at there is a high enough ROI on building employer branding, because you attract 'applicants' not necessarily 'talent' ( the right people for the job). I think that you would get a higher ROI if you focused on first screening out the talent from the applicants, then used the energy to develop that talent.
In the "Remote" option, a Company sets up a Job Interview, sends it to the Candidate, and he/she completes it independently using a webcam.
Both live and remote Video Job interviews beat Video Resumes in interaction capacity, legal convenience and risks of video publicity. However, Remote Video Interviewing appears as the superior alternative in almost every aspect.
Live vs. Remote Video Job Interviews
Some important aspects we can compare Live and Remote Video Job Interviews are:
While the Live option has the advantage of allowing real conversations to take place (answer to answer), Companies and Candidates still need to schedule a time to meet online, and meeting online can be inconvenient when the Candidate is in a different time zone.
In the Remote Version, a company can send one interview to many candidates at the same time, so they only need to ask questions once. This allows high flexibility as there is no need to schedule meetings. Companies and Candidates can do their part anytime, anywhere.
In Live interviews, it is also more likely that technical difficulties will arise during the interview, as there is no special preparation. This can be awkward. Prior testing of sound and image and the independence of the processes in Remote Video Interviewing minimizes risk of technical difficulties.
In Live Video Job Interviews, the duration of the interview is usually indeterminate, like in face-to-face interviews. Remote Video Interviewing allows setting maximum times to respond to interview questions.
The Remote option has clear advantages for recruiters, allowing them to easily administer candidate info, compare and evaluate candidates within a secure platform, and share videos with Hiring Managers. With the Live version, there is no aid to the recruiter for the evaluation of Candidates.
In the Live version, if the interview is recorded, it is difficult for Recruiters to share video interviews with Hiring Managers securely. In contrast, Remote Video Interviewing allows video storage within a secure platform, reducing the risk that Video Interviews will end up in unwanted places.
With Video Job Interviews generally, the danger of discrimination suits is not an issue as the risk is as high as with face-to-face interviews.
Remote Video Interviewing reduces the risks of an illegal question being asked during an interview if using the predetermined questions, while the Live version works just like a face-to-face interview in this regard.
Remote Video Interviewing offers the possibility to include language and other tests to interviews, adding another element to aid in candidate evaluation. Also, it makes possible to replay videos and to store them online through a secure platform for a period of time.
ting any Joe Schmoe advertise.
For me, the reasons many job boards are failing is that anyone can post any old crap on there. Cut and pasted job descriptions, hastily written posts full of grammatical errors (“our client are looking”, “good telephone manor” etc.) – you see them everywhere, every day.
Quite simply, technology is killing creativity and forethought. Instead of selling the job, too many recruiters in particular spend no time actually thinking about the impression their post will make on the reader. And readers aren’t just potential candidates, they’re potential clients too.
My guess is that maybe as much as 60-70% of typical online job board content would never have made it into print, such is the lack of quality. What’s killing job boards is the fact that so much of the content not only fails to sell the job it is advertising but is just devoid of any kind of allure whatsoever, and before long that’s what could well kill the job boards. Quality people will just stop going there knowing that what they will be presented with are second rate shoddy job posts that should never have seen the light of day.
So, job board owners – are you brave enough to up your game and insist on some kind of quality control, or will you just continue to take the money and quietly fade away?
Read more: http://www.jobboarddoctor.com/2011/08/02/job-boards-are-broken-thus-saith-theladders/#ixzz1Tt53IIkr