Rebranding Job Boards

Bill Gates-PXP-000006Having spent time at Monster in the content and social marketing game, but I still believe in job boards. And anyone who thinks they’re dead and deliberately ignores them as part of a holistic recruiting strategy is significantly more hindered in attracting top talent than those “old-school” HR professionals who perceive social media the same way the Puritans perceived witches.

For all the talk that “job boards are dead” and the perception that social media or smart phones or structured data will somehow change recruiting ignores the obvious fact that these technologies are, more or less, content delivery mechanisms.

Content is the currency of the entirety of the Internet, and it’s what we’re looking for when we’re staring at our smart phones, or the story we’re hoping to tell when we actually crunch the numbers behind big data.

And content is king. I know, that’s a cliché, but you know who said it?

Shakespearean as it sounds, this obnoxious — yet omnipresent — aphorism was coined by none other than Microsoft founder Bill Gates. And he did so in the context of an interview explaining why software was fundamental to the success or failure of consumer PC adoption.

In HR technology, like in consumer technologies, Gates’ well-worn maxim remains true. A system is only as good as the software behind it. But, more importantly, it’s the content of that software that ultimately determines success or failure — and bottom-line results.

Without job boards, the entire ecosystem of online recruiting would ostensibly trigger a collapse of cataclysmic proportions. Suddenly, qualified candidates, incoming applicants, internal mobility, and the entire online recruiting industry — all $80 billion of it — will wither in the apocalyptic content drought created by the seemingly inevitable extinction of job boards.

They might be perceived as dinosaurs, but the truth is, they’re doing what’s required to stave off extinction — they’re evolving, and, in most cases, thriving. The AIRS 2013 Global Job Board Directory was a hefty 105 pages of job boards spread out in three columns in eight-point type, ranging from “Regional Career Hubs” like the Virginia Beach Joblink to “business function” specific sites like

One man’s niche is another man’s target, after all, and the point is that there has to be a reason for the continued existence of so many damn job boards — most running for profit, all noteworthy enough for inclusion in AIRS’ industry bible, albeit in a document with a longer character count than Catcher in the Rye.

The reason they’re still around is because job boards work. And they provide the content that provides the backbone for online recruiting today, one of the most essential elements of the talent acquisition ecosystem.

It’s not that they don’t work — it’s just, as pointed out during Jeff Dickey Chasins’ session at the recent JobG8 Summit on the future of job boards, they’re in dire need of a rebrand. One look at the numbers confirms that the efficacy of job boards lies less in their actual results and more in the negative connotations the term carries with recruiters and candidates alike.

Consider the curious case of LinkedIn. Of all technologies, the job board industry and pundits alike put it squarely on top as their biggest and most worrisome competitive threat. It is, however, evidence of the power of branding.

Somehow, LinkedIn is completely left out of the job board category, and positioned in study after study as the most effective “social network” for finding a job — with 92 percent of candidates turning to LinkedIn to a paltry 25 percent or less for the likes of Facebook and Twitter, numbers echoed by their employer counterparts.

That LinkedIn is a “professional” social networking site has become an accepted reality in industry dialogue, but consider the fact that over 80 percent of that revenue and growth that made it a Wall Street darling came from recruiting services.

The bulk of the recruiting spend on LinkedIn remains in individual job postings or posting packages as well as licensing LinkedIn recruiter, which provides employers the ability — and visibility — to search LinkedIn’s full database from behind the consumer firewall. Social media may be free, but recruiting is not. And when the overwhelming majority of your income is derived from selling job postings and access to candidate databases, you’re a job board.

Aggregators are also often cited as the second-most pernicious threat to job boards’ continued existence. Ever since Indeed zoomed past Monster as the top job site in the U.S. in October 2010, it and other aggregators like SimplyHired have quickly stolen mind and market share from traditional job boards, both general and niche.

