
LinkedIn Payola: Selling out employers and job hunters - johnny99
http://corcodilos.com/blog/6547/linkedin-payola-selling-out-employers-and-job-hunters
======
richiezc
This article is factually incorrect.

If you pay for a Job Seeker Subscription you show up at the top of the list of
APPLICANTS for a job, it does not influence the search result rankings when a
recruiter is searching LinkedIn.

I think some of the confusion is from the way the marketing copy is worded:

* "Get special placement as a Featured Applicant"

translation: show up at the top of the list of applicants for a job, but its
clear you paid for placement (ex: [http://corcodilos.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/linked...](http://corcodilos.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2013/07/linkedin-pitch-nick.jpg))

* "Stand out in search results with a Job Seeker Badge"

translation: you get a badge next to your name in search results telling
recruiters you are an activate candidate, I personally think the value of this
is dubious (ex:
[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22639568/Search___Linked...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22639568/Search___LinkedIn.png))

~~~
notahacker
I agree. I've been very critical of some LinkedIn tactics, but this service
appears to deliver what it says it does: you pay a small fee to become
slightly more visible to employers that haven't opted out. Depending on how
the employer screens their applications they might pay more attention to you,
or they might not. If it helps you get the job it's money well spent, if not
it potentially costs you less than the value of time you spend writing an
application anyway.

On the other hand, LinkedIn's targeting of job ads is embarrassingly poor in a
way which is unlikely to benefit them financially. Generic job boards have an
excuse for wasting my time with "Fluent German speaker required" jobs; a
network that knows the languages I speak shouldn't.

------
Zigurd
Services that are not employer-paid are always less ethically sound. $29 is
not on the same scale as some rip-offs in the employment business, and is far
lower than what headhunters and employers pay on LinkedIn, but it should be
beneath LinkedIn to get on that potentially slippery slope.

~~~
tbrownaw
_Services that are not employer-paid are always less ethically sound._

Why? Is it that individuals have fewer companies to choose from, and are more
likely to check the entire list regardless of ordering? Is it that employers
are the active participants (searching for potential employees vs individuals
who just show up in searches instead of searching and applying to specific
jobs)? Is it just that employers have more spare cash, so charging them
doesn't annoy them as much?

~~~
lumens
It's that ultimately, the hiring decision is in the employer's hands.
Candidates may end up paying even when there are no legitimate transactions to
be had (employers are only speculatively browsing talent markets), but
employers will pay because there is a burning need to fill their open
position. Even if there is no talent immediately available, they can raise
offered compensation until they create market demand for their open position.

------
codva
I used that service in my job search in the Spring. I don't think that it
really made any difference in my response rate. I did find my current job via
LinkedIn, and my resume was pushed to the top on that ad. However, the job was
a great fit for my skill set so I think I would have got the interview
regardless.

------
NickCorcodilos
Exactly how does an employer benefit from applicants showing up at the top of
the list because the applicant paid for the top position - after the employer
paid to post jobs and to receive applications?

On the applicant side, if you can buy top position when applying for jobs
posted on LinkedIn, why can't you buy position in the "searched" database? Is
that "less ethical?"

LinkedIn is "a little bit pregnant." I've got no issue with job hunters doing
what they can to get an employer's attention, but when LinkedIn starts
"transparently" selling positioning to job hunters while it's charging
employers for access to those applicants... well, like Richard Tomkins said in
my column, you start looking like Lance Armstrong.

~~~
NickCorcodilos
Expanded iteration of this story, with discussion of bigger issues, correction
of a couple of errors, on NewsHour at
[http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/08/ask-the-
hea...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013/08/ask-the-headhunter-
is-linkedin.html)

Bottom line: A headhunter gets paid to deliver the best candidates to a
company. If the headhunter then takes money from a candidate to put her resume
at the top, that's cheating. So why is LinkedIn doing it--openly and
shamelessly?

------
EGreg
"Under U.S. law, 47 U.S.C. § 317, a radio station can play a specific song in
exchange for money, but this must be disclosed on the air as being sponsored
airtime, and that play of the song should not be counted as a "regular
airplay".

Source: Wikipedia

Does LinkedIn identify the candidates on the top as having a "premium"
membership?

Also, the "charts" were somehow important in the radio industry, so the law
was that paid plays weren't supposed to affect the charts. What charts do we
have for candidates here?

~~~
snorkel
Also the airwaves belong to the public, but LinkedIn pages belong to LinkedIn.

------
drpgq
Isn't this just inevitable with social networks? Over time they become
sleazier and sleazier in search of revenue?

~~~
hornbaker
What makes it inevitable is being a public company, or being on track to be a
public company, with quarterly numbers to hit.

~~~
mmmooo
quarterly growth numbers. Making $1B is no longer good enough if you made $1B
last quarter.

------
kephra
If I read it correctly someone from UK should sue them, under "The Conduct of
Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003" because this
practice is illegal in UK.

