Might be the UK night life or the wine and cheese, but Jobster’s Jason Goldberg has been particularly off-base in his recent criticism of pay-per-click advertising here and here.
He says, “… is cost-per-click really the right model for recruitment advertising? Sure, it’s more efficient to only have to pay when people click on your job ad instead of per postings, but as an employer, the last thing I need is more of the wrong clicks (resume spam) — wouldn’t it be better to just pay for the right clicks?”
Let’s tackle this one first. The key here is wrong clicks vs. right clicks. Case in point: How ’bout Jobster itself? They are quite aggressive in their own PPC activities, both on Google and Yahoo!, willing to pay up to $3 per-click for “recruiting” as of this writing.
Are these wrong clicks or right clicks?
Well, it’s really up to Jobster, isn’t it? If they can convert a click (visitor) into a prospect or a customer, than it’s likely worth the investment. It’s a right click. They’re buying a word like “recruiting,” which is likely a good target for them. In contrast, buying the term “soccer jerseys” would not. That would be a wrong click.
It’s the same for employers. If Macy’s or Target decides to target their PPC advertising to Googlers searching “retail management jobs” or “part time retail jobs” and it’s an effective return on their investment, the critics don’t have a leg to stand on. Additionally, those searching “retail management jobs” are far more targeted to what Macy’s needs than buying a general term like “jobs,” which may or may not be a smart move (could be if geo-targeted), or posting on Monster.
Goldberg also states, “The point is that pay-per-click job advertising in itself isn’t all that valuable. The value is paying to reach the candidates who aren’t generally searching for jobs. And, in job advertising, the clicks aren’t valuable to employers — or no more valuable than any other form of random resume spam — what’s valuable is the right clicks from the right targeted sources which turn into the right candidates. More of a pay per match than pay per click.”
Two comments on this. 1) If I have a job, but am looking for a new opportunity because I hate my boss, had a bad day, my spouse got a new job and I have to move with him/her or any other number of reasons that quality people look elsewhere, am I now a scum-sucking-cellar-dweller active job seeker? Of course not.
The beauty of search marketing is that it gets an advertiser in front of customers, based on intent, at any particular moment … and typically at a great price to the advertiser. “Damn, I tore my jeans, I need to go online and search for new ones.” Someone has an immediate need; search is there to fill it.
2) An employer’s targeted keyphrases don’t necessarily have to be married to “jobs” or “employment” or “careers.” An employer can target keywords tied to professional associations, new technologies, well-known thought leaders, local highlights and/or attractions, or wherever their imagination (or keyword tool) leads. None of those are related to “jobs” but get employment opportunities in front of the right people. And if they don’t perform well, Google will let you know.
Bottom line: If PPC advertising works for a particular advertiser (be it an employer or retailer or politician or whatever), no one - me, Goldberg, no one - has a right to say it’s is a bad strategy. In most cases, it’s one helluva cost-friendly, targeted, high-conversion-rate strategy. Google wouldn’t have more money than God and Yahoo! wouldn’t have survived the dot-bomb era if it wasn’t.
As apparent fans of PPC themselves, I’m hopeful Chief Jobster will reconsider his stance. Maybe over an Old Speckled Hen with Tony Blair and Kate Moss in Notting Hill. If not, it’s akin to bashing TV marketers while watching your own Super Bowl ad.
Popularity: 4% [?]
May 14th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Ah joel … It’s the french wine, not the british clubs that has me going!
Seriously, I love just even having the debate. Well needed.
As you note, Jobster is a pretty big believer in ppc advertising for driving our b2b leads. We also see a real use for it in contextual job advertising. But, as noted in my blogs posts, I think there are still a lot of questions about how useful ppc will be in job advertising around job search listings. I guess what I’m saying is that I see more immediate benefit in contextual ppc than search for pure job advertising. But, we’ll see how it plays out.
May 14th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Joel,
I agree, but Indeed is taking PPC job advertising one step further.
Instead of picking keywords and writing ad copy, which is what you have to do to use Google and Yahoo’s search ad systems, Indeed let’s you sponsor your jobs in a way that automatically creates job ads, displays them above and below Indeed.com’s natural search results when they match a user’s job search, and you only have to pay per click. Job seekers click straight through to job descriptions instead of typical keyword ad landing pages, so conversion rates to applications and hires are extraordinarily high. Its also flexible - advertisers can alter the visibility of their job ads by raising or lowering their bids.
What could be simpler and more cost-effective than that?
Paul
http://www.indeed.com - one search. all jobs.
May 15th, 2006 at 2:47 am
So … Joel … is your point “you don’t need [whatever job site name you want here] when you got google” ? :)
May 15th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Hi Paul,
You wrote: “Job seekers click straight through to job descriptions instead of typical keyword ad landing pages, so conversion rates to applications and hires are extraordinarily high.”
I’m going to have to disagree/wait until the stats come out on this one. On the one hand, getting applicants to the specific job is key — you guys do that well and have figured out most of the nuances with different ATS URL’s (Brassring, etc.). But, having test-driven almost all ATS systems, there are precious few that provide an easy, seamless user experience. Far too many of them lead jobseekers through an arduous application process; far too few allow for emailing a resume to a centralized email address, e.g. careers@yourcompanyhere.com or easily accept an uploaded resume (and then parse the information out). Understand, this certainly isn’t an indictment of PPC job advertising — I’m interested in seeing some results — but far too few companies realize that the applicant-facing piece of their ATS often discourages the best candidates from applying. Getting them to the page is only one part of the equation…
Michael Shafrir
TheLadders.com
May 15th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
I think the fact that Jason was in France says a lot!
Problem with SERP’s is that they are becoming full of ’spam’ sites even in the jobs sector. This tends to force people to look at the various links on the ENTIRE page rather than the natural results. I think search engines are beginning to benefit from all the crap as the SEM’s generally know what they are doing so it ends up that the only decent links end up being the ads.
If for example you do a search for a specific employer e.g. ‘working at company X’ in many cases in the UK you end up with loads of news links, job board links etc but no direct links to the employers actual jobs. So the job seeker just clicks on the ad which in most cases takes them to a job board. Where there are however actual jobs in the SERP’s they tend to be to the employer’s jobs on a job board.
So, not only does an ATS fail to present the jobs to the spiders, as per Michael’s comment, the online application process discourages good people from applying whereas active job seekers will fill in whatever you give them.
I think it is the entire process that needs consideration not just attraction as it is only as strong as the weakest link!
May 23rd, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Joel,
I agree with you on PPCs advantages to the advertiser.
Also I have a slightly different angle. See my post on http://getcareer.blogspot.com/2006/05/whats-big-deal-different-issue.html
I may be new to the fray, but it seems increasingly clear that search engines that are not Google or Simplyhired will have a tough time. LIstings are becoming a commodity, and search doesn’t do a very good job in sifting through the garbage even for active seekers.
So my premise is that Search engines HAVE to go to a more accountable advertising model to help their value proposition at least to the advertiser, while Job Boards with their brand equity, services, content, etc. are probably ok for the time being in holding their advertisers to the flat fee.
Of course, getting PPC to ubiquity is simply a matter of time.
regards,
Ilya
http://getcareer.blogspot.com
May 26th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
what do you think of the new site mr cheez?
http://www.o0.typepad.com