Job Board Performance Stats

I have noticed that more and more people are asking for performance statistics for Job Boards these days and since I have been active on Twitter the requests have increases significantly so, to save me repeating myself I am sharing my experience and stats here so you can refer to them.

Below is a response to a question on Linked-In by an individual who was asking about the efficiency of Job Boards and wondered if anyone had any real statistics.  Interestingly, several representatives from Job Boards responded but, rather worryingly none produced any stats!  Our findings and results are below, hope you find them useful.  If you would like any further information, please don't hesitate to make contact by email.

One thing that is interesting is that our own website outperforms all the jobsites.  I know that this is not the case for all companies and, as recently evidenced by Aquent decision to remove jobs totally from their website, chosing instead to push the recruiters to the fore and step up the amount of face to face/verbal interaction.  I personally applaud this move and although our site delivers for us, I'm watching very closely how it will work for them as despite how well it may work for us - relying on jobsites, even your own does encourage a very lazy way to do recruitment.  Anyway, to the stats!

===================================

All the job boards were putting pressure on us for price rises yet they would only state their success based on 'applicants' to our jobs. None were providing anything more relevant.

So we worked with out tech guys and after 3 monts of tinkering were able to measure each job board on the following criteria:

• Total applicants per vacancy
• Number of relevant applicants (Determined by the number of those applicants that were actually considered relevant for the role or other roles by the consultants and attached to the job brief)
• Number of those applicants that made it through to first, second and subsequent interviews
• Number of applicants that were placed – the ultimate measure

This process allowed us to create a separate P&L for each job board. We applied this criteria to all the job boards we had relationships with and as a direct result we were able to reduce the number in the Marketing arena from 7 to 3. Four of the boards that we were paying significant sums to were just not delivering. Applicants aplenty, yes. But interviews and placements, no.

The stats over the period we measured for this initial review (8 months) were as follows (Marketing Only):

• Total Applications generated = 15,118
• Total applications considered relevant = 3,308
• Total applicants interviewed by client = 75
• Total applicants placed = 16

Its not great is it?!  Especially when you look at in percentage terms.  Some performed better than others but in the main, it was very poor hence we stopped working with some of them. Of the three we kept, one is on probation and we continue to monitor their performance. The good news is that the stats for our own site were so much better and despite taking our own job board for granted it does actually perform - it produces the most placements.

Longer term i think that job boards will have to re invent themselves and suspect the standard model will not prevail, unless of course they can prove they drive placements.

I noted Richard Freeman's response that the job boards are '14 times more effective than social networking sites like linked-In, twitter or Facebook'! Whilst I accept that Facebook might be questionable I think its dangerous to say that about Linked-In and even Twitter. Where did that stat come from Richard?

Who is the Parasite?

One thing I really like about LinkedIn and other social networking sites is the wide variety of conversations they enable and allow you to get involved in, all from the comfort of your desk.  Call me lazy if you like but I have a young family so it's nice to be able to converse with my peers in this way rather than give up a couple of evenings a week to do it.

One such discussion, on a group for 'Executive Recruiters' has recently been hot with activity.  the question posed was:

"How do we stop in-house recruiters taking the names we provided and either immediately going direct via Linked-In, or, linking now and keeping in touch for future use 12 months down the line?"

I won't bore you with the details but the question included the following statement which had me practically choking on my lunch.  I have highlighted the last bit for effect!:

"This is particularly relevant in niche or specialist industries and within a few years the agency will have "given" its database to the client! A clear case of the parasite (client) feeding on the host (agency) and slowly killing it"

We have really lost it havn't we?!  I mean, as an industry there is really no hope when our peers are thinking in these terms.  Protectionism and defensiveness are both traits of an industry that is losing relevance and finding it hard to justify any value to its customers.  (Sorry, parasites.)

History is peppered with industries that faced the requirement for change in the light of new technology/competition/new markets/economic changes/customer demands (delete as appropriate) but who failed to grasp the fact that the answer was not to protect your current business model.  The US car industry, the Swiss watch industry to name just two – their ignorance and the spectacular consequences of it, are well documented.

The recruitment industry – and I would most definitely, and especially, include the Executive Search element – is no different.  It’s an aged and inappropriate business model that needs to change.  Very sad then to see that most of the contributions to this discussion were attempting to trot out all the hackneyed and irrelevant reasons why it should not change and why clients (Sorry, parasites...) should continue to keep using us.

