Hey, there! Log in / Register
Software company offers $30,000 bounties for developer referrals
By adamg on Wed, 05/22/2013 - 8:26am
HubSpot, which offers online marketing software from its offices in Kendall Square, today launched a referral program: Refer a software developer to them, and if they hire him or her, you get $30,000.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Must be nice to be able to
Must be nice to be able to spend that VC funding like that. (and yeah they got their last round last year)
Seriously, 30k?!? In this economy with its high unemployment rate, if you can't find quality employees and need to offer big bonuses to attract people.. either your company sucks and can't keep people OR you're far too picky as an employer in the hiring process. It's not 1998 anymore folks.. its a employers market right now, you don't need to offer big bonuses to attract people because it is no longer slim pickings for candidates. This really says a lot about HubSpots HR department and hiring managers if they feel the need to do this in today's economy.
I take it you are not a developer...
... because you're seriously underestimating the demand for competent software engineers right now. $10-20k is typical for referral bonuses, and it's a market where we graduate less CS degrees today than in 1970 yet have more demand than ever for the skills.
Hell, there are companies that are giving interviewees brand new MacBook Pros just for making it to the second round. If there was ever a field currently immune to the recession, it's software.
It's not a matter of their company necessarily sucking, it's that quality engineers are that hard to find today and are that needed. Simple supply and demand economics at work. You realize we're in the middle of a mobile computing revolution, among no shortage of others right?
I won't make presumptions about your background, but you're reeking of sour grapes right now. It's not the tech industry's fault so many people pay $45k+ a year for liberal arts degrees (that'd be more the fault of both a well-off population as well as government making student loans too easily acquired for fields of nebulous ROI, artificially inflating what people are able to spend on degrees that won't end up having been a very good investment, letting schools raise prices. Ultimately a college education is an investment, after all.)
i'm sure it is nice
Cybah, smells of jealousy over there. $30k is the equivalent of what, maybe a few additional sales? I don't think the incentive is outlandish at all. And for a growing company, why wouldn't you want to be picky? If you're going to hire someone and develop them (no pun intended) as a member of your company, you want to pick the right person.
There's a fine line between
There's a fine line between being picky and just being obnoxious. That is all.
Am I jealous? Nope. I have a job. I just think its rather odd to offer this much. Its just obnoxious.
Look, people are going to work for your company regardless of incentives. People want to work for great companies. If your company is so great, why offer so much then?
Obnoxious by whose standard?
Just your decree? As someone working in software, it's certainly not obnoxious to me that companies want my skills that badly. I'm sure it's also not obnoxious for anyone who may get that bonus, regardless of what field they work in.
Believe it or not, companies are free to decide what is and what is not a valid investment cost in their hiring practices, regardless of your view of what is "excessive compensation". Get off your high horse.
If it resulted in bad outcomes for the company they probably won't keep doing it. Hiring in tech has massive cost overheads. It's not cheap to train a new employee like it is in something like retail. Creating structures to presumably result in higher standards in the candidates you are able to hire (more overall applications due to a huge bonus = more ability to be picky) is almost certainly going to pay off for them in the end.
It's About Getting Attention
I work in recruiting and that's about the equivalent of paying a high-end headhunter. Sometimes the best thing about these high profile bonuses is that it attracts more people to come to the company directly, without a referral thus saving money AND getting people hired.
Eh...
Actually despite the generall unemployment it's actually pretty hard to find tech workers right now. We're having the same problem at my company --not that we're offering a 30k referral but still, it's hard. I've recently had letters from people I haven't worked with in 10 years asking if I'm looking for a job.
Seems in line to me
Typical referral fees by headhunters, etc. are 20-30% of the salary. A good, experienced developer would make >$100K, so $30k sounds in line.
Also, as was pointed out above, some tech specialties are very hard to find.
I'll bite...
Who cares if it's in line with the industry or whatever? Yes, I'm going to be "that person" and say that it's obnoxious any time a company decides to throw around huge sums of cash instead of really looking at what can be changed and shifted within the company to make things run better and make people happier. Many of us work for companies that are doing just as important of work and don't have any money to spare, and we make it work. At any of the various places I do work, if we had $30,000 lying around, we could pay a year's rent on a space we desperately need to run our programs, or pay the first year's salary to hire a clinician to provide a service that currently just isn't being provided because there isn't money. So yes, it's obnoxious that someone's using this money instead of working as hard as the rest of us do to make a great product by being creative and working together because that's our only option.
