So what is a career center network?
Essentially it is a large pool of candidates and job adverts ‘owned’ by a third party vendor which can be plugged into society website with a ‘career center’ interface. As the members of that society start applying for jobs via this system, their details become the property of the external vendor and can then be used to provide other ‘network affiliated sites’ (and in some cases a central network job board) with applications to adverts. As the network grows so does the pool of candidates and reach into the employer market.
These networks generally take a cut of 30-50% of all revenue generated from advertisers and the remainder goes back to the society.
On the surface you can see why this solution has its appeal.
Many of these career center network providers entered the market place in the very late nineties/ early noughties when most organizations were still trying to make sense of how to move their traditional business models online. Print advertising was declining rapidly and advertisers were moving to online solutions. With no expertise or experience in this area, small online audiences and no database of candidates many societies and associations were unable to provide a credible online solution. Those that failed were ultimately unable to satisfy the return their advertisers expected and faced exorbitant costs from career center developers (only to find them obsolete in the space of a few years).
In this context, career center network providers promised off the shelf technology, nominal set up costs, a database of relevant candidates and access to thousands of potential employers. It is easy to understand why so many people said ‘Yes please!’. In this scenario the revenue share agreement was more than offset by the cost savings that societies would have incurred going it alone.
But here’s the thing…
Though it may have seemed a perfectly sensible solution at the time – networks capitalize on organization’s membership and are actively counterproductive when it comes to building and engaging an audience.
Why do people join a professional society or association?
I would say the answer to this question is simple: for their professional development and career prospects.
Organizations that went down the long hard road of developing their own unique career centers should be in a much better situation now than their network affiliated counterparts. These organizations will have captured information from every applicant, increased their online audience and (most likely) seen the knock on effect of increased membership applications.
By contrast those societies that affiliated with networks have missed out on these opportunities.
Networks are interested in gaining access to an existing audience; they have little motivation in growing it.
A career center is one of the most compelling member benefit and engagement tools at a society’s disposal. Not only should it be a great development tool for members – it should be at the forefront of a society’s online presence and mission.
The image below demonstrates how a career center should be benefiting a society and it members:
By contrast, this is how the dynamic works for network affiliated societies and associations:
The graphic above shows how networks act as a barrier/ obstacle to engaging and building an audience of potential new members. Networks capitalize on affiliate’s existing audiences in exchange for applications to keep advertisers happy. As a result the affiliated society loses out on the opportunity grow their audience and forge a direct and lasting relationship with potential new members.
I believe societies should be seeing the full benefit from their career offerings.
With the advent of specialist recruitment platform providers, organizations now have the option to move away from the network model without having to take the risks associated with developing a platform from scratch. Some of these providers offer great career center websites that offer a far more engaging user experience – and a number of large societies and associations are already taking this route.
Unfortunately building the website has always been the easiest part of launching Careers offering!
The major issues are how to provide comprehensive content, build a qualified audience and develop relationships with advertisers. Without considerable experience or inhouse expertise accomplishing this can be a long and arduous process with no guarantee of success.
The image below demonstrates some of the essentials in achieving an engaging and successful career center:
At Wiley we have begun working with our society partners to ‘publish’ their job boards. With years of experience in this area, global reach, access to a massive qualified audience and extensive relationships with advertisers, we can help navigate our society and association partners through these troubled waters and ensure that their online career centers are engaging and successful.
By taking control of their careers audience, societies can grow their membership, introduce new products and services and provide a truly unique audience to employers and recruiters.
At a basic level this will result in an increase in revenues, but also (and perhaps more importantly)maintain an organization’s relevance and engage a new generation of early stage professionals who will ideally go on to form a lasting loyalty to the society or associaton in question.
Networks provide a good service for their clients. They continue to provide their affliates with applications and advertiser relationships – but a modern career center can offer so much more than this.
I think its time for societies to reclaim this audience and take their career offerings to the next level.
Part 1: Banners!
Hello again to everybody, and my apologies for the long break since my last piece. I’ve been far too busy enjoying the incredible summer we’ve just had.
