Archive for the ‘search engines’ Category

 
Comments (2) 09.30.2009
Share |

Breaking the cycle

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

In the late 90′s job boards were a necessity, if you wanted to recruit online. Why? Because many companies didn’t have websites let alone career sites. So if recruiting was to be done online it could only be facilitated through the job board, which started a cycle of dependency.

How did it become a cycle based on dependency?
Dependency was inherent in the process where companies would pay to ship their candidates to a community resume database, thus using their all mighty dollar to build a vendor product, moreover providing instantaneous talent to their very own competition. The question soon became, how could a company walk away from a database they’ve built with their very own dollars? The success of the platform rode square on the shoulders of the companies who funded this community database, unfortunately these platforms did not “belong” to them.

Prices rise, people change, dependency continues.
Let me state clearly this dependency process was not set-up with a fiendish plot to take over the recruiting world, although once the big dollars started flowing, prices, attitudes, staff, and values changed quickly.

The hook is set.. Or is it?
Hiring companies starting tasting internet recruitment success and then in January of 1999 the shift began. TMP Worldwide, who owned Online Career Center (OCC) and The Monster Board (MB), decided to shut-down MB’s quickly crashing database and move the cutesy brand to a much more nimble technology in OCC. Simply put the “new” product was OCC with cartoon characters, nothing more, nothing less. Although companies started to taste the first move in this online game of recruitiing chess with a 100% price increase. Companies paid because their dependency was now too deep, furthermore the new Super-Bowl advertisers added the star power necessary to try and justify the increase.

Schooling the System
Smart hiring companies started working the system by only paying for resume database access and not paying the prices for “candidate bait” or job postings. Rather they would lie in wait while their competitors spent huge cash on postings and then feverishly mined the database.

Evolution
In 2002 the very first job search engine was created to bypass the bait and switch game. The process focused on pushing candidates directly to the company site where they would apply into that specific company private database. At this point many companies were starting to turn on their own career sites fitted with early applicant tracking systems, but they were still hooked on the game and tied to their investment in this community database model even though their main complaint were that prices had now skyrocketed 500% or more since January 99. Prices were climbing and Return on Investment (ROI) was plummeting.

Broken
Companies now understand the old model only provided a bridge until they could build their own private career sites and databases. The hard part, for most “investors”, was accepting their community database investment was always a fleeting and short-term initiative. The wool has left their eyes and the investment has been focused on driving candidates to their private databases and not paying the toll for the entire community.

Are jobs boards dead?
Is the newspaper dead? No, although a fundamental change has taken place which forces a more cost effective and value-rich opportunity for companies who are no longer dependant and are breaking away from a vicious cycle. Job boards who understand this and evolve focused on ROI, providing more value and helping companies tap into hard to find niches will stand the test of time.

 
Comments (4) 10.29.2008
Share |

Indeed’s Two Masters

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008

Jonathan Duarte asks, “If Indeed is getting most of the content from ATS’s directly, why would they continue accepting content from a duplicate source that is not adding to their brand?

Ever felt like you were suckered into a post? Awe, what the heck…

You can’t be surprised when I say Money is the answer, isn’t it usually? Indeed has smartly positioned themselves as a top traffic provider, and now find themselves in an unenviable predicament.

Master #1 (Job Boards)
Indeed is taking hundreds of thousands (maybe a million+) of duplicate content from job boards, although along with the duplication comes a handsome payday and without the cash Indeed wouldn’t have such a well known brand.

Master #2 (Hiring Companies)
The original content comes directly from corporate sites (Jonathan’s argument) and Indeed truly wants to work with companies to help them channel more traffic into their Applicant Tracking Systems, although the dollars spent by the boards (duplicate content) and having hiring company jobs already in Indeed’s search engine doesn’t make it an easy sell.

Indeed’s revenue decision
Indeed had a decision to make early on with regard to their direction of monetization. The direction, as with many companies, was to attack the low hanging fruit fast, which was the job board side. Why was it low hanging fruit? It’s simple really, many boards were already paying Google for PPC traffic and didn’t need educated on the success of SEM. It’s a much easier sales process for the guys and gals over at Indeed and I don’t blame them a bit.

