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

Not logged in. [log in or register]

Are Job Boards Still Relevant for the Future of Recruiting?

by May 14, 2013, 6:45 am ET

Everyone seems to agree that generalist large scale job boards are in trouble, and others are profiting. The decline of the Monster share price to below five dollars, parallel to the success story of LinkedIn stock, and the recent valuation of Indeed.com nicely illustrates these shifting dynamics. Generalist job board revenue per posting is declining, and they are facing tough competition from smaller niche job boards, job aggregators, and social networks. Will job boards remain relevant in recruitment?

The main question is not whether job boards are relevant, but whether their search results are relevant for their users. Do job seekers find the job they want, and do employers find the candidates they need? It is a simple equation of attention and relevance, and currently the competition happens to play a better card on both aspects.

The typical job board offers this primary search interface to job seekers:

jobboard

Instead of inviting you to explain who you are and what you are looking for, the norm is two search boxes, one for job titles and key words, and one for location. Just the fact that I need two search boxes is already a puzzle… why not one? Can the search engine not figure out which part of my query is location?

job marketAnd I am really asked to enter a job title? How can I possibly know what job title my prospective employer has chosen for their posting? Why will I not get the same results if I type something that is a synonym or a writing variant? Why will I get jobs which match my keywords in irrelevant contexts? And most importantly: why will I get punished with zero results if I describe what I am looking for in my own language?

Should I upload my CV? A small minority of visitors to job boards actually does leave their CV in the database. I guess they sense that it will not directly help them find a job. But the CV is chock full of relevant meaning for their job search, right? So why are job boards asking job seekers to type job titles and locations into search boxes?

And when I am done searching on this one job board, do I go to the next one? That is a lot of puzzling questions.

Niche Job Boards

If anyone is still doing well in the land of traditional pay-to-post job boards, it is the niche boards. There are thousands of them and counting … based on either region or job sector. And they seem to be able to convince enough employers to spend their advertising budgets, even though for each of them the audience is rather small, and their search interfaces are very similar to those of large job boards.

Their key asset, however, is relevance. It is like they already pre-filled one part of the two standard search boxes for you (job title or location). If you are looking for a job as a rig engineer you will be looking on Rigzone.com or Oilcareers.com. As a software engineer you can go to ITJobboard or Stackoverflow. Natural language processing experts will be interested in NLPPeople.com, etc. If you are looking for work in Berlin, you might visit jobs.meinestadt.de/berlin/ and the remaining 99% of the European job market will be wurst to you.

Job seekers do not want to browse through irrelevant job postings. And some discover, via their professional networks, that the jobs they seek are clustered on niche job boards. This is the tried-and-proven publishing model of professional and academic journals.

However, the success of the niche job boards is somewhat transient. Their relevance is not based on great search results; their technology does not really understand their job seekers any more than generalist job boards. They are just marketing to a very specific segment of job seekers and employers. They typically charge substantial amounts for posting jobs, without guaranteeing results. If their niche segment of advertisers can get the same relevance and attention elsewhere for less money, they are not likely to remain loyal. One could argue that the success of the niche job board is based on simple negligence in content completeness and search relevance that the large job boards have left wide open. The drama of the two keyword boxes.

The Job Aggregators

The rise of the job aggregators has been astoundingly fast and huge. Since the rumored selling price of Indeed to recruit.com for over $1 billion last year, they have everyone’s attention. Of all job search traffic in the U.S., currently over 30 percent comes from Indeed. In terms of relevance, aggregators have a level playing field with the major job boards, whose job content — to a large extent — they are recycling.

Casual visitors without a profile, a simple dual text box to search, and no amazing tricks to give spot on suggestions. This simple uniform job board and aggregator interface is not asking you who you are and what job you’d like to work in. It is again asking you “do you know how to search for job advertisements?” Most people do not.

But given the equivalence in relevance, aggregators are amazingly good at the attention part of the equation. As an active job seeker, you do not have to divide your attention over multiple channels anymore, and fight with a dozen search interfaces. You have a one-stop destination! Given the amazing lack of value in terms of search result relevance for job seekers from the side of job boards, the logic is simple.

LinkedIn and Other Professional Social Networks

Why are the professional social networks attracting the attention and money of so many employers? Currently, the main reason does not seem to be for posting jobs. It is primarily to target the so-called passive job seeker and connect with them via active sourcing. This is a revolutionary change in the recruitment landscape, since it completely democratizes headhunting.

