• How and when technology can help reduce hidden bias in hiring

    September 12, 2017 by

     

    Technology can help facilitate the awareness of hidden bias, but the tools themselves are not the solution. We spoke with two talent acquisition and workforce planning experts to discuss recruitment technology. Our conversation went far beyond the tools available for recruiters.

    Bruce Soltys is the Head of Talent Acquisition Sourcing Strategies at Travelers, and Janine Truitt is the Chief Innovations Officer at Talent Think Innovations. They are both members of our Panel of Experts.

    Watch our discussion here, or read the takeaways in the blog below. 
    Continue Reading

  • Tools and metrics to make recruitment and selection process more efficient and candidate-friendly

    September 06, 2017 by

     

    For talent acquisition professionals who are looking at their recruitment and selection process and wondering how to make things more efficient, this discussion addresses tools available to you.

    We spoke with two members of our Panel of Experts about this, Bruce Soltys, Head of Talent Acquisition Sourcing Strategies at Travelers; and Janine Truitt, Chief Innovations Officer at Talent Think Innovations.

    Watch part 1 of our discussion here, or read the takeaways in the blog post below. Continue Reading

  • Upskilling talent and 5 reasons to look past your top schools and majors

    September 01, 2017 by

     

    If recruiters aren’t looking beyond their annual list of campuses, or looking beyond the traditional 4-year graduate, or expanding the short list of majors they actively seek, they could be sinking their own ship.

    I am not the first one to point this out. LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner says their emphasis moving forward is on “skills, not degrees.” Here are five reasons why talent acquisition professionals need to look beyond their list of top schools and major. Continue Reading

  • Northwestern Mutual’s internship program is their solution to aging workforce challenges [interview]

    August 02, 2017 by

     

    The financial services industry, like many industries, is facing significant aging workforce challenges.

    The demand for financial advisers is expected to increase 30% from 2014-2024 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics). However, some estimates predict that 35% of advisers plan to retire or leave the industry within the next 10 years (Cerulli & Associates). Northwestern Mutual’s Internship Program Director, Michael Van Grinsven, shared with College Recruiter how they plan to overcome the looming talent shortage.

    Watch our discussion with Michael Van Grinsven here, or read major takeaways below. Continue Reading

  • Diversity in the workplace: recruitment tips and tactics Part 2 [expert panel discussion]

    July 31, 2017 by

     

    As demographics change in the United States, including at college campuses, we should be seeing more diversity in the workplace. So why is the needle moving so slowly? In today’s panel discussion with College Recruiter’s Panel of Experts, we explore strategies for talent acquisition professionals to improve their diversity recruitment. Today our discussion touched on what an inclusive recruitment process looks like, differences between the government and private sectors, and concrete tips for talent acquisition professionals. Continue Reading

  • Confused about pay for performance? Get a peek behind the curtain [podcast]

    July 16, 2017 by

     

    Anyone paying attention to talent acquisition trends or recruitment technology is aware of the rise of pay for performance recruitment advertising, and programmatic advertising. It can be a confusing space, at least technically. So for many recruiters, it unfortunately has the effect of scaring them off. Recruiters and HR leaders: if you admit to being confused, you can probably also admit that the trend is only rising. Here you can get a peek behind the curtain and clear up your understanding. HRExaminer interviewed College Recruiter’s founder and president, Steven Rothberg. Rothberg shares an insider’s view of what about programmatic advertising scares job boards, what job boards do better than employer career sites, and the problematic method employers measure sources like job boards.

    Listen to the interview here, or read major takeaways below.

     

    The job board is not dead. Enter, pay for performance.

    There was an effort to brand job boards as dying, but it was really an effort by third party recruiters to convince their customers—the employers—to spend money in new ways. Whether that was social media, an executive search or whatever, the facts just weren’t there.

    There certainly are many job boards that have died. There are also many social media sites that have died. Executive recruiting firms have died. Companies come and go, business models come and go. But what we’re really seeing is a remarkable transformation that started about three years ago. The job boards that are thriving have begun to migrate from a “post and pray” model (duration based postings where an employer buys a posting package for a certain period of time, regardless of the results). Instead they are rapidly shifting to pay for performance. Pay for performance is typically pay-per-click: the candidate sees the job on the job board, they click the apply button, they go over to employers’ ATS and the job board is paid for that click.

    Consumer marketers started doing pay for performance about 15 years ago.

    pay for performance in consumer marketingThis model is entirely consistent with how Google got themselves on the map. Before Google, pay-per-click advertising existed, but Google was the first one in the consumer marketing space to really do it well. Now, 15 years later, the talent acquisition and job search industry is realizing it can work for us, too.

