Workthing have recently launched a new service aimed at job seekers call Workthing Plus. In the same way as The Ladders, Workthing Plus charges job seekers for access and in return provides them with a number of career and job search management tools. This is certainly the first example I’ve come across of a job board doing this outside of the executive recruitment marketing which The Ladders firmly sits in
In a market where there are less jobs being advertised it certainly makes good business sense for sites to monetise their audience in new ways. However are these services necessarily good news for the candidate or is it just profiteering? Well this is what I’m hoping to find out. Workthing have very kindly given me free access to the site and I’ll be road testing all of the services over the next few weeks. To get a good comparison I’ll also be take a candidate’s eye view of The Ladders at the same time.
Expect to see my thoughts at some point in June
Filed under: Uncategorized
Charging job seekers to view job postings is a tricky and usually unethical business. Unless the posting can’t easily be found elsewhere, what you’re doing is taking advantage of people who are desperate. It is never okay to take advantage of people and especially not those who are desperate. I urge you to advocate against this practice.
There’s absolutely nothing morally wrong with charging candidates per se, just prevailing market conditions that make it possible or not.
Setting a cost bar on a service, however, is no sure way of filtering out the unsuitable candidates, as many very suitable candidates will refuse to pay on principle.
It is, though a great way of monetising the huge number of job seekers, who need a job so badly, that they will pay for a perceived advantage over their potential rivals for employment.
You could say that would be immoral.
There are rules in the Employment Agencies Act, that prevent recruitment agencies from paying any inducement to candidates for accepting a permanent job. The same Act prevents them from charging candidates.
Steven R, I couldn’t agree with you less. Along your lines of thinking a car mechanic should not charge to fix your car because “you’re desperate” to drive it again. In fact, it’s even fairer than my insane comparison because there are so many free job boards in the UK; you are not beholden to this service. OK, if the ladders had 90% of all job online in the UK, then you could argue they are a monopoly and the governing bodies should look into it, but there is so many other options to choose from that becomes a non-runner. I doubt you’d find a free mechanic anytime soon!
For me what The Ladders are doing and what Workthing are just getting into is like Business Class flights for employers. Economy will still get you to your destination, but fly Business Class and you get a different type of person and the rides a lot smoother.
just to clear something up – unlike the Ladders that I believe “holds back” some opportunities to incentivise the paid for registration, what you pay for on workthing+ is the content not the job ads. It’s my understanding that they’ll of course be taping into their network to find you appropriate matching adverts, and quite possibly reaching out beyond it as well, but you’ll find those jobs elsewhere on the net and they make no attempt to tell you otherwise – their proposition is that they provide quality advice on job hunting and applying, together with tools to help you manage and track your application approach for a modest fee.
Personally – in a day when jobcentre plus is seemingly incapable of doing anything to help the middle tier jobseeker, when the broadcast media help no one full stop (particularly with their articles about people who applied for a 1,000 jobs last week and funnily enough didn’t get a single interview) and where failed recruitment consultants look to rebrand themselves as “career consultants” and really do circle like vultures looking for a fee from unwitting newly unemployed people – then I can see the value in such a proposition, IF it lives up to its promise and really does offer a definitive resource for the job seeker.
I’m having a peep too so no doubt we’ll be comparing notes virtually at some point Matt
Like Matt and Alex I too am having a “look” too – first response – nice – this is a job seeker “tool kit” not just a Ladders.
From what I hear we will see more developments like this, ie job seeker centric tools.
Makes sense to me,we have seen so much invested in “recruiter” technology and again that makes sense since the recruiter does pay.
Question to me is will the job seeker pay? I saw the first ever Ladders booth and never believed that they would succeed in monitising the job seeker. Shows what I know.
BUT is UK same as US? well actually in Russia, India and Brazil in the early years of on line recruitment they all had market leading sites who “charged” jobseekers. BUT they all had one thing in common – more candidates than jobs.
BUT as the world changed and those economies changed and skill labour declined the model changed to a more “traditional” model.
So with supply and demand yet again out of sync maybe we will see a return to this model.
Is it taking advantage? I understand where Steven Rothberg is coming from and I think the issue is “what additional value will a job seeker get?” if they decide that having a job seeking toolkit is of value and the price is right they may just “buy”.
