The candidate who didn't apply might be your best result

I had an interesting conversation with a client this morning.

They're actively trying to generate fewer applications for one of their core roles. At first, that sounds completely backwards.

It's an entry-level role. You don't need previous experience or particular qualifications, so attracting people isn't really the problem. The problem comes later.

It's a genuinely demanding, practical job, and some people don't realise quite how demanding until they're well into the recruitment process or, worse, until they've actually started the job.

The more we talked about it, the more I realised this client wasn't trying to reduce interest in the role. They were trying to improve understanding of it.

And that feels slightly counterintuitive, because for years recruitment advertising has largely taught us to sell the role. Focus on the positives. Make the opportunity sound attractive. Give people reasons to apply.

So deliberately highlighting the bits of a job that some people might see as a negative can feel a bit uncomfortable. The physical demands. The shifts. The environment. The repetitive bits. Whatever it is that makes somebody think, “Actually, I'm not sure that's for me.”

But is that really a bad thing? I don't think it is. Because the point isn't to put people off. It's to make sure the people who do apply understand what they're applying for.

So that's exactly what this client is doing. They're making the reality of the role much clearer upfront and introducing an assessment early in the process. Inevitably, some people are going to look at that and think:

“Actually, that's not for me.”

And in this case, that's a good outcome. They haven't wasted their time, the recruiter hasn't processed an unsuitable application and, hopefully, fewer people will start the job only to leave a couple of months later. And their retention levels will be healthier as a result.

The candidate deselecting themselves isn't a failure. The process has actually worked.

When a good recruitment outcome looks like a bad advertising outcome

This is where I started thinking about the recruitment marketing side of things.

Imagine somebody sees the job on a job board. The title looks suitable, so they click. They arrive on the careers site, get a much more realistic picture of the role and decide not to apply.

From a recruitment point of view, I'd say the process has worked exactly as intended. From an advertising point of view? Not so much.

They clicked. They didn't apply. And depending on how that advertising is bought, the employer may already have paid for that interaction.

If you do that successfully with enough candidates, you could end up with fewer applications and a higher cost per application. On paper, your advertising performance has got worse. In reality, your recruitment process may have got significantly better.

Which brings me back to quality

One of the things I talk about a lot is the difference between generating more applications and generating better applications. But the conversation this morning made me realise something else. If we're serious about optimising recruitment advertising towards quality, the platforms need to understand what happens after the click. And that's why disposition data becomes so important.

Did the person complete their application? Were they suitable? Were they shortlisted? Were they hired? Did they stay?

The challenge, as always, is that the technology doesn't always join up. Employers use countless different applicant tracking systems, careers sites and assessment tools. They don't all integrate neatly with job boards or programmatic advertising platforms.

So employers and advertising platforms can end up measuring success in completely different ways. The employer is focused on suitability, hiring outcomes and retention. The advertising technology can only optimise using the signals it can actually see.

And there's often a significant gap between the two.

So what should we actually be measuring?

Clicks, applications and cost per application still matter. Of course they do. But if an employer deliberately gives candidates more information so that unsuitable people choose not to apply, a falling conversion rate could actually be evidence that the strategy is working.

That's what I found so interesting about this conversation. The recruitment outcome and the advertising outcome can be moving in opposite directions.

And in a situation like this, success shouldn't stop at how many people applied, or even how many were hired. It should include whether the people who joined were right for the role and whether they stayed.

Because ten better-informed, suitable applicants could ultimately be far more valuable than another hundred applications.

Which leaves me with a question I hadn't really considered until this morning:

Is somebody deciding not to apply always a failed click?

Because the more I think about it, the more I suspect that sometimes it means the recruitment process has done exactly what it was supposed to do.