuicebox I think.
The other interesting piece I'dlove to know more about, david,
(32:19):
is are you guys pulling any compdata in?
Because that's always somethinglike companies are asking like
oh, do you guys have any compbenchmarking data?
And then I go manually pullright like all these comp
benchmarks from across the web.
How are you all thinking aboutcomp benchmarking related to
Talent Insights?
Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 2 (32:39):
So just before I hop into the comp piece, would love
to add one more thing on thediscussion with the hiring
manager line.
I think another way to thinkabout it in the hiring process
is like the hiring manager oftenhas stated preferences or like
what they think theirpreferences are in the beginning
, but then another set ofrevealed preferences that we
only see once we start showingcandidates.
And it's like what process orsteps do we have to go through
(33:02):
to get those revealedpreferences as fast as possible
so that we have calibrated thesearch as efficiently as
possible?
And I think in the end theanswer to that is like showing
profiles together and looking atthem together, and that often
brings so much more data thanone can find out, or maybe even
more data than the hiringmanager thought about in the
beginning as well.
And sorry, further distractedthere, go to the comp
benchmarking piece.
(33:22):
We don't have the data yet I'dlove for us to have that data.
It's something we're veryinterested in.
I think it would be hugelyvaluable in a lot of ways, both
in terms of the direct way ofbeing able to search by that,
but then also to get a feelinglike where's the market going,
how competitive are these rolesand more?
And so the tricky bit with compdata is, one, it's hard to get
overall, and then, two, it'seven harder to get accurate data
(33:42):
, and so, yeah, we've beenlooking at a few different
potential paths for that.
I can't make any promises, butit's something that I'd be very
keen on too.
Yeah, yeah, that is achallenging one thing.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
Yeah, it's a good for sure.
I know a lot of people areusing pave radford.
Right, there's all these comptools that companies as they
grow in place.
But until then, I think most ofus are looking on glassdoor and
built-in.
If you're working with techstartups and you just try to
(34:14):
find a rough range that you thenshare the hiring manager with
some data points, but, yeah, itcould be really helpful at some
point to have that for sure, aslong as it's accurate and not,
yeah, just a massive, unhelpfulrange.
Speaker 1 (34:24):
So I would be curious to dive a little bit more into
the weighting aspect ofcandidates.
Where you start to.
I don't know if we considerthat Is that getting into like
evaluation territory where AI ismaking decisions on who to move
forward with?
I still sometimes struggle.
There's like a spectrum, right,of course you're putting in
(34:44):
search criteria and, based offthat, results are coming in, but
then are we getting?
Would we consider this gettingmore so into a valuation, or no?
Speaker 2 (34:55):
Hmm, applicants, david.
Sorry, I didn't catch that.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
Well, I was just going to say they're not
applicants, right?
So they're, yeah, they haven'tactually applied.
So you're just helping, you'rejust doing better filtering
Right.
Speaker 1 (35:05):
Almost what you're doing in your mind as your
source.
Speaker 3 (35:06):
you're just helping do better filtering right Almost
what you're doing in your mindas your source.
Yeah, what do you think, David?
That's my guess.
Speaker 2 (35:13):
Yeah, I think there's like the legal piece and the
practical piece.
In terms of the legal piece,the clear answer is no, because
they're not applicants.
Yet You're not evaluating thembecause they aren't applicants.
And that's usually all the lawsare based on too, but then in
the practical piece, I alsothink the answer is no, and the
reason why I think that is that,at least in our case, what the
criteria assessment does is itbasically does the same thing a
(35:34):
human would do.
When looking at it, it'sultimately a yes, maybe or no
answer, and the maybe istypically we don't have enough
information.
And so does this person havefour years of experience working
with Python?
It's an objective, yes or no.
Either they have that or theydon't, and that's actually the
case for the majority ofcriteria, even the ones that are
more fuzzy.
A black person has managed asales team of more than 20
people or has brought in morethan a million dollars in
(35:56):
revenue?
There are answers, in the end,that either a recruiter would
come to or now, a lot of that AItechnology is able to do as
well.
I think the part where it thengoes into evaluation, which is
what we don't do, is thiscandidate is a better candidate
for these reasons.
So we won't do an explicitthing of hey, person A would be
a better fit for the role thanperson B.
(36:17):
All we can tell you is person Amatches criteria one, two and
three and candidate B matchescriteria one and three, and so
that's the data that we provide.
The decision making or theevaluation after that is still
the next step and kind of therecruiter or the sourcer does in
that case.
Speaker 1 (36:34):
That makes a lot of sense.
Like I said, yeah, it'sdifferent, because I was just
thinking about our episode withBrainerd co-founders of Brainerd
.
And they're doing it's like AIdriven resume matching doing
it's like ai driven resumematching.
So it's actually and it's a lotmore sophisticated than I don't
know.