But someone will launch a “free to use” product and then what!!
The old man.
I’m intrigued by this proposition and very interested to see what this tool kit offers. Workthing have also offered me a look at the system prior to launch so will happily compare notes.
To everyone thats reviewing the system a word of warning. I started doing an in-depth test run but found it very time consuming. Listen, if you are a candidate and looking for a job this is an amazing tool and you’d find the time. As it’s not a huge motivation for me right now I skipped a fair amount of it and for that reason, wont be reviewing it because it wont do the system justice. However, I am interviewing a few guys over there within the next few weeks.
This is an intriguing idea to me. My initial reaction was one of disgust – if I were a jobseeker I would consider myself capable of finding a new position without help; however, taking a step back, I know that other people don’t necessarily feel the same way; particularly in a climate such as this.
If I were a candidate I would want a pretty decent (and proven!) service if I were going to pay out hard earned cash that I was probably pretty short of, however the comments here are ever so interesting (particularly Keith and Jamie’s posts) and I wonder now whether there isn’t more value to it than I am presuming.
In some respects, regardless of the level of service, I think that it is profiteering, but then that’s what business is about in many respects. If there wasn’t a market for it then they probably wouldn’t be setting up and if it doesn’t perform then it probably won’t last.
I’m certainly interested to find out more and to hear what you all think!
The ladders I believe have a court case running or recently concluded about charging candidate to “find” a job, in contradiction to the Employment Agencies Act. Doee anyone know the outcome? When I tried to find out they were cagey.
@ Jeremy It is the BERR that are investigating all job boards that charge the candidate, including DMGT and Experteer and will definatly be having a look at Workthing+. The Ladders got the ok in Feb 09 from this govt body and wont be investigated anymore.
Here’s the thing. They were investigating companies taking advantage of the “vulnerable jobseeker”. Someone that uses The Ladders are £60k a year board level staff. You really cant call these people “vulnerable”!
Really interesting debate Matt. My overall view is one of uneasiness/dislike about charging the candidate. I guess one can claim that a site can offer a candidate exclusive content (articles/tools/jobs) but in reality most if not all of this is available via some Google searches. Also how open is the quality candidate to stumping up for this service(not very open, i would suggest) so again by definition you are preying on the weaker (more desperate???) candidate.
And could not disagree more with Jamie’s last point – an out of work executive seeking a well paid job to fund mortgage, school fees etc is possibly the most vulnerable and desperate of all job seekers at moment and probably most open to sticking £50 on credit card to help get a job. I hope he/she gets a return but at present i am still dubious.
I’m dubious to say the least! However, I’m willing to be convinced otherwise because I’ve not seen the product/offering. It depends on what the subscriber actually gets for ther money but at £30 per month, the level of service must be pretty amazing to justify that subscription cost.
Questions I would ask Workthing+
Is the information available by this service REALLY not available elsewhere on the web?
Is it just another method for Workthing+ to bump up their CV database and give their existing clients more reason to buy that service?
Should good candidates not show their own initiative to stand out from the crowd and get noticed?
@Dom Fair point but I disagree. You are talking about people with a generally good level of education, experience, intellect. Certainly enough of the 3 to make a well thought out decision on if this service is worth the money or not. No one’s putting a gun to their head. The fact that there are so many job boards out there at the moment that are totally free gives people an option. As I said before, if 1 job board held 90% of the UK’s jobs and then charged, then there’s an issue, but right now these services are nothing more than luxury options, like buying Tesco’s Premium Baked Beans. No one is stopping you buying Tesco’s Economy Beans, but you have the choice. What you guys are talking about is starting to sound communism.
I’d like to make two points:
(1) Workthing is a job board. Workthing+ is an outplacement information resource. They are not the same thing. Workthing+ is a premium service that offers various extra tools to Workthing job seekers. It’s entirely the candidate’s decision if they want to pay for this service or not.
(2) I don’t understand why it’s wrong to charge candidates to view job posts – no one complained before the internet when you had to buy a newspaper or magazine to view job adverts. How is paying to view job posts on a website any different?
The only reason most job boards don’t charge the candidate is because there is so much competition and it makes far more sense to charge the employer.