As the British weather has now returned to form, I felt a return to blogging would be a welcome distraction from the torrential downpour and grey skies outside.
So, onto banner campaigns…..
Banners seem to have been left by the wayside as more tactical, fashionable and measurable methods have usurped them over recent years. Consultancies now seem to spend all of their resource on social media, standard job board advertising and industry events as a result of the perception that these methods produce the most tangible return and the least wasted budget.
There’s no big surprise in this, it’s simply a symptom of an industry adapting to increasingly squeezed margins.
What most recruiters don’t seem to realise is that these old fashioned digital methods have also adapted, and as a result banner campaigns are being seriously overlooked in our industry.
Recruitment Consultancy marketers used to identify an online audience and simply buy a specific number of impressions (often linked to a keyword) and then forget about them. The number of consultancies that invested in this technique declined throughout the 00’s as budget moved towards techniques that were more quantifiable.
The big news is that banners are not what they used to be!
Since Google acquired the banner serving company Dart in March 2008 the possibilities have become myriad. Disregarding the numerous ranges of creative mediums now available, the targeting options available are staggering and for recruitment companies this opens up some incredible opportunities.
We recently quoted a client for a campaign with which they were looking to promote the results of some market research to prospective new clients. Our client specified that they wanted to target visitors to our healthcare/ pharmaceutical publications across the US and Europe.
Our total reach for this audience (on Wiley Online Library) runs into 100’s millions of impressions every month! I suspected this might be a little too expensive and less targeted than our client might have liked.
In an effort to reduce potential costs and improve the effectiveness of the campaign, I asked him to identify which companies they were looking to target and in which specific locations. In the end they identified 20 companies across 11 different countries.
After we had identified the domain names of the organisation is question, we ran a report to see how many visits we received from these in the locations we were asked to focus on. Eventually we narrowed our client’s campaign to 1/3 million possible impressions over the course of a month – which fit nicely into his available budget. The only people who will see his banners are those working at his target clients, in the locations his company operates in!
With the advent Ad Remarketing, banner ads have become as tenacious as they have targeted. You can now have banners follow potential clients/ candidates around the web like a particularly talented blood hound.
Today’s banners simply don’t let up until your message has been delivered to the right audience! I’d recommend that recruiters take another look at this old school digital method, its extremely effective – and well worth your budget.
One of biggest issues facing publishers over the last decade has been the rise of Social Media.
In one respect it’s an obvious opportunity to promote brands and build communities in a way that hasn’t been possible in the past.
The major issue has been a lack of understanding about how to do this effectively and, most importantly, how to turn this engagement into revenue.
Many newspapers and online publications are now doing this very effectively. I’m sure most of the people reading this piece will have seen an increasing number of relevant articles appearing in their news feeds and (in my experience) these are highly effective. Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn now provide the main reference tool in determining my online reading habits.
Of course these companies are chasing advertising revenue, which will increase in-line with audience size. There is also an argument that this also adds to online subscriptions, as people become more dependent on the content and publishers begin to move content behind pay walls (I know I would have trouble surviving without access to The Daily Telegraph on a daily basis).
So how has this affected recruitment media providers?
For a long time the standard job board/ employer/ recruitment company response to social media was to pump out a constant stream of job adverts and hope to engage as many potential candidates as possible. This approach just didn’t work, and most resourcers soon learnt that they have to engage an audience; and this involves a lot more effort than simply streaming job adverts.
The best way to engage a community is to provide content of interest; Webinars, Q&A sessions, exclusive news and, yes, career opportunities, will ultimately build the desired audience. The problem is that these services require resource, and social media tends to lose its USP to many people as it ceases to be “free”.
Just as many people labour under the misapprehension that (once built) a website is “free” (when actually they cost a fortune to market, resource, update and maintain) this is also true of the way many people view social media.
The truth is that building a qualified audience is never “free”, whether that is in social media, through a website or via print subscriptions.
But do recruiters have to employ dedicated marketeers, editorial teams and webinar providers simply to make the most out of social media?