However, there is a clear rise of job posting spend on social networks as well, and it has two main reasons:

First, social networks provide a way to deliver job advertisements to people in a natural habitat. When people are on LinkedIn, Viadeo, or XING, they are busy with their work, career, and business opportunities. The right environment to be receptive to job offers — they have your attention –  if they are relevant.

Second, the social networks have a pretty good way of giving you relevant job offers. When you are logged in, they know a whole lot more about you and your CV than any job board where you are just a visitor. They are a job board where every visitor is already in the CV database, and could give amazingly relevant job suggestions. Funny, but they don’t really do that yet. It looks like they have not yet mastered the technology to do the semantic matching to a sufficient degree. Apparently, their R&D spend seems to be directed at other areas. Searching on LinkedIn, XING, or Viadeo still only gives results that exactly match the keywords that you typed in. This will change. They will give relevance, because they know your profile and own your data.

So, is it inevitable that the social networks will win in the end, given that they have the most knowledge about your profile, in order to give you relevance?

There are a few reasons why this is less likely.

First, social networks have embraced job posting spend as a major source of revenue, and therefore are unlikely to warmly welcome unpaid aggregated job content on an equal basis. It’s a similar problem that any pay-to-post job boards has.

Second, social networks will not be able to keep their members locked in when the aggregated or relevant content is elsewhere: they’re not a one-stop destination and there’s a lack of relevance for specific niches. Niche professional networks like Github, Dribble, and Stackoverflow have much better content attraction for the attention of passive candidates.

The third risk for generalist social networks is the rise of people-aggregators like Talentbin, Dice Open Web, Gild, Entelo, and others. The more different online profiles and activities you collect and fuse, especially from niche professional networks, the better semantic information you will have to base the match on. A single public profile can never be better than multiple. And it is not limited to profiles; any trace of professional activity recorded online (blogs, tweets, conference attendance, etc) can be aggregated, and will render the power of individual social network operators smaller.

The future’s bright for the job seeker and employer alike, and maybe for the job board as well.

There is an amazing pace of change and technical progress in job aggregation and people aggregation. The attention part of the equation seems to be maximized by this. It is feasible to provide a one-stop experience for the job seeker and employer, and given equal relevance, this is the better model … no need to go to different platforms, just choose the best search engine for jobs and people.

At the same time, semantic search and matching technology is making a leap into the mainstream. In the next few years, we can expect to see highly relevant results for jobs regardless of the keywords you type in two search boxes, and for CVs directly from job postings. In fact, it is likely that the standard two search boxes for job title and location will disappear altogether. Semantic search software, whether from independent vendors (such as my Textkernel) or from job boards like Monster that have embraced semantic search fully, will understand who you are and what you are looking for. It seems that the future is bright for the job seeker and the employer. Providing an advantage in relevance will become the key game for job board platforms that want to stay relevant.

The nice thing is that relevance is directly correlated with conversion. Pay per hire, not per eyeball, is the appropriate business model for the new game.

The traditional generalist job boards that fail to innovate their search and match are betting on the wrong horse. However, job boards that adapt, both in terms of technology and in terms of business model, should see a bright future as well.

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.

  • Pingback: | Are Job Boards Still Relevant for the Future of Recruiting? | Get Hiring

  • charles handler

    Great article! Ive been talking this way for years and this piece provides a really strong case for what I believe will be the future. One thing that was not discussed is that adding quality trait based measurement data into the mix of matching ingredients will make the search and match even more accurate. This is happening now with a number of firms poised to debut in the near future. Ive been railing against the poor accuracy and business model of the job board for over a decade. Now that we have almost unlimited connectivity and flow of information, things are finally about to change. Everyone will benefit from this including our overall economy and the happiness of our workforce.

  • Pingback: Job Boards / Will they Be Still Relevant in the Future ? | Job Market Monitor

  • http://www.CollegeRecruiter.com/weblog Steven Rothberg

    As one of the owners of niche job board, CollegeRecruiter.com, and an active member of the International Association of Employment Web Sites, I appreciated the analysis in this opinion-based article but wish that the author had employed the use of actual metrics to help support his, well, opinions.

    Let’s look at the data before we completely write-off job board whether they’re the big, general boards like Careerbuilder, aggregators like Indeed, or niche boards like ours. And I’m not even going to touch the dispute in some circles about whether LinkedIn has become more of a job board or remains more of a social network. (I believe it is a social network with a lot of job board features.)