It’s obvious that all “aggregators” are inherently job boards — after all, their entire user experience is page upon page of searchable job descriptions — and that separating them from job boards as a category is ridiculous. The power of branding strikes again. But the thing is, these aggregators aren’t competitors of job boards — they’re reliant on them for survival.

The depth and breadth of jobs aggregators are able to display to candidates is derived from them scraping, indexing, and essentially pirating job postings from the same platforms they see as a competitive threat.

Article Continues Below

Aggregators, like all parasitic creatures, cannot survive without their host–– and without the flow of job board postings (SimplyHired excluded) that make them such an enticing one-stop-shop for job seekers would quickly render themselves completely obsolete. It turns out it’s hard to aggregate when there’s nothing to actually aggregate.

Of course, aggregators do increase the ROI of paid job postings by increasing their reach and visibility, as the increasing number of candidates who self-select an aggregator as their source of hire suggest. On the other hand, they also undermine that investment by obstructing a clear view of where the candidate really came from, citing their destination rather than the actual source of the job description.

But nevertheless, neither LinkedIn nor job aggregators pose any threats to job boards, primarily because they are not only job boards themselves, but reliant on job board generated content to draw both visitors and revenue. Their success lies on branding, not business model.

Although traditional job boards do have a lot to learn from the site’s clean user experience and user interface, behavioral targeting, easy filtering features, and branding options, while LinkedIn might be the best job board on the planet, it remains, for the time being, just that, with a few social features added on.

But what about social media? If you’ve ever looked at an automated Twitter job feed or looked at the top-level domains (the primary part of the URL between the hyphens) for the links to job descriptions proliferating on Facebook, you’re probably aware that most of this “content” — even for those companies who also share content and community through their social recruiting channels — is generated by job boards. Even jobs that are shared through social media outside the company mostly originate with a third party job posting.

And in a medium that’s entirely predicated on content, similar to aggregators, without this content, most social recruiting campaigns — many of which are built through job board integrations and feeds — social recruiting would cease to fulfill its primary raison d’etre: generating more qualified applicants for open positions and future pipeline.

The most important argument for the continued longevity and viability of the job board model: They work.  According to the most recent Career Xroads Source of Hire report, job boards again represented the biggest source of external hires next to referrals (which, by contrast, are internally generated).

These would-be anachronisms actually led to about seven times as many hires as social networks — of which, coincidentally, LinkedIn was included. And in recruiting, there’s no arguing with results. Except, of course, maybe source of hire — as long as candidates still self-select, that is. But that’s a topic for another post entirely.


image from

As a veteran of the HR and recruiting industries, Matt Charney has served in marketing leadership roles for companies such as Monster, Cornerstone OnDemand, and Talemetry, overseeing online, social media, content marketing, and press/analyst relations. He developed expertise in recruitment advertising and strategy, online employer branding, social recruiting, and direct sourcing while an in-house recruiter for companies including the Walt Disney Company, Warner Bros. Entertainment Group, and Amgen. A highly sought after writer and speaker on recruiting, marketing and technology, you can follow him on Twitter @MattCharney or connect on LinkedIn.


34 Comments on “Rebranding Job Boards

  1. Excellent points, Matt. One question that hasn’t been answered adequately, I think, is: what do job seekers think about the term ‘job board’? Is it widely understood? Is it a neutral term, or positive or negative? And has the barrage of coverage about social recruiting moved job seekers’ perceptions of job boards?

  2. Great insight. I would not be me if I did not add a comment that part of the rebranding that I am seeing happen involves the inclusion of better tools for reducing the friction between job seekers and employers who are using job boards as a venue to find one another. If both sides are willing to give more information about who they are and what they are looking for, technology can help ensure that the signal to noise ratio is reduced and that users can find matches that actually make sense for them. This exchange of information is greatly accentuated by the social connectivity we are experiencing at present and by trends such as credentialing.

