Peeling the Onion on Big Board Market Share
Career Eyeball minutes; unique visitors; hits; unduplicated traffic. -- These are concepts the big board sales reps have thrown around in sales presentations, placed in marketing brochures, and geefully shared with the street on quarterly conference calls. Let's finally take a look at the "Market Share" of these titans in the Employment & Training caregory of Hitwise based on Visits over the last 3 years. (A $30K plus investment for such data - but well worth it).
My reactions:
My reactions:
- So the Big 3 has 26% of Hitwise Employment & Training category traffic - wow - based on the hype you would think it was more like 95%
- Good job Careerbuilder and Yahoo staying even - now if I could only afford your new pricing
- Monster - ummmm - what happened!!! ( well those in the industry do know that answer)
- Indeed - congrats!! you are proving that the Employment Search Engine model is growing and you are poised to overtake Monster in the months ahead........
- Next is what you don't see - a long tale of thousands of other sites that make up the rest of the story - OR should I say --- the real story that we should be paying attention to - but that is for another post....
Showing the stat %ages for all industries would be helpful. It's interesting how that 25% equals fractions when looking at the overall onion vantage point.
Reply to this
Interesting points but quite a narrow perspective and fairly assumptive and don't you think?
You assume that all job boards provide the same job seekers, across all demographics, geographies, and vocations, AND that the aggregators will provide the same access to these job seekers.
Secondly, you assume all companies know how to optimize their site for search engines. This is a constantly changing science that requires lots of attention spawning an entire industry on its own,
Third, you assume that there is a standard conversion rate for all website traffic into applications. This is an in depth science that requires attention, detailed tracking and expertise which has also spawned its own industry.
Fourth, you assume all companies build sites or maintain applicant tracking systems that track. Simply not true. Still yet, even those that do track, utilize candidate self selection which is rarely accurate.
Lastly, you assume that corporations have the man power and intellectual capital to cost effectively deploy all these factors simultaneously in house.
I would seriously consider the results driven from a campaign like the one you suggest versus that of a company paying 2.3 million to a major job board.
Reply to this
Does this mean you will be getting rid of your "monster spend"?
Reply to this