We are in an industry that requires a radical rethink, some ‘blue ocean’ thinking, and we should seek to challenge all the conventions, all the givens that we currently see as our unique points of difference.  It is an absolute imperative that these discussion contributors get out a blank piece of paper and work out what the future may look like rather than sitting around thinking that once the market picks up and the myth of the talent shortage kicks in again it will be back to the good old days.  Because it won’t.

If we spent less time trying to defend our current methodologies, approaches and position in the mix and more time really trying to understand what the market needs both now and perhaps more importantly in the future we might, just might, find a value added place for us to be.

The end of the road for Search..?

You may have seen the recent post entitled How free social media beat the recruitment consultants to death  It seems to have caused much hysteria in certain circles and whilst it is still a bit premature to hail the death of the recruitment consultant (again!) it does serve as an indication of the power of social media in the recruitment mix.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial.

One group in particular who should be discussing the development and impact of social media more than most are those involved in Executive Search.  Of all the players in the recruitment industry it is the Search firms in particularly that have considered themselves immune from market forces. And rather arrogantly so at times.  It is clear from the evidence above that if nothing else they really should start thinking more openly about what lies ahead.

However in recent discussions with senior HR folk, the general view was that Search will remain largely immune from the impact of social networking.  After all, like many senior level decisions, sticking with industry standard is the safe option. Nobody got fired for picking IBM right?

Similarly no one got fired for using one of the top 5 Search firms for the CEO search. (although I would argue IBM are a little more reliable as a choice!)  "The Board/CEO will always want to use them" they argue; a point nicely illustrated by the above article when Tom Allason points out that the board of his previous start up chose to use a ‘headhunter’ on insistence of their VC partners.

So what is the attraction?  There are two principle reasons people chose the search firms in my experience:

• Access to their network – the little black book of contacts inaccessible to those not "in the know."
• To make themselves visible – They need to be seen. They want to be one of the names in the book to make sure they are on the radar should a juicy job come up in the future.

Many of todays senior executives are baby boomers who, like me, left university with only a limited number of tools available to keep in touch - namely landline and snail mail! Consequently I lost touch with many people and it's only recently through the emergence of sites like Friendsreunited and Facebook that a larger part of that network is now available to me. So, its reasonable to assume that a Search consultant's network will deliver a better crop of potential candidates than I could rustle up myself.

But will that always be the case?  Methinks not.

Consider for a moment what might happen in the future.  Take someone currently aged between 18 and 22 and fast forward 15 years.  That snotty nosed, binge drinking student is now the CEO of a successful company (hard to imagine I know but bear with me). That individual will use IM, Facebook, LinkedIn, and probably another 8 tools already embedded in their DNA as there defacto method of communication.  There is already evidence that they will not use email as a primary communication format, if they use it at all.  (Lucky beggars!)  They won't be looking to trace old classmates or colleagues like we do because they will not have ‘lost touch’ with them in the first place the way we did.  In fact they will probably be trying to reduce the number overall.

They will be ‘super connected’ and, as such, are they likely to appoint a Search firm if they need to hire a senior team?  I suspect not as their own networks will challenge anything a search consultant could offer.  Will they also need to be on the search consultants radar?  I somehow doubt it given that they will be on everyone elses.

I know where my money is.  Tom Allason managed to do what he did with tools that are only really now coming into their own.  In many ways they are still in their infancy, the extent of their power and value yet to be fully appreciated until those that make up Generation Y and the Millenials take centre stage in the workforce.

Ironically, it is actually possible that the search guys might be the first casualties of the change and not, as has been suggested, the last.  After all, there are some compelling reasons to put them at the top of the list:

• The savings per hire are substantial
  many more senior people are now traceable and contactable online
• senior level recruitment is low volume and therefore manageagble inhouse
• The positive effects of exploiting networks in terms of candidate attitude, as demonstrated by Tom's experience

Low to mid level recruitment however requires much more legwork simply because of the higher volumes involved and as such demands an infrastructure that only the largest of organisations seem willing to take on, RPO’s and outsourcers aside.  Perhaps senior level recruitment is more vulnerable to change than many think?

Dont get me wrong, the volume market will be affected too, but what a turn up for the books it would be if social media turned out to be the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs of the search industry.

