It's hard to take this seriously. It's one of those things where, if it worked, you'd have to assume the owners would be using it to print infinite money. At these prices, there's a positive ROI to having their panel of experts interview random people off the street.

It's also not clear what the price tiers mean. "Junior/Senior/Management" --- is that the skill level of the interviewer?

That's the position you would be hiring for, right ?

    (0.25 * base salary * (average number of broken hires - 1)) 

How much time would it take for an expert to do this? Not just in the interview part, but the after-service (write-ups)?

I'm sure if they tethered their prices to the value they're actually creating, and they had experts capable of screening clients, then I could see this taking off.

I wouldn't be an "expert" for hire on those services, either, because the prices are all race-to-the-bottom programming/engineering-skill-is-a-commodity prices.

"What, you're making money for yourself during the time you're supposed to be working for us?!"

It's unethical and almost certainly illegal, but IANAL.

We're clear that this pricing is wildly irrational, right? $30 for a half hour is, literally, not what it would cost to assess someone's skill at performing haircuts. Many of your customers, who after all have hiring authority for engineers, can do the math about what your interviewers' market wages and chargeout rates must presumably be. Those rates make these rates look like a joke. That quickly sets your customers to thinking "OK, there must be a catch, because clearly one cannot sustainably pay a CTO $30 per half hour to do schedule-in-advance work with a half-hour minimum? What is that catch?"

None of the answers your prospects will dream up to that question will induce them to give you their business.

Companies like Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG) pay experts $750 per hour for one hour of talking to someone on the phone.

I highly recommend patio11's newsletter :)