I honestly initially would haveassumed for a resume matching,
which was really cool, reallyenjoyed that episode and learned
(36:57):
a lot.
But yeah, I mean it was likethat is inbound applicants and
then they're matching based onthat and weighing that, and I
feel like that starts to getinto evaluation territory
because it's inbound.
So that would be the importantdistinction when it's outbound,
it's they're not applying forthe job, versus inbound they are
(37:17):
, which I think makes things alittle bit more complicated,
right.
Speaker 3 (37:23):
Yeah, there's no laws , right as far as I know, who
you can or can't reach out to.
You legally have to, becausethere's all these DE&I
initiatives that are actuallypushing you to reach out to
candidates based on a factorthat you're not legally allowed
to consider when they're inboundstandard disclaimer.
Speaker 2 (37:43):
I'm not a lawyer but, to my best understanding, the
way we think about things iswe're thinking about who to
reach out to, we're thinkingabout who to invite to apply for
a position, and so how can wemake sure that the people we
reach out to match the criteriathat we're setting for this job?
And so that's ultimately whatour platform is designed to do,
and I think, in generally, whatwe want to do.
(38:03):
And I guess the twodistinctions there, like one
that we already touched on, islike are they an applicant or
are they inbound or are theyoutbound?
And then two are you directlycomparing them against another
profile or are you directlydoing that comparison using AI?
And so I'd say those are likethe two things that are my gut
checks of whether something'susing that evaluation in a
hiring process.
Speaker 1 (38:24):
Do you guys, do you see yourself getting involved
with re-engaging with candidatesthat are in the CRM of your
customers, going down that pathfor enterprise customers, folks
that have large databases ofapplicants and folks that have
interviewed with the team before, that kind of thing?
Speaker 2 (38:41):
Yes, yeah, we have started deploying that with some
of our customers.
It basically integrates rightinto the regular search and then
it'll give some additionalweighting to people you have an
existing relationship with andit'll show you like a quick tag
alongside the view in ATS.
I think it's pretty powerful.
I think the most importantpiece of that functionality is
that it's still integrated intothe regular recruiter search
flow, because if it's a separateprocess, if it's a separate
(39:03):
step, it ends up being the thingthat one wants to do or thinks
is interesting, but then neveractually goes through the time
of doing that, and so that'skind of we've thought about that
so far, and the other thingthat goes in that direction that
I'm really excited about we'reactually launching this week is
that you can import not onlyyour own LinkedIn connections,
but you can also invite otherpeople to import their LinkedIn
connections, and so you canactually import all of that data
(39:25):
and then use that as a similarsourcing field, just like you
would with past applicants.
And so, example if you're doingan engineering search and you
invite the existing engineeringteam to upload their connections
, can be a really cool, powerful, additional search filter to
surface some candidates.
Speaker 1 (39:41):
Oh, I like that a lot .
That's really cool, so we got afew minutes left here.
David, is there anything elseyou want to touch on related to
your product roadmap, or justimportant insights for future
current customers that aretuning in?
Anything that you really wantto drive home?
I have a couple more ideas ofstuff we can cover, but I'd love
for you if there's anythingspecific that you want to
(40:01):
discuss.
Let's focus on that first.
Speaker 2 (40:04):
Nothing super specific, I think.
Overall, I guess the thing thatI'm most excited about for the
future of recruiting, andparticularly the future of
sourcing, is, with all the newtechnologies in place and all
the new capabilities that wehave, how can our processes
evolve too?
How can we get even better atdoing what we do and identifying
(40:25):
right candidates, reaching outto them, engaging them and I
think that's what a lot of thathappens organically already.
Like we just have someadditional time to be able to
spend on a role, we're able todo some additional mapping or
think about the additionalcompany that we could source
from.
But a lot of that also needslike a conscious effort of the
recruiting team going and saying, hey, we have these new
capabilities or we have thisextra time that we saved.
How do we deploy that?
(40:46):
Like, how do we go one stepfurther beyond what we do right
now, and what does that actuallylook like?
And so I think that's the thingwe spend a lot of time talking
with our customers about.
And also that I like to thinkabout in general is, like we
think, three, four years downthe line, what will a great
sourcing or recruiting processlook like, and how's that
different from what we havetoday cool, awesome.
Love it.
Love it, elijah.
How?
Speaker 1 (41:05):
about you any final thoughts look like?
And how's that different fromwhat we have today?
Cool, awesome, love it.
Love it, elijah.
How about you?
Any final thoughts on today?
Speaker 3 (41:11):
Yeah, two quick questions before we wrap up.
One is so when you're speakingto, let's say, a talent
acquisition leader, they've gota team of sourcers.
They're like deeply embedded inLinkedIn recruiter.
Maybe they're looking foradditional tools.
I think the big question isalways around response rate.
Right, like most of us arestill getting more traction with
(41:34):
in-mails, even though we hatepaying so much money.
