Are Job Posting and Advertising Worth it? More Applicants = Less Filled Jobs...True or False?

For over 25 years, I’ve tried every major job board to attract candidates. And before the popularity of the internet - I even used to advertise roles in the New York Times. Every week I would receive an advertising budget that would allow me to write a few bullets and job titles, place an ad in the Sunday Times, and wait for faxed resumes on Monday morning. My team and I would sift through the resumes, call each interested individual, and start the screening process.  

Looking back, this system might appear ancient and arduous for everyone involved. Yet, the candidates who took the time to buy the paper, read the ads, and fax their resume were more likely to get past the screening process and into interviews with our clients.  

Then internet job boards overtook printed ads. Monster, Hot Jobs, Dice, Career Builder, Zip Recruiter, Indeed, LinkedIn --- the list goes on and on. It was common for recruiters to use multiple job boards for a single job. At first, applicants still needed to type in their experience, upload a resume, and answer questions. For recruiters, this helped to pre-screen candidates and organize their profiles efficiently.  Both recruiters and applicants put in the work.  

Job board applications and candidate referrals became our go-to resources. However, as job boards have attempted to give recruiters and hiring managers more candidates, the automated application process has taken over. There are some great benefits to the automation – candidates don’t need to re-enter their resume that they’ve already uploaded, they’re presented with jobs that match their profile, and, in some cases, their profile can be used in lieu of a formal resume.  

But the advent of these “one-click” applications and more applications per open position doesn’t necessarily result in actual placed candidates. Why not? Job board fatigue.  

Candidates mass apply because they are frustrated by the perceived “black hole” of applications. Keyword matching (and potentially AI-driven software) is scanning resumes for the “right fit”.  They are tired of hearing back from one or none of the companies they have applied to.  Thus, the easy-apply and job matching technology allows for one-click applications that don’t require a lot of additional effort. 

In parallel, recruiters and hiring managers are struggling to find value in their job board postings because they are receiving hundreds or thousands of resumes for a single position.  It’s impossible to screen every single one without some type of automated help. Here in lies the problem – there is a risk that you will miss the right candidate for the job and there is a risk that you will take the human experience out of the recruitment process. Yet, sifting through hundreds of unqualified applicants or third-party consulting firms is also a laborious task that takes time away from qualified candidates who are actively seeking employment.  

All of this frustration culminates in going back to the basics- referrals, past contacts, and proactive recruiting.  This is more effective (but more labor-intensive) for recruiters, yet it perpetuates the frustration applicants feel when they believe they are applying into a black hole.  

So how do we dig ourselves out of automation-overload?  I often tell job seekers to find common connections, network online or in person, connect with the hiring manager on a job posting directly, or reach out to an agency recruiter like me.  Finding a job is all about making the right connections – to people, to the job, to the industry, to your goals.   

While I’m not ready to throw in the towel and remove my job listings from LinkedIn – I am more restrained about how I spend my time finding the right candidates to present to my clients.  

I'd be interested in your thoughts and experiences with applicant response...