I have noticed a significant trend in recruitment agency advertising where roles are advertised very generically. For example, a job based in Ireland will be listed as ‘Ireland’, rather than ‘Cork’ or ‘Galway’. Any recruiters reading this will probably think ‘duh, well of course we do that, we don’t want other agencies finding out who our client is and then muscling in on our business’. Fair enough. It goes without saying that an agency does not want to have the rug pulled from under their feet by a competitor, but what about the candidate experience?
The question I am posing here is – does this generic, or what I will
define as Competitively Protective approach to advertising jobs lead to
a more impoverished experience for the candidate, ultimately resulting
in a lower response, both in terms of quantity and quality? Is a
candidate more likely to apply if they know the role has a reasonable
proximity to where they live? Add into the mix the growing tendency to
advertise roles with no determinable salary and you have an opportunity
that offers the candidate ambiguity rather than certainty. In addition
to spiralling advertising costs, this usually results in a lot of
wasted time on the consultant side sifting through both geographically
and remuneratively unsuitable applications.
From my 11 years experience in the industry, the term candidates hate
most is ‘negotiable salary’. Potential candidates apparently find this
term evokes suspicion and makes them less likely to want to apply. So
in many cases, a reluctance to provide the most important information
results in the advert being overlooked.
So let’s say that you do abandon this Competitively Protective
approach in favour of a more enriched Candidate Orientated approach.
What are the dangers? The most identifiable risk is that another agency
will match the location to the client and contact them. How strong is
your exclusivity agreement? How easy would it be for a competitor to
access the preferred supplier list for this client? Do you lose this
client if the competitor gains access?
If clients are forcing the agency not to disclose details about the
roles they wish to recruit for, they are probably doing so to prevent
incumbent employees seeing the salaries they are offering in fear of
causing wholesale discontent in their ranks, or because they want to be
able to negotiate the most competitive package with the successful
candidate. The same Protective vs Informative rules apply here. Would
a less clandestine approach make the recruitment of new talent easier
for the client? Surely its time that the employees recognised that the
market is too competitive for there to be remunerative uniformity
amongst their peers? Bearing this in mind, is there more that
recruitment consultancies can do to elicit the right sort of
information and trust from the client?
Recruitment is about satisfying the demand for the right people with
the right skills in the right way. If you are doing this for your
client, then they are likely to show loyalty in your service and faith
in your ability to satisfy their demands. Yet if your protective
approach to obtaining the right people is resulting in a diminished
level of quality candidates, then the client is likely to open its
doors to a competitor anyway. In addition, much of the inside
information in recruitment comes from direct contact with ‘friendly’
candidates, so whether or not you have protected your interests in the
advert, there is nothing to stop the candidate discussing their latest
movements with their favoured recruitment consultant. A simple catch up
call with a candidate can negate all the hard work that has gone into
keeping that valued client close to your chest.
So the ultimate conundrum for you advertisers should be: What is more
important to us, giving candidates as much information as we can to
ensure we get the best possible quality of applications or providing
just enough info to ensure we get some applications and keep our client
interests as secure possible.
Personally I believe that targeted, informative advertising is the way
forward. Both client and the agency need to realise that the benefits
will outweigh the risks. As the job board market continues to grow and
diversify (1000+ UK boards and counting), and the candidate base of the
UK becomes more web savvy; the demand for detail will be fundamental in
the race for the best applicants.
Some stats from the Bean Machine:
Total ads (2334473) with salary – Responses ratio 1:6 (1 job posted to 6 responses)
Total ads (510936) without salary – Responses ratio 1:5.5
This translates to a 9% difference in application rates for jobs
advertised with a salary. It doesn’t look earth shattering but if your
company is pulling in 10000 applications a year, it’s a difference of
900, which could translate to a significant amount of placement revenue.
by Andy Hill
Originally posted June 25, 2008
Tags: advert, industry, job boards, job posting, online recruitment advertising