Receive daily articles & headlines each day in your inbox with your free ERE Daily Subscription.

Not logged in. [log in or register]

The New ROI for Social Media Recruiting

by Apr 16, 2013, 12:53 pm ET

photo by David ManasterJody Ordioni wrote a prescient view about the ROI of social recruiting which posted Monday morning. Monday night I discovered first hand just how prescient, at a recruiting roundtable that marked the opening of the ERE Recruiting Conference & Expo.

I moderated two separate discussions of social media issues in 90 minutes. ROI concerns were uppermost in the minds of the recruiting leaders who joined our conversation. (More than 25 different topics were available at roundtables set aside in the ballroom of the Marriott here in San Diego where the conference is being held.)

It wasn’t surprising that these leaders who hailed from firms both very large and more modest size struggle with proving the value of social media as a source of hire. LinkedIn, I should point out, was an exception. Most of the 20 or so recruiters at the roundtable, and several others I spoke with later at the evening receptions, were enthusiastic users of LinkedIn Recruiter for sourcing. Most, though, admitted that getting their senior corporate managers and leaders to be active in posting and commenting on LinkedIn Groups is a struggle.

What was more of a surprise, and what makes Jody’s article so spot on, is that I heard emerging among recruiters a recognition that social media is a marketing and promotional tool. The effectiveness of sites like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, even Pinterest is probably not in the number of hires or even applicants a company can trace directly to one of the social media sites. Instead, as recruiting consultants Gerry Crispin and Mark Mehler reported last year, social media is a channel of influence.

You can’t not be there, one of the roundtable participants observed, because candidates, potential candidates, and those whom you hope to attract and someday hire will see your absence from the social media landscape as a negative. Doing it poorly is equally negative.

When a company fails to post regularly, and especially when comments and questions go unanswered for days or never, or when a company indiscriminately dumps all its job postings into Facebook’s news feed, it says, in the words of one recruiter, “This is a lame company that has no idea what social media is all about. Who wants to work for a company people think is lame?

The list of values developed by each of the two groups of roundtablers was remarkably similar. Each group started out by taking a stab at listing financial contributors: saving agency fees, efficiency from sourcing a higher quality of candidate from social media versus job boards, and talent pipeline development. There was also discussion of the difficulty of tracking with accuracy the true source of candidates.

Ultimately, the direction of the conversation moved to what it is social media is uniquely capable of doing, which is telling the employer story and building its brand. One of the leaders from a national retailer with a household name pointed out that the company has a large IT unit that has the same hiring difficulty as all tech firms do. Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites provide a place for the company to promote its IT group, and the job it does. It’s a way, the recruiter explained, to develop interest in an aspect of the company that most people — including the IT professionals the company needs — don’t even know about.

Certainly at more staid firms, such as the one represented by a banking recruiter, senior management frets over the Wild West nature of much of social media, and has to be sold on the reality that even negative comments offer opportunity. But the bigger issue, by far, is getting managers at every level to become socially active. Having a VP post a link to a business article they wrote or which they found useful, carries more weight than if a recruiter does it. Getting them to do it, though, requires constant effort.

But, agreed the roundtablers and others I spoke with later, it’s worth the effort. It establishes the professionalism of the organization, as well as the engagement of its leaders and contributes to the stature of both them and the company.

The paths each employer takes to accomplishing its social media brand building are as diverse as the individual recruiters at the table. Senior leadership contributes to LinkedIn Groups; a couple of employers assign Twitter duty to interns; and for the active Facebook users, the careers site is maintained by the recruiters themselves.

However, the emerging consensus is that the ROI of social media will not be measured in hires. It isn’t now, and probably won’t be for some time, if ever, as a direct source of hires (LinkedIn excepted). Its value is in branding and reputation building.

“It’s how a small company like us,” a recruiter told me during the evening reception, “gets noticed. We use Facebook for a conversation. Not a lot of people knew about us before we got active in social media. Now they do.” Social media works for him because today the traffic and applications coming through the company’s website has “more than quadrupled. And the quality of people we’re getting is so much better. And the only thing that changed was we got aggressive with social media.”

This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to offer specific legal advice. You should consult your legal counsel regarding any threatened or pending litigation.

  • Keith Halperin

    Thanks, John. It seems that many of the participants are getting the point, that “Social Network Recruiting” should actually be called “Social Network Employment Branding”. As I’ve frequently mentioned, Social Network Employment Branding is to Recruiting as Marketing is to Sales.

