For the past 15 years, the job board industry has been dominated by the ‘pay per posting‘ revenue model: an employer purchases a job posting (and sometimes resume access or other add ons).
Yet there’s another model that has been around a while: ‘pay per response‘. In other words, you post your job, and when job seekers apply to your job, you pay for each application.
On the surface, it seems that pay per response would be more attractive to most employers – after all, if your ad tanks, then you’re not out any expense, right? But…what if you have a strong response? You could actually end up paying more than the cost of a traditional job posting. This concern, plus the dominance of the traditional pay per posting model and technical issues, has held back adoption of a pay per response option on most boards.
As a job board operator, you may want to consider pay per response as an alternative revenue model. Why?
- it has the potential to drive up your job postings, as more employer may be willing to put their positions on your site if the up-front cost is $0.
- it has the potential to generate higher revenue per posting if your site can deliver the seekers
However, you should be ready to handle an employer’s concerns over bogus or unqualified applications, and excessive numbers of application. A possible solution: allow the employer to ‘cap’ the number of applications for each job (thus limiting their financial exposure), and including 1-3 screening questions for each job.
Employers that utilize ATS are probably poor prospects for pay per response, however – in my experience, they are ‘feeding’ their internal prospect system and thus want as many applicants as possible. So they will prefer a fixed cost per posting, rather than variable.
Your thoughts? If you’ve utilized a pay per response model, please share your experiences![Want to get Job Board Doctor posts via email? Subscribe here.]. [Check out the JobBoardGeek podcast!)