Linkedin Profiles That Get Found

Greg Wyatt • June 11, 2026

What follows is an updated chapter for the Summer 2026 edition of A Career Breakdown Kit, due for release in July. It explains why you may have a strong profile yet be invisible to recruiter searches - and what you can do about it.

If you've already bought a copy, DM me with your receipt and I'll DM you the latest version - that will always be my commitment and where this book is unlike others on the market.

A few weeks back I published the follow up chapter - "LinkedIn profiles that convert". You see it's not good enough to only get found, you must also convert readers into action. Unless, I suppose recruiters rely on only the most basic searches and don't want evidence of suitability.

Indeed I had a couple of comments on that article... "Greg getting found is far more important!", which is true, though it highlighted they didn't read the article. It is indeed true that you can't convert if you aren't found, but the two go hand in hand.

So this chapter fixes it. I publish the update now due to my LinkedIn Live with Simon Ward on Wednesday, where I prove a simple truth that confounds much LinkedIn advice:

If you believe your Headline is the only thing to rely on, you are wrong.

We'll use this simple leetspeak term "h34dl1n3" to show what LinkedIn Recruiter looks for in searches. I use that term because no one else on LinkedIn has, so it shows point for point what results are brought from searches.

Here's the Link for Wednesday 10th June at 2pm BST: Job hunters helpdesk. If you can't make it the recording is available in the same place.

Or you can read the following:

36 - LinkedIn profiles that get found

 

Whatever you think of LinkedIn, you shouldn’t overlook its nature as a data repository for recruiters. Many of us rely on this data to fill our vacancies. That data is you and your competition.

This chapter shows how recruiters use the LinkedIn Recruiter Licence to enable us to search for potential candidates, how this reflects other CV databases, and how this might help you improve the odds that your profile can be found.

If you didn’t know, Recruiter Licence is an expensive resource for recruiters and one which many rely on as a core part of their hiring approach.

We do this sometimes at the same time as advertising, sometimes instead of.

I’m a member of a private recruiter group on LinkedIn. We’re all small independents, and it was set up for recruiters who both care about candidate experience and are skilled in their craft.

In preparation for one of my LinkedIn Lives, I asked them in our WhatsApp group what their common frustration with LinkedIn profiles is. These were their replies:

‘Headlines are always shit’

‘CVs not matching LinkedIn profiles are a big no, especially in targeted roles like sales’

‘Job titles that don't make sense’

‘No personal profile’

‘Don't have your current job title as 'looking for work', put the job title you are aiming for and change your headline to e.g. 'Software Developer looking for their next role in X where I can add X value'‘

‘Profiles in my domain all look exactly the same. It’s all job titles, qualifications and nothing to differentiate them.’

Common issues I see too.

It’s worth pointing out that this exercise was solely on LinkedIn Recruiter.

Recruiters have different ways of finding candidates:

  • Their own CV database of previously registered candidates
  • Subscription CV databases off the back of job boards (in the UK), e.g. Indeed, Reed, Totaljobs, CV Library or more specialist ones in your area of expertise
  • ATS-style software that scrapes candidate data from LinkedIn and other sources
  • Real-life networking, referrals
  • Headhunting through market mapping, prospect companies and people in viable roles

When it comes to searching data, these are based on Boolean search and filters.

It’s the same way we might search through a high volume of applicants, such as on an ATS.

I recently did an experiment with my co-host, Simon Ward, on our weekly LinkedIn Live.

Simon is an exceptional Job Search Coach in the UK. He chose this title to define his services because, from his perspective, it was the most relevant description of what he does.

If I were to ask you what does someone do who can coach you through finding a job, what would you answer?

My guess would be Career Coach or maybe CV Writer.

And if you searched on those terms for Simon, you wouldn’t have found him. If you took the ‘lazy recruiter’ approach to sourcing you wouldn’t find him under ‘Job Search Coach’ either.

LinkedIn Recruiter works much in the same way as Amazon. You run a general search for your item of choice, then filter by various elements - in this case by industry and location.

One of the features of LinkedIn Recruiter is that we can filter by ‘Open to Work’, if you have that turned on in your profile, it should be to your advantage.

I don’t use it, because I have better means of contacting out-of-work job seekers.

When I look at my dashboard, these are the basic search fields that come up:

  • Job Title
  • Locations
  • Skills and Assessments
  • Companies
  • Schools Attended
  • Industries
  • Keywords

I use Job Title, Location, Industry and Keywords for general searches, as well as Companies if I know they might be incubators for candidates.

There are also advanced filters. For the purpose of this chapter, it’s about getting the basics right.

These search fields map point for point with how you fill out your profile. Play around with editing your profile and you’ll see the same options.

The problem with Simon is that he defined himself as a Job Search Coach in his headline.

If I search for this specific term as a Job Title, he won’t come up, whereas 37 other credible results do.

