by Sharon Hill
DISCLOSURE: The views or comments shared by Craig Fisher and Jim Durbin within this headline reflect their own experience and opinion. According to Fisher and Durbin, they have no financial relationship, sponsorship, or partnership with any vendors, services, or affiliates mentioned here.
TalentNet Media recruitment gurus Craig Fisher and Jim Durbin have warned that Indeed’s new job-posting rules could see hiring costs quadruple.
The two made their comments in a LinkedIn Live presentation called “Navigating Indeed’s New Rules: Strategic ATS Optimization for Staffing Firms.”
The two focused on what recruiters will need to do to comply with Indeed’s XML changes, and whether they even should, given the potentially enormous cost increase. They talked about three recruitment alternatives: staffing firms; searching through your own candidate database; and social media.
“Indeed is still the player right now for volume, certainly,” said Fisher. “But there is going to be a post-Indeed world. It’s not the apocalypse but it’s interesting. They want to charge some very specific fees.”
Durbin explained two major Indeed changes. The first is ending the single source feed, with Indeed no longer taking new XML feeds to advertise jobs.
“Indeed is going to squeeze agencies,” he said. “They’re very clear about it. They’re not allowing you to just grab an XML feed from your ATS and send it over. They’re not doing this today, but it’s happening. It wants you to come in-house. Ultimately, it wants to pull from your ATS,” said the expert.
The problem for employers, he added, is that Indeed likes to post jobs and leave them up for an extended period of time. Not all employers and recruiters want that, including Durbin. “I sometimes leave jobs up for just a few days, because I don’t want hundreds of candidates,” he said.
The second major Indeed change is the $25 budget. While this isn’t new, the recent change to it is monumental in terms of fees to employers. Every campaign costs $25, so if you post 100 jobs you pay Indeed $2,500.
‘Ruinous’ costs
Prior to the change, employers could pull listings in and out, replacing one posting with another. If the total were still 100 the fee was covered. That’s no longer the case. Whether the employer removes an old listing or not, any new listing is another $25. Durbin estimates this will increase the cost to employers by 300-400%. “That’s ruinous,” he said. “There’s no way you can do that.”
Fisher said the primary reason Indeed was making these changes was quality, as over-saturation is a huge problem.
“LinkedIn reports 11,000 applications a minute… We see fake resumes, fake people, and fake jobs right now,” he said.
“The only solution that is not really difficult is [the use of] staffing firms, because you have a database of people you’ve talked to. You know they’re real. That is a huge advantage, because companies are so tired of being ghosted. People are taking jobs and not showing up the first day.”
At Walmart, he said, you can get a job and never talk to a human being.
“Staffing firms can guarantee they’ll show up for work. Employers can’t do that,” he said.
“Indeed and other job boards are stuck in 2021,” Durbin said. “They made bank. They went remote. Every job board is trying to jack up their prices; they’re focused on quality. If you need more and more you’re in for a very bad ride. You’ve got to figure out how job boards work and at what level.”
He warned recruiters to “stop thinking [Indeed] will solve your problems.”
If an employer were to use its own database of candidates, he suggested the help of the EarnBetter recruitment and job-search AI assistant to fast-track the candidate search.
“Use your database and they will interview that person,” he said. “It is pretty basic screening but the candidate can interrupt.” It’s so much cheaper than Indeed, he added.
“With Indeed you’re paying it to find out the candidate’s intent, while your database has already shown intent.”
Durbin pointed out that part of the problem has been caused by the employers themselves. “The other issue with the XML block is that it puts a heavier burden on employers whose hiring budgets are shrinking, and who’ve often been counting on job boards to clean up their ATS feeds for them,” he said.
Indeed isn’t going to do that for them anymore, he explained, and other job boards including Google Jobs will be following Indeed’s example within a year. This problem leads to disclosures such as salary, which is already generating lawsuits.
“It’s not difficult [to clean up your ATS], but you have to make sure that your people are doing it, and doing it right,” he said. “All your jobs might not go to Indeed because your staff doesn’t know how to use your ATS right. It might be as simple as their not pushing the right button…” Fisher added that the problem with an employer’s ATS is often that whoever set it up in the first place isn’t there anymore.
“We’ve got to learn our own technology.,” Durbin said.
The other recruitment alternative he recommended is social media.
“Young people are back on Facebook Marketplace — somehow Meta has risen from the ashes, and is once again a really good source of job candidates,” he said. “Social is like interruption marketing.” He said that an ad pops up, and the candidate thinks ‘I can do that.’ It lets you ask questions, and indicate, for example, that you only want to work 4pm-midnight.
“Paradox, for example, is doing so well,” he said. “They’re texting people. So, if you’re driving through the line at McDonald’s, you can actually text the number and schedule an interview with the manager.” With Paradox, employers gather as many candidates as possible, then call them at their leisure.
Their final Indeed warning — fix your ATS before Indeed cuts off your XML feed. In the next year you are going to have to do this. The payoffs are enormous.
While it’s probable that smaller firms aren’t going to walk away from Indeed, those who hire for multiple positions might well be pushed to alternate forms of recruitment, as their budgets shrink and Indeed becomes considerably more costly.
#Indeed
#facebook
#Paradox