    Bottom line is that the idea or concept of a job board is a great one and there is no reason that it should be otherwise. But job boards need to add functionality that allows them to do their job more effectively and efficiently. Unfortunately their business model seems to be immune to this need.

  3. Matt- you cleaned up nice for this post. Job boards work because contrary to what most companies say about “hiring the best and the brightest”, most of the average to above average candidates are conditioned to find work via the path of least effort. Any job search channel for both recruiters and job seekers simply requires a great deal of work – and frankly, there really aren’t many recruiters out there who are great at “old school” techniques and if job seekers were to follow the mantras of the experts there wouldn’t be time for work, sleeping, and other core body functions…

    Jeff – I don’t think job seekers care about the label as long as they believe they stand a chance of being called. Social job search isn’t easy to do – as is social recruiting.

    Regardless of the channel, Matt identified the real obstacle: Content. Do you regularly see any great job descriptions that describe more than the job tasks? How many are simply a list of the obvious tasks to be performed by the person in the position title – “Wow, the job description says that as a Software Developer, I’ll be writing and testing code…”

    The problem isn’t the job board – it’s how recruiting is truly perceived by the companies posting these works of art. And the perception is still pretty pathetic…

  4. One may smile and smile, yet a villain be.

    How helpful will LinkedIn be when it needs to raise prices enough to cover its more than $100 million annual losses (income minus goodwill increase) and produce cash flow sufficient to justify a $25 billion market cap?

    Great article Matt. I’ve always thought you the best in the industry and you came through again. Top-level-domains btw are the right most part of the domain i.e. ‘com’, ‘co’. I think you meant the fully qualified domain names between the slashes (not hyphens), but maybe I just couldn’t follow the context.

    Anyway, thanks for the great read.

  5. Matt – great article! You really hit the nail on the head by stating a couple of obvious truths – Without Job Board aggregators like Indeed would not exist. I do think that they play a valuable part in expanding the reach of job boards and driving seeker traffic to a company’s ATS. With simple search features (title and location), the aggregators serve up job descriptions. This really doesn’t tell a seeker much about the intangibles of the company. As you referenced content is king and there is little to no content for a job seeker. This is obviously a drawback. When the candidate sees the job description are they really being sold on the opportunity or able to gather information on the company before hitting the apply button? Aggregator sites are doing a good job of showing their value as source of hire. Their method of hard coding their site in the apply URL is basic yet brilliant.
    As recruiters are presented with more and more options, everyone is hoping that there will be one resource that can take care of all of their hiring needs. This unfortunately is not going to be the case. If so, then why are referrals still one of the oldest yet best sources of hire? It’s crucial to really understand what tools are available and how to best utilize them. I believe that there is an allure to try new products. It’s human nature to want to try the latest trend and marketing plays a large role in what as consumers we use and feel we need. Just take a look at Apple.
    Job Boards and recruiting are definitely evolving and one thing that is certain is that there will be more technology coming down the road with the hopes of a better way to recruit.

  6. @ Gregg: “One may smile and smile, yet a villain be.
    -Hamlet: Act 1, Scene 5, Page 4- not too shabby.
    It goes well with a non-Shakespearean quote:
    “Kiss the hand you cannot sever.”

    Anyway, as long as there’s no real alternative to LI, they can squeeze us like a sponge filled with liquid money, and there’ll be little we can do.


    Keith “The Merchant of Menace” Halperin

  7. Hi Matt – some great points in this post. As someone that has either sold technology to and/or partnered with many job boards and aggregators, I know that they play a key foundational role in the industry. They’re certainly not going away but as pretty much everyone acknowledges – they need to evolve. Many of them are and will continue to be players, the others…? I guess they can’t escape the forces of Darwinism!
    In any case knowing your other talents include scriptwriting, I look forward to your next post, as in this first scene you’ve introduced the “content is king” character. So I look forward to the story arc you’re developing and the next installment 🙂

  8. Great post Matt…Job Board rebranding is beyond needed…nobody really wants to drive a MiniVan to their School Reunion…

    As you point out, LinkedIn has done it’s branding job well…so much so that they’ve convinced the industry that they really aren’t a Job Board when they’re actually the industry’s largest…

    Job Boards aren’t going anywhere…we’ll always need a central place to find openings. If you look through history, as the Industrial Revolution turned us from a cottage to a market driven economy – someone always found a way to profit from listing jobs (broadsheets, pennysavers, newspapers, etc) – and this will not go away regardless of future digital engagement possibilities.

