Do job boards need to put job seekers first in order to succeed?

Most job boards like to say they exist to help job seekers find work. That sounds noble, even inspiring. But if we look at the business model of the vast majority of boards, it quickly becomes clear that they aren’t built as candidate-first businesses. They’re built to serve employers.

Job boards, at their core, are business-to-business (B2B) companies. Their revenue comes overwhelmingly from selling products to employers: job postings, advertising campaigns, access to resume databases, branding placements. Employers pay the bills. Without them, there’s no revenue stream to support the platform, no staff to write the code, no sales team to call on clients. That reality has created a temptation—a powerful one—for job boards to care much more about employers than they do about candidates.

In some corners of the industry, candidates are treated less like people with career dreams and more like inventory. They’re the product that gets sold to the employer. The more “inventory” a job board has—the more resumes or clicks or applications it can deliver—the more valuable it is to employers. In the worst cases, the candidate experience becomes an afterthought. Pages are cluttered with ads, applications are routed through clunky systems, and feedback loops vanish. Candidates, who are supposedly at the center of this entire ecosystem, often feel invisible.

That approach can work in the short run, at least from a revenue perspective. Employers want volume. They want speed. They want their job filled yesterday. But if a board builds its entire model around maximizing employer ROI while neglecting the candidate, the cracks eventually show. Disengaged job seekers stop returning. Trust erodes. And the platform’s long-term health suffers.

Now, not every job board falls into this trap. Some operate on a very different model: business-to-consumer (B2C). These are boards where the candidate—not the employer—is the one paying for access. Maybe it’s a subscription that unlocks exclusive postings, or a fee for career coaching, or even specialized databases in fields like creative freelancing or contract work. In these businesses, the lifeblood isn’t the employer’s budget; it’s the job seeker’s wallet.

That dynamic makes it much easier, and much more natural, for the job board to put the candidate first. If the candidate isn’t satisfied, if they don’t see value in the service, they cancel. And with no candidates, there’s no revenue. So a B2C board lives and dies by how well it treats seekers—by whether it makes their search less stressful, their path to interviews smoother, their odds of getting hired higher.

Of course, even here, the employer relationship still matters. Employers need to show up with jobs, or the platform has nothing of value to offer candidates. But the center of gravity shifts. The candidate isn’t inventory anymore. They’re the customer. Their needs come first, and that changes the way the product is designed, the way the team is incentivized, and the way success is measured.

It would be a mistake, though, to paint this as a simple binary: B2B boards always prioritize employers, and B2C boards always prioritize candidates. Reality is more nuanced. There are B2B boards that make serious, sustained investments in candidate experience, because they understand that if job seekers abandon them, employers will too. And there are B2C boards that, over time, lean back into chasing employer dollars because it’s an easier revenue stream to scale.

Still, the structure of the business model matters. Follow the money, and you’ll often see where the attention flows. If the money comes from employers, the risk is high that candidates become inventory. If the money comes from candidates, the pressure is high to keep them engaged, satisfied, and successful.

So what’s the lesson here for job boards, especially those in the B2B camp? It’s this: even if your revenue comes from employers, your ability to deliver real, lasting value depends on whether job seekers trust you enough to keep coming back. Treat them as inventory and you might win a quarter. Treat them as customers—even if they never pay you directly—and you have a shot at winning a decade.

For employers, the same lesson applies. The boards you choose to partner with are a reflection of your own brand. If you advertise on boards that disregard candidate experience, your jobs risk being buried in a sea of noise and frustration. But if you align with boards that treat candidates as customers, you’re not just filling roles—you’re also sending a message about the kind of employer you are.

And for candidates themselves, it’s a reminder to be conscious of where you put your time and trust. Not every job board has your interests at heart, and not every job board will treat you as more than a click or a line in a database. But the best ones, regardless of their revenue model, recognize something simple yet profound: the whole industry only exists because job seekers show up. Without them, there’s no inventory, no product, and no business at all.

That’s why the boards that thrive long-term—whether they’re B2B or B2C—find ways to balance the equation. They respect the employer’s need to hire efficiently. They respect the candidate’s need to be treated as a person, not a datapoint. And in doing so, they remind us all that putting job seekers first isn’t just altruism. It’s smart business.

This was the topic for today’s Job Board Leaders Roundtable meeting, hosted by College Recruiter and sponsored by Job Boards Connect.

AI-generated notes from Zoom:

The meeting began with informal introductions and small talk, including a discussion about the prevalence of AI note-takers at meetings. Steven Rothberg of College Recruiter introduced the purpose of the Job Board Leaders Roundtable, which brings together people from job boards and recruitment marketplaces monthly. Louise Triance from Job Boards Connect shared updates about its upcoming, annual conference on October 16th in London, mentioning keynotes, panels, and hosted huddles, with Sam Leech of UBIO and Joe Meyer of ExecThread confirmed as speakers.

