False advertising

[pmeswani]

Are you lot taking the pi55?? Seriously!

You're assumption that 99% of advertised roles are false, is completely wrong. Do you know how much those job boards COST to advertise on??

I don't do it, I don't know of any of my colleagues doing it, and I would suggest to you, that trawling through the Sh1te response you get off of a vauge advert would be FAR too much effort for a recruiter who is busy.

Sadly, it happens. I accept that it doesn't happen by all agents / agencies, but it happens. Some agents put it down to marketing, in order to get more candidates on their books in order to look good to their clients. I refuse to accept that some agents / agencies don't post fake jobs to get candidates on their books, or at least get some leads for agencies in order for them to get their foot in the door.

[Wanderer]

Do you know how much those job boards COST to advertise on??

Hmmm, I've always wondered that! Can you please tell us I'm genuinely interested in knowing.

[monobrow]

Hmmm, I've always wondered that! Can you please tell us I'm genuinely interested in knowing.

from 2-500 quid, depending on which board and how many you buy / your deal etc.

yes, 200 quid for making anywhere from 3k to 30k per placement, i'm in the wrong business.

[Wanderer]

yes, 200 quid for making anywhere from 3k to 30k per placement, i'm in the wrong business.

Sod trying to operate as an agency, I'm setting up a jobs board!

[The Agents View]

from 2-500 quid, depending on which board and how many you buy / your deal etc.

yes, 200 quid for making anywhere from 3k to 30k per placement, i'm in the wrong business.

Yes, because the ONLY cost going into a placement is the job board. Seriously, some people really don't have any grasp of business reality do they!!? I mean, the consultants don't have to be paid salaries - obviosuly nobody has to pay for the office, lighting, IT infrastructure, databases, admin, payrolling, factoring, commissions, travel to business events, marketing, client entertainment, not to mention legal disputes, staff issues, recruitment costs to bring new people in....no, the only cost to making a placement, is the cost of placing a job advert....

The figures are, however, correct - anywhere from a couple of quid, to £500 for the more specialised boards. It's also dependant on volume purchased in blocks.

Ultimately though - these job boards are pony - you might get one person worth speaking to out of 100 applications. Better suited is networking, knowing your market etc etc. Remember - the best people don't advertise their availaility - they don't need to - they use their networks of agents and clients to get the next gig lined up before the last one has finished.

[Lolas Cat]

Can you elaborate "client entertainment" please? Nowadays agents don't even buy you a coffee.

[malvolio]

OK, lets' examine that concept. I took a look at a couple of big agency websites. How many of their clients understand that

******* ****** have been sourcing top quality candidates for their clients since 1972, taking pride in understanding both client and candidate needs to ensure the right fit for both

or

Our expertise lies in our knowledge of the IT & Technology generalist and specialist staffing market and our vast bank of skilled candidates. ***** ********** is able to recruit highly talented and motivated IT and Technology candidates to ensure our clients receive a comprehensive staffing service.

actually means

We send you the first three CVs we see with the right keywords in them regardless of ability or competence

And before you moan too loudly, I have several recent emails for utterly inappropriate jobs that start "Your CV has come up in a CV search...."

[The Agents View]

And before you moan too loudly, I have several recent emails for utterly inappropriate jobs that start "Your CV has come up in a CV search...."

We have to have a way of indentifying a broad base of people to look at - keywords have to be the start of that, because a human brain can unfortunately not compute 160,000 CV's anywhere near as quickly.

Unfortunately, search engines are built by IT people, based on Boolean Logic most of the time.

Boolean logic is unfortunately flawed, because it is not contextual, unless you make so - however, being too contextual, makes it go mental and bring up nothing at all.

Therefore, if you are looking for (as an example) a project manager, the natural thing to do is search for "project manager".

This brings up people who have in their CV, "reported to the project manager", "admin for project manager" and if you want an extreme example, "sacked for sleeping with a project manager".

When you have to get people turned around quickly, sending an email out is a process of getting an initial list which should be 50% right, and dealing with the fall out. We don't have time to scan through every recipient of a resourcing email.

In that sense, you should perhaps be a little more aware of what key words are in your CV - those which would come up in the CV of someone with a different skill set, should perhaps be adjusted.

[malvolio]

Yes, I understand that. But why would a CV for a 15 year experienced freelance Service Management consultant generate an offer for a permanent change analyst at £15 an hour? If we accept you need to churn your CVs as quickly as possible in order to beat the opposition to the market, that doesn't preclude you from applying a little bit of human intelligence to the results and calling the people that match the requirement rather than the people that match the buzzwords. You want to automate things then fine, but you have to accept that it gets it wrong far more often that it gets it right, and that's not what you're trying to sell.

One day it will sink in that agencies are no longer serving the best interests of the client, they are simply factoring a commodity market. For any of the bulk roles that really doesn't matter that much, it merely drives down overall quality somewhat, but when you start applying it to the real specialist roles or to senior management it all goes horribly wrong.

And I still disagree stongly that the two examples quoted reflect the actual business model in any realistic way and are highly misleading. Look at our vast bank of skilled candidates indeed: that will be Monster and Jobserve then...

[monobrow]

@TAV

Ok look, let's cut to the chase here. I've been working in IT 20 years or so, I can tell you that in the 90's and perhaps the early naughties the market kind of worked how you explained it, or rather, how your company website and directors tell you it works on your induction. But I can categorically, 100% tell you it doesn't work like that anymore and if you honestly, hand on heart, think it does – well, you are either A. Deluded, B. will be out of work pretty soon.

While looking for this current role, I sent off hundreds of CVs, spoke to 10's of agencies and was invited in to see 1 agency (old school), this was because I was in the final 2 of a very lucrative contract and when I didn't get it, contact stopped. Everyone else, and I'm talking about the 1 man bands to the household names here, do not give a flying **** about me, my career, my wife n kids etc, only where their next number is coming from to fatten their commission cheque. And quite frankly, if they did worry about that "other" stuff, then they probably shouldn't be in the sales game anyway.

Times have changed, CVs are a commodity; JobServe, Monster, Totaljobs – changed your industry, sorry, but you are needed even less now. The days of long lunches, client entertainment are long gone, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it – so don't try to kid us any other way.

Welcome to the world of IT where you have become a commodity. If I were you, i'd brush up on your Urdu pretty quick sharp and change your name to Bob!