  9. I also enjoyed one of the most thoughtful, neutral articles about job boards that I’ve read in a long, long time. Kudos, Matt!

    There’s a lot of “job boards are dead” talk out there and it exists almost entirely within three circles:

    1. Third party recruiters who feel their livelihoods are threatened by job boards. Really good TPRs like our friend Steve Levy (see comment above) are not threatened by job boards because they don’t go after the same low hanging fruit that my fellow job board owners do. They instead create that fruit. Job boards are insanely good at connecting actively seeking employers with actively seeking candidates. They’re not good at connecting employers with passively seeking candidates. That’s where TPRs should thrive.

    2. Vendors and consultants who feel their livelihoods are threatened by job boards. I see a lot of poorly vetted articles by these folks, including one today on ERE. These folks often fail to disclose their biases adequately so HR folks who are reading content on sites like ERE and mistakenly believe it is unbiased and well researched are hoodwinked. Content sites like ERE should do a better job of refusing to publish these self-serving pieces. That may hurt a bit in the short-run as there will be less content and less content means fewer banner ad impressions, but better content means in the long run they’ll see more readers and more readers means more banner ad impressions.

    3. Human resource professionals who lack critical thinking skills or are tricked by one or both of the above groups. But remember the adage about fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me? We all need to take responsibility for intelligently consuming media and that includes articles and presentations by the above groups.

  10. Steven R – I agree with your points. But I think that job boards as a whole have done a remarkably poor job of positioning themselves. Only one has done exceptionally well that I can think of in the recent past: LinkedIn. It’s the UnCola of the job board world (“Hey, we’re not a job board – that’s why we’re so great!”).

  11. Hey Jeff. Though it be madness, the we’re-not-a-job-board spin has method to it.

    I just recruited a top ios dev on ‘not-a-job-board’ Stack Overflow and enjoy equals success with designers on ‘not-a-job-board’ CodePen.

    And sorry for me the LinkedIn brand is the worst for recruiting tech professionals. Nothing screams I-Can’t-Code louder than a LinkedIn connection request.

  12. @ Everybody: I wonder what percentage of paid job board licenses (particularly the major ones) are held by 3PRs?

    A suggestion for firms using 3PRs:
    In the contract with them, include a clause which requires the 3PR firm to swear that they will not provide any candidates which are sourced from Monster, CareerBuilder, DICE, LI Recruiter, or Craig’s List. It won’t affect folks like Steve, but the outfits that hire newbie recruiters to dial for job orders that get filled off job boards for 15% will have REAL problems.

    All recruiters should use GitHub, Stack Overflow, etc. The more recruiters use these to source candidates, the quicker any advantage a given recruiter using them will diminish, and the faster they will lose their value. Word to the wise: if you find something that works well to find who you’re looking for: KEEP IT A SECRET!