Oh, and FWIW, there are many for-profit companies (mostly financial and high-tech) who recognize that they're in a place of immense privilege to have that kind of cash flow, when taxpayer-funded essential programs don't, and routinely will give the programs where I work these kinds of sums of money because some executive realizes it WOULD BE obnoxious to spend tens of thousands of dollars on some perk when others in the community can't even hire essential staff or pay the rent on their buildings. So maybe it's not as publicized, because being decent just doesn't make good headlines, but it's also "in line with the industry" at many places to skip the obnoxious spending and help out your neighbors.
(And yes, nearly all for-profits give, and all giving is good, but I'm talking about the places that don't just do one service project or a donation to well-funded major charity. I'm talking about those that really do the sort of on-the-ground giving where they realize that executives at their financial company are having meetings on cruise boats, while the other middle-aged adults working at the workshop next door who happen to have disabilities have had to cut their afternoon social skills group and watch a movie instead, and who respond to this by walking next door with a check to rehire the clinician rather than sending untrained volunteers in matching polo shirts that make for good annual report photos.)
I <3 Eeka I 200% agree with
I <3 Eeka
I 200% agree with this post. Thank you for posting this.
So....
When this local startup becomes a success story, does that not do significant good for the community? Whether it's through attracting more talent to the area, investing in infrastructure to support their growth, or even the tax revenues that go into funding your non profits?
Tech companies do no shortage of charity fundraising, by the way. Where I work is one of the largest donors to the local foodbank by a pretty large margin, among others like recently matching any employees donation to the marathon bombing funds.
Ultimately, industries have to work within their own budgets. There's no universal "fair" for this. Innovation industries improve everyone's quality of life. We're moving to an age where the sum of human knowledge is everyone's pocket all the time, and where everyone will be able to get Harvard-quality educations for prices approaching $0. It doesn't simply come down to the dollars they may have to work with over time.
Sure
A developer who's probably going to work on a project that will make or break the whole company can be conjured out of thin air by changing and shifting. Just change, shift, jump, clap your hands and all is suddenly fine and dandy, and the receptionist starts coding like Bill Gates. Oh, and give that money to some shady little charity so the CEO can put most of it in his pocket and hire a few clipboard warriors to ask for more. Sounds like you work for a nonprofit and barely make ends meet (though you somehow managed to buy a nice Fort Hill condo and adopt a kid,) do you know how much your CEO makes?
Naw
I'm comfortable with what I make. I do wish the places I work had the money to buy basic supplies and hire more staff though. No CEO at any of the places I work; just supervising folks who make around $50,000.
I have to say though, it's really odd and actually rather creepy though that you took the time to research the condition or value of my home and the type of adoption we did. Not that any mention of my home or family was relevant to bring up in the first place in a discussion about various industry practices, but it's pretty creepy that you took time to look up my information in public records to help make whatever point you were trying to make.
Paranoid much?
You talk about yourself a lot here, eeka. All someone would have to do is read things here for a couple years to know that much about you.
Naw, I was being snarky...
I haven't actually mentioned on here whether I live in a nice place or what type of adoption and what was required, so if this person knows that stuff, I assume they must have a lot of time on their hands and be looking into my personal details elsewhere. I mean, someone on the internet wouldn't just totally talk out of their ass and jump to huge conclusions, right? ;-)
It's a business decision, pure and simple
This is a simple business decision. The company decided it's worth spending $30k to get the general population to refer candidates for some badly needed positions. $30k is what they would pay a headhunter anyway. You have your ways that you'd spend $30k in your business, these guys have their way.
The hardest part of filling a job position is to get elgible candidates past your door. It's like a new restaurant - all they want to do is get people into their place and try it out, and the rest is up to the cook. Well, getting an eligible candidate to actually interview is the same challange, and if you can get the whole general population involved by offering an incentive, your chances of getting a good candidate improve dramtically. Besides, again, $30k is about what a headhunter would get paid for the referral.
You seem to think that that HubSpot has buttloads of money and just wants to throw it away on recruiting. Not even close. If it's like any high tech company I've worked for, every nickel is watched. This was a business decision where alternatives were considered and the $30k referral payment was thought to be a good way to find good candidates, and it's the same fee a headhunter would get paid. Like any business decision, $30k spent in one place is $30k you can't spend elsewhere, so believe it or not, there's a bit of thought that goes into this decision.