There is another way……
It used to be said that the pillars of a successful website community were exclusive news and career opportunities. Recruiters provide exclusive career opportunities all the time, and the providers of exclusive industry news (be that individuals, publications, societies etc.) with established and well qualified communities can benefit from careers content.
Alliances with these providers can be far more effective for recruiters than trying to build and engage these communities themselves.
With the Wiley Job Network we have formed social media alliances with numerous communities which have proved far more effective than our own WJN accounts.
Amongst my clients there is currently a lot of demand for German speaking chemists; so what better way to attract these candidates than by feeding our jobs through the Twitter feed of Germany’s leading chemistry journal “Angewandte Chemie”? This alliance, along with 29 other Wiley communities has allowed us to reach an additional audience of over 200,000 social media users with very little resource from our end.
In my experience this has been by far our most effective use of social media and has meant that we are able to provide an audience for our clients that we could never have done independently.
I would urge those recruiters looking to find candidates in niche areas to look towards building alliances with established communities. There are plenty out there, and these relationships can be mutually beneficial.
Having been a recruitment consultant before they were invented, I can really appreciate how much easier they have made life for recruiters around the world!
At Wiley we are massive fans of multi-posters because recruiters trialling the Wiley Job Network are far more likely to post a large number of jobs across a wide variety of different areas. This tends to mean a better return on investment for clients, who are therefore more likely to commit their budgets. Our problem, prior to the advent of companies like Broadbean, was persuading hard pressed consultants to take time out of their days to post adverts to yet another new job board. I spent five years chasing the business of a major global recruitment consultancy and, following several failed trials (when their consultants simply didn’t post jobs), we finally proved our worth after they began using a major multi-poster. Today they are one of our most important clients.
Whoever was responsible for the invention of this technology doesn’t get enough recognition (I can’t find a name anywhere) as they single handedly revolutionised the recruitment industry!
So after establishing my pro-multi-poster credentials it may come as a bit of a surprise that, after some internal research, I have to conclude that (as a general rule) posting direct to our platform yields a better return on investment for our clients.
Now, in most cases the efficiency savings in using a multi-poster will far outweigh the small loss in applications that clients would have otherwise seen posting directly, but the figures are worth bearing in mind. The first chart below illustrates the proportion of our clients using the various multi-posters available (Broadbean is now by far the most dominant player in the market as a result of its excellent service provision) and the second shows the jobseeker views to applications ratio our clients see through differing posting methods:
As you can see from the charts above, adverts posted through a multi-poster are the least effective in terms of attracting applications.
Obviously there are a number of factors that could explain these results, but I have my theories.
The most effective adverts, those posted by our own WJN team, are being posted on behalf of Recruitment Advertising agencies. They therefore have the copy, design and branding to give these adverts the edge their clients are paying for.
So why the disparity between adverts posted directly onto our job board and those posted through multi-posters?
I believe this is all down to one crucial and overlooked factor; taxonomy categorisation.
When posting adverts on specialist sites, it’s vital that jobs are posted under correct categories.
Location is the most obvious example of this. Jobseekers search on very specific criteria, so it is important that adverts are associated with specific criteria. People searching for jobs based in Woking, Surrey, aren’t going to be seeing a job posted to the whole of the UK. Likewise, clients of ours who post purely under “Pharmaceutical”, when really they should be posting under “Pharmaceutical, Clinical Research Associate” aren’t going to see the quality or quantity of response.
Whilst the choice of taxonomy criteria is clear when a recruiter posts directly though our system, multi-poster interfaces tend to make this a more confusing exercise. The reason for this is that, because they pull taxonomy criteria from multiple job boards (each of which is likely to have idiosyncrasies), the correct categorisation of a job is not always obvious. For example, when posting directly through the Wiley Job Network it is very clear that a role in Clinical research should fall under “Healthcare and Pharmaceutical” but clients posting though multi-posters frequently choose the incorrect “Science, Life Sciences”. This is an easy mistake to make, but leads to adverts being posted alongside content in subjects like evolution and ecology, rather than more relevant topics in drug discovery and pharmacology. Both categories make sense to the recruiter, but the first will lead to quality applications and the 2nd will lead to very few applications, which are unlikely to be relevant.
