The next time your company is looking to find the right candidate for an open…
Recruiting isn’t one-size-fits-all. Yet, most employers use this approach when they post all their jobs on one of the big job advertising sites. These sites (like Monster, Glassdoor, Indeed or LinkedIn) each have a substantive reputation and can get you a lot of visibility for your job openings—they just don’t work for every type of job. For certain positions, you may be spending more money while not reaching the right candidate.
Spending vs. Performance
The top job advertising sites all use a similar model that doesn’t actually tie spending to performance. On LinkedIn, for example, you can purchase a set number of job slots based on the average number of jobs you need to fill each month; this is done for a fixed fee. This type of purchase is an expensive model for employers that don’t offer any guarantee of job ad performance. Each job slot costs the same regardless of whether it’s a hot job or a hard to fill one, whether it receives a lot of activity or none at all.
The first issue with this spending model is that if you’re not tracking the performance of the job ad closely, you may be taking up one of your job slots with an ad that’s no longer necessary. In terms of performance, one job ad may have a lot of activity in its first few days of posting and then lag, while another job may have a steady stream of applications over the course of a month. Ideally, you would keep tabs on the job ad performance and be able to predict when you’ve collected enough applications. If you knew, job by job, how this activity would work, you could save money and rotate jobs out that have collected enough resumes—ultimately buying fewer job slots per month. The trouble is, it’s difficult for employers to make these predictions and keep tabs on these calculations through these sites.
To compensate for underperforming ads, you can sponsor a job ad on LinkedIn for positions that you need to fill quickly or that need extra attention—usually with a cost-per-click bidding payment model; each time a candidate actually clicks on the ad, you pay a set amount. While this payment model appears to tie the visibility of your ad to the cost, it still doesn’t guarantee the job ad’s performance. Casual job browsers can click on the ad, and you can end up paying for that click without seeing any candidate application for the money you’ve spent. So, the cost-per-click model can make the ad more visible, but it is often criticized because it can result in more inefficient spending.
Visibility and Targeted Ads
Visibility only works when your ad appears before the right set of eyes. The real issue is that the expensive job ad purchased on the big advertising site will underperform for certain niche jobs; specialized sites that reach people where they actually search may be the better way to go. While a specialized site may not reach as wide an audience of job seekers, it will reach the right type of candidate and better target the potential employee you need. Consider the truck driver. Drivers just don’t often use LinkedIn, for example, to find jobs. Employers might be better served in finding a driver quickly by using a specialized site like Truck Driver Jobs 411.
Considering how people search based on job type can be a good indicator of whether you should be using one of the big job ad sites or if a specialized site may work better. Paying for a sponsored ad on one of the big job ad sites can only work if the candidates you need are actually using that site.
That leads to the big question: How do you know where people are searching based on job type? The data is out there. If you are looking for a more comprehensive way to maximize the efficiency of job advertising based on job type, a programmatic job advertising platform like Pandologic can automate the entire process. This type of platform uses data to create targeted advertising based on job type, monitors job ad performances, and adjusts accordingly—thus extending your job ad’s reach and making it maximally efficient and effective. While an automated platform may cost more upfront, the efficiencies it creates over the course of multiple job campaigns can save time and money in the long run.