Do employers actually want more quality vs quantity?

Since summer 2024, dozens of job board leaders have been gathering for a monthly Zoom call to discuss issues relevant to the industry.

Today, we discussed the varying perspectives on whether employers prioritize quality or quantity in job applications, with Steven Rothberg of College Recruiter job search site leading the conversation through six parts:

1. Are you getting more requests than you did a couple of years ago for less quantity and more quality?

2. Do you believe that you understand what they mean by “quality”?

3. Is the definition of “quality” consistent across all of those requesting more of it?

4. Is that definition objective or subjective?

5. Are those requesting more quality able and willing to pass data to you at a time and in a manner that allows you to take action on their request?

6. Are they able and willing to pay enough to you that it makes economic sense to accommodate their requests? In other words, are they asking to receive something of value but unwilling or unable to pay for it?

Meeting summary, as generated by Zoom:

Quick recap

The team discussed the varying perspectives on whether employers prioritize quality or quantity in job applications, with Steven Rothberg leading the conversation through six parts. They explored the challenges of defining and measuring quality, the subjective nature of quality in the context of college recruitment, and the potential for collaboration between job boards and recruitment agencies. The meeting also touched on the challenges of introducing a new pricing model, the concept of clients paying more for higher quality candidates, and the expectations of users in the context of internet services.

Employer Priorities: Quality vs. Quantity

Steven Rothberg, the founder of College Recruiter, led a discussion on whether employers prioritize quality or quantity in job applications. The meeting aimed to explore the varying perspectives on this issue, with Steven guiding the conversation through six parts. The participants discussed whether they were receiving more requests for quality over quantity than in the past, whether they understood the meaning of “quality,” and whether the definition of quality was consistent across all requests. They also considered whether those requesting more quality were able and willing to provide data and pay enough to accommodate these requests. The discussion was informed by a recent podcast episode featuring Chris Foreman, the ex-CEO of Apcast, who shared his company’s experiences with these requests.

Increasing Scrutiny on Candidate Quality

Ian, Steven, Matt, and Mike discussed the increasing scrutiny on the quality of candidates in their respective industries. Ian, who works in the gaming industry, noted that there is now more demand for quality candidates, despite the challenges of finding skilled professionals in the field. Matt, who has been running nurses for 16 years, agreed that there is more scrutiny on where money is being spent, with a focus on cost per hire. Steven, from a college recruiters perspective, also observed a significant increase in the demand for quality candidates. Mike, whose niche is people with disabilities, noted that while quantity is important, they haven’t yet been asked to prioritize specific quality.

Understanding Quality in Job Roles

In the meeting, Steven led a discussion about the understanding of the term ‘quality’ in the context of job roles. Adnana from Oyster Link shared her experience that the understanding of quality varies depending on the role, with lower-end roles prioritizing quantity and higher-end roles focusing on quality. Mike questioned whether many organizations work as staffing agencies, to which Adnana responded that her organization does, but only for premium customers. Ian and Louise agreed that some employers understand what they mean by quality, but it differs from one to another. Steven noted that larger organizations often have multiple people with different definitions of quality.

Reevaluating Quality in Job Searches

Steven, Patrick, Matt discussed the changing definitions of quality in job searches. Patrick noted that the definition of quality might change throughout the life cycle of a search, with companies initially wanting to explore a wide range of candidates and then narrowing down their definition of quality once they’ve evaluated the first wave of candidates. Matt suggested that the term ‘quality’ might be misleading, as it becomes subjective and what’s considered quality might vary. He proposed that the role of a job board should be to send candidates that match the criteria for each job, and the definition of quality should be consistent across all clients. The team agreed to further explore the definition of quality in the next section.

Defining Quality in Job Candidates

Steven and Patrick discussed the varying definitions of ‘quality’ among employers, particularly in relation to job candidates. Steven highlighted that different employers might define quality differently, such as through funnel metrics or subjective criteria. Patrick agreed, noting that their product, which includes sales tools and job boards, sees both approaches. They also touched on the importance of targeting in candidate searches, with Patrick emphasizing the need for a clear distinction between the responsibilities of job board leaders and employers in evaluating candidates. Steven then invited Brad, the president of their college recruiter’s group, to share his perspective on the matter.