So what conclusion am I making from all of this?
Well, after having established the massive benefits to using multi-poster software, I am definitely not advocating a return to the darker ages of the recruitment process. What I would suggest is that if recruiters take a little time to visit the numerous job boards that provide taxonomy choices for the their multi-posters interface, and provide their posting consultants (particularly new starters, unfamiliar with their industry sectors) with an informed user guide of the best categories for their roles, they are likely to see a better return on their investment.
Sticking to my theme of analysing recruitment related predictions, I am going to deal with one very close to home.
“Publishers are being cut out of the recruitment process.”
Until the 1990’s, publishers had a monopoly on recruitment advertising. With the exception of strategic choices, such as careers fairs and Above the Line advertising, recruiters had three options in the search for talent:
• Print Advertising in relevant media
• Headhunting/ Poaching
Of course recruiters had their own databases, but most of the candidates these included would have been added as the result of one of the methods listed above.
There just weren’t a lot of options, and publishers were free to take advantage of their privileged position in the recruitment process. For specialist and high profile roles, recruitment adverts varied in price from a few hundred pounds to well over £10,000. There were many journals and trade publications which relied entirely on this lucrative source of revenue to survive.
The arrival of the job board, particularly those operating in niche industry sectors, changed everything.
After several years in recruitment I found myself on the frontline: in the tough position of selling both job board and print advertising. To illustrate the problems I faced selling print against online, here are a few of the typical questions advertisers might ask, contrasted with the answers I had at my disposal:
What does an advert cost?
Job Board: “£350”
Print Publication: “£2,000″
What’s your monthly circulation?
Job Board: “60,000 unique visitors!”
Print Publication: “15,000 subscribers”
How can I measure my return?
Job Board: “We measure all applications and advert views for you!”
Print Publication: “We can’t help.”
How many potential candidates do you have?
Job Board: “We have 6,583 registered users relevant to your role!”
Print Publication: “I can’t be specific.”
What’s the average number of applications to an Ad?
Job Board: “4.3 per advert posted!”
Print Publication: “I don’t know.”
Can I have access to a database of jobseekers?
Job Board: “Sure – how does 10,000 CV’s sound?”
Print Publication: “No you can’t.”
Print was at a big disadvantage!
That’s not to say that it wasn’t necessarily the best route for our clients to take; just that it was a much harder sell.
Many of the best candidates were reading our print publication who wouldn’t dream of visiting our job board, but it’s easy to see why advertisers were increasingly choosing the online option.
As I have said several times in previous posts, “poor services were opened up to scrutiny that wasn’t available prior to the digital age” and many publications that didn’t adapt went out of business or were discontinued as result.
The very best publications continued to see a steady stream of recruitment revenue, whilst nurturing a healthy online brand/ audience at the same time. The BMJ and the New Scientist are good examples of publishers that managed this transition well.
So in an era where the available methods of candidate attraction are so numerous (I shan’t list them for fear of losing your attention, but you can read more about that HERE) how are publishers making a comeback?
The answer is that relevant, respected print publications have always attracted the best candidates! They were just behind technologically; and that gap is now being closed.
Ask your average recruiter which candidates they prefer?
• Those that are actively looking for a job and probably applying to a number of competitors?
• Those that weren’t looking were tempted by the job and applied exclusively to their company?
The answer is invariably the latter!
The biggest downfall of the job board is that it has never been able to provide these ‘passive’ candidates to recruiters.
Now that publishers have caught up technologically, they have the content and have the communities to deliver. All newspapers, trade publications and journals are now online and can capitalize on established technologies to give them the same capabilities as traditional job boards; but with a far more sophisticated audience.
With contextual advertising techniques publishers are now able to place job adverts directly alongside relevant content, targeting passive candidates in their ‘natural content habitat’.
It’s the Biostatistician reading Statistics in Medicine online who sees a tempting job advert alongside an article on “Extensions of net reclassification improvement calculations to measure usefulness of new biomarkers” that provides the publishers advantage. This employed candidate wouldn’t normally consider visiting a job board, maybe adverse to social media (it’s surprising how many scientists, academics and healthcare practitioners are) and yet the publisher can still reach him/ her.