Indeed’s master conflict
Now that Indeed is answering directly to the job boards, how would this affect their dealings with perspective clients who are hiring companies? Hiring companies want only their pure job content on Indeed, which will drive job seekers directly into their Applicant Tracking Systems, not to the boards. Now that’s a big problem because the lion’s share of Indeed’s revenue is coming from the job board’s and Indeed wouldn’t want to anger their biggest clients right? How does this hurt a job board? If you start taking down job board content (jobs) that would equal less organic content on Indeed, aka less FREE traffic.

Okay I’ll stop here for you to gather notes and your composure, moving on….

(conflict to be continued…)

 
Comments (2) 10.13.2008
Share |

eQuest & INDEED not playing nice?

Monday, October 13th, 2008

I received the following message earlier today from an eQuest customer unedited.

**************message start*****************
Indeed.com Opts Out of FreeBUG Network

eQuest has been notified by Indeed.com that as of Friday, October 10, 2008 it will no longer be participating in the FreeBUG network program and will cease accepting any jobs from this network.

As a result, eQuest will be removing your Indeed.com posting buttons by the end of business day October 10, 2008. (Pacific time zone)

FreeBUG will continue to provide its core strategic job board network and is readying plans for another group of key career sites to be added in the near future.

Thank you.

eQuest Customer Support Group
**************message end*****************

One question…. Why did INDEED opt-out?

 
Comments (6) 03.17.2008
Share |

Who benefits from Google and Indeed?

Monday, March 17th, 2008

I’ve had a question running around in my head for well over a year now… What job sites use Google as their core traffic provider? So I thought I’d take some time perform some research, using Hitwise, and then it prompted yet another question… What job sites use Indeed as their core traffic provider?

So I took some time and gathered the following one week worth of data from Hitwise (week ending 3/8/2008) and thought I’d share… ENJOY!

Google provides:
80% of JobSearchUSA‘s traffic
79% of JuJu‘s traffic
73% of Jobs.net‘s traffic – (CareerBuilder feeder)
61% of JobBankUSA‘s traffic
50% of Flipdog‘s traffic (Monster feeder)
48% of DiversityJobs.com‘s traffic
46% of Simplyhired‘s traffic
27% of Medzilla‘s traffic and last but not least…
23% of Indeed‘s traffic is provided by Google.

Indeed provides:
60% of JobKite‘s traffic
57% of Jobkabob‘s traffic
50% of AJE‘s traffic
43% of FederalGovernmentJobs.us‘s traffic
38% of AllRetailJobs.com‘s traffic
35% of HospitalJobsOnline‘s traffic
34% of Beyond.com‘s traffic
26% of JobsInLogistics‘ traffic
21% of Dice‘s traffic and
21% of ComputerJobs.com‘s

I also found this to be notable: TopJobsUSA receives 24% of their traffic from Google and 25% traffic from Job.com.

Stepping back and taking a look at the big picture Google provides 12% of the traffic to the entire Employment & Training Category and Indeed provides 5%, which is actually pretty amazing.

Pretty incredible, although who are the winners and who are the losers in this scenario? Can recruiting be done more efficiently in today’s market by leveraging less, albeit more powerful properties? If some job sites are not diversifying their traffic wouldn’t it be easier for hiring companies to go straight to the prime source of the traffic instead of a middle man (ummm.. errrrr) person?

The message:
Grow, evolve, and diversify before it’s too late…

 
Comments (0) 08.09.2007
Share |

Job Board Penetration in Europe II

Thursday, August 9th, 2007

I wanted to follow-up my April “Job Board Penetration in Europe” post with some fresh, and not so fresh, names and numbers.

So here it goes….

In today’s online labor market, total penetration is a must, not just active job seeker penetration. The following sites are the top 5 trafficked career sites in Europe and only hold single digit market share numbers of the total European internet market

Monster3.5%
ANPE Sites1.2%
JOBCENTREPLUS1.2%
Stepstone1.2%
Bundesagentur für Arbeit1.2%
Source: comScore World Metrix

…while some search engines, Google, MSN, and Yahoo!, own 70 to almost 90% shares of TOTAL MARKET PENETRATION!


Checkout information on internships at Experience.com