    The duration-based model puts the risk of the job posting not performing well on the employer (or their advertising vendor). At College Recruiter, we know we have a lot more control than the employer over how many people see a posting, and how many people click to apply. Factors like salary and the quality of a job description are all relevant, but it’s our job to get people to the ad to begin with, so the risk should lie with us.

    A lot of job search sites feel very threatened by the pay for performance model because they’re used to selling postings for, say, $250 bucks for 30 days. And they see a pretty fat profit margin, maybe 60-70 percent. But with pay for performance, the job board might get 20 or 30 cents per click. Now, the job board is forced to actually deliver enough candidates to that employer so they can hire enough people. That brings us to another discussion about metrics, which we’ll get into later.

    Job boards are better than company career sites

    What’s really exciting about the job search industry is that we are way better at marketing employers’ opportunities than the employers are themselves. Our sites tend to be much more mobile friendly. Our sites tend to have candidate-friendly features like the one-click apply button. We tend not to have password protection in order to see the postings. That creates a better experience for the candidate.

    Related: Why employers should focus on improving the candidate experience

    There is another reason job boards are better. Google has now introduced their own job search product, Google for Jobs. If a candidate searches for a job on Google, and Google see a job from some company using an awful ATS, they won’t send the user there, because chances are it’s going to be an awful user experience. But when Google sees that job posted on a job board like College Recruiter, and that site provides a much better candidate experience, they’re going to point that candidate to CollegeRecruiter.com, instead of to the employer’s career site.

    Employers need to truly measure the effectiveness of job boards

    Two years ago, virtually none of our employer customers were willing to have a conversation around how many candidates they actually needed us to deliver, in order for them to hire enough people. They didn’t even know how many applications they would typically receive for each hire. And they knew even less about how many clicks they would need to generate in order to hire one person. So it made sense that employers would have no way of knowing what kind of performance to purchase. Should they buy $10 worth of clicks? $100? $1,000?

    Now, there are tools out there that will tell employers that if you get, say, a thousand people clicking to your site, you’ll probably see about 100 applications, and if you get 100 applications you’ll probably hire four people, for example.

    White paper: How Employers Evaluate Career Services, Job Boards and Other Sources

    This presents a great opportunity for job search sites to scale up, especially in entry level recruitment. Because large employers don’t have a need to hire just one intern; they’re hiring a dozen or 100 interns. If you run a posting for a retail sales associate in Kansas City, you’re never going to be able to hire 10 or 20 people from a single posting under the old, duration-based model. You just wouldn’t get enough candidates to apply. But under the new model, we can drive thousands of people to a job posting that is operating on a pay-per-performance basis. College Recruiter currently uses both models right now, but in two years, it’s likely that duration-based postings will be a thing of the past.


    PONDER THIS: If you’re like most employers, you need about 10 candidates visiting your career site to receive just one application, and you receive about 5-50 applications per hire. That means you need 50-500 apply clicks per hire. Would it make sense to learn how College Recruiter guarantees the quantity and quality you need?


    Two exciting things happening in talent acquisition

    Employers will learn how much to spend using programmatic advertisingEmployers now have the opportunity to better align their goals with those of their sourcing partners. For a long time now, executive recruiters have aligned their interests with the employers. They only got paid if they found a candidate that the employer decided to hire. Now that’s happening with recruitment media.

    Within a year or two, it is very possible that nearly all ATS are going to allow an employer to post a job on their career site, then check a box to “sponsor” that job. Then they’ll be able to pick how much they want to spend, given the ATS’ recommendation, which would consider the number of candidates you need in order to make all your hires. It should be able to tell the employer that they need to buy, say, 2000 clicks at 47 cents per click, which job boards will be the best, and then programmatically send the job posting to those job boards.

    Programmatic advertising is not the same as pay for performance

    A lot of people get programmatic advertising mixed up with pay for performance . Programmatic means the advertiser uses a computer with a set of rules that determine which ads to post, which not to post, and when.

    Some companies that do programmatic ad buying on behalf of employers will have a contract with a job board that gives them, say, 25 slots where they can post whatever job they want. They can post one job in that lot today and another job for three days, or their job for five days, etc. Programmatic advertising allows employers—without needing any human intervention—to always run the best-performing job ad. For example, a posting for a nursing position might generate a really good response for three days, and then the response tails off. Perhaps after three days, any nurses that are going to apply have already applied, and the programmatic advertising engine will automatically see that. It will then replace that nursing posting with a physical therapist posting, which might run for 10 days.

    Programmatic gets tied to pay for performance because employers that are using one tend to use the other.