Right, we're still getting moretraction with in-mails than we
are with, like, personal emails.
Even if you use GIFs orwhatever and memes and all the
creative things you can use bestobject lines, etc.
We still seem to get moretraction with in-mails.
What, what you know?
(41:55):
What do you say about howjuicebox is currently performing
in that area versus in-mailresponse rates, or what you
think you'll see in the futurethat would enable someone to
maybe even not have LinkedInrecruiter corporate and just go
all in on a platform likeJuicebox for their sourcing?
Speaker 2 (42:13):
Yeah, I think the setting first off what you
mentioned in terms of some folksseeing higher response rates on
email definitely resonates Likewe have some customers who get
better response rates on emails,but also many customers who get
better response rates on emails, and that's a part of it.
I think, ultimately, the bestresponse rate is going to be
through a blended approach ofusing both emails and InMails,
potentially also other channels,depending on that being said,
(42:36):
in the future, I guess thereason why do InMails get better
response rates and there's noabsolute data on this.
My personal thesis is thatLinkedIn makes it very easy to
give credibility to the personreaching out because you can
just click their profile, yousee their profile, you see their
company, and so how can onerecreate that outside of
LinkedIn?
How can one also create thatcredibility for the person
reaching out, give someadditional data to them, make it
(42:59):
clear that, hey, this is not aspam message or like a message
going out to tens of thousandsof people, but actually
something very curated, verypersonal, to why they could be a
good fit for that role.
And so I think, as we thinkabout more of the credibility of
that email outreach and then toalso the content in there.
I think long-term, that'swhat's going to get us the best
response rates, and long-termalso should be channel agnostic,
(43:20):
whether that's LinkedIn,whether that's email, whether
that's a combination of the two.
Speaker 3 (43:23):
So you guys may actually play in the lag growth
machine limbless, multi-channel,dripify type space at some
point automating in-mailoutreach, potentially not asking
you to commit, just curious.
Speaker 2 (43:37):
It's something we're curious about.
It's also something thatLinkedIn's terms of service are
quite strict on, and I want tobe careful that we don't create
any violations there and sothat's something that we have to
look at and see what's feasible.
Cool yeah, that makes sense.
Speaker 1 (43:53):
Actually, one question that just came to my
mind is where are you seeing themost traction in your customer
base?
What industry, what sizecompany?
Speaker 2 (44:01):
Yeah, it's pretty diverse.
So we just crossed the 500customer mark, which also means
that we have quite a wide rangeof customers now.
So roughly 40% of them areagencies, 60% are in-house teams
and 90% of them are largerteams, and so that really ranges
.
Initially it was a lot of tech.
We're a lot of tech recruiting.
(44:21):
Nowadays we're seeing more andmore interest from non-tech
firms as well, especiallysourcing teams that are being
newly created at largeenterprises, like especially a
lot of big corporates thatdidn't have a sourcing function
and are now building that outall the way to agencies that are
really looking to driveefficiency or working with a
wide number of different clients, and so I know it's not a great
response, but the answer isit's pretty distributed now yeah
(44:45):
, it's been.
Speaker 1 (44:46):
Interesting is that a lot of the podcasts we've done
for the series thus far isthere's a somewhat significant
portion of a lot of the productcustomers are staffing seeing
that.
Speaker 3 (44:58):
It's a big risk too, though, right to get pulled in
that direction that was actuallygoing to be.
My next question was like howdo you build a product for two
similar but pretty different usecases and candidate experience?
Speaker 1 (45:10):
focus.
It makes it before you diveinto that.
It makes sense, though, right,because staffing companies are
always hiring if they alwayshave that turned on.
So it's like you're not gettinginto those customers that are
like stop, start, stop, start,yeah it's an interesting one.
Speaker 2 (45:28):
So staffing is, I think, going to be an important
part of the market but at thesame time, just like other parts
of the market be it executivesearch, be it in-house teams, be
it technical recruiting teamsand more is one specialization
that we have to be able to serve.
And so, if you look at, likeTotalMap actually recently
pulled this data based on ourown talent insights feature,
there's roughly 150K agency orstaffing recruiters in the US
(45:52):
and there's roughly 700,000in-house recruiters, and so I
think that also goes a littlebit in the direction of like hey
, it's quite large distribution,but in the end, it's a
specialization within it and aspecialization that our product
has to be able to serve, justlike other specializations that
we want to be able to support.
Speaker 1 (46:08):
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me.
Hey, david, this has been areally fun episode.
I definitely learned a lot.
Elijah, thanks for all thegreat questions and, between the
two of you guys, a ton of valueon this episode.
So, david, thank you so muchfor joining us today.
Thanks so much for having me,this was fun.
Yeah, it's a great time.
(46:30):
Everyone thanks so much forjoining us and we will see you
next time.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.