It’s only if I search on this term in Keywords that he comes up.

Headlines don’t have a specific filter to search on them - they only get found in a Keyword filter search, in an advanced operator search, or when that term is also specified in a primary search filter like Job Title. See A note on headlines below for why this matters.

What if you were an HR Manager who was a 100% fit for a Head of People vacancy, yet the recruiter didn’t find you because you didn’t use that explicit job title?

As a recruiter I would build up a Boolean string of comparable job titles, then expand or reduce depending on the volume of results.

Which might be:

(‘HR Manager’ OR ‘Human Resource Manager’ OR ‘Human Resources Manager’ OR ‘Head of HR’ OR ‘HR Director’) etc

I’d use every iteration of HR above and (‘People Manager’ OR ‘Head of People’), maybe I’d even go old school with Personnel.

I do this because of the arbitrariness of job titles, and because an HR Director in one business might be a Head of People in another.

As well as other curiosities like People Business Partner, which might be any and all of those titles.

Once I have a comprehensive list, I can save this for future reference and build it iteratively if I come across any weird job titles in the wild.

If I need to further fine-tune, I’d bring in relevant qualifications, memberships and skills for that role.

MCIPD AND ‘Employee Relations’ AND FMCG… might be an example, although these are separated on LinkedIn by individual fields.

If you’re wondering about the capitalisation - AND OR NOT and others are Boolean operators that allow us to specify or separate data.

Sometimes I’ll even search on typos, because I know these aren’t searched for by many, but only if it’s a hard role to fill: ‘HR Manger’ (I realise HR isn’t obscure)

I do what it takes to find the right people.

It won’t help if you are a suitable candidate for the above and your job title is ‘Assistant to the Senior Manager, HR, Business Partnering.’ A real job title I once came across.

I explain in the ATS chapters (p29) that one area AI is enhancing work is through automating Boolean searches - this makes it easier for a less skilled recruiter to find candidates. If you have the basics above nailed, things will only improve.

For now, a skilled search will uncover candidates better than automation.

Here’s the first takeaway:

Ensure the keywords, job titles, skills and qualifications that reflect the job you want are explicitly stated on your profile and in the right fields. Ensure Industry is best fit with your ideal career industry (a specific filter we use, which can be amended where you edit your headline)

If you aren’t sure, print off all the jobs you’ve recently applied for where you are a 90%+ fit. What are the common terms? These should be on your profile - if and only if they are true and you have evidence.

If your current job title is ‘Looking for a new opportunity,’ it might be true and it might get you overlooked.

You’d probably want your current job title to be ‘HR Manager - looking for a new opportunity.’

In that fuzzy weird title above, I’d go for ‘Assistant to the Senior Manager, HR, Business Partnering - (HR Manager)’

Search fields do have additional filters, allowing a search on current or past jobs - can we guarantee recruiters won’t do anything more than the most simplistic of searches?

Now, you’d hope that recruiters aren’t actually lazy, corner cutters or incompetent. Though if you cater for the weakest link, you also cater for more skilled recruiters.

I asked a current job seeker what roles he is applying for.

His reply:

Compliance Assistant / Administrator,

Client Onboarding Assistant / Administrator,

Operations Assistant / Administrator,

Reconciliations Administrator.

I couldn’t find him on a basic search for the first line. This was my reply:

When I did a search using your ideal job titles, you didn't come up for ‘Compliance Assistant’ or ‘Compliance Administrator.’

You do come up for ‘Client Onboarding Assistant’ and Administrator because these are explicit in your profile.

You may benefit from making sure the exact terms you look for in adverts are represented in your profile.

The crux of being found is understanding what we search for. Give us what we need to find you. Inversion.

The principles are the same for a CV which you can use on job board CV databases.

Another exercise to improve visibility

What were the last 10 job adverts you read that represented a strong fit with where you are in your career?

Ones which reflect what you've been doing and would be a natural step forward.

What do these descriptions have in common, out of job titles, key skills, qualifications and technology?

Now look at your LinkedIn profile. In order of priority, do these use the same words you see in adverts?

  1. Your job titles - most recent and previous
  2. Your Headline
  3. Your About section
  4. The sections under each job title
  5. Your skills

Often, when recruiters do searches against similar roles, they'll use the terminology from the job description, which is commonly used as the basis for adverts.

They'll search under the same terms that you might read on those adverts - job titles, qualifications, skills, software, industry.

If your profile doesn't explicitly state these, you won't be as easily found.

For example, if you are a ‘Head of Affiliate, Digital and Offline Marketing’ and you are performing the duties of a Marketing Manager - that's what you need to show in your profile.

While your headline is important - it doesn't help you if your profile doesn't turn up in search results, given its lower priority in Recruiter Licence search filters.

Update your profile truthfully and see what happens.