  13. @Jeff re terminolgy: what are the most commonly used Terms? Job boards (sounds so ancient now and so Web 1.0), Job sites? Job Websites? Job platforms? I guess we Need to start using a minmal few or pick one in the way hat “ecosystem” seems to be taking off.
    @charles: yup, Job boards are doing the Job that our current mindset, which has got us into this Job market friction, allows them to. Good point. And yes, they need to add functionality or rather totally redesign so that quality Information is matched using this new technology – Semantic web 3.0 for example? Afterall I think it was theLadders Research that showed us (albeit with a data sample of only n=15) that recruiters only spend 6 seconds reviewing a resume. Dr Sullivan argues consistent Format and I agree – the Job seeker’s search criteria should match that of the Job description, then we wouldn’t Need to spend so much time Decoding a massive of rhetoric and poorly written descriptions.
    @AA The new technology is here already, it’s just that the big boys either haven’t adopted it yet, or don’t know how to, or can’t afford to at this stage….it takes a LONG time to build a job related Ontology needed to support a semantic matching tool…trust me 😉 However, the big boys are still the most popular in the street, with all the friends.
    @KC And look at what dating sites like eHarmony and Parship have done for personal ads? It’s almost the norm now to say you’ve tried a dating site at some point or another. The Thing is, they’ve not only revolutionised romantic matching, they’ve shown us the future of Job and Talent matching. Why not follow that successful model.
    ok, run out of time…so, LI is the currently the best thing we have on such a huge scale and with its functionality that helps the recruiter there is some degree of the possibility that job seekers, who have been frustrated with long irrelevant lists of poor results from the job boards, will “be found”. Both parties are now at the same table at least but the Job seekers are still in a passive role, hoping they have the right keywords to be discovered and with no visibility of who is tracking them. Question is, there is still a friction that exists for the SMEs who can’t afford the whizz tools used and needed to find the top Talent. And where do all the non-White-collar job seekers go to be found? They are also high income earners too – I know, my Family are builders, carpenters, elctricians with their own houses and a couple of cars…..
    I’m done..:)

  14. Thanks everyone for not only taking the time to read this post, but actually respond with a really good – and pretty insightful – conversation string. I will be replying to most of the points here with follow up posts, so the great prompts for content fodder are greatly appreciated. To the point of what candidates think of job boards, erroneous source of hire information indicates that they’re pretty source agnostic; they just want to find & apply for jobs as quickly and easily as possible. That said, those who do have perceptions of job boards almost unilaterally have negative ones (affirmed by reams of primary & secondary market research). But again, what they perceive as the shortcomings of job boards are, in fact, almost all related to applicant tracking systems.

    Candidates don’t realize when they click to apply and are taken from an external posting to the same posting on an ATS, they’re leaving the job board and entering another system – hence the resume “black hole” erroneously ascribed to online job postings. So as much as job boards need to rebrand themselves from a B2B perspective, it’s really systems integration and parsing technologies which need fixing to improve candidate experience and perception of online job ads. And if you’ve used one of the big legacy players in this space to apply for a job any time in the last few years, you know that’s a much bigger issue than brand. And one that’s a hell of a lot harder to fix.

  15. @Keith – obviously the greatest problem with using code repositories to recruit is that it’s a rare recruiter who has any idea as to what they’re looking at in terms of ability…but you’re spot on that “performance boards” clearly outperform “profile boards”

    @Charney Like how you describe how people often blame the board for the ills of the ATS; the big ATS proliferate because most in HR who buy these monstrosities don’t consider such mundane topics as candidate experience and technical customizability. HR should leave recruiting to the professionals… 😉

  16. Thanks, Steve. Finding people, aka “sourcing” is getting better and easier all the time. Let’s do what the “big brains” call a “thought experiment”:
    Some product or technique enables recruiters to effortlessly obtain complete information (including direct contact information) on everyone in the entire world. Let’s also say the product is so phenomenal and affordable that every recruiter in the entire world uses it. The vast majority of companies STILL won’t be able to hire the who they want to, because the problem isn’t in the FINDING of candidates, it’s the *GETTING of them that’s the real problem. Furthermore, the same “Fab 5%” will continue to be bombarded by recruiters, and (outside of some much in-demand skillsets) still most jobseekers won’t be getting contacted very much, if at all… What I’ve just described is a situation taken to an unrealistic extreme, but in many cases, that’s exactly the situation now.



