I'd suggest including the differences in the $75 vs $150 tiers without having to submit a job. Would be kind of nice to know what you get for what money, or how much you'll be charged before you've given all the info away. Other than that, I kinda like the design of it, would prefer a country/state/city type dropdowns for location instead of just a "location" entry (but allow a textbox for like, zipcode).
From the employer's perspective:
In your FAQs, you mention that there are no refunds. I'd urge you to reconsider. I worked on LinkedIn Jobs when it first launched. Initially, traffic was low and some postings didn't get a single applicant. For these users, we ended up extending the listings for free and IIRC even gave refunds or credits when someone simply couldn't fill a position after trying repeatedly. The problem is that when your site is small, it's a high risk for a prospective employer to post to it. Knowing that you can get your money back if things don't work out really helps. Money-back guarantees are a great marketing feature.
IMO, $75 is a high price for a site w/o a track record of effectiveness. It's hard to put that much into a posting on a site that gets... tens of hits per day? hundreds? When one can pay twice that to post to LinkedIn or HotJobs or some other portal where you can literally get 1000 times more views. Also, I think Craigslist jobs are still free in many places, and that's something you're competing against as well. I'd start really low.. maybe $20-25 to post. Assuming you get some traction, get a few testimonials that you can feature on the site to raise its perceived value, then you can start to slowly raise prices.
(as an aside, LinkedIn did this too. Job posting started at ~$50 and slowly moved up to their current price of ~$200 as the value of the site became more clear and demonstrable to potential employers)
From the jobseeker's point of view:
You're making people sign up to view details for a posting. IMO, that's too aggressive. You want people to become really engaged first and find jobs that they want to apply to, and then ask for them to create an account at that point. If you ask too early, many people will just abandon the site.
More comments:
- Not sure what a provider is? Is that someone who provides labor or someone who provides jobs?
- The UI is really simple. At first, I thought it was a little too simple, but after a few minutes it grew on me =).
- I can't figure out if you're screening job applicants and job postings, or just job postings.
- Is there a specific problem you're trying to solve that you don't think is currently addressed by other job sites?
- The trick to a successful job site is to get a huge base of jobseekers. If every posting gets 100 views and 5 applications of which 1-2 are good, employers will gladly pay to post on your site. Try to come up with ways to get jobseekers to visit your site often -- job hunting tips, rss feeds, etc
I've thought more and more on the no-refund stance, and I believe you are correct -- I'll add a clause allowing them, perhaps up to 15 days from listing close (45 from listing purchase/approval).
As for pricing, you're correct again -- $75 (or anything, really) is a great deal to ask for a site with no track record. Even your "tens of hits" is overestimating at the moment.... I don't, however, want to set a low price and then raise it -- that's always irked me in any situation. Perhaps making new listings free during the beta test (a month or two)?
I'll certainly reconsider requiring users to register. I DO want employers to feel safe in that they won't see ALL of the spam that comes with an open site, but maybe an option to only allow members to apply? Tier II jobs will retain the requirement, as they're for premium members exclusively (they're screened by the staff and pay a fee), but Tier I would be fine.
For your other comments:
- I'll make the delineation between employer and provider (or at least the definition or nomenclature of a provider) more clear).
- Glad the UI grew on you -- it did me, too! :)
- All jobs posted are screened for compliance with our Acceptable Use standards (basically nothing offensive or harmful). All PREMIUM members will be screened for access to the premium features (before being asked to pay, of course) -- basically, we'll check portfolios and references.
- The problem we're trying to solve is too high a cost and/or too little value (for both employers AND providers). A listing can run, as you mentioned, $200-$300 dollars (which I believe is a bit excessive). The employer can be inundated with crap applicants -- we allow peer reviews and screen premium members. The providers can be inundated with jobs with minuscule pay -- we have minimum budgets.
I reckon I oughta make all of that more clear.... :)
Thank you for your detailed analysis, particularly having worked where you have. I truly appreciate it!
- The StackOverflow careers approach: a posting costs $X until some date, then $Y after. Y >> X. This is similar to your free beta idea.