For those of you who are interested, you can see how we do this HERE
With the loss of so much print recruitment over recent years, publishers have been able to move to new online recruitment models without damaging their existing business. At the same time they now have exactly the same capabilities that were previously the preserve of the traditional job board (provided by a number of off the shelf recruitment platforms). As I wrote in my recent article about recruitment advertising agencies, employers and recruiters are increasingly prepared to pay rates comparable to those in print, on the provision that we can deliver quality candidates that aren’t available elsewhere. Whilst selling job board adverts back in 2008, the most I could expect for a month’s campaign was usually in the region of £350. This year the biggest single advert campaign I sold was booked through a recruitment advertising agency was worth several thousand pounds. Content providers, offering a unique audience, can now charge these rates and clients are increasingly prepared to pay.
With many traditional revenue streams under threat, you will notice increasing numbers of publishers taking this route. The most successful will be those who really understand the recruitment market, how to market their jobs and the best way to develop business in the new recruitment environment (in my experience this has been the biggest stumbling block for many organisations).
With social media engagement increasingly driven by content, this is likely to consolidate their advantage. We now send out relevant content to specific niche social media communities specifically to draw attention to our client’s job adverts, not just the steady stream of adverts that people have become accustomed to from many recruitment social media accounts. Being in a position to produce and access this content quickly and effectively is likely to aid publishers in their ascendancy.
In order to compete, traditional job boards are adapting, linking their roles to industry portals and blogs. Unfortunately, the brand and content of many publications is so strong that many people rely on it as part of their career development and this presents publishers (particularly those in specialist/niche areas) with a huge advantage.
That’s it for this week; I’ll be back next week to look at the how digital recruitment differs across international boundaries!
This isn’t exactly on topic but I thought it was so good I had to post it!
This is the letter that the CEO of Groupon, Andrew Mason, wrote to his colleagues after being sacked.
This sort of honesty is always endearing, and I believe he is a stronger man for it:
“People of Groupon,
After four and a half intense and wonderful years as CEO of Groupon, I’ve decided that I’d like to spend more time with my family. Just kidding — I was fired today. If you’re wondering why … you haven’t been paying attention. From controversial metrics in our S1 to our material weakness to two quarters of missing our own expectations and a stock price that’s hovering around one quarter of our listing price, the events of the last year and a half speak for themselves. As CEO, I am accountable.
You are doing amazing things at Groupon, and you deserve the outside world to give you a second chance. I’m getting in the way of that. A fresh CEO earns you that chance. The board is aligned behind the strategy we’ve shared over the last few months, and I’ve never seen you working together more effectively as a global company — it’s time to give Groupon a relief valve from the public noise.
For those who are concerned about me, please don’t be — I love Groupon, and I’m terribly proud of what we’ve created. I’m OK with having failed at this part of the journey. If Groupon was Battletoads, it would be like I made it all the way to the Terra Tubes without dying on my first ever play through. I am so lucky to have had the opportunity to take the company this far with all of you. I’ll now take some time to decompress (FYI I’m looking for a good fat camp to lose my Groupon 40, if anyone has a suggestion), and then maybe I’ll figure out how to channel this experience into something productive.
If there’s one piece of wisdom that this simple pilgrim would like to impart upon you: have the courage to start with the customer. My biggest regrets are the moments that I let a lack of data override my intuition on what’s best for our customers. This leadership change gives you some breathing room to break bad habits and deliver sustainable customer happiness — don’t waste the opportunity!
I will miss you terribly.
In my last few posts I have mused about the more outrageous recruitment related predictions.
A particularly fashionable one was, “recruitment advertising agencies have been cut out of the process”.
When Barkers went into administration in 2009, this statement seemed even more credible.
Recruitment advertising agencies (RAD agencies) had traditionally added value via channel planning, copy, creative and placement. These skills were essential to run a successful print campaign, but with the advent of the job board, recruitment advertising costs plummeted. Employers and agencies took control of the posting process, creativity was limited and ROI measured precisely.