Candidate Experience in Recruitment Industry

The group discussed the treatment of candidates in the job recruitment industry, with Ethan Bloomfield noting that candidates have historically been viewed as commodities but are now being repositioned as valuable participants due to changes in AI and candidate experience. Mike Corso raised questions about candidate engagement methods, including tools like resume builders and salary calculators, while Steven initiated the discussion about whether candidates should be treated as customers on par with employers. Ethan shared insights about a recent acquisition by Bold of Monster and Career Builder’s assets, suggesting that resume writing services and related tools must be engaging to justify the investment.

Candidate-Centric B2C Job Boards

Joe discussed the unique position of ExecThread as a B2C job board that charges candidates through a freemium subscription model, emphasizing how monetization influences the view and treatment of candidates. He shared insights from a European Job Board Roundtable in Amsterdam, where he was the only participant to prioritize the candidate as the primary focus, highlighting the challenges and importance of creating a unique candidate experience. Ethan defended Bold’s acquisition of Careerbuilder + Monster, describing it as a strategic move to enhance their candidate audience, and criticized the unfair criticism Bold received from certain quarters. Steven echoed Joe’s perspective, noting that in B2C models, candidates are often the product being sold.

Job Board Candidate Experience Improvements

The discussion focused on how job boards treat candidates, with Steven highlighting extremes ranging from sociopathic monetization practices to exceptional customer service like CV Library’s support. Samantha Leech explained how UBO helps job boards improve candidate experience and conversion rates by streamlining the application process, while Mike shared that their company optimized candidate registration requirements, moving from a full registration process to a simple email popup, which balanced traffic growth with better apply rates.

Balancing Candidate Experience and Quality

The group discussed the balance between making job applications easy for candidates and ensuring a quality candidate experience. Louise emphasized that while ease of application is important, job boards must also ensure quality job ads and proper screening of applications to avoid overwhelming employers with irrelevant candidates. Ethan praised Indeed’s move to share candidate disposition data between platforms as a step toward understanding the entire candidate journey, though he noted concerns about their execution. The discussion concluded with Steven planning to provide concrete examples to support these points.

Salary Transparency in Job Postings

The group discussed the importance of salary transparency in job postings, with Steven noting that providing salary data can increase clicks and conversion rates. Mike highlighted the challenges of obtaining salary information from employers, while Joe mentioned that only about 40% of employers on their platform provide salary data. Samantha and Regina Carvalho hared that some European countries, including Austria, have laws requiring salary disclosure in job listings, though EU-wide legislation is still pending.

Hospital Ratings and Candidate Experience

James Wood shared an example from his job board experience in the medical sector, where hospital reputation scores significantly impact candidate applications. He explained that while implementing a system to display hospital ratings could benefit candidates, it might alienate some employer customers with lower ratings. James noted that his team is still debating whether to proceed with this approach, balancing candidate needs against potential customer pushback. Steven and Ethan discussed the broader implications of prioritizing candidate experience over employer preferences, with Steven referencing a personal experience on Facebook Marketplace where the platform’s predictive messaging helped him avoid unresponsive sellers.

Improving Candidate Communication Strategies

The group discussed the issue of employers not responding to job candidates, with Ethan and Steven noting that even large companies rarely send auto-reply emails. They explored potential solutions, including job boards sharing data on employer response rates, though Regina suggested candidates also have a responsibility in monitoring applications. The conversation highlighted the need for better candidate communication, with Steven proposing that Indeed could leverage its data to provide insights on typical response times and employer engagement.

Recruitment’s Shift from Quality to Volume

Samantha discussed how the 2008 financial crisis changed the candidate recruitment process, noting that recruiters now prioritize volume over quality and customer service. Ethan agreed, explaining that their business models have historically rewarded commoditization and volume, even though attempts to prioritize quality have often failed due to conflicting motivations between employers and job seekers. Both concluded that the industry is at a critical juncture, suggesting a need for change in how candidates are treated.

Job Board Data Challenges

The group discussed the challenges of tracking job placements on an invite-only job board, with Mike noting that neither employers nor counselors consistently update hiring status due to extra work involved. Steven suggested that offering small incentives might increase response rates but would likely lead to inaccurate data. The conversation shifted to candidate loyalty to job boards, with Louise and Steven debating whether candidates remember or care about specific job boards, while Ethan shared insights from 2014 about how millennials primarily use Google for job searches rather than remembering specific sites. Joe contributed that focusing on candidate experience rather than additional features could drive engagement, and shared an interesting finding that hiding salary information behind a paywall led to better engagement among executive-level candidates who felt underpaid by publicly listed ranges.