Around 4 million adults aren’t looking for jobs, not because they’re scarce but because of worries about catching the coronavirus.

Can you use Clubhouse for recruitment? Read this blog to find out! Try these tactics for recruiting through Clubhouse app.

Organizations and recruitment teams usually fall into three categories with respect to the creation and analysis of recruitment trends: influencers, ignorant, and involved. Influencers:...

In the recent past, there has been a sea change in the way organizations source and recruit candidates. In earlier times, organizations would source candidates as a reaction to job needs. Now,...

This article over at RecruitingDaily hit on one of the reasons why focusing discussions on candidate experience always feels like a lot more promise than outcomes. They argument is that when most people talk candidate experience, they are thinking about "macro events," the big set pieces that occur in every (if not all) interview/hiring process. But when you over-index on macro experiences, you miss the power of the macro experiences and their ability to create an emotional connection with candidates.

A great guide to using quizzes to attract talent.

We don't talk much about sourcing here, and it might be obvious why. But this article on the Law of the 9 just hit me hard. If you have a sourcer on staff, do you know what they are saying to prospects? Do you know what they are doing with prospects who aren't ready to engage that moment? This article is big on slow-playing the prospect with content until they are ready to bite, which sounds like something we should b very involved in.

I rather liked how Shally Steckerl (a sourcer!) connected what business leadership wants with what recruiting should be delivering. Lots of great points you should adopt when you talk to leadership, too.

This one made me smile and groan at the same time. As hiring is so tight in the Bay Area, employees at top companies are selling referrals and references to their employers. That is, for $50, you can get someone at Google or Facebook to recommend you for a job at Google or Facebook. Because those companies get some many resumes/applications, they mostly only look at those with internal referrals, and thus a third-party black market sprung up. (Further proof that William Gibson was right when he wrote "the street finds its own uses for things.)

Too many employer branding CRM strategies and campaigns feel like extensions of boring job postings. But outside of the EB world, the industry is learning how to optimize conversion rates by providing compelling micro-experiences. A big part of that is personalization, which means a lot more than “Dear [First_Name],”.

On the recruitment marketing side of things, we are faced with a slew of cool tools to help us place our message in front of people who just visited our career site, or are a lot like people who follow our Facebook page. There are two issues with that. One, most of us are just pushing out lame job ads to these people, as if applying for a job is the same as downloading a whitepaper (it’s not). Two, we don’t spend time thinking about how or why the tools are designed to work. We just get thrilled by the “extra clicks” or “deeper awareness” rather than thinking through how to use the tools properly. So here’s a Hubspot article on how to approach your behavior-targeted ad (I bet you didn’t even know that that was what that was called).

Ooof. When you ask the question, “Does TA Understand Passive Talent Engagement?” you know what the answer is going to be, and that answer isn’t going to be positive. But what I was amused by was that after examining the wreckage of the question, the solution the author came away with was that more time and energy should be spend on marketing. Now, if you’re a marketer, you know that marketing can be broken into two kinds: direct and brand. Direct marketing is what you get when you Google “kid’s STEM activities,” the direct response to a need. Any marketing with a clear CTA is direct marketing, which hardly seems in keeping with the original question. So what the author is actually prescribing is that employer branding should be in charge of passive talent engagement. QED, right?