    * And the unwillingness of hiring mangers to hire the people willing to work for them as opposed to the ones they think they deserve.

  17. @Matt – So the real culprit of this thread rears its head…ATS…and the truth of what you say cannot be emphasized enough.

    As part of a rebranding exercise for our business, we recently researched Candidate Experience for a handful of likely clients (all multinational and multi $B) by taking the process from Aggregator to Job Board to Client Side ATS and the results were quite frankly amazing…

    At one of the largest Defense Contractors we spent two hours attempting to apply having to complete the profile fully 3 times and each time upon submitting got an “error message” and sent to restart the entire process…an email sent to the address for “applicant problems” was never returned…

    A global market leading IS company actually required 4 security questions to be answered to protect an applicant if they needed to log back in (it didn’t seem to be a screening method), a 2003 only version of MS Word for a resume upload, and..well it got more finicky from there taking 55 minutes to complete.

    At one of the largest pharma companies they timed out applicants so quickly – you needed TChat like typing skills and a 50 Meg Internet connection to apply…we actually gave up after trying 5 times to upload a short cover letter that never got past the system.

    There were other horror stories as each ATS experience was similar, but you get the idea (interestingly, the JBs and Aggs were streamlined and mostly efficient). Sure, it was a small sample (experienced 6 different ATS’s), but you’d have to be significantly motivated to apply to put up with what we experienced. There would be little chance that a casual job seeker would put up with this…boggles the mind as to how many potential top performing candidates these incredibly cumbersome systems cost…

  18. Nice post Matt. Your thoughts and insights around Job Boards are spot on. For the last two years, I have been saying I am going to cut the spend on boards, but it is hard to do that when you have an average of 75 candidates applying to the requisition from the boards.

    However, our team has started focusing more on pulling from our pipelined candidates. Why? They are at the ready and we have sourced them ahead of positions opening which is truly making our team look like superstars.

  19. @ K.C. “There would be little chance that a casual job seeker would put up with this…” That’s quite possibly the idea: “Ee don’t want it to be too easy to apply- that lets in all the ‘riff-raff'”.

    @ Michael: You folks have the wherwithal to plan and pipeline?
    Your recruiters mustn’t have enough reqs…


  20. We’ve been thinking a lot about different approaches to job boards lately. For those running WordPress sites, here are discussions of some of the better job board plugins we’ve been able to find:

    1) Five WP Job Board Plugins…:
    2) WP Job Manager (very clean, modern design):
    3) WP Job Board (looks very impressive and well-supported, though one would want to read reviews and support forums to be sure):

    As well all know, the real question to resolve is, what will prove to be the best, most widely used mobile solution for posting jobs and, crucially, receiving applications?

  21. Amen Matt. In any business you need to evolve. Google forgets your website if you maintain status quo. It’s indicative of how business is done – move, shake, reinvent and you are relevant. Stand still and your dead.

  22. @Keith

    What do you think makes LinkedIn so irreplaceable?
    Is it huge resume database?
    Somewhat verified set of skills assigned to candidates?

  23. @K.C. Donovan

    Yes, user experience at typical corporate ATS is terrible.
    Do you know what goals these corporations tried to achieve when they’ve set up these ATS-es?
    Why not simply post job openings on a job board of choice?

  24. @ Dennis: I don’t think it is irreplaceable, I think it is a near monopoly, which is why it continues to squeeze us. In this respect, I think it’s similar to MS in the pre internet 1990s. WEhere else

  25. @ Dennis: I don’t think it is irreplaceable, I think it is a near monopoly, which is why it continues to squeeze us. In this respect, I think it’s similar to MS in the pre-internet 1990s. Where else can you find a few hundred million pseudo-resumes? The fact that most of them aren’t interested in jobs even when they say they are (because “interested in a job/career” is the default or “opt out” setting) so we waste our time and money going after not passive candidates but non candidates and that we can’t really contact these people directly in the numbers we need is secondary.


