• 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()