2 ms·

> Are the companies indeed inflicting self harm? They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising than they would have to if they just put a range in the

> Are the companies indeed inflicting self harm? They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising than they would have to if they just put a range in the salary box. So, yes, financial self harm. 14% is substantial for many companies. > ther downsides - e.g. it might tilt existing employees. People have access to wage data and job boards in their pocket. If they answer that unknown caller, it's as likely to be a recruiter as a car warranty hustle. It's amazing how many business leaders think that their people are not going to look.

robocat 4y ago
> They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising Oh boy, huge assumptions there, so bad that I would associate that thinking with HR recruiters. What matters is what selects/filters for desirable employees. Getting 14% more applicants is a terrible metric to be measuring - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law which is obvious since one can increase applications by advertising in irrelevant places to get more irrelevant applicants. Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates. > A single day of delay in response causes 28% of candidates to become unresponsive to recruiters (this is from our company's research). It drops to 51% become unresponsive 48 hours later. [your top level comment]. That’s an interesting metric, since anecdotally the best candidates get snapped up extremely quickly. It is obviously very difficult to find good factual correlations: a lack of good data just produces opinions.
- indymike 4y ago
  > Oh boy, huge assumptions there, so bad that I would associate that thinking with HR recruiters. HR and recruiting is not legendary for financial acumen, but they do spend in aggregate, billions on advertising, and they do in many cases have very good analyitcs on that spend. > Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates. We've not seen a change in quality of candidate in either direction. It does reduce the cost per applicant significantly.
HideousKojima 4y ago
>They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising than they would have to if they just put a range in the salary box. Mind you I prefer when companies post salaries, but 14% greater/fewer applicants does not directly equate to 14% greater/lesser spend on listings. A company only needs one qualified applicant. More applicants means you might find better candidates faster/more easily, but by itself listing salaries isn't necessarily going to save the company money.
lalopalota 4y ago
> reducing the number of applicants to the advertised job by 14% does not mean > spending 14% more on recruitment advertising if a company gets 86 applicants instead of 100, that's less screening work which means less $ spent for the hire.
- indymike 4y ago
  > if a company gets 86 applicants instead of 100, that's less screening work which means less $ spent for the hire. Using this logic, then just hire the first person who applies and you will minimize all cost. Screening is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of making a bad hire, and the quality of the final candidates requires you have enough candidates to make a good selection from.

robocat 4y ago

> They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising Oh boy, huge assumptions there, so bad that I would associate that thinking with HR recruiters. What matters is what selects/filters for desirable employees. Getting 14% more applicants is a terrible metric to be measuring - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law which is obvious since one can increase applications by advertising in irrelevant places to get more irrelevant applicants. Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates. > A single day of delay in response causes 28% of candidates to become unresponsive to recruiters (this is from our company's research). It drops to 51% become unresponsive 48 hours later. [your top level comment]. That’s an interesting metric, since anecdotally the best candidates get snapped up extremely quickly. It is obviously very difficult to find good factual correlations: a lack of good data just produces opinions.

indymike 4y ago
> Oh boy, huge assumptions there, so bad that I would associate that thinking with HR recruiters. HR and recruiting is not legendary for financial acumen, but they do spend in aggregate, billions on advertising, and they do in many cases have very good analyitcs on that spend. > Alternatively 14% more could be extremely important, if a lack of salary indication filtered for bad candidates, and salary indication brought in good candidates. We've not seen a change in quality of candidate in either direction. It does reduce the cost per applicant significantly.

HideousKojima 4y ago

>They are spending 14% more on recruitment advertising than they would have to if they just put a range in the salary box. Mind you I prefer when companies post salaries, but 14% greater/fewer applicants does not directly equate to 14% greater/lesser spend on listings. A company only needs one qualified applicant. More applicants means you might find better candidates faster/more easily, but by itself listing salaries isn't necessarily going to save the company money.

lalopalota 4y ago

> reducing the number of applicants to the advertised job by 14% does not mean > spending 14% more on recruitment advertising if a company gets 86 applicants instead of 100, that's less screening work which means less $ spent for the hire.

indymike 4y ago
> if a company gets 86 applicants instead of 100, that's less screening work which means less $ spent for the hire. Using this logic, then just hire the first person who applies and you will minimize all cost. Screening is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of making a bad hire, and the quality of the final candidates requires you have enough candidates to make a good selection from.