Back from a nice week in Devon, doing nothing but walking the moors and lazing around. A couple of calls to the office: “Did something good happen?” “Well, it’s good that you are not here” – and that’s it. However, I didn’t even bother traveling 30 miles to take up the offer of a free lunch at Cornwall’s most famous seafood restaurant, as this was compensation for a lunch I had there last year, that pole was in focus for me for three days with food poisoning, my lack of attendance was not 100% related to laziness.
I arrived to find an article, “How to Write a Job Ad,” sitting open on my desk (deliberately I thought) that was vaguely thought-provoking, though things like “most are full of corporate gibberish and management jargon…fail at giving detailed information… they usually don’t get the people they want” were a bit too broad for me (and I hate all sweeping statements).
Copy can be quite emotional, especially since it’s the one area of advertising that anyone can do – not all of us know media, not all of us can design, but we can all write, so we all bring our own opinions/pet hates to it. . For example, there are many things that I don’t like; from “past” experience (isn’t all experience past or prior?), “personal” as opposed to “employees” (I use a staff to herd sheep. Well, I would if I had sheep. And if I had staff) , “meticulous” attention to detail (either you have attention to detail or you don’t). None of these are likely to alter the response to an ad (which should probably be the test of whether any copy changes are necessary in an ideal world), but I’ll still try to modify any of these, every chance I get, to that the ad is done “my way”. To be honest, I can get a bit finicky about my personal copy conventions (aka “he’s out of one again”), so much so that we actually have a short list of them that we refer to. Hey, at least it ensures consistency. . Although I like to think that some of them achieve more than that: isn’t a “attractive” salary a better sale than the rather boring “competitive” one? Aren’t “you” more personal than “the successful candidate”? “we thank all applicants in advance for their interest and would appreciate all responses from xxx” warmer than “closing date xxx”?
Anyway, back to the article where, after the ritual slaughter of nearly all of the industry’s copy (“banal” was another description used), the authors laid out their modestly titled “Seven Golden Rules,” based on psychological research. , to reach the people you want: “who are so busy succeeding in their current job that they don’t have the time or inclination to read the recruiting section.” Ignoring the fatal flaw in this argument (if these successful people are too busy to read the recruiting section, you could write an ad that could outsell the whole “Harry Potter” phenomenon and it still wouldn’t work, would it?), their rules were:
1. Be Bold About Job Title, Salary, and Location
2. Spell what you want
3. Describe the job in detail
4. Use questions
5. Tell a story about why you’re advertising the job, but keep it real
6. Make it easy to apply
7. Fly your flag: Place your logo on the ad.
At first glance, not much new there, though it was a shame that his own example of good copy for a sales position “will be called by customers when the door of opportunity has opened, to provide the technical details to close the deal.” It seemed to include the kind of managerial talk they abhor and was too wordy, the one thing not all clients like, because, for example, “you’ll use your technical knowledge to convert qualified leads into sales” says pretty much the same thing. In more than 50% fewer words.
The idea of using questions (4) and telling stories while maintaining reality (5) are well-known advertising techniques that research shows do increase response (questions engage the reader and make the process two-way, while people do read). stories). But I can’t think of many examples where the questions could be or are used in any meaningful way in recruiting (oddly, the authors don’t provide any examples) other than the ubiquitous “interested?” just before the response details. Which, by the way, is another one of my favorite hates, because if you’re not interested, I’d like to know what you’re doing by reading the ad to the end. Maybe browsing through uninteresting ads is your sad hobby or something?
As far as telling stories about why you’re advertising the job, I have two problems. One, I’m not entirely sure if candidates see ads for jobs they actually want, they don’t give a damn why it’s available. And two, as a rule of thumb, you’re severely limited in that jobs are only available for a very limited number of publishable reasons, primarily growth or replacement (and, with the latter, you can’t, for example, announce that you need a new FD because the last one was a total flop), so I’m not sure how ad after ad that repeats one version or another of these reasons improves response to any of them.
His other point about storytelling is that “recruiting sections read as if failure never happened, so you need to stand out from the crowd by talking about your failures as much as your success.” Hmm. I can’t remember the number one brand in the world, Coca Cola, publicizing a lot about the effects of all that sugar on your teeth (if there are any, of course, Legal Editor). I am all for the truth (or the tooth. Ho! Ho!) in advertising but, in recruiting, I think this should be limited to the facts, which I would have as a rule of thumb, and a description of the challenges or opportunities. Talk about your problems because “you most likely want people who can handle problems. And good people want a job where they can pull their teeth (what’s this new dental fixation?), not one where everyone problems are solved” is not. particularly logical or realistic; I’d be interested to see if the authors can sell this “warts and all” approach to any customer, anywhere.
In my view, a recruitment ad is a bit like taking your candidate down several flights of elevators: you only have a few seconds to make a favorable impression, hence the tone (friendly, pleasant), the facts (the billing details), number of employees rather than “one of the biggest”), and having a real selling point for the job are far more important than talking about the issues you face, asking questions, and telling stories. I’m also not all that interested in your rule about describing the job in great detail: a marketing manager knows what a marketing manager does most of the time without having every detail detailed as hard to think of.
Basically, I’m still a big fan of Price Waterhouse’s 1990 research on recruiting advertising, about the only objective work of its kind I’m aware of. This found that candidates want ads that are simple, provide facts, do away with excessive jargon and brilliant adjectives. Candidates chafe at overuse of words like “dynamic, proactive, forward-thinking, visionary, etc.” Let them get tired of “maternity statements that tell us nothing.” That many simply find the ad text hard to believe. And that popular stocking stuffers like “growth, challenges, exciting opportunities” are not winners, any cursory glance at any hiring section would have you believe. Quite the opposite.
In fact, they are seen as evidence of “mass corporate deception.” Oh!
Advertising agency and website design company London UK