I’ll leave you with Tom’s own assessment of the implications of what he has achieved:

"I think what the recruitment industry should take away from this is that prospective clients really can beat them at their own game, if they want to make the effort. The recruitment industry needs to recognise this and innovate… find ways of adding value… and justify/rationalise their proposition."

'Nuff said.

Passive is the new Active

When I first dipped a toe into the world of recruitment the term 'Passive' when referring to candidates didn't really exist.  Back then they were known as 'innactive' candidates and only really of interest to Search firms like the one I was with at the time.  Paid to dig around and not rely on advertising, we had no real choice but to target people who were probably quite happy in their current job.  It was all justified, of course, on the basis that the best people never looked for a job and those that were currently active and applying for jobs through press ads were, in some way, 'slightly more shoddy goods'.  Hmmm.  Don't you just love those Search guys?!

Anyway, over the last few years the notion of the 'passive' candidate really gained momentum with social networking tools opening up a number of new channels through which to target those hard to find, 'waiting for the call' kind of people.  And having made many 'ident' calls as we used to call them I know how welcome those other channels are.

But as these tools have matured and gained credibility, particularly in the professional arena, are we not witnessing the demise of the truly 'passive' candidate?  Whether or not you are looking for another role, the fact is that if you don't have a LinkedIn profile for example, you are in danger of rapidly becoming a social outcast.  Like it or not your profile puts you centre stage in what is fast becoming the recruitment equivalent of a Broadway smash.

Similarly, those active folk now don't have to appear so active do they?  Create a profile, bang in some mutually beneficial recommendations, answer a couple of well placed questions and Bob's your uncle - 'passive' status achieved!

Letting it be known that you were on the market used to be frowned on;  at best it was a little 'grubby' and at worst you could get fired for such disloyalty.  Not any more.  Listing 'Career Opportunities' and 'Job Enquiries' in the 'Interested In:' section of your LinkedIn profile would now appear to be totally acceptable.

But that's probably because its also the same in your boss's profile too...!

Face to face is STILL the best option!

As a job seeker, despite the rapidly shrinking economy, you have never really had it so good.  Gone are the days of creating each cover letter individually, printing off hard copies of your CV and posting the small number of carefully selected applications via snail mail.  No more Lever Arch files containing pristine cut outs of each press ad applied for.  No more logging each application response, stage by brutal stage.  No more waiting for the response letter to hit the mat and clocking it was sent by 2nd class post – the reject ‘giveaway’.

Ok, so maybe it was only me who kept it all in OCD orderliness, but you get the picture.  Nowadays, the internet has opened up a whole new world to the jobseeker and more new channels are appearing every few months.  Looking for a job, it seems, has never been easier even if actually finding one is getting harder!  Applying for a job is just a click away (Which is not always a good thing but that’s another post altogether!) and with so many open professional and social networks through which you can showcase your skills and experience you can connect with literally thousands of people directly or indirectly who can significantly increase your chances of getting that next job.  Anyone in the professional arena who does not yet have a LinkedIn profile for example needs to think very seriously about getting one.  Pronto.

However, one of the advantages of the LinkedIn type medium can also be one of its biggest drawbacks – connections are only a click away.  One look at my LinkedIn home page every morning and I can see that some of my connections are waking from months of dormancy and connecting to 12 or 15 people in a row, per day.  A veritable feast of connections!  But before you embark on a connection frenzy, ask yourself how real and useful these connections are.  Sure, sometimes even a loose connection can pave the way for a great opportunity, but nothing beats actually ‘knowing’ someone.  Linked in is, after all, a rolodex.  To make the most of it you still need to work the network and that means getting to know them better.  And what better way to do that than to actually meet them face to face.

My advice, for what it’s worth:

• Spend less time making your network wider and invest more time in making it deeper
  

• Go through your connections and make a mental note of when you last had any kind of interaction with them.  If it’s been a while and you still want to be connected then make an effort to reach out to them.
  

• Look out for your connections on some of the other social media platforms like Twitter.  Twitter, especially, provides a more ‘immediate’ contact environment and is a good way to re open a dialogue that may have been dormant for some time.
  

• If you are joining groups on LinkedIn, try and attend the face to face gatherings some of them offer.  Make a list of the people you want to get to know better and suggest you meet up at the event.
  

• Stop typing and start talking!

Smart consumer...smarter employee.

