Social recruiting? It's just a passing fad (unless you're a household name company of course)

Microsoft. Apple. Google. Coca Cola. Virgin. The BBC. What do they have in common? Each of them could advertise on the back of a cigarette packet, put a card in a shop window or float a message in a bottle out to sea and they would still get a good response to their recruitment campaigns. Indeed all of them receive hundreds of unsolicited applications each and every year.

Go to a conference and listen to the head of HR of one of these corporate giants wax lyrical about how social media is an integral part of what they do, has generated great interest and they have even filled a few vacancies through it. Great. I’m genuinely pleased for them. But what about the rest of us? The companies not so many people have heard of or aspire to work for? The unknown SME that may well offer better terms and conditions and brighter career development possibilities?

You'll hear plenty of talk about social recruiting is where it's at. Build a relationship with people. Get a fan page on Facebook. Get people liking your company. Get them wanting to work for you because you sound like such a great, down to earth yet aspirational organisation. The theory's great. The trouble is, it's just a theory. Do individuals really want to announce their interest in working for a particular company when someone from their current employer might be snooping around? Is declaring your love of a certain organisation something people are happy to do in a group or are career aspirations strictly an individual, private thing (not to mention the embarrassment of an adult confessing to ‘liking’ a company. It’s like the virtual note passed under the desk at school - ’I really fancy you’)? Truth is, no one really knows for certain.

What is certain however is that if you go looking online for testimonials about social recruiting as a success story, you'll find they are few and far between. Yes, you'll find the household names extolling the virtues but, as I said, what about the hundreds and thousands of other companies that don't enjoy such a high profile? The information to back up the theory just isn’t out there.

Easy, the social media gurus will tell you. Companies just need to go out there and get themselves a Facebook fan page, tweet a lot, blog about how great they are etc. etc. “Build it and they will come” mentality. But, if every organisation did that then social networks would merely be full of companies talking about how great it is to work for them, so how would a potential candidate be able to differentiate? How would seeing the wood for the trees be any easier? If anything it would get more bewildering and confusing.

Quite simply, social recruiting is an over-rated fad that will only ever get results for well-known companies that people have aspired to work for for years. There, I’ve said it.

Sure, there’s no harm in having a company page that talks about how great an employer you are, just as tweeting your vacancies may possibly generate a bit of interest. But, the social networks themselves are so time critical, so full of transient inhabitants who a lot of the time aren’t looking for a job but just want to talk about their day or crack a joke or tweet a link to a picture of a redneck house built out of multi-storey caravans. There are so many other channels they can use if they’re looking for a job. Plus, no one really knows how many accounts are active and how many have been created by individuals who, once the novelty wore off, just went off and explored the latest fad to come along (right now, they’re probably on Quora. In six months who knows?)

Don’t get me wrong. I think social media as a whole, has its uses. I myself get business from it. It’s also a consumer products company’s dream (low outlay, add in to the whole marketing mix etc) But, as a recruitment vehicle for anyone but the Fortune and FTSE companies, the household names and the high profile? Sorry, but no (though of course I would be more than happy for recruiters to post comments about successes they have had via Twitter, Facebook, Linekdin and the like.

Remember, when I blog, I like to be contentious and generate a lively debate, so don’t take it personally. No one really knows what's down the road for social and this is just my take. Why not prove me wrong with some testimonials that aren't from well-known companies?

Comment by K.C. on February 15, 2011 at 11:06am: Phil...Amen! Couldn't say it better (its our business to build those company specific communities for companies so we see it 1st hand...)

Alasdair: You need to review a recent poll done by JobVite where it was found in the US that 2/3 of Americans are currently open to new career opportunities (there is a ton of other Social Recruiting Data in the report also) and the far majority of these people are NOT using job ads to make their career decisions...Download the Report Here. People mostly (especially top performers) are not filling out applications or sending resumes to job ads - if you want to get a chance at the other 66% you need to change your approach and Social Recruiting as Phil so adequately points out is the most obvious way to do so (and as Phil tells it - is very doable). Jerry COULD (and should) start his own ME group. IF he knows his stuff - and I bet he does - he has a treasure trove of info to share with ME's who typically are not open to activity where they have to talk about themselves and have their work judged by others (particularly those less qualified to do so...ie. - recruiters!). A Discussion Group where these topics are shared and pathways to better careers and companies to work for are discussed would be a great benefit to them (Microsoft has about 75 people working on this type of activity [Marvin Smith is one of their thought leaders - check out his blog and his ERE postings] and they have shared a lot of their findings and best practices if you are interested...

