Jump to content




Photo

Demise of Mandy.com


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Michael LaVoie

Michael LaVoie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 08 July 2016 - 10:17 AM

Just received a notice today when logged into mandy.com  (As a standard member you are limited to 5 free applications per month, to apply for more positions this month you must upgrade to our premium membership or wait until August)

 

For anyone unaware mandy.com was bought by Bluecompass.  They own FilmandTVpro.   This is especially annoying since Mandy.com was the only real free job board for film professionals out there.  

 

Some might say that mandy.com had nothing but crap on it but I've gotten some pretty legit gigs from it.  And now, in order to apply to those same gigs, I must pay a subscription.  Job boards are not supposed to be able to do this.  You pay to list a job.  Not to apply to one.  For one thing, it's so disingenuous.  How do you even know the jobs you're applying to are real?  They could be entirely fake and designed just to keep people subscribing.

 

Anyone else disgusted by this?  

 

 


  • 0




#2 Mark Kenfield

Mark Kenfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 712 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 10 July 2016 - 08:31 AM

If it's a service you want or need, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to make you pay for it. They don't owe you anything.
  • 0

#3 JD Hartman

JD Hartman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1488 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Edison, N.J. U.S.A.

Posted 10 July 2016 - 08:47 AM

I'm in agreement with Michael.  Don't like or see the need for the "Pay to Play" business model.  Charge the advertisers and the production companies posting jobs, not the technicians.  Same goes for this job boards that want to charge you for "premium" membership where supposedly your CV is submitted ahead of the rest.


  • 0

#4 Michael LaVoie

Michael LaVoie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 10 July 2016 - 09:20 AM

When a business model rests on your assumption that you're paying for a service but you have no confirmation that the service you're getting is real, it's quite "unreasonable".  It's like paying for script coverage or paying to pitch people.  You have no idea if anyone is actually reading your script, if people are viewing or reading your pitches or if in the case of Mandy. the so called "jobs" on there are real.  Same with Staffmeup.com  

 

Years ago for example, Film & TV Pro did nothing but relist jobs you could see and apply to on Mandy and C-list for free.  There was hardly anything original on it and so a "subscription" was really just a scam.

 

My guess is they "bought out" the only real competition just to shut them down and make everyone have to pay for doing something we could all do at one time for free.   Celebrating this as "just capitalism" is pretty stupid.  Yeah, it's legal and all because it's a website but if it was a staffing firm, it wouldn't be legal to take your money just so you can apply to a job.  


Edited by Michael LaVoie, 10 July 2016 - 09:21 AM.

  • 0

#5 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2350 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 July 2016 - 09:52 AM

Mandy has kinda been crap for years anyway. I've had more legitimate gigs off craigslist then Mandy.

It's true that a small fee to post and a small fee to check listings, does get rid of the riffraff. There is far more abuse of the system when it's completely free.
  • 0

#6 Phil Connolly

Phil Connolly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 316 posts
  • Director
  • London

Posted 15 July 2016 - 03:39 PM

I've probably hired 30 or so people for gigs over the years through mandy and I've always found it to be a useful resource thats allowed me find some really great crew members often at very short notice.

 

As a job advertiser I have no issues with paying the fee, but I think its a mistake to charge the crew applying for roles. Thats only going to end up reducing the number of applications you get for a particular role and make the service less effective. Yes often you get many applications for jobs but not always and I wouldn't want to limit to number of applications I receive. 

 

Buy charging a fee to apply your not ensuring the best people apply, just those that can afford to pay. Hows that a good thing?


  • 0

#7 JD Hartman

JD Hartman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1488 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Edison, N.J. U.S.A.

Posted 16 July 2016 - 07:24 AM

When a business model rests on your assumption that you're paying for a service but you have no confirmation that the service you're getting is real, it's quite "unreasonable".  It's like paying for script coverage or paying to pitch people.  You have no idea if anyone is actually reading your script, if people are viewing or reading your pitches or if in the case of Mandy. the so called "jobs" on there are real.  Same with Staffmeup.com  

 

Isn't Film and TV Pro owned by the same people that own Stage32, the "pay to pitch" site for screenwriters?


  • 0


The Slider

Glidecam

Zylight

Tai Audio

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Pro 8mm

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Zylight

Tai Audio

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Pro 8mm

CineTape

Technodolly

Abel Cine