THIS IS A REFERENCE POST - SEE ABOVE


Consider the life of the consumer over the last few decades. Purchasing decisions were, for many years, driven significantly by marketing spend and brand presence. ‘Customer experience’ was little more than an interesting statistic, if it was measured at all. And when it was, it was usually something done every one or two years.

In those days we were slaves to the brands. Sure, we could share localised experience and opinions with our family and colleagues but the impact this would have on the success of the brand was minimal, unless it was something really outstanding. More important was the ‘share of mind’ gained through press, TV and other forms of marketing.

Then along came the threat of the internet. At first there was a mixture of hysteria on the one hand with thinkers predicting the death of the ‘bricks and mortar’ businesses and the collapse of the High Street as everyone moved to buying online. On the other hand you had indifference, with the non believers saying it was unsafe, lacked security and that it would be a fad that would pass.

Of course, neither of these extremes came to pass. But the really interesting thing is that when you look behind this you find that something much more fundamental happened that many failed to anticipate.  Look a little deeper at the dialogue from all parties at the time and it primary revolved around the impact on the ‘process’ or ‘mechanics’ of the customer/supplier relationship – the physical distribution of the goods, the way people pay, the physical impact on their shopping habits – all the tangible stuff. Consequently many organisations simply embraced the changes, creating new distribution and sales channels to exploit the online phenomenon. They also started to switch marketing budget to online, thinking that they would be able to influence the consumer online in the same way they had done through the more traditional channels.  Indeed, many saw the online channel as another great opportunity to immerse the customer in the brand.

What many spectacularly failed to foresee was the intangible; that the internet brought the consumers together, in vast numbers, in a way that was just not possible before. And they talked. Millions of people who had never had an inclination to talk to others outside of their own personal network were now talking to each other about literally anything of common interest; including their experiences of products and services.

Fast forward to today. My wife was never really convinced by online buying and the internet. Then along came eBay! Now, unless there is a good reason, we, or should I say she, sources everything we need online. Not only that, when sourcing anything there is only one place she goes to look for information to determine the ultimate purchase decision – her online network. 15 years ago, it was the marketing muscle of the corporation that determined spending habits and consumer choice. Not any more. For my wife it’s the people in her trusted network who share their knowledge and ‘experiences’ of products and services who guide her decisions. Does she know any of these people? Not one of them. Does she trust them? Hell yes!

Fundamentally, at the time the internet emerged, people and organisations become so fixated with the tangible impact of the internet and or the impact on the bottom line, they failed to see the intangible threat of their customers having access to each other and the impact and influence they could have as a result.

So what parallels are there to be drawn in the world of the employee and the current struggle organisations face in finding ‘good people’? Well strip away the top layer of product and service and there is no difference at all. At the time the internet emerged, similar dialogue was going on in relation to the impact of the internet on recruitment, which in itself had suddenly become a ‘strategic’ issue. Some said the executive search and selection market and other third parties would be wiped out as a result of the internet; organisations would use the power of the internet to reach out directly to candidates in a way that was not possible before. Similar stories circulated about press advertising. I remember being told so many times that trade magazines and the likes of the Sunday Times employment sections would disappear within two years.

Of course, as with the consumer market, this didn’t happen. Yes, the landscape has changed dramatically and continues to do so. But again, the interesting thing is that all the dialogue at the time centred around the mechanics and process – the medium used for advertising, the mechanism used for filtering, selecting and hiring, the mechanism used for managing applications and so on.

What has been missed is the emergence of the ‘smart employee’. With Enron, Tyco, Worldcom and now Rover in our back pocket, the attitude of the employee is changing. They no longer believe the bullshit. They are becoming more and more cynical. And most important of all, they are sharing this cynicism online, with millions of other like minded people. The emergence of the smart employee has taken longer than that of the consumer, and has yet to have any major impact but the signs are all there that it will.

Organisations ambitions to be the ‘employer of choice’ and to have that killer ‘employee proposition’ will be tested on a global stage, in a theatre where they have absolutely no control. More worrying perhaps, is that the increasing budgets of £m’s spent on developing the corporate employment image could be rendered worthless over night by the smarter employee.

Today my wife consults a million people she does not know, but trusts implicitly, to determine her next purchase. Tomorrow, she will consult the exact same people about her next job. If organisations don’t start to get with it they could find themselves playing to an empty auditorium.