As far as BBS - as you are aware, they were a pre-Internet info sharing system from the 1980's that (with all due respect) I find difficult to compare with the INternet tools that are available to us today. BBS, really? Instead think Ning, Beebo, Ecadamy, Brazen Careerist, Ushi, Viadeo, Xing, Beaddictive, and on and on - along with FB, TW

Comment by K.C. on February 15, 2011 at 11:14am: ...LI can really change the results a recruiter gets - and greatly reduce the inefficiencies and unproductive time spent that for anyone who is entrenched with traditional recruiting activity - is just part of the job!

Change isn't easy. New breakthrough ideas are at first typically scoffed at, and then everyone lines up against them, and in the end everyone says they were all for them from the very beginning!

We're somewhere along that change continuum right now and with just a little bit of exploration with an open mind, anyone can quickly see the benefit that the new Internet Realities provide. All it takes is the first step - the best part is that no one becomes sick or poorer from trying!

Comment by Alasdair Murray on February 15, 2011 at 11:30am: Well the BBS I am a member of has been going over 12 years and has over 160,000 threads and 9 million posts on it. So BBS forums can attract big numbers if the subject matter is of interest. I just wonder if an awful lot of people really have the time and inclination to use their spare time engaging in groups to talk about work with strangers. Maybe in some industry sectors they do, but I can't see it ever being de rigeur.

Comment by K.C. on February 15, 2011 at 1:24pm: Hmmm...haven't heard of anyone still using a BBS in the US (except a few old list servs) as I would venture that 99% of them have been moved to the Web with much better functionality.

As for spare time engaging in groups for employment, did you get the part about 2/3 of working Americans are looking to change their careers - its what most people are talking about! I do agree that people aren't chatting back and forth all day about jobs won or lost, but they are checking in regularly on what's being discussed when it comes to their careers. There is a reason that 40% of all Internet activity is typically attributed to employment...

One thing that helps spark discussion immensely, is providing the Community members a choice to remain anonymous, you can talk to anyone and share with anyone your ideas - regardless how whacky you may think they are - without feeling too awkward (your username may get labeled as a whack job - but you personally won't...just another way to encourage very passive folks to participate...

Comment by Alasdair Murray on February 16, 2011 at 4:48am: I'm still waiting for someone to post a link to a case study that isn't from a household name nor for glamorous roles. Not about how as an employer they used Facebook to build their employer profile, but how, as say a medium sized company in their field, they weren't overrun with irrelevant, poor quality response but actually recruited quality people on a regular basis via social media. Someone must have one testimonial surely?

Comment by Paul Alfred on February 16, 2011 at 9:48am: Alasdair ... Why is it so hard to believe that they are TPR and Corporate recruiters who use SM Successfully to make placements ... Did you not read my first Comment SM is past the " What is that tool?" Stage ... Its been 6 years in the Incubation stage its being used $85 Million Profiles on LinkedIn means there is a Market have you seen LinkedIn's revenue from Recruiting Streams ... Its their biggest revenue generator ... Those are not dream fairy tale numbers ... They are preparing to go IPO ... Why is this even a question .....????

Comment by Jerry Albright on February 16, 2011 at 9:52am: The difference here (I believe) is that Linkedin is not quite a "Social Media" site as much as it is an online resume database. We can all agree - it's useful. But when people talk about Social Recruiting I don't believe LI fits the description.

I think what Alasdair is talking about are the Twitter and Facebooks of the world. All the following/liking, etc. going on is just too much of a blur to really have any traction.

So if Linkedin is the main "See - it works!" example then I'm still in the nay sayer crowd.

Comment by Paul Alfred on February 16, 2011 at 9:58am: Ok perhaps we need to find a new definition for what LinkedIn Falls in ... I could swear after looking at all the features it falls in the SM Category .... Perhaps I need to do some more research....!@#? LinkedIn is not a Job Board People ... Its a Social Media Network ... Based on how Users Interact with the Portal ...

Comment by Alasdair Murray on February 16, 2011 at 10:00am: It's a question because,as I have just tweeted recent research suggests 67% of jobseekers in the UK don't use social media to look for jobs. Now, if I went to a client & said 67% of your target audience won't get to see your ad, I'd have been fired as their advertising agency for recommending they miss out on reaching two thirds of potential applicants with their message. I might recommend they give it a go as it's free, as part of the process, but never, ever with the lack of cast iron case studies would I recommend social media as a solus platform from which to recruit.

Comment by Alasdair Murray on February 16, 2011 at 10:03am: To me Linkedin is a static online CV receptacle that I hook up with ex colleagues and industry contacts through. I very occasionally engage in some of the discussions. The last one was about office romances.

Comment