How else can you help readers see you as a viable candidate?

Do the same for your CV - because these same principles will support your applications, speculative contacts, networking and use of CV databases.

Note: there is no global ranking of profiles. Search rankings are in part specific to the searcher, based on things like network proximity and the recruiter's own activity. So you might be #1 in one search, and on the 3rd page for a different recruiter.

The configuration layer beneath the visible profile

Everything so far has been the visible profile: headline, about, experience, the keywords a reader can see. There is a configuration layer beneath this that drives how the platform matches you to sponsored adverts and how recruiters filter their searches. I covered why this matters in The invitation that wasn't (p67). Here is how to set it.

The first thing to understand is that these fields are additive. They add the searches and matches you appear in. They do not subtract your existing visibility. Setting a stretch title in Open to Work cannot erase your real title from your Experience section, which is where Boolean searches actually hit. So there is no penalty for reaching, only the question of where you spend limited slots.

Open to Work job titles. Up to five slots, drawn from LinkedIn's pre-populated taxonomy. These titles make you findable for roles you have never held. Set Director of Operations and you surface in searches for that title even if your profile only shows you as a Business Manager. It is the single most useful mechanism the platform offers anyone trying to move sideways, level up, or pivot.

Five slots forces a choice, which is the right design. The balance to aim for is between titles you are genuinely suited for now and titles you would move jobs for. Where you sit depends on your situation. If you are passively open and not in a rush, weight the slots toward the next move up; you can afford to wait for the right conversation. If you are actively looking and need to land something soon, weight them toward your current level, where you are credible on paper and the conversation is easier. Most people sit in between, two or three slots at current level and the rest reaching forward.

Don't spend slots on minor variants of the same title. Operations Manager, Senior Operations Manager and Head of Operations sound distinct but are the same career step at different scales. Use the slots to span seniority, sector framings, or adjacent functions you would genuinely accept, not to maximise hits on one narrow lane. The taxonomy is incomplete in niche sectors; pick the closest standard option and live with it.

Employment types. Tick every type you would genuinely accept, including part-time and contract if you would. The match engine appears to read this as a permission rather than a preference, and unchecking a type closes a door. If you would consider part-time in the right role, say so.

Locations and remote flag. Specify your real location plus the remote flag if you would take remote work. The advice to limit yourself to two or three locations to avoid looking desperate is editorial commentary, not LinkedIn policy. Set it honestly.

Visibility. Recruiters-only versus all members. Both feed the same match engine, so this is a risk-management choice, not a leverage one. Recruiters-only is the right default for anyone currently employed. This is mainly invisible to your current employer - unless they are cynical enough to employ a 3rd party to see who is Open to Work. The public green frame adds reach but exposes your status to your current employer and to a great deal of low-quality outreach, including scams. The wider perception question I cover in #OpenToWork (p47).

Industry and current employer link. Your industry classification is pulled from your current employer's LinkedIn Page, not from anything you say. I have seen this fail for candidates whose employer was mis-tagged or whose Page wasn't linked: the classification is wrong and they never know. Check that your current employer's page is linked correctly in your Experience section. This is also the field that hides your Open to Work status from your current employer's recruiters. If the link is missing or wrong, that privacy guarantee fails.

Settings drift. Most candidates set these fields once, at the moment of activating Open to Work, and never revisit them. The titles you would accept change as you learn what the market wants. Treat it as a living configuration, not a permanent declaration.

The reason this belongs in a chapter on getting found is that it is the hidden half of discoverability. The visible profile gets you into recruiter Boolean searches. The configuration layer gets you into the platform's match engine. How that same profile then has to hold up to a human reading it, and how it serves your outbound approaches too, sits within the wider framework in Through-the-Line (p120).

A note on headlines

Headlines are a secondary priority in recruiter searches. The Simon Ward experiment from the LinkedIn Live illustrated this directly: searching on a specific job title term as a Job Title filter returned a different, smaller result set than the same term entered as a Keyword. Profiles where that title existed only in the headline - not in any Experience entry - surfaced in the Keyword search and not in the Job Title filter.

This is consistent with how LinkedIn documents its own search architecture. The Job Titles filter is defined as targeting job titles members add in the Experience section. The Keywords filter is defined as pulling from the entire profile page. Those are two distinct fields with two distinct search behaviours.

Independent cross-checking against platform documentation and practitioner testing found no evidence that it differs by tier. The Job Title filter appears to index Experience title fields consistently across Recruiter Lite, Professional and Corporate.

This morning (1st June 2026), I confirmed this using the unique term h34dl1n3, which only appears on one profile in the world - mine. This was on LinkedIn Recruiter Lite and confirmed expert Boolean sourcing practitioner findings, such as from Irina Shamaeva in late 2024.

This surfaces h34dl1n3 when it is solely stated in the Headline field when using the secondary filter "Keywords" and the advanced operator "headline:". If you search on the primary filter Job Titles - it does not appear.