- Charge per applicant. Maybe $10 to post, first application you receive is free, then $10 per application until you reach $100 (or some other level). This is nice because you no longer need refunds (poster only loses $10 if no one applies), and also as the site becomes more useful, postings cost more =).
Re: spam prevention -- I agree with you. Letting anyone view but only letting registered users apply is a good approach.
Re: your motivation -- nice. Reference and portfolio checking are pretty useful.
8 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 29.6 ms ] threadI'd like to know what you think of the a) usability of the service and b) ideology behind the pricing, restrictions on budget, etc.
Thanks a million!
I'll consider your thoughts on the location search; at a minimum, I'll add an "auto-suggest" type feature to help narrow your search.
Thanks!
IMO, $75 is a high price for a site w/o a track record of effectiveness. It's hard to put that much into a posting on a site that gets... tens of hits per day? hundreds? When one can pay twice that to post to LinkedIn or HotJobs or some other portal where you can literally get 1000 times more views. Also, I think Craigslist jobs are still free in many places, and that's something you're competing against as well. I'd start really low.. maybe $20-25 to post. Assuming you get some traction, get a few testimonials that you can feature on the site to raise its perceived value, then you can start to slowly raise prices. (as an aside, LinkedIn did this too. Job posting started at ~$50 and slowly moved up to their current price of ~$200 as the value of the site became more clear and demonstrable to potential employers)
From the jobseeker's point of view: You're making people sign up to view details for a posting. IMO, that's too aggressive. You want people to become really engaged first and find jobs that they want to apply to, and then ask for them to create an account at that point. If you ask too early, many people will just abandon the site.
More comments:
- Not sure what a provider is? Is that someone who provides labor or someone who provides jobs?
- The UI is really simple. At first, I thought it was a little too simple, but after a few minutes it grew on me =).
- I can't figure out if you're screening job applicants and job postings, or just job postings.
- Is there a specific problem you're trying to solve that you don't think is currently addressed by other job sites?
- The trick to a successful job site is to get a huge base of jobseekers. If every posting gets 100 views and 5 applications of which 1-2 are good, employers will gladly pay to post on your site. Try to come up with ways to get jobseekers to visit your site often -- job hunting tips, rss feeds, etc
Good luck!
As for pricing, you're correct again -- $75 (or anything, really) is a great deal to ask for a site with no track record. Even your "tens of hits" is overestimating at the moment.... I don't, however, want to set a low price and then raise it -- that's always irked me in any situation. Perhaps making new listings free during the beta test (a month or two)?
I'll certainly reconsider requiring users to register. I DO want employers to feel safe in that they won't see ALL of the spam that comes with an open site, but maybe an option to only allow members to apply? Tier II jobs will retain the requirement, as they're for premium members exclusively (they're screened by the staff and pay a fee), but Tier I would be fine.
For your other comments: - I'll make the delineation between employer and provider (or at least the definition or nomenclature of a provider) more clear).
- Glad the UI grew on you -- it did me, too! :)
- All jobs posted are screened for compliance with our Acceptable Use standards (basically nothing offensive or harmful). All PREMIUM members will be screened for access to the premium features (before being asked to pay, of course) -- basically, we'll check portfolios and references.
- The problem we're trying to solve is too high a cost and/or too little value (for both employers AND providers). A listing can run, as you mentioned, $200-$300 dollars (which I believe is a bit excessive). The employer can be inundated with crap applicants -- we allow peer reviews and screen premium members. The providers can be inundated with jobs with minuscule pay -- we have minimum budgets.
I reckon I oughta make all of that more clear.... :)
Thank you for your detailed analysis, particularly having worked where you have. I truly appreciate it!
- John
- The StackOverflow careers approach: a posting costs $X until some date, then $Y after. Y >> X. This is similar to your free beta idea.
- Charge per applicant. Maybe $10 to post, first application you receive is free, then $10 per application until you reach $100 (or some other level). This is nice because you no longer need refunds (poster only loses $10 if no one applies), and also as the site becomes more useful, postings cost more =).
Re: spam prevention -- I agree with you. Letting anyone view but only letting registered users apply is a good approach.
Re: your motivation -- nice. Reference and portfolio checking are pretty useful.
- John