    I found this particularly interesting:
    “Each group started out by taking a stab at listing financial contributors: saving agency fees, efficiency from sourcing a higher quality of candidate from social media versus job boards, and talent pipeline development.” Notably absent from these was “quickly and efficiently putting quality butts in chairs.”

    As you later put it: “However, the emerging consensus is that the ROI of social media will not be measured in hires. It isn’t now, and probably won’t be for some time, if ever, as a direct source of hires (LinkedIn excepted). Its value is in branding and reputation building.” Since what recruiters deal with and are paid for IS “hires” and not employment branding or reputaion-building (except perhaps their own), ISTM that SNEB is an area which we recruiters should familiarize ourselves, but not devote too much time to discussing- leave it to the employment branding-specialists who DO get paid for that. How to decide who and when should deal with what (or whom)? A suggestion: Until someone is interested in a job- it’s SNEB, and when they’re interested in a job- it’s Recruiting.

    Cheers,

    Keith “Have a Great Conference” Halperin

  • http://facebook.thefit.com/ Vinda Rao

    “However, the emerging consensus is that the ROI of social media will not be measured in hires. It isn’t now, and probably won’t be for some time, if ever, as a direct source of hires (LinkedIn excepted). Its value is in branding and reputation building.”

    Hi John, we agree and disagree. According to our Trends Report, in which we interviewed 1,848 staffing recruiters, “building brand awareness” is indeed the second biggest benefit of social media, with the first being “access to passive candidates.” However, Facebook and Twitter are a source of hires. LinkedIn clearly produces more hires (93% of recruiters successfully placed a candidate in 2012 they sourced from LinkedIn), but 17% placed candidates they sourced on Facebook and 13% placed candidates they sourced from Twitter. So while Facebook and Twitter have a lot of catching up to do, there is ROI there.

  • Keith Halperin

    @ Vinda: Anything CAN be a source of hire- my question: Is it a quick and affordable source of LOTS of quality hires?

    Let’s put it this way:
    How many internal or contract recruiters with a req load of 15-25 reqs would be able to do this?
    “You are expected to hire (on average) at least 1 person/week exclusively using Facebook and/or Twitter and no other sources whatsoever, and your first hire is due within one month of today.”
    I’d LOVE to have someone show me how to do that…

    Cheers,

    Keith “Show Me the Hires Stats” Halperin

  • http://www.employeeinsightsllc.com/ Jay Fritzke

    I’m not sure I can prove the ROI of social media but it is a valuable tool to brand yourself and your company. For those people or companies who are not taking advantage of social media my advice is to stay out. Let the rest of us struggle with this for a couple of years to see if we can really prove the ROI. What have you got to lose?

  • Pingback: Only Bangalore Jobs » Blog Archive » The Week at Work: News from Around the Web

  • http://facebook.thefit.com/ Vinda Rao

    Hi Keith. I’m not debating that anything can be a source of hires; I’m just sharing real data. In regards to whether Facebook and Twitter generate LOTS of quality hires really depends on if recruiters are using the channels correctly. Just posting a link to a job post to one’s Facebook and Twitter network alone doesn’t do anything. It’s like being at a party and just screaming things while standing on a table. It’s a social channel, so we recommend recruiters turn their job posts into social conversations. Recruiter should engage in two-way conversations with their social connections and post jobs on Facebook to certain friend lists to make sure they’re reaching the right people. Also, different job types work better for certain social networks; for instance, nurses are often better reached through Facebook than LinkedIn, while technology executives are very likely to have a LinkedIn profile. Facebook’s EdgeRank treats content differently than Twitter and LinkedIn. It penalizes repeat posts, but rewards conversations that generate a lot of likes and comments. The same cannot be said of Twitter; 80% of tweets are read within the first hour so repetition – within reason – can be a good strategy there.

    In terms of being affordable, our social recruiting solution has a free version, and joining LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter is free, so yes, social recruiting can be affordable. How quickly recruiters fill their open reqs depends on how seriously they take social recruiting and how long they’ve been doing it.

    These two firms have seen tremendous success from using social recruiting across LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter. Check out their stories: http://www.bullhorn.com/customers/hireminds-staffing-software-case-study
    http://www.bullhorn.com/customers/j-patrick-staffing-software-case-study

    And Jay, I totally agree about social media’s benefits for corporate branding. It’s about visiting your candidates where they live, so to speak.

  • Pingback: Link Roundup: The Rise of Social Recruiting - Work4 Labs

  • Pingback: Social Media ROI – Perhaps it’s not what we Thought | HR Virtual Cafe