In this environment it became harder to justify the costs of using an advertising agency to do the same things that most companies were doing for themselves.
Things have changed. Just as my last article dealt with how the job board is evolving into a far more sophisticated tool; recruitment advertising agencies have adapted and are turning the new environment to their advantage.
The most successful campaign on the Wiley Job Network in the last 12 months was run by a London based RAD agency on behalf of a major petro-chemical company. The role advertised would typically attract between 1 -10 applicants but, by the time our agency had worked their magic, the advert had attracted over a hundred.
On this basis, Recruitment Advertising Agencies are still more than capable of adding significant value to their client’s campaigns.
So what’s changed to create an environment where the agency can once again thrive?
I shall come back to a running theme in my blogs. At a basic level nothing has really changed since things have migrated online. Yes, the media is different, the ROI is more measurable and advertising is more sophisticated but, employers still want the best talent and they know that the search for this talent is going to involve targeting relevant communities and content in the most effective way possible.
The biggest issue agencies have had to overcome has been the transition period between print and online. To illustrate the difficulties with this transition, let’s turn the clock back 10 years and look at the issues facing recruitment advertising agencies.
• The online options were limited to a few generalist job board brands, and the rates offered were considerably more cost effective than their print counterparts.
• To employers, job boards offered huge cost savings and highly measurable results but, the scope for any form of creativity was limited; advertising was quickly becoming ess of an art form and more of a science.
• Banners/ restrictive job templates were the only options available online and the ability to add value to this process was limited.
• Volume was the primary measures of success for a recruitment agency or employer at the time and an advert could be purchased online for a tenth of the price of one in print.
Gone were the days when you had to wait a month for a print deadline, pay thousands of pounds for advertising space and pray for a good result. In the old days, it made sense to make sure a good advertising agency worked on your recruitment advert; it was just too much of a financial risk to mess it up!
In this environment it’s easy to see why agencies were suffering.
Something had to give and unfortunately there were a few casualties; Barkers being the highest profile.
That transitional period is now over and nearly all content is now available online. What’s more, as content providers traditional revenue streams have declined, more and more innovative advertising and targeting technologies have been developed in the competition for budget.
The sheer amount of media online is now huge and the range of targeting methods available is myriad.
Simply choosing the right media has become a discipline worthy of a PhD qualification. In the UK Whatmedia.co.uk sprang into existence in 2000 as a method for RAD agencies to find and assess different forms of recruitment media. Over the years Whatmedia.co.uk’s database has grown, and now contains 4000 different platforms, each one structured differently, with its own targeting methods and rate structures.
In addition to this, rich media, data collection and enhanced analytical capabilities, have meant that running the most effective recruitment campaigns, in terms of cost and results, can be incredibly complex.
Let’s take the example of a Pharmaceutical company looking for a Medical Advisor, with specific experience in oncology…..
In the early 1990’s it was a matter of identifying the most relevant oncology journals with the best circulations, in the right locations and creating some copy for an advertising campaign. This generally would have been in the form of a print advert, designed to different page specifications.
In the early 2000’s you may have opted for a combination of print and online, with the choice of only 1 or 2 niche job boards and a very basic static (possibly animated) banner campaign online. Job boards at the time only offered the most basic templates, restricting the creative process. There were options to upload PDF adverts but, these were prohibitively expensive by comparison and didn’t massively increase the ROI that employers received.
Today, available online media (in the UK alone) would include at least 12 relevant niche job boards, hundreds of online journals (we publish 77 in this field at Wiley alone) and countless social media communities.
The most effective campaign would involve an HTML e-mail campaign; geo-targeted, frequency capped, content linked, banners (in a range of possible formats too numerous to list); a video advert, a careers webinar (involving speakers topics and online presentations); HTML branded, sponsored, SEO optimized, online advertising campaigns; a campaign specific SEO optimized, Adword supported mini-site; Facebook pages; linkedIn groups and twitter accounts.
Oh… and because Doctors can be old fashioned in their reading habits, possibly a print campaign to boot….
A good RAD agency now relies on such skills as channel planning, creative talent, media buying, web development, SEO, Ad operations, social media expertise and video production.
