Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ken Horst on November 10, 2008 at 5:53pm

In response to your question I have another interesting question, Who gets more searches for jobs each month, Google or Monster? According to information on their sites, Google gets 25% more job searches each month than Monster. Google reports 124,000,000 versus Monsters 100,000,000.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff Weidner on November 10, 2008 at 6:36pm

In 13 yrs we have found job boards to be less than adequate for actually finding and placing a candidate.
We always use, referrals, networking, phone sourcing, internet sourcing and our database first.

If we have found over 1000 candidates off job boards in the past 13 years with an average of 70,000 candidates identified per year I'd be amazed.

Jeff Weidner

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Buss on November 10, 2008 at 10:09pm

Peter,

A great discussion item... I don't think they're going anywhere soon, but have posted a few thoughts on the big boards to share:

“We Find You” vs. “You Find Us” - Cut the Cord and Reduce Your Job ...
5 EASY Ways to Optimize your 2009 Recruiting Budget
Monster.com Promises to Revolutionize Online Recruiting on 01-10-09

Jason

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Canto on November 10, 2008 at 10:24pm

For health care and medical professionals, I'd use this new site to find medical job seekers free. Full disclosure.. I'm the developer. We're new. But, when the candidates arrive, it will be a great resource for sourcing medical professionals.

And, to build my overall network of medical professionals (the passive job seekers), I would use the new module we've just built out where you can find medical professionals for online networking.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Prakash on November 10, 2008 at 10:26pm

Amber L Hall said:

Job Boards have always been a source for low hanging fruit. Aside from that, they are useless.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Prakash on November 10, 2008 at 10:26pm

Amber L Hall said:

Job Boards have always been a source for low hanging fruit. Aside from that, they are useless.

Well Said

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Yoskovitz on November 10, 2008 at 11:01pm

I think employers would take more control over the recruitment process and sourcing vs. executing on an easy "low hanging fruit" strategy. That's a combination of finding alternative sources for candidates - such as Google and search engines, increasing the use of social media and sourcing, and also changing the focus. It's not just about creating or maintaining a job seeker pipeline, it's about how effectively you convert that pipeline into actual applicants - and improving the conversion of the right job seekers -> the right candidates -> the right hires.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pam claughton on November 11, 2008 at 8:10am

Your question assumes that all candidates come from job boards, and that is hardly the case. When I was on the corporate side and on the agency side, the majority of candidates hired were always referrals. On the client side, they were referrals from current employees and also directly from the website, people who knew of the company and wanted to work there. On the agency side, it's referrals from current candidates, but primarily and this is why we refer to our databases as 'gold', because former candidates in that database either refer new people to us, or decide to reactivate. Each time we get a new search, the database is the first place we go and email and call any candidates who could either be a fit or a potential referral source.

Back in the days before job boards and the internet, we did it exactly the same way except that we generated real mailings. It's amazingly effective.

That said, job boards aren't going anywhere, and it would be silly not to include them in your overall recruiting mix. One placement made from a job board pretty much pays for the cost of the board for the year. Plus, you can take that same targeted referral approach to the job board, generating referrals that way. Many of the job boards go back as far as five years, and contacting those candidates can be as effective as mining an internal database, especially because many recruiters don't bother with them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by M A on November 11, 2008 at 10:14am

Nothing much would change for me...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maureen Sharib on November 11, 2008 at 10:45am

The other question this brings up is:
What if the Internet went away?
We have been and are building our businesses around the internet. What if the internet, as we know it was either taken away or became too expensive for us to access large enough distribution of our product? What would we do? Is this really possible? Is there a plan B?

Is it conceivable that only the largest and wealthiest companies could be left standing?
Can you imagine having access to only about 200 sites?
Can you conceive the cost of having to pay for any additional sites accessed that were not part of the package?
We are becoming completely dependant on the internet for our marketing, what would happen to our businesses if it became cost prohibitive?
What do you think?
Video

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 01. Lonnie McRorey on November 11, 2008 at 11:41am

This is a question I ask our clients. Our proven solution is: We call directly into their competitors. The best method is to get on the phone and start talking to people. Top Talent don't usually post.

Lonnie McRorey

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pam claughton on November 11, 2008 at 8:16pm

Maureen,

If anything, internet access gets cheaper and cheaper. It's supply and demand. If costs were to go up, an entrepreneur would jump in and find a way to offer it for less. I don't think we need to worry about the internet going anywhere.

:) Pam

Maureen Sharib said:

The other question this brings up is:
What if the Internet went away?
We have been and are building our businesses around the internet. What if the internet, as we know it was either taken away or became too expensive for us to access large enough distribution of our product? What would we do? Is this really possible? Is there a plan B?

Is it conceivable that only the largest and wealthiest companies could be left standing?
Can you imagine having access to only about 200 sites?
Can you conceive the cost of having to pay for any additional sites accessed that were not part of the package?
We are becoming completely dependant on the internet for our marketing, what would happen to our businesses if it became cost prohibitive?
What do you think?
Video

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page