On the nail Edward. On the nail
Firstly, I’d like to thank everyone for your feedback – it’s really interesting to hear initial thoughts from you all. I’d also like to respond to a few of the points raised, on behalf of Workthing+.
Workthing+ is built around jobseeker support and preparation – the heart of the system is psychometric tests, CV building, CV distribution, structured jobsearch tools – rather than a job-board. It’s what we would all describe as “online outplacement” – though this isn’t how our consumer messaging will be pitched. Our goal is to make available to all the career management tools that, in the past, only senior executives receiving expensive, face-to-face outplacement packages had access to. By delivering these tools online, we can price at a level that is accessible to most people.
The target audience is proactive jobseekers at all levels; people who are looking for a structured way to take their next career step (rather than just get a job). Jamie’s right about the time commitment – Workthing+ is for serious jobseekers that are willing to commit significant time and effort, as well as a little bit of money, to their jobsearch.
Where do job ads fit into Workthing+? Well, the system pulls in feeds of jobs from elsewhere on the www (not just jobs from our Trinity Mirror network), but no advertisers are paying to put jobs on Workthing+ and members aren’t charged to apply for those jobs.
Final point – I’d also like to reassure all our reviewers that there’s plenty you can do on the site that isn’t too time-consuming! We welcome all feedback, even if you’ve skipped over some aspects.
Matt, I look forward to hearing your thoughts once you’ve had a chance to see more of the site.
Thanks to everyone who has posted their thoughts so far, this is obviously a topic that lots of people feel strongly about. With the current depressed state of the market I’m also guessing it’s one that will be with us for quite some time yet.
I’m not going to post specific thoughts on Workthing or the Ladders until I’ve had the chance to look at them properly however my current general thoughts on the issue are as follows
Charging candidates to view job postings – While I take the very good point about it being something newpapers have been doing for hundreds of years I can’t agree with it online. Ethics aside it’s actually just pointless. Whatever job boards may think, job content travels everywhere these days whether that’s on corporate sites, via social media or job aggregators. No one can claim to have a monopoly on any job content in 2009 and to charge candidates on the basis that they claim they do is misleading at best! Even if it were true I can’t see what the benefit to advertisers would be in a recession. Any potential client would see someone paying to see jobs as act of desperation and not necessarily as a measure of quality. As we all know it’s quality that clients really want at the moment!
Candidates paying to use tools to help them find a job – This is where the jury is still out for me. I’m finding some interesting things within Workthing Plus and The Ladders and will report my thoughts fully at a later date
Finally a bit of kudos to Gareth at Workthing, whatever I do end up thinking of the site, giving so many bloggers free access has obviously been a great way to stimulate debate round your new product!
Matt
I think the best way to measure if this is a good idea, ethical, useful etc is to get some candidate opinion on here. Let see what THEY think about it because at the end of the day, they are the most important people that need to be considered.
I just have a simple question regarding this:
What is wrong with charging people for a service they might perceive they need? The fact they are job seekers should make no difference….should it?
If I was looking for a job, and could get enhanced services/products, then I would certainly pay for it…wouldn’t you?
At the end of the day, if the service delivers value people will pay to use it, the market will decide.
A related issue that really does need to be cleared up though is whether or not online “recruitment service” providers are covered under the Employment Agencies Act or not. I was involved in a major debate 3-4 years ago between the online recruitment industry, the REC and the DTI, I am not sure the matter was ever satisfactorily resolved, any comment Bill?
Interesting stuff, I’m currently having a play with the Workthing+ site as I got the password through yesterday. There are undoubtedly some areas that are a bit of a slog to work through as a blogger looking to get an overview of the site but as a candidate the initial premise seesms good.
The question of whether all this is available in the public domain is probably the key here. Is it offering enough of a service to the candidate, initially yes, it looks like it delivers on the promises and it will bear comparison with TheLadders adn Experteer. Though both those sites are offering something a little different as they are more niche.
I’ve really not come down one way or another on the candidate charging model, though we are not used to it over here in many countries it’s the norm. Ed @ Wikijob has a good point, no one minded when people paid for the Thursday recruitment supplement!
The main issue i think is potentially in cost. TheLadders is pitched at exec level and workthing+ is for everyone, will they find enough people to pay?
@MattAlder – Re: your last post – I agree with you generally, but how about sites like ProductionBase (a TV/media site employers post on for free but candidates pay a monthly subscription for).
In this case, candidates really can’t find these type of jobs anywhere online because media firms don’t need to advertise. They get enough applications from word of mouth which means most media jobs don’t become available to the general public.
“Whatever job boards may think, job content travels everywhere these days whether that’s on corporate sites, via social media or job aggregators. No one can claim to have a monopoly on any job content in 2009 and to charge candidates on the basis that they claim they do is misleading at best!”
PB really does have a monopoly on TV/media jobs – the site does not allow aggregators/scrapers to use it and the jobs do not appear on corporate sites.
“Even if it were true I can’t see what the benefit to advertisers would be in a recession. Any potential client would see someone paying to see jobs as an act of desperation and not necessarily as a measure of quality. As we all know it’s quality that clients really want at the moment!”
Employers use PB exactly because candidates have to pay for it. In this case the act of paying for a subscription for access to jobs naturally sifts the less motivated candidates out of the application process.
I would argue that charging candidates to see/apply for jobs is in some cases actually in the interests of the employer because as a candidate, you would only pay to apply for a job if you really, really wanted it – so employers should in theory be more likely to get a very passionate and proactive candidate pool from site which charge on the candidate side.
P.S. this thread is fascinating and absolutely agree Workthing+ ’s move to give blogger free access + stir debate has proved very successful!!!
Well there are always exceptions! Production Base is a niche site in a very niche industry. An industry in fact where the vast majority of people work on a freelance / contract basis and will look for work several times a year.. It is also a market where any kind of “public” advert generates an unprecedented amount of response from timewasters without the skills and experience to do the job. Some of whom are likely to actually physically turn up at your office on spec! If you don’t believe me I can give you countless first hand examples from my experience of working on Media Guardian
PB serves such a specialised market I don’t think you can apply learnings from it across very many other areas
Surely you can put that rationale to The Ladders market. How many CV’s have we all had when we have put out a Sales Managers position from Sales Reps? How much money people earn is a hugely aspirational thing and I know first hand that when you put out a job for a Sales Manager for example with a £50k base you get people applying that have never earned anywhere near that as they think “I’ll give it a punt”. Exactly the same PB, the gates are closed and there’s a charge on the door for a reason, to keep the time wasters out.
Well yes that would be true if the jobs on The Ladders were only available on The Ladders. They aren’t, many of them are also listed elsewhere
Ok. So the next question is, if a site did charge to see certain jobs, would it stop you putting jobs on it for your clients?
Great debate. What’s clear is that everyone has very strong views on this subject, as would be expected when a new concept bangs up against the existing status quo:-)
UK jobseekers understanding of exactly what TheLadders proposition is, will be key to its long term viability and significant scale in the UK.
Whether you are a £20k a year Admin Clerk or a £125k a year CFO, the job search experience has not developed hugely from the embryonic days of pre-Stepstone and is somewhat of a ‘one size fits all’ approach for the candidate. (Targetting of those candidates for recruiters however has moved on hugely). Our candidates are telling us that they want more – and expect more, particularly around the area of relevant job content to their level/experience/seniority, and increasingly in the ancillary services that executive jobseekers are prepared to pay for – CV rewrites, assessment services, interview coaching and probably more to follow.
Of the 29.5m working adults in the UK, our focus is the niche of the executive 4.5m jobseekers in the UK. Almost 250k executive jobseekers, signed up as TheLadders members in the first 16 months, is not a bad start to showing that there is definitely a healthy interest in this sector which hasn’t been well served in the past. These are clearly the people that can weigh up the value proposition and determine themselves whether they believe it will save them time, help them manage their job search effectively, improve their CV presentation and interview performance and ultimately add overall value.
They can find all of these services across the web by putting the time and focused daily effort against it themselves, or they can pay a nominal subscription fee to fish in a pool of relevant approved content, recruiters and specific services applicable to their seniority/salary level and, as Jamie so succinctly put it, have a more comfortable business class ride.(I’ll pay you later J!)
This is a choice that the candidate can make, not out of desperation, but out of educated insight.
Will be interesting to see where this debate goes Matt and I look forward to the feedback that looks like it will come through from a number of you reviewing these alternative jobseeker offerings.
The paid for candidate service isn’t for everyone clearly, but I do think that this approach brings an interesting new dynamic to the recruitment marketing arena.
Whilst the current economy will no doubt swell the number of candidates in the market place, and provide these businesses with a great opportunity, their success will ultimately depend upon their ability to create value for the consumer.
As with most things, those that create real value tend to flourish.
Would you pay for twitter or facebook?
@jamie It would depend. If it was something like Production Base then no problem if it was anything broader then I don’t see the value. The argument about the Ladders makes sense in theory but doesn’t stack up as a large number of their jobs also appear on other sites.
I think the last two comments open up the debate in the another direction which is what candidates are paying for in terms of services and are they good value for money. I’ll post more on this next week but my initial thoughts on the two sites, after a fairly quick look round, would be -
The Ladders – Pros…..Some great and well priced services
Cons……Poor job search functionality and a terrible email alert service (but I suppose that’s not the bit you pay for!)
Workthing + – Pros…..I like the psychometric tests, they would definitely help an uncertain job seeker highlight their strengths and help them identify opportunities
Cons……horribly overpriced for the generic market and what it does. Why not charge less and sell more, it’s not like there are a shortage of jobseekers at the moment!
Fuller thoughts to follow
@Matt I agree with you about the pricing of Workthing+. In this climate people just don’t have money to burn and I think a lot of people would be put off by the price. Charging less would be the ideal, but (and I haven’t tested the site so can’t say for sure whether this idea makes sense) if nothing else a free trial for 24hrs or something would at least allow potential users to check out what’s on offer and guague the true value before committing their hard earned cash.
I’m a big advocate of free trials
)
@Derek, Perhaps on The Ladders site that’s true because of your target audience, but I have to say that I think people at a lower level will potentially use Workthing+ more because they are desperate to find a job and not out of educated insight.
That’s a horrible generalisation, I know, but lower level positions are more readily accessible to people than exec positions (imo, anyway). If you’re looking for an admin assistant job then chances are you’ll have tried all the free options (internet, local papers, local agencies, etc.) before really considering the possible benefits of the site.
Well, I am a job seeker, I too am having a go on the site, and I too have “lots of time on my hands” (and this is the catch – it’s only worth your while if you have lots of time on your hands)l.
Yes, it has brilliant tools and content, yes I would like to use the site – but no – I will not pay for it, when I can get all the information on the web and to be honest with you – looking for a job isn’t rocket science. For the people that this site is aimed at (middle tier earners – quite intelligent people) – I’m not sure they need all the advice that is on there (such as what clothes to wear to an interview – it’s common sense is it not?)
I have been receiving emails from TMDR asking me if my career is worth 50p a day so I can see who they are targeting…
I think charging candidates and expecting people who may be out of work to have to pay £15 a month out what they are getting from the government (£64 a week) is cheeky. £15 isn’t a lot to someone who is in work, but trust me – when you have to count every penny when you’re signing on – it’s a lot of money that could be spent elsewhere (on food for example).
However – in agreement with Alex – there is a need for service like this as Jobcentre plus is no place to get careers advice so something like this is needed, I’m just not comfortable with the whole charging aspect….
Real life example – my friend (an out of work exec not from our industry) emaiiled me today to ask me if it was worth buying subscription to Ladders – his quote was “its very pricy and money is tight but i understand they have better jobs that are not advertised anywhere else” – Now am i just being bit wet in feeling uncomfortable with this thought process going on with lots of desperate execs when in reality – i do not believe they have any “exclusive” opportunities or possibly info thats not freely available on web elsewhere. Let me be clear – not having a pop at Ladders (or Workthing+) have discussed in depth this product with some of our clients. I just dont really like it as a concept for candidates to pay.
[...] In the UK our efforts are moulded by a need to tread the fine line of compliance with BERR and the Recruitment Agencies Act, particularly to ensure there is no breach of the law in relation to a restriction of the ability to charge job seekers for finding them a job. As this extends to an inability to charge for inclusion in CV databases etc. the fine line that The Ladders and Workthing Plus are treading is well shown by the debate caused by the latter’s launch on Matt Alder’s Recruiting Futurology blog. [...]
