Wall Street Journal - Recruiters Use Search Engines to Lure Job Hunters - [Retrieved 3/10/2009]Companies have long used search-engine marketing to lure online consumers. Now they're looking to draw job hunters the same way, while scaling back on competing media such as job boards and newspapers.
In search-engine marketing, employers bid to place ads next to search results for certain keywords, like "accountant," or "nurse." The ads can be limited to users in specific ZIP codes. Advertisers pay search engines when a user clicks on their ad.
Last March, Baylor Health Care System, a large Dallas-based nonprofit, began purchasing keywords on Google, Yahoo and employment-related search engines SimplyHired.com and Indeed.com. The search-engine ads generated more applicants, at less cost, than the other recruiting methods, says Eileen Bouthillet, director of human resources communications.
In the first six months of the program, Ms. Bouthillet says, the search-engine ads delivered 5,250 applicants, at an average cost of $4. By contrast, Baylor paid an average of $30 for each of the 3,125 applicants who came via job boards, and $750 each for the 215 applicants who replied to a newspaper or magazine ad.
This is how technology destroys old industries.
Classified and job ads were cash cows for print. Why would anyone hiring use newspapers to get applicants? Look at the costs per applicant.
Some sobering math
5,250 applicants for $21,000 from search engine ads
3,125 applicants for $93,650 from job boards
215 applicants for $161,250 from newspapers or magazine ads
Takeaway
Search engine ads are 86.98% less expensive than newspaper or magazine ads [In this example. We assume the search is filling one job]. At the same time search engine ads deliver 2342% more applicants to the pool that a candidate will be selected from [at a significantly reduced cost].
Where do you think the most bang per buck comes from?
Posts