  26. @Keith,

    Isn’t it the nature of passive candidates that they reject most of the opportunities?

    Having “interested in a job/career” as opt-in would trim size of “interested in a job/career” candidates pool about 10-fold.
    The response rate to recruiters requests would somewhat increase, but would response rate increase worth 10x decrease in available resume numbers for you as a recruiter?

  27. @ Dennis: Apassive candidate isn’t interested in your job. A non-candidate isn’t interested in ANY job, and that’s what more of my LIR accepts” say.

    “Having “interested in a job/career” as opt-in would trim size of “interested in a job/career” candidates pool about 10-fold.
    The response rate to recruiters requests would somewhat increase, but would response rate increase worth 10x decrease in available resume numbers for you as a recruiter?”

    EXACTLY. I’d know that I could reasonably expect that the people I go after are open to hearing what I have to say, even if they aren’t interested. Furthermore it might be even better if it (and other LI options) had a “must re-opt in every 30 days” function, so that if you didn’t specify every 30 days that you were open to something (not just jobs/careers, but keeping in touch, referrals, expertise, etc.), you’d opt-out by default. I expect no changes like this any time soon….


  28. @Keith,

    1) My typical response to recruiters request to consider developer’s position is “not interested”.
    That does NOT mean that I’m not interested at all.
    If request is relevant to what I do – I would at least read it in full and possibly discuss it further on the phone.
    On the other hand if I see that it’s part of mass-request and only couple of buzzwords match with my profile – I don’t even bother to read full description.

    2) Is it possible in LinkedIn to filter profiles by last activity date?
    If user did not open LinkedIn in the last 30 days you may assume that they are very passive in job search at best.

    3) If LinkedIn trims their profile database 10x they would probably need to increase price of contact ~10x too in order to maintain the same revenue.
    Would such “less resumes, but better response rate, but same overall $$ spent” switch make sense to you?

  29. @ Dennis: I hear you. At the same time, I don’t want my company to spend $8,000+/yr to have me go after people who clearly aren’t interested AT ALL in what I (or any other recruiter) offers, and just haven’t gotten around to saying so. If LI isn’t prepared to give me accurate up-to-date information on people I’m paying for, I think they should eliminate the category entirely for anyone-if someone is on LI, maybe they’re interested in a job or a contact or anything else, and maybe (probably) they’re NOT. Fundamentally, for this amount of money, I want a lot more services and accuracy in my search than I’m getting now, so paying more for not wasting my money is not a viable option….


  30. @Keith: If candidates on LinkedIn do not reply – then why recruiters pay money for premium access on LinkedIn?

    I’m trying to identify key feature that actually works on LinkedIn, so may be I would be able to replicate it in pure form without too much of the downside associated with LinkedIn.

  31. @ Dennis: because SOME do get back.
    An analogy: I go to the only bar in a hundred miles for a drink, and they serve very expensive, watered-down drinks. The bar is filled with patrons, and I ask them why they’re here, putting up with the high prices and the watered down drinks. They reply: “Why are YOU here? If there were any place better we’d go there, but there’s not, so here we are…”

    What does LIR do well? It gives you profiles of a few hundred million people in one place and you can sort/filter them…

    Meanwhile, if I need to contact these folks directly, I can pay some folks $100 to look up the emails and/or phone numbers (usually main corporate number) for up to 100 profiles.

    There’s also a tool that searches LI from the outside (fewer results than with LI R from the inside) and it’s about 30% accurate in getting the emails and a considerably higher percentage than that. It’s $60/mo.


  32. @Keith: is there anything special about LinkedIn resume search or it’s just typical keywords/location search?

    So far it seems that huge resume database size alone makes LinkedIn the best option available in spite of poor response rate.

  33. @ Dennis. I think its search capability is limited, and that if it weren’t for all the pull-down menus to filter, it would be quite limited, indeed.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *