> Why is this? Why do they insist on wasting a candidate's time when answering some simple questions via email is much more efficient? That's easy: they want y

> Why is this? Why do they insist on wasting a candidate's time when answering some simple questions via email is much more efficient? That's easy: they want you invested. The sunk cost fallacy works. Think about it another way: being a recruiter is being in sales. Sales people love pipelines (funnels) so if you think about the recruitment stages a simplified view might be: 1. Email candidate 2. Candidate responds to email 3. Discuss on phone 4. Candidate submits resume 5. Organize phone screen 6. Conduct interviews 7. Negotiate offer 8. Accept offer Each of these steps has a conversion rate. Imagine you get paid $20,000 for placing a candidate. Work backwards through this pipeline and you might figure out you have to send 5,000 emails to place one candidate. That means each email you send, you've "earned" $4. Imagine if the response rate is 20%. Well, getting a candidate to respond by changing up the content or presentation of the email means you've now "earned" $20. If only 1 in 3 talk on the phone then each phone introduction you make "earns" you $60. And so on. it's a numbers game. They're just trying to get you to the next stage in the pipeline.