It’s been a difficult transition period, and there have been casualties along the way (RIP Barkers) but, in today’s competition for talent, working with a good RAD agency adds more value.
An example of a print advert only a good RAD agency could have come up with:http://youngmedialove.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/an-amazing-recruitment-ad/
A few more solid reasons to use a RAD:
A good example of making video advertising work in recruitment:
Winners of the 2013 RAD awards:
Anyone who has turned on the TV recently and seen Max Beasley relentlessly plugging Jobsite knows what a load of nonsense this prediction has turned out to be!
Job boards have been a feature of the internet since it launched and fulfilled exactly the same role as that recruitment pages did prior to the digital age. The difference being that they made the entire process for candidates and recruiters easier, faster and more measurable; not to mention far more cost effective.
Job boards initially usurped the majority of recruitment revenue from regional, free and controlled circulation newspapers and trade press; causing many to go under (I refer the reader back to a point in my last post: that the internet exposed poor services to scrutiny that wasn’t available prior to the digital age). I believe many of the publications that suffered, just weren’t being read by the audience they claimed, didn’t adapt fast enough and didn’t modify their pricing structures to be competitive with new media. There are still many successful publications and journals that see significant recruitment revenue from print and that’s because they were able to effectively deliver on their propositions.
Although there is no end in sight, as far as I can see for The Job Board, things have changed considerably over the years. Generalist job boards have to adapt to a new market place, as more and more publishers produce niche job sites, either supported by industry focussed content or exclusively marketed to a particular sector.
Generalists still have their place but, they have had to strengthen their brands and diversify into niche areas over recent years, in order to avoid losing market share to the multitude of new competition. You may have noticed that many of these big generalist brands (Jobsite, CV Library and Total Jobs) are now advertising on TV as a way of addressing this.
I believe the future of the big brand generalist job boards is in the horizontal markets: sales, administration etc. and specialist publishers (now aware of the potential) will continue to chip away at the vertical markets.
This was why we built the Wiley Job Network.
Wiley produce 1600 highly respected peer review journals, which attract 13.5 million unique users every month, each with its own specialist audience and brand. By targeting our client’s adverts to relevant articles in these journals, we have a unique advantage, capitalising on an exclusive audience who rely on our content as part of their career development, the strength of trusted journals brands and global reach. This is something that stand-alone job boards and generic job boards aren’t in a position to offer advertisers, no matter how much marketing they engage in. Whereas in the past, a lot of the expertise and skill involved in producing a great recruitment platform was the preserve of dedicated job board providers, this technology is now available to anyone. Companies like Madgex (our own providers) have state of the art recruitment platforms that can be bought off the shelf and updated as and when new technology becomes available – all the publisher has to do is bring the audience to the table. I believe the future will see more and more content producers capitalising on recruitment revenue streams; it’s an easy win during a tough transitional time.
With Jobseekers increasingly uploading their CV’s to several job boards at a time, recruiters now frequently see the same candidate come through from a variety of different sources. The logical response to this situation is to simply choose the one producing the most volume and to cut back on spend with the others (which is where a lot of generalists have suffered). In order to have a successful platform in today’s market place, producing candidates recruiters are not seeing from another source is essential, which normally means, targeting passive candidates in a space that they don’t use for job seeking! In our case this is done through our journals on Wiley Online Library, however, you’ll see the same contextual job advertising appearing alongside relevant articles on more and more content producers. You can take a look at some examples of this below:
In this respect Job Boards are morphing into something different. An accurate description would be: “platforms that facilitate placing client’s adverts alongside contextually relevant content”.
In that respect at least, the title of this blog is, in part, true.
That’s it for today. In my next piece I am going to be looking at where Recruitment Advertising Agencies have found a new role in the digital world.
UPDATE: After searching this topic the other day, I found an article written a few days before mine on the same topic. I have met Felix before, he has been around far longer than I have and I respect his opinion. In light of this it would be rude not to link though to his blog on the same topic (albeit from a different perspective):http://www.evenbase.com/2013/02/15/an-obituary-the-job-board/