Where the headline earns its keep is at the next stage. When the term appears in the headline, About or title, the results list renders it in bold. That bolding is what catches a recruiter's eye as they scan - a scanning signal, not a discovery one. It affects whether you get noticed among the results, not whether you appear in them.

To summarise: your headline matters for Keyword searches and for how a reader processes your profile once they've clicked through. It does not help you appear in Job Title filter searches unless your title also appears in an Experience entry.

A note on Resumes/CVs

Storing a CV on LinkedIn and turning on the backend "Share resume data with recruiters" button supports discoverability, through keywords and skills that are aligned with your Recruiter profile.

This can boost your return in search results, through compounding within your LinkedIn profile. The substance of this boost isn't quantifiable, given LinkedIn is opaque in how it ranks search results.

However, it's a good idea to have your current 'good enough' CV stored, as well as additional documents (up to 4) for different role profiles you are suitable for.

A note on Activity

Another ranking factor is your activity on LinkedIn. The logic is simple - active job seekers are more likely to be responsive to recruiter enquiries, therefore they prove effectiveness of messaging through Recruiter Licence and are prioritised.

While there are conflicting reports of what makes up effective activity, including between practitioner advice and LinkedIn help articles - my advice is simpler:

Be responsive and proactive whatever you do on LinkedIn, with the happy byproduct that action boosts your visibility.

However

Getting found is only the first piece of the puzzle, and when your profile is read, you need to convert interest.

This is why you need to get the balance right in how you present your information.

Salary on the job description

By Greg Wyatt • November 11, 2026
I've written many variations on the article below, over the years, and it seems sensible to revisit given the UK government's announcements around salary transparency. On the whole, I'm for it, with the many advantages it brings. But like a lot of things in recruitment, there is a more involved discussion to be had, especially when this fix treats the symptoms, not the rot. That's not to say the fix isn't worth doing, just that it won't fix many of the problems underlying a lack of transparency. This article is a little dated, in terms of the research shared, but I think the points are as relevant as ever. Originally published May 2023 Salary on the Job Description? Yes, the headline is trolling. The question should be ‘salary on the job advert?’ You wouldn’t confuse a job description with an advert, would you? This is a subject rife with disagreement around ethics and practicality, and worth broaching again considering recent campaigns in the UK to increase salary transparency and ban the ‘what’s your current salary?’ question. Let’s focus on some practicalities first, based on UK research I ran last year for my “Accessing a Candidate Short Market” guide:  Job boards can penalise you for not listing salary. As of December 2021, Totaljobs penalises adverts that don’t list salary, and these aren’t sent out as job alerts to candidates (who may be passive). These adverts are considered sub-standard. Unlisted salaries attract fewer qualified applications. This was estimated to be between 20% and 45% fewer, across the job boards I talked to. LinkedIn reported that not only can you expect more applications, you may also expect better-qualified applications when the salary is advertised. My work supporting senior job seekers confirms this - many would not apply to adverts that had no salary or "competitive salary" because they felt this was a waste of their time. There is less emphasis on salary negotiation from the candidate side, due to transparency in pay. This is a key part of equity, relating to gender, race and intersectional identity. According to Payscale 's research, white men are most likely to negotiate the highest salary. It’s simple – if you advertise vacancies and don’t list salary, you risk receiving fewer, less suitable applications. Then there’s the ethical question, where a common argument is that there is ‘no ethical reason that salaries can’t be listed’. Now, while I’m a proponent for advertising salaries, where possible, I think this ethical argument isn’t the right one - ‘can’t be’ is a strong statement. I think a better question is ‘how does this do harm’ when establishing reasons for not listing salary. This balances pragmatism with the most important aspect of ethics. It can be a complicated question too in scenarios like this: How do you establish salary transparency for job families across multiple regions where the local pay is established by HQ in one country? Currency exchange rates and cost of living mean that a fair salary one day may not be the next, therefore flexibility in not listing salary may be ethically the right thing to do if the intent is right. What about new vacancies that serve to solve a business problem and can be recruited at different levels? What about practical situations like recruiting hard-to-fill vacancies during a wider redundancy programme, whereby listing a salary would create concern in unrelated areas of that unsettled business? It's not always as simple a question as we’d like to think. If you’re facing a complex situation in advertising a role, I recommend describing your stance in the advert itself, if you legitimately can’t state the salary. At the same time, as we’ve seen in the US, legislation to enforce salary transparency creates situations such as Netflix apparently advertising a range of $90-900k. Who does that help? The problem with this kind of legislation is that companies can comply while continuing the behaviour that led to the legislation in the first place. It’s palliative, rather than treating unfairness at its root. We should also consider the unforeseen consequence of salary transparency, such as this research which appears to show a reduced link between performance and pay: