Comments on: The job site pricing model: pay-to-post, pay-per-click or pay per hire?

By: » yasni Premium Check und XINGs neue Preise Online-Recruiting.net: Der Internationale Jobbörsen Informations Blog - Personalwerbung im Internet

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:12:51 +0000

[...] war eine Frage der Zeit. Wobei ich über den tatsächlichen Nutzen (und ROI) des Pay-Per-Click Modells schon immer skeptisch war und immer noch [...]

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:18:54 +0000

Hotjobs just made an announcement about pay for preformace pricing and I was googling and this article came up. I wonder if realmatch was the first to offer a pay for preformance pricing model?

By: James

James — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:14:04 +0000

Pay-for-Performance: could be a little bit scary for the larger Recruitment Firms!? Imagine rooms of Recruitment Consultants clicking on Candidate profiles throughout the day…likely to prove more costly than traditional Pay-to-Post?

By: Ivan | JobsBlog.ie

Ivan | JobsBlog.ie — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:12:57 +0000

From the job board owner’s perspective:

Pay to Post – simple billing and payment up front. Traditional like the newspaper ads.
Pay Per Click – or Pay Per Application actually – Sounds like a true Web 2.0 business model. Mimics what Google does with AdWords and we all know how well does it work for them.
Pay Per Hire – depends on the recruiter a lot, and is not really transparent to the job board owner.

My vote goes for Pay Per Application!

Ivan | http://www.JobsBlog.ie

By: spirofrog

spirofrog — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:01:14 +0000

We focus on a ” 1 Year flat rate” model,
that is a fair pricing for every “hiring” Company. And companies like it – so far! Best Thomas

By: Eva Zils

Eva Zils — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:23:31 +0000

@Rafael
usually I delete commercial comments. I haven’t done so with yours because, in a way, it contributes to the discussion. I left another comment on this idea on the post Trisha mentioned above: http://www.therecruiterslounge.com/2008/07/17/pay-to-post-verses-pay-for-performance/
Please continue reading there.

By: Trisha

Trisha — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:35:01 +0000

Additional post on the topic here:
http://www.therecruiterslounge.com/2008/07/17/pay-to-post-verses-pay-for-performance/

By: Eric Shannon

Eric Shannon — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:56:28 +0000

“Why are recruiters abandoning the pay-to-post model” looks like a press release to me… a good one!

not necessarily a subject for deep conversation. Yet…

By: Rafael Cosentino

Rafael Cosentino — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:19:27 +0000

I like this discussion very much and have some additional thoughts. A Pay Per Click (PPC) pricing model would take more of the risk off of a posting employer but mere clicks of a job listing to unqualified people doesn’t provide any value to the employer either. Why do recruiters and employers post jobs, what is their goal? There is only one goal that I know of

? They want to find a qualified person that has the skills for that job and very importantly, that is interested in that job.

The employer/recruiter doesn’t care so much about how many people see or click their listing. This is the entire basis for contingency based recruiting. The recruiter is acknowledging the employers position by saying, “I don’t get paid until you acknowledge that the person I bring you is what you have been looking for”. To my knowledge, Realmatch is the only platform that combines online job posting, matching technology and applicant tracking with this pay for performance pricing. If you don’t like what you see, you have paid nothing…that’s pay for performance.

If I thought we could charge employers on a CPC basis, I might create an alternative product for Realmatch but based on our research, too many unqualified people click the ad for a CPC pricing model to work. That model still places too much of the risk on the employer.

By: Eva Zils

Eva Zils — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:04:04 +0000

@Richard
sounds really good. I like your thinking. But do your ideas not rather represent (the future of) the job search engine pricing model (because some of them proceed like this already)? And why have different job sites then if one “Google” fits for all?
It is obvious that today, companies that are hiring talents from a shortage skills sector, have to find many different ways to attract candidates. Job boards can only be one part of their recruiting strategies because these applicants rarely look for work on career portals. So a value-based price model would not only explode hiring costs but it would almost certainly not lead to a better success. Those companies have to invest in complex media campaigns to contact the potentials who are not actively seeking work.
Apart from that, I fear that a value-based pay-per-click model would put off small and medium-sized firms, who have only started to have faith in online recruitment. Of course they could opt for a low budget but if that doesn’t work well (and it is bound to do), I’m sure they will abandon internet as a recruiting tool as a whole. That would be a pity, given that there are, in numbers, more small companies than big firms.