    Keep informed of recruiting best practices by staying connected with College Recruiter on LinkedInTwitterFacebook, and YouTube. Hiring soon? Would it make sense to have a brief conversation about your hiring needs? Consider College Recruiter’s advertising solutions, or email [email protected]

  • Technical recruitment should focus on design thinking

    May 05, 2017 by

     

    It’s not news that there is a technology skills gap in the American workforce. The research, however, has mostly focused on technical recruitment that seeks coders and programmers. Devry University’s Career Advisory Board conducted research that taps into “applied technology skills”. Recruiters, including technical recruiters, should know the difference, know where these skills belong in their organizations, and how to find candidates with these skills. Continue Reading

  • Don’t ask, “Do we have to pay interns?” The answer is always yes.

    February 13, 2017 by

     

    A common question in the space of college recruitment and talent acquisition is, “Should interns be paid?” Sometimes, unfortunately, the variation is “Do we have to pay interns?” In fact, there are over 7.4 million Google search results for that latter question, with the No. 1 hit typically being this ProPublica article asking “When is it OK not to pay an intern?” However, I look at it from the other side. In short: you should and need to pay interns. 

    First of all, paying interns is a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) issue. In the broadest terms, government and non-profits do not need to pay interns, whereas for-profit companies do need to pay interns. The U.S. Department of Labor actually developed six criteria for determining whether an intern can work unpaid. (You can find everything on the sexily-titled “U.S. Department of Labor Fact Sheet Number 71.”)

    The fourth criterion is worded as “… the employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern …”

    As College Recruiter president Steven Rothberg puts it, “I defy anyone to provide an example of an internship designed to deliver absolutely zero value to the employer.”

    Continue Reading

  • Talent Acquisition in 2017: Q&A with the Experts

    December 28, 2016 by

    In today’s “Q & A with the Experts”, College Recruiter spoke with Ashley White, Human Resources Director for The American Productivity & Quality Center. We asked Ashley about how 2017 might look the same or different regarding their recruitment strategy.

    What does your recruitment strategy look like for 2017?

    Ashley White: For 2017, our employee engagement and retention strategy is based on “manage and measure.” Management for us means managing the employee experience from the very beginning of their employee experience. In my experience, engagement is different for each individual and organizations that “do” engagement effectively create opportunities for their teams to connect with the organization’s mission and each other in different ways (team building, social events, charitable efforts etc). We expect to continue providing all of these in 2017. For example, our managers are expected to budget for and carry out team building events each quarter with their teams. With any strategy, measurement is important to justify expenses, make improvements and chart progress. APQC will utilize an employee satisfaction survey done twice annually to capture this data. The ongoing challenge with surveys is ensuring that you’ve crafted the questions so that you receive valuable feedback that creates actionable results. With that said, we will spend time utilizing best practice research to guide our question selection.

     

    screen-shot-2016-12-24-at-8-41-22-pm

    Ashley White is the Human Resources Director for APQC (The American Productivity & Quality Center). She manages all aspects of human resources including benefits, compensation, recruiting, and strategies. She also leads the APQC operations team that focuses on developing next-generation leaders within the organization. APQC is a non-profit that produces some of the leading benchmarking and best practices research around talent management and other business topics. Connect with Ashley on LinkedIn.

     

    Want to stay on top of other expert advice around college recruitment? Connect with College on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and YouTube.

  • College Recruiting Bootcamp: featuring Pete Radloff

    November 10, 2016 by

    pete-radloffWho is Pete Radloff?

    Principal Technical Recruiter, comScore, Inc.

    What you’ll hear from Pete at the Bootcamp:

    How to convert interns into permanent, full-time employees upon graduation

    Why you’d be wise to listen to Pete’s advice:

    Pete Radloff has 15 years of recruiting experience in both agency and corporate environments, and is the Principal Technical Recruiter at comScore, as well as a Lead Consultant for exaqueo. He has also worked with brands like National Public Radio (NPR) and LivingSocial. Pete’s experience stretches across several areas of talent acquisition, including recruitment and sourcing, social media, employment branding, recruitment operations and the training and mentoring of recruiters. He’s known for his pioneering sourcing techniques, exceptional knowledge of the college market and his honest writing in numerous recruiting publications.

    Pete’s specialties are technical and non-technical recruitment, social media recruiting, employment branding, candidate sourcing, recruiting operations and management. Building recruitment processes from scratch or enhancing existing processes. Employee Referral Program development, ATS selection and implementation, college/university recruiting and relations and Recruiter and Interviewer training development.

     

    The College Recruiting Bootcamp will be focused, fast and mentally challenging. Join us in D.C. on December 8, 2016 at the SEC headquarters. Reserve your space today!