Imagine that you walked into a store and instead of letting you come in to browse; someone stopped you at the front entrance and asked you to pay in advance for a product that you may buy in the store, before you had a chance to fully evaluate it. Chances are that you would simply walk away. But wait, isn’t this what pay-to-post job boards do to advertisers? Let’s examine what job sites like Monster.com, HotJobs and CareerBuilder.com are doing and why they are doing it.
These and dozens of other job boards require you to spend $400 or more to post a job at a single location before you know whether they have the ability to reach your ideal candidate. Want to search their resume database? Add hundreds of dollars for limited access to resumes that again, may or may not be what you are looking for.
Under these pricing models, the advertiser bears all the risk while the job site has no risk whatsoever. They get paid regardless of whether you find qualified candidates. Too many resumes of unqualified candidates or too few of qualified ones, you have to pay anyway and in advance! I don’t k now about you but if a shoe store cannot stock the shoes I need in my size, I don’t pay them. So what are we doing?
It is true, no one gets fired for posting a job on Monster (borrowing a catch-paraphrase from IBM) but 70% of 3400 HR managers and recruiters that were surveyed said they are unsatisfied with the quality and pricing model offered by pay-to-post sites such as Monster, Hotjobs and CareerBuilder.
So while Internet pricing models have progressed to performance-based advertising such as CPM, CPC and CPA models, job sites have remained behind, maintaining the old “pay to post” or “pay, post, and pray” pricing model. And if you could charge your customer upfront before they could see how bear your shelves really are, wouldn’t you?
If job sites want to survive in this market they have to come up with a better value proposition for their clients and one where the vendor shoulders the bulk of the risks and therefore has to perform or they just won’t make it. This something already exists and it’s called pay for performance pricing offered through Realmatch. If you haven’t heard of Realmatch yet, you surely will. About.com just named Realmatch to its top 10 US job sites and Business Week calls Realmatch “Scary competition to monster”.
The idea is simple yet very compelling:
ü Employers post their job on RealMatch.com which then posts the job to all partner sites whose job channel is directly powered by Realmatch like FindLaw, Scientific American, komonews and hundreds more.
ü Realmatch also posts every job to several dozen 3rd party job board partners like Indeed, Simplyhired and Job.com.
ü Employers using Realmatch then view a ranked and graded list of matched and applicant profiles for free then decide whether these candidates qualify for their job.
When the employer can see what they are going to get before they pay for it, it makes the buying decision simple. Either there is value or there isn’t. Now imagine the dilemma of a company looking to post a job online. They might debate between paying up front on sites such as Monster.com, with no guarantees of results or going to Realmatch.com, posting a job with detailed requirements and only paying if they like the results. Could there be an easier decision?
Whether you are looking for the ideal job or candidate, try Realmatch.
|