I'm sure your line of work can be incredibly frustrating sometimes, from a funding point of view. I know I'd be frustrated. Getting pissed off because somebody spends money differently than you would just isn't healthy. HubSpot is a business, they're trying to survive. Since they took in a big chunk of VC money only 2 years ago, I doubt they're even profitable yet.
Besides, $30k is what they would pay a headhunter. Would you like $30k going to some dickhead headhunter, or to some Joe on the street who could use some cash?
This brings up a good point.
This brings up a good point.
Just because hubspot has the cash to burn like this for qualified candidates, does it mean it should.
You, yourself said they are still VC funded.
Wouldn't it make better sense to CONSERVE money?!? I've worked for dot coms that were failing and still did these types of antics regardless.. guess what? they aren't around anymore. Folks the cash cow does eventually end and many VC firms may not be so quick to give up money if their investments are just pissing the money away.
Again just because you might give that 30k to a recruiter because "it's what they charge" and "let's give it to anyone who refers people to us".. is NOT always the correct way of being. If everyone paid everyone this type of finders fee, no one would work, people just refer people to other jobs.
And yes I think I HubSpot has buttloads of money to give away, regardless of "every penny is watched", because that statement is false. If HubSpot was so penny pinching, doing a stunt like this wouldn't happen, and hell.. you won't use a headhunter either. (my company does not use recruiters for this very reason..its expensive). You can find candidates that suit your needs anywhere, you just need to look harder and have a "Ninja Recruiting Team" ;)
And considering I see many HubSpotters with hubspot gear and I've seen the inside of their office (looks better than mine), so looks like they aren't 'watching every penny' because I know as anyone with a half brain knows, saving money? First to go are the perks. Seems like HubSpot is doing none of that. So your statement is false.
I really stand by the opinion that this is a PR stink before they try to go IPO. Create a buzz about working there, so the name reconigtion is out there, so when it goes IPO, the stock doesn't fall flat on their face. This probably why the VCs allowed such wasteful spending of their money, because they know they are going to get every dime back during the IPO.
And I still stand with Eeka, we work for similar companies and its frustrating.. at least from my end. I have take DVDRWs drives out of computers I buy because a program doesn't have the extra 20 bucks to spare. TWENTY dollars. Yet we have companies like HubSpot throwing money 10's of thousands of dollars because they can. BUT At the end of the day, I can say that my company has made a significant difference in the world, I don't think HubSpot or any for-profit company can say the same.
Concern troll
remains concerned
Get over yourself
It's their (or their investors) money. It's none of your business how they spend it.
"BUT At the end of the day, I can say that my company has made a significant difference in the world, I don't think HubSpot or any for-profit company can say the same."
HaHaHa. Inflated self regard much?
This isn't about making a difference
Wow, you're all worked up about this. What do you do when someone in a Ferrari drives by? Does your blood pressure boil because someone has more money than you? Believe me, it's not worth getting all worked up about it.
Anyways, you're way off-base if you think this is about "making a difference". Just stop right there. Nobody at HubSpot made any claim that they're saving the world. Heck, I've been in hi-tech for quite awhile and I'm very aware that anything I do at work isn't going to make the world a better place. eeka does more in one day than I've ever done to make the world a better place (no idea what you do). So, let's get this image of "making a difference in the world = $$$$" out of our heads.
Again, it's a business decision by a company with limited resources. And yes, they have limited resources, regardless of the fact that they got $32MM in VC funding in 2011. They need developers desparately and are willing to pay. This market is very competitive and they need someone to produce - now.
I can't believe someone is getting so worked up about someone else spending their own money - and only $30k to boot. Where were you when the Liberty Mutual guy spent $4.5 million to renovate his office?
The successful companies that
The successful companies that you are praising for giving money responsibly didn't become successful enough to hand out money by hiring software developers for minimum wage. If all that matters is the price of who you hire, and not the quality, everyone should be outsourcing their software development to India. There is a limited number of quality software developers.
I think you have an issue with capitalism in general, not with this company's policies in particular. You want economics to be fair. I would also like that. But that is not how our economy works.
STEM Market
To everyone here going back and forth about the market. There have been news coming out that there isn't a real shortage.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-24/busi...
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/04/24/ste...
There's also an older Dan Rather report discussing STEM shortage said by companies but disagreed by unemployed STEM Americans
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedd...
Much of that news is regarding this from the current debate between companies claiming a need to increase immigration (H1-B visas) versus counterclaims that there are plenty unemployed Americans still looking for a job here. The links above seem to support the latter.
So what does this mean to the arguments here? Well, it makes me skeptical of the existence of the shortage. At the same time, there are anecdotes like vne's offers and this $30,000 bonus.
Well, it seems there may be plenty of STEM/CS/SE-types looking for a job, but I suspect the $30,000 is not for just any developer. Or even an experienced engineer. They are probably trying to attract the best and to attract the best. The MIT kids who make some really cool stuff on their own initiative. Or the straight-A, wizzed through the problem set assignments type of CS students.
So viewing like that, the $30k seems appropriate if that is their intention. And may not reflect the actual job situation, which I been reading way too much articles makes me skeptical of the STEM job shortage thrown around here. Combining the information, my guess is the 30k is not the reflection of that shortage, but a desire to recruit the valedictorian.
It's not an employers market in software
You're definently underestimating the need and lack of good developers. It may be true it's an employers market in other industries, but it's quite the opposite for software.
My company has an application process that involves a code test and you wouldn't believe the amount of people with 5-10 years experience who can barely write a basic application in a coherent fashion. There's already a lack of software engineers in general and the fact that quite honestly most of the existing ones aren't very good at it drives the cost of acquiring a good one way up.
Is 30k excessive? Maybe, but hiring one bad developer can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions in lost productivity due to bugs and hard to maintain code. So if this helps them get the best then they're doing themselves a service in the long run and 30k is a small price to pay.
This
Exactly. It's sometimes my misfortune to have to give the coding test when we interview and I am constantly surprised (I know I shouldn't be by now) how often the resume looks great and the coding test is one problem after another. It's not even a particularly hard test and we leave them alone for 20 minutes to avoid stage fright.
Publicity stunt
They're going to hire someone in India anyway.
Also not a developer...
Nobody offering 30k bonuses wants an off shore engineer. Believe it or not, software engineering is not that easy to outsource (especially on the small scale) and many companies have been bitten badly by doing that. Local engineers are almost certainly going to produce better results by a very good margin.
It's the difference between Bob's Furniture and Crate & Barrel, at least in the software fields. Maybe you'll get something cheaper, but it wont last you and will end up costing you more trying to maintain and extend it going forward.
I was a developer
and I agree with you, outsourcing doesn't work. But I'm still cynical enough to believe they don't intend to actually pay out that $30K.
Hubspot's Background and a bit of the Why
Hubspot is one of those local companies that gets a lot of buzz, but though they have some success, they also work people hard, and have a high turnover rate (according to one of my friends there, it is, for tech people, close to 50% per year) They have one of those 'take as much vacation as you want!' which sounds great...except it is subject to your manager, his manager, and your deadlines, which are almost always aggressive.
A few years ago they got similar buzz for offering 10K, and an iPad if you made it to the last round. It is a bit of a come on in a sense, because they really don't do a great job during the interview process. I had a recruiter calling me for 2 weeks and finally when I had a call with them, it was very, "DO YOU HAVE WHAT IT TAKES TO MEET THE HUBSPOT CHALLENGE? DO YOU HAVE PASSION FOR ANALYTICS, DATABASES AND OTHER STUFF? ARE YOU A CODE ROCKSTAR-NINJA!!!"
It may be for some people, not for me. Also, the fact they used to have their own Youtube show where MC Hammer would drop by and offer his advice for SEO shows you that their judge of success and character is a bit askew.
Please Halligan, don't hurt em!
wow
wow 50% turnover.. that's VERY high.
Of course this just nails my point on the head.
High Turnover = Sucky Company to Work For
Cuz we know it is not the pay that is driving people away. It must be something else.
AND when they use terms like "Tech Superstar" or "Code RockStar" usually means you're going to be worked to death.
GOOD!
$ 30,000 to assess whether there are many or few should be seen various factors. In the end, as someone wrote if I take a seo specialist for that figure we can stand because it deals with positioning websites on search engines, mainly Google, and therefore the company there could be a considerable economic return. The investment of $ 30,000 also depends on the ROI of return.