Great to see this debate continuing to develop. I’d like to respond on behalf of Workthing+ to some of the really interesting comments on pricing.
Is it fair to charge for any career management service? Jamie’s observation that mechanics don’t fix your car for free is to the point. Traditional outplacement consultants can charge thousands of pounds for support; CV writing services can cost hundreds of pounds; career advice books sell by the thousand – all charging candidates to help them manage their career. Workthing+ is doing the same; the fact that the services are delivered online rather than in a book or face-to-face obviously doesn’t make them less valuable or mean they should be given away for free.
How much should we charge for Workthing+? Firstly, we’re very conscious of both quality and value-for-money: Workthing+ contains premium, high quality tools (such as the full psychometric tests that Matt refers to above) that are sold elsewhere for more than our headline pricing. Secondly, as you’d expect, in this phase of our launch, we’re assessing how many subscribers we get at different price points/models, so we can pitch our pricing to be accessible and affordable for as many people as possible.
I agree with Derek’s well-made point about candidates having a choice as to whether or not to subscribe, and making that choice through educated insight rather than desperation. We want Workthing+ to improve the jobsearch experience for candidates – to help them be better-prepared, more structured and to find the right job for them.
He who pays the piper calls the tune. Job boards and recruitment agents are paid for by the employer and therefore must ensure that their service at the very minimum keeps this ’stakeholder’ happy. That their offering also works for the applicant renders the proposition effective. An employer is looking for a list of qualified applicants from whom they can choose and has no particular incentive to fund assistance for those they will not be hiring. The service provider is a commercial entity and therefore will not fund an offering from their margin unless it can be shown that doing so brings tangible benefit to their business. It may be that the PR benefits of such a service or the long-term relationship with candidates warrants the cost however so far no major player has come forward with the cash.
Of course this leaves job seekers in a very difficult position. The buoyant jobs market over the past decade has meant that many people, who although they may be very good at their jobs, are not very good at job-seeking as they have not needed to acquire this knowledge and skill. In these very tough times they now require extra assistance in order to stand a reasonable chance of securing a new role. As taxpayers we all pay for this assistance via Jobcentre Plus. Unfortunately at present they do not provide a very good service for the mid-tier or senior level unemployed. The very senior executive has for some while been comfortable paying for out placement and career management, receiving this either as a perk or through self-funding. The mid-tier has the need but at present must self-fund and some will regard it as a pragmatic investment. Technology makes this far more affordable than was hitherto the case and Workthing should be congratulated for recognising the market situation and providing an offering.
I must lay my cards on the table as I will soon be launching a competitive offering. At this point I do not know how many customers we will secure or at what price-point. However I have no ethical qualms charging the job-seeker. In fact as someone who has been in this sector for over twenty years I feel great about my involvement. We will only win business and stave off the bad headlines if we provide a decent offering at competitive prices and my colleagues and I are determined to excel at this. We will be helping job seekers learn what they need to do and providing the tools and support to equip them in doing this. Earning a living whilst helping people get back into employment is something I will be very proud of.
Whilst at Zookel (http://zookel.com) we offer a lot of comparable features (e.g. psychometrics) & some more advanced (video CV’s, & the leveraging candidates social networks for example) for free, I can understand the rationale / see some of the sense in the approach that workthing+ is taking.
As a competitor it would be wrong of me to comment on pricing directly, but in terms of strategy allowing candidates to stand out differentially, network more effectively, and be better prepared for potential interviews (and indeed their job hunt) is definitely an important part of the future online recruitment landscape (granted I have to say that as it’s also the reason Zookel exists).
Controversy (and competition) aside – I must admit I’m also glad to see another site pushing the boundaries of the online recruitment market.
Given the interesting discussion above about pricing, I thought I’d let everyone know about the Workthing+ Promise which has been announced today: “Back into work within 6 months, or your money back” – http://tinyurl.com/lp4fw5.
Correct link here http://blog.workthing.com/2009/06/the-workthing-promise.html
[...] website’s model of charging users for access has sparked debate, for example on this recruitingfuture.com blog [...]