Defining Quality in Customer Service

Steven and Brad discussed the concept of quality in the context of customer service and recruitment. Brad explained that different customer types define quality differently, with some focusing on funnel metrics and others on the quality of candidates. He also mentioned that employers often have their own definitions of quality, which may not align with those of recruitment marketing agencies. Steven brought up a point made by Chris Foreman of Appcast, suggesting that if quality is prioritized over quantity, the cost per application would increase. Brad agreed, noting that Appcast’s business model is based on prioritizing quantity of applications. The discussion ended with the understanding that different customers have different definitions of quality, and that these definitions can impact the business model.

Navigating New Pricing Model Challenges

The team discussed the challenges of introducing a new pricing model, specifically cost per application (CPA), in the job advertising industry. Matt emphasized that the industry is in uncharted territory and that the concept of ‘expensive’ is vague without a clear comparison. He also noted that recruitment agencies have historically charged up to 20% of the annual salary for a placement. Steven added that the issue isn’t exclusive to CPA job boards, as other duration-based models are also being evaluated based on quantity and quality. Adnana shared that her company, which doesn’t currently charge, is still receiving requests and complaints from clients. The team agreed that while the new pricing model is uncertain, it’s essential to consider the effective cost per application from the employer’s perspective.

Subjective Nature of Quality in Recruitment

Steven initiated a discussion about the subjective nature of quality in the context of college recruitment. He suggested that the definition of quality varies depending on the client or customer, with some having a well-defined, objective understanding, while others may have a more subjective view. Mike and Ian agreed, noting that different departments within a company might have different perspectives on quality. Matt added that the cost per hire might become a more significant factor in judging the quality of services. The team concluded that defining quality could be challenging due to the varying expectations and perspectives.

Setting Quality Bar for Job Applications

Steven, Clair, Matt, and Mike discussed the challenges of setting a quality bar for job applications and the varying perceptions of quality among employers. Clair suggested that job boards have a duty of care to set this quality bar. Mike pointed out that the size of the job board and the use of AI or programmatic methods could affect the ability to assess quality. Steven noted that the concept of quality is subjective and depends on the employer’s perspective. He also raised the issue of data sharing, questioning how job boards can determine the quality of candidates if employers don’t provide feedback on interview offers. The team agreed to continue the discussion in the next meeting.

Addressing Quality in Job Applications

The team discussed the issue of quality in job applications and the challenges of defining and measuring it. They noted that some clients track the response and quality of applications, while others lack data and rely on anecdotal evidence. The team also discussed the problem of fraudulent candidates and the rise of AI applications in job searches. They debated whether employers should pay more for quality applications and whether it’s the job board’s responsibility to ensure quality. The team agreed that the issue of quality is complex and requires further discussion.

Client Payment for Candidate Quality

The team discussed the concept of clients paying more for higher quality candidates. Patrick shared that they’ve seen bonus structures tied to time to hire, with faster hires resulting in higher payouts. However, Matt questioned whether this should have been the standard all along, and whether the team should consider morphing into a different role to stay competitive. Ian agreed that there should be a limit to the services provided, as clients are willing to pay different amounts for different levels of service. The team also discussed the potential for collaboration between job boards and recruitment agencies.

Charging for High-Quality Internet Services

Ian, Matt, and Steven discussed the challenges of charging for high-quality internet services and the expectations of users. Ian suggested that the expectations of users might be too high, given that many internet services are now free or very cheap. Matt agreed, noting that they can’t charge more without losing business. Steven proposed a two-tiered pricing structure for higher quality candidates, but expressed doubt about employers’ willingness to pay more for quality. The conversation ended with Steven offering his LinkedIn information for networking purposes and promising to send out an invite for a future meeting.