Why I’ve changed my stance on ghosting candidates.

I’ve always been massively against putting “We will only respond to successful candidates” at the bottom of job ads.

From a marketing perspective, I’ve always felt it’s utterly stupid to deter qualified people from responding – especially if it’s a really good job ad. And by “a good job ad’ I mean the kind of ad a qualified person reads all the way through and is interested – but not desperate enough to update their CV after being told they might be ghosted.

But that was back in the day when things were different. Or normal.

Back when completely irrelevant applications would account for around 60-70% for most job postings – rather than the 95-100% failure rate many recruiters are complaining about today.

But I’ve changed my mind.

Being upfront and honest

I think all job ads should tell the reader that they’ll only get a response if they match the candidate requirements. Not their own interpretation of what the candidate requirements might mean – but the actual candidate requirements – as stated clearly and unambiguously in the job ad.

Whereas before, putting that in an ad could act as a deterrent to any number of qualified people, now telling those same qualified people that the time wasters will be ignored might actually encourage more of them to apply.

But there are some caveats. Aren’t there always?

The job ad has to be compelling enough to get these qualified people to actually read all of it. If that doesn’t happen, everything else is academic.

It needs to be laid out properly with clearly defined subheadings like “What you’d be doing” and “What you’ll need”. Then the reader can decide in what order they read it. Some might want to start with the “What you’ll need” section first and only read the rest if they’re a fit.

This candidate requirement section is where you’ll justify telling people they might not get a response. You’ll do that by only putting the 3 or 4 must-have, non-negotiable knowledge and/or experience they’d need to be able to do the job.

An example

Here’s a “What you’ll need” section from a job posting for a Chemistry Teacher:

• A Qualified teacher with a passion for Chemistry, or a recently qualified – NQT will be considered
• Experience of delivering the Chemistry curriculum for GCSE to meet exam board requirements
• Have a good understanding of Safeguarding in Schools (however training will also be provided)
• Be an organised and creative person, able to respond dynamically to a changing learning environment
• Energetic and enthusiastic in your ability and desire to provide a rich and varied learning environment
• Able to deliver the curriculum at KS 3 & 4 (teaching to A-level desirable but not essential)
• An effective communicator and team player, able to liaise with parents and colleagues
• The ability to adapt practice to the needs of different learners
• Flexible and willing to support all areas of school life, including pastoral responsibilities and extra-curricular activities
• The ability to plan delivery to enable all students to access the curriculum and which reflect individual needs

That’s 149 words when all it needs to be is these 32 words:

• Experience of delivering the Chemistry curriculum for GCSE.
• Qualified teacher status, or recently qualified. NQT status will be considered.
• A good understanding of Safeguarding in Schools (training will also be provided).

Here, the candidate requirements section is uncluttered by all the other criteria that are either:

The close

And so, the message at the end of the ad (and before the CTA) could read something like this:

“We’ve been unambiguous about the minimum criteria needed to be able to do this job. So, if you don’t meet those 3 criteria, we will assume you did not read the job posting and will not respond to your application. This means we can spend more time with those people who are qualified. If you do meet the minimum criteria, you’ll receive a response within the next 5-7 days.”

To me, this sounds reasonable.

I don’t see why people who don’t read a job ad (that I’ve put effort into making it interesting and readable) deserve the courtesy of me scouring their CV only to to find that they’ve got a GCSE in Chemistry and “are good with people”.

Having said that, if you’re just copy/pasting the JD and are overwhelmed by irrelevant applications and underwhelmed by the quality of the relevant applications, you’re asking for everything you’re getting. You need to rethink what it is the right candidates (who are probably employed) are going to want to know.

If the market ever returns to normal, I will probably change my mind back again.

I am expecting some backlash from the “people need to be given a chance” brigade – most of whom have never been a recruiter or hiring manager.

---

Have you tried my new AI job ad writing tool yet? It generates job ads people will want to read.

You’ll find it at mitchs.ai. The first one is free.