{"id":1660,"date":"2010-01-08T21:50:47","date_gmt":"2010-01-08T21:50:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bullhorn.com\/?p=1660"},"modified":"2019-03-02T09:09:56","modified_gmt":"2019-03-01T22:09:56","slug":"staffing-recruiting-freakonomics-new-years-resolutions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bullhorn.com\/au\/blog\/staffing-recruiting-freakonomics-new-years-resolutions\/","title":{"rendered":"Staffing and Recruiting, Freakonomics and New Year’s Resolutions"},"content":{"rendered":"

I’m currently reading the book, Super Freakonomics<\/a>, the sequel to the wildly popular original Freakonomics<\/a>, which I also enjoyed. It’s light, it’s fun and it gives you a rational, and sometimes irrational, lens into the unique economic problems of everyday life. For example, why will someone with a 20 gallon gas tank drive an extra mile out of their way to save 2 cents a gallon, when AAA calculates it costs 54.1 cents per mile to drive a car? Theoretically, it means they value their time as meaningless, not to mention the added risk of an accident by driving that one extra mile and the loss of at least 14 cents based on the AAA estimate. So what does this have to do with staffing and recruiting?<\/p>\n

Last May, I had the pleasure to sit next to the CEO of a very successful multi-office, national executive search firm at a staffing and recruiting awards banquet. She’d been interested in Bullhorn for more than a year plus, was sold on our value to her business, and fully understood our per month pricing model (on a per user basis we are cheaper than the average recruiter’s cell phone bill) and very low switching costs. Yet she was reluctant to move, even when it was shown to her that similar Bullhorn customers experienced a 35% increase in placements on a per recruiter basis during the first two years of use (in fact, in this case her infrastructure costs would have also gone down by well more than 50%, making Bullhorn virtually free). In Freakonomics terms, the added placements of just one recruiter, annually, pays for the use of the product for all of the other recruiters. Any additional placements from the other recruiters is pure profit.<\/p>\n

So why not switch? Here are some of the Freakonomics myths, rational and otherwise, on why:<\/p>\n