    One fact that shows up in survey after survey is that job board of all types (excluding LinkedIn) are the second greatest source of hire and social media (including LinkedIn) is way, way down at about two percent. Now if the shares were converging then that snapshot wouldn’t be all that relevant but the reality is that they’re diverging. Social media’s share of source of hire is shrinking and job board’s share is increasing. The pundits may tell you otherwise, but they don’t have the data to support their opinions unless they are very selective (a/k/a mislead you) about the data.

    At the end of the day, good, semantic search like the author’s company may be able to provide will be a wonderful gift to job seekers and employers. And social media, job boards, referral systems, and even newspapers all have their place. No one source is the silver bullet and anyone who tries to sell you that story is only selling a story and not reality.

  • http://www.textkernel.com/ Jakub Zavrel

    Thanks for your comments, Steven. Note that I am in no way writing off job boards of any sort (generalist, niche or aggregator). I agree with you that they are and will continue to be a strong source of hires. And in fact my post makes the point that niche job boards like yours are competing pretty well at present, at the expense of generalists.

    However, I do think that the dynamics of the industry favor aggregated content (being a one-stop destination for the job seeker). Since your job board uses syndicated content from Indeed, I think you would tend to agree.

    My main point is that if semantic search is done right, for both job seeker and recruiter, the competitive landscape is going to change again. We are at the moment where search relevance is becoming a strong differentiating factor. And knowing a whole lot about the job seeker (their social network profile, their CV and their search intent) will be key in getting semantic search done right.

  • http://www.CollegeRecruiter.com/weblog Steven Rothberg

    Jakub — I definitely understood that you weren’t in the “job boards are dead” irrational group and absolutely agreed with you that if semantic search is done properly then we’ll see some significant and very beneficial improvement both for the job seekers and the recruiters.

    Better matching should greatly reduce the number of applications that go into the funnel on the top end and improve the quality coming out at the bottom of that funnel.

  • http://www.whitsy.com Sam Stern

    In today’s job market job seekers are looking for ways to save time and get to an interview faster, and also to make sure they take the best offer they could. Employers want to make sure they interview only the ones that fit their needs, and to pay only what they really have to, not a dollar more. How will these different wants meet? There is a website called http://www.Whitsy.com, that allows job seekers to post profiles, and let employers bid on them with salary ranges. Then, they can negotiate each bid privately, and interview only after they agree on the range. In the same way, job seekers can bid on jobs they find, and negotiate privately. This way, both sides get what they are looking for: job seekers save time and interview only where the best opportunities are, and get more interviews faster. Employers interview only the candidates who fit all their needs, and for the best ‘price’. Job boards today are not built to bridge between these wants of job seekers and employers.

  • http://www.matchpointcareers.com Paul Basile

    The article covers a lot of options so I can take away what I like, I guess, and I like the idea that companies will increasingly understand that simple access to people’s CV’s adds little to knowing if they will perform. Doing recruitment right requires performance prediction and until job boards of all kinds get that, they won’t add the enormous value they could and should.

  • Pingback: RElevant and accurate contacts become more and more important.

  • http://www.CollegeRecruiter.com/weblog Steven Rothberg

    Paul — How is it that a job board with hundreds or thousands of employers and hundreds of thousands or millions of candidates can predict how those candidates will perform if hired by those employers? Shouldn’t that be the responsibility of each of those employers, especially because a candidate may be interested in more than one role with a particular employer?

  • http://info.monster.com/solutions/healthcare.asp Alex A

    Steve – I agree with you. There is no magic bullet when it comes to recruiting. You never know where your next star employee will come from. There are pros and cons to each advertising venue. Today’s landscape looks a lot different that in the past and I anticipate that it will probably look a lot different in the near future where Mobile, Talent Communities/Employer Branding and CRMs will all play key roles in engaging job seekers. Customers who have already adopted to Semantic Search and who are able to quickly sort through the hundreds of resumes that come in from all sources, Job Boards, Social, Aggregators, etc. are way ahead of the curve. There will probably never be software that can match the job seeker’s and company’s intangibles, like work ethic or corporate culture but Semantic Search will at least provide a targeted list that is more manageable. Many companies keep investing in sourcing new resumes and yet they already have access to resumes in their ATS systems. They just cant find the resumes in an easy manner. The future of recruiting and integration of newer technology like Semantic Search should continue to be exciting.

  • Dennis Gorelik

    Jakub, do you think it’s Indeed’s mistake to use two separate boxes for keywords and location?

    In most cases location can be separated from keywords, but not always. Some small cities have the same spelling as certain skills, or sometimes city IS a skill.

  • http://www.LatinosinHigherEd.com Heriberto Roman

    Interesting article….I to run niche job board http://www.LatinosinHigherEd.com. Great to know that niche job boards have a bright future. Very interested in learning how Linkedin will change the market 5-10 years from now.

  • http://www.textkernel.com/ Jakub Zavrel

    @Dennis – I would not think the two separate boxes are a particular mistake of Indeed or anyone else, given how common this user interface pattern is. And it is true that there can be some ambiguities between location names and skills.

    The true reason for this split into two search boxes is that the prevalent type of search on job boards at the moment is not semantic, but keyword based, so the engine will not ‘understand’ what is meant unless the user is very explicit about it (i.e. tells the engine that a particular keyword means *location*). And without context, tons of words have more than one meaning.

    However, if you’re talking about semantic search, it seems the task of the search engine, and not of the user, to figure such interpretation of each phrase in the search box. And the techniques used need not be purely based on lists of locations and skills. Given an understanding of the user’s entire query, and their context (e.g. their actual location) a very large percentage of interpretations can be made correctly. You see this e.g. in Google, when you type a query ‘pizza’ and the results are tuned to your location without you even typing it…

    Why should the job seeker and recruiter not enjoy a similar level of understanding?

  • Dennis Gorelik

    @Jakub
    1) About semantic search:
    We are too far away from it.
    Partial implementation of semantic understanding would deliver poor results. That’s why typical human recruiter usually does not bother with full semantic understanding and rely on keywords match to find resumes.
    Usually only professionals themselves (candidates and hiring client) have good enough semantic understanding about what resume text really means.
    The goal of job boards and recruiters is to find hiring leads.
    From that perspective semantic matching is not really necessary. Using keywords is close enough.
    Next step in resume matching technology is using weighted keywords. We already have pretty good idea about how to implement weighted keywords match, so now it’s about carefully implementing it.
    Semantic search, on the other hand, is not clear how to implement. If we don’t even know how it should work – there is no way that we would get it implemented any time soon.

    2) About location:
    Google derives location from IP address.
    Job boards do about the same: they use IP address to pre-fill location field.

  • http://www.CollegeRecruiter.com/weblog Steven Rothberg

    Actually, Dennis, only a small number of job boards derive location from IP address. There are roughly 50,000 job boards in the U.S. and another 50,000 in the rest of the world. Probably only one to two percent of those are sophisticated AND inclined enough to use IP address for location tracking.

    At CollegeRecruiter.com, for example, we are sophisticated enough to do so and have done so in the past but turned off that feature because it created more problems than it was worth. Our site and many others are used by job seekers not just to find local jobs but also jobs across the country and even abroad. So comparing a job search to searching for pizza is a false analogy as you’d never order a pizza for yourself to be delivered in a city in which you are not currently located, but you may very well search for a job in a city in which you are not currently located.

    Also, to say that Google doesn’t separate out a location box and relies on the user’s IP address to infer location is true, but let’s not use Google as the model for job search. After all, does anyone remember the less than steller success they experienced with running Google Base, their classified / job search engine?

  • http://www.textkernel.com/ Jakub Zavrel

    @Dennis — Regarding your statement that “using keywords is close enough”, I really strongly disagree. Both job seekers and recruiters are having a hard time finding the right results using keywords. And semantic search for jobs is not a far off scenario. It is moving into the main stream as we are speaking.

  • http://www.textkernel.com/ Jakub Zavrel

    BTW: to add to that comment. Semantic search is not an end goal that is already reached, lots of work still to be done. We should not make the mistake over overpromising…

    but the state of the art solutions that exist nowadays and are coming into the main stream have many very useful aspects of ‘semantic’ in them.

  • Keith Halperin

    @ Everybody: I’ve been around long enough to say that when somebody says “This or that is dead or doomed” they’re usually WRONG, at least in the short-medium term. A given technique/technology may decline in importance, fragment, or change radically but rarely disappear completely, e.g., we still have mainframe computers and analog engineering.

    @ Steven: Please stop messing things up by citing verified facts and statistics. It hinders the hype-meisters and schlock-mongers from making sales to the desperate, gullible, and cash-flush customers their businesses rely upon. It was a good thing both groups were absent from the Recruiting Innovation Summit.

    Cheers,

    Keith

  • http://www.matchpointcareers.com Paul Basile

    Steve, if you are still following… Yes, job boards with millions of jobseekers and thousands of employers can and must predict performance for specific jobs. Employers participate but so much is known now about what predicts performance that decisions can be made using serious, proven – and it is proven – science. At scale. People don’t get to diagnose themselves, the doctor does it based on what is known about diseases. eHarmony generates nearly 5% of all weddings in the US because the science predicts. Yes, people get involved but as often as not they don’t use what science tells them. Use performance prediction.

  • http://www.CollegeRecruiter.com/weblog Steven Rothberg

    I agree, Paul, that job boards like CollegeRecruiter.com and the other 100,000 out there must do a better job of matching job seekers with employers but at the end of the day those job seekers and employers must not abdicate their responsibilities to intermediaries like job boards.

    Sure, doctors diagnose illnesses and eHarmony uses science to match couples, but in both cases the people who will be most impacted (doctor/patient and the future spouses) spend considerable time, energy, and sometimes money in order to maximize the benefits they will receive from the process. What we all see all too often in the job board world are job seekers not taking sufficient time and then blaming employers for being sloppy and uncaring as well as employers not taking sufficient time and then blaming job seekers for being sloppy and uncaring.

    You’ve heard the expression garbage-in, garbage-out? If a job seeker posts a lousy resume then they’re going to meet with lousy results no matter what the job board does. Similarly, if the employer posts a lousy ad then they’re going to meet with lousy results no matter what the job board does. Both sides need to do a great job in order for the matching technology to stand a chance and, I believe, this is why not a single one of the boards which has touted revolutionary matching technology has succeeded because that technology does not exist in a vacuum: it depends upon the proper use both by the job seekers and employers.

  • http://www.jobcoconut.com Kourosh Ghorbani

    Research has shown that job boards are not dead, however they need to add value, and there is certainly a shift to niche job boards. I am involved with http://www.jobcoconut.com and we are adding features to set us apart from the competition and we are focused on global talent which is harder to source than local talent which will allow us to provide a quality service to our clients.

  • Pingback: BoomerJobTips Update- Curated Career Content for May 19 - Career Pivot

  • http://ivorystandard.com Kirsten L

    I recently founded a job board called Ivory Standard (http://ivorystandard.com). To accommodate the needs of the market, our goal is to make it easy for jobseekers to use (like we don’t require registration and don’t charge those who do choose it), available universally, and Google searchable. In addition, we combine the best features of existing job boards, such as geotagging, disposable e-mail addresses, special flags, and SMS alerts.

  • wollon gong

    All very reputable career web sites are regular career forums, similar to Monster along with CareerBuilder. Other folks, similar to Really. com, permit you to seek quite a few career forums, company job web pages, links, as well as other web sites that listing work opportunities. australia-jobs-today

  • TONY GILES

    Hi,

    I do work for a Generalist Global Job Board and can’t argue that Niche Job Boards are not in demand. It is a growing business and most companies are moving to niche job boards. However, I believe that generalist job boards will still be on the market because of the nature of our economic structure.

    The problem is in the UK, generalist and big job boards are not providing good and quality customer service neither to candidates nor to clients.

    They have crazy fees which small and medium size companies can’t enter and post their vacancies, especially start up business.

    We have a similar article regarding this topic; anyone interested they can see it here: http://www.strike-jobs.co.uk/articles/future-of-job-boards-98.htm

    Thanks
    Tony

  • http://www.noninetofive.co.uk John S

    The article is good; the comments even better. It’s really useful to get some background information from people already in this field, as I have just set up a brand new job board called No Nine To Five.
    that helps people in the UK fine part time, evening and weekend work.
    I think (and hope) my site has a strong future and I’m sure that other niche boards do as well.

  • Pingback: panic away book

  • Pingback: the linden method explained

  • Kurt Kohlert

    I run numerous job boards related to the energy industry. Our latest job board is http://www.utilityjobs.com. While doing key word research I find Google very spammy. Indeed seems to control every search we are going for. It seems like anyone searching in the internet will find indeed.

    Sometimes indeed takes up 3 paid ads on top and another top 5 organic searches. That does not give the job seeker very good variety. It feels very spammy and for a job board it makes it that much more difficult to compete on an even playing field.

    I have been told and believe it. The big corporate giants are winning. By having deep pockets and buying millions of dollars of adwords ads on Google. They get all the organic top spots.

    That to me is not what the internet should be about.

  • http://www.postjobfree.com Dennis Gorelik

    Kurt,

    What search query did you use?
    I agree that Indeed.com dominates job search results, but not to that extent.
    What I typically see is that Indeed.com has 2 organic results and one paid result on Google SERP.

    In any case, does it domination of large players mean that niche job boards are going to decline in importance?

  • Kurt Kohlert

    Hi Dennis

    Here is an example of where only a few big players get the majority of the searches.

    utility jobs in indiana
    https://www.google.com/#q=utility+jobs+in+indiana

    paid – 1 ad for jobs.com
    paid – 1 ad for indeed
    3 indeed ads in a row, than 2 monster ads and than 2 ,gov ads.

    I do not see 1 nice site listed in the search.
    Either they are doing a better job as SEO or the smaller sites are missing out.

    But if I look at an ideed ad for example. It is nothing more than a bunch of job listings. Is that classified ad unique original content? To meet up with Googles penguin, panda and hummingbird changes?

    They never dominated the niche market until those changes were put into place. And from what I have read the big brands get an advantage over the smaller nice sites.

    Is only my opinion.

  • http://www.postjobfree.com Dennis Gorelik

    Kurt,
    With your search query I see only one ad for Indeed, but 3 organic listings for Indeed.
    My guess is that Indeed’s job list provides evergreen content (always up to date jobs).
    Links to actual jobs frequently getting obsolete (because jobs are getting filled).
    So list or recent jobs is performing better (from job seekers point of view) that original job description.
    So Google sees that and pushes Indeed job listings to the top of search results.

  • Kurt Kohlert

    Hi Dennis

    I am guessing depending from where a person is living and from what server. And what time of the day or week you look. A person will get a little different results.

    I respect your opinion on their new content. And having fresh listings. And they have a very big SEO team working on their site. They have a very good system how to do black hat SEO and get away with it. As I am sure they are very good friends of Google with their multimillion dollar advertising budget. And also having Google ads on all of their pages. Even though it is full of 100s of errors when checked with WC3. That tells me the content is not very good. Not how we have been told everything needs to be to comply with penguin and panda.

    My initial comment was that the search engine Google is spammy. I still believe that when a person searches and finds 3 or 4 in a row from the same website. Giving you the same results. Why should there be more than one of the same domain for one search? One domain dominating 2 paid searches and 3 organic searches in a row, to me is bad results.

    That does not give the end user a good search experience. And takes away from the other sites working hard to get results. Which also have good content many times and another choice or the end user. In the end it has become a money game and not 100% for the best search results. Deep pockets will get you listed.

  • http://www.postjobfree.com Dennis Gorelik

    WC3 compliance means almost nothing to Google.
    Google’s own pages are not WC3 compliant.

    I also don’t agree that one domain should be represented only by one page in SERP.
    Let put aside Indeed results in Google SERP.
    I like to see multiple StackOverflow results or Wikipedia results in SERP (assuming these results are relevant).

    I agree that having money helps with ranking in SERP (better SEO team, better relationships with Google and potentially inside warnings), but that’s not the most important thing. The most important thing is to have content that users consistently like.

  • Kurt Kohlert

    Hi Dennis

    In the end the whole conversation is to understand how the SERPs work and what we are up against. My conclusion is the smaller sites need to do everything as perfect as possible, and some of the larger sites get some special treatment. The only reason why I can see that happening is for money.

    In the end the searcher is not getting the best results. Maybe one day people will get tired of that and switch to Bing or others. I think Bing at the moment is giving better search results. Because they have not sold out yet to the big companies.

  • Pingback: weight loss program

  • http://www.yesijob.com/ oil and gas jobs

    I don’t not agree with your analysis at all. When you start a niche or a local job board you will have quickly many competitors around. Worse, if one of your competitors makes job posting free (if Ads revenue are fair and fine for him/her) than your business is officially dead.

    In the other hand, generalist and international job boards are well placed to live longer. Although they require more work and more money to invest but therer are few businesses in this industry and there is no reason that does not work. One other smart idea is to grow strong social media presences to attract candidates and potential customers to your job board (Groups in LinkedIn, Pages or Groups in Facebook…). That way, instead of having social media as a handicap or competitor to your business, you get benefit from them to grow yours!

    Elisabeth
    KAM – http://www.YesIJob.com

  • Tony Giles

    Hi Elisabeth,

    Are you part of careetjet group?

  • Tony Giles

    I agree with you Elisabeth, generalist and international job boards will last longer because the world is getting a small place and the labor mobility increases every day, borders are becoming less and less important.

    On the other hand, there’s a certain amount of clients believe niche job boards work for them and can only find senior level candidates from those websites i.e. IT, Engineering, Health & Medicine sectors…

    I am currently using generalist job board http://www.strike-jobs.co.uk and they are doing pretty well finding the suitable jobs for me

    Thanks