#candidateattraction

A piping hot topic right now for the Australian recruitment market is SEEK’s new pricing model, which is changing from fixed cost to a variable spend, based on the availability of candidates in a specific sector and location.  So how, as a business, can you budget for and manage an unknown monthly spend? Let’s look at why SEEK has moved to this new pricing model, what it means and how idibu can help you.  In October 2019, SEEK announced changes to their business looking to demonstrate commitment to improving the SEEK experience for hirers and candidates. That included changing their contracts from a fixed cost to a variable pricing model that moves with the candidate market.  The aim was to provide greater flexibility in the way hirers utilise their budget so they could use the right ad solutions – Classic, Standout & Premium. Instantly allowing for a more synchronised approach to an agency’s sourcing strategy.    Instead of purchasing a volume of job ads, the total investment with SEEK could be used on any job ad type including Classic, StandOut and Premium over a 6-month period.  A side effect we’ve seen is agencies voicing concern about the impact on ad spend – essentially moving from fixed to a variable cost. Many companies, especially working in the post Covid landscape, are worried about measuring ROI from their SEEK ads and unsure how to manage an unknown spend.  So Read the full article

Few in recruitment need reminding that best practice is to read, review and respond to every applicant. Yet how many businesses or departments can claim a clean record here? From my experience as (10 years recruiter and now rec-tech Product Manager), I’d bet none. Our analytic suite shows plenty of unread applications across our user base. So, what’s the problem? I believe it’s this: The dichotomy of unread applications is that while reviewing every application is beneficial for the company, it’s not beneficial for the individual recruiter. The counter argument runs thus; if every applicant gets a response, then the recruiter benefits long-term with a stronger, more engaged talent pool to work. I wouldn’t disagree. However, this long term benefit offers no guarantees – especially if there’s lots of unsuitable applicants for their sector. Perhaps they will benefit if everyone else does the same – but without collective agreement and commitment in practice, this still falls flat. The issue lies in the realities of prioritisation and execution for an individual recruiter. The key objective is to make placements, and make them as quickly as possible. This applies in both agency and in-house, though the internal drivers behind that objective differ.  For a recruiter, when vacancy A is filled, the next priority is to fill vacancy B. However, at the same time, vacancy A may still have unread applications. These are likely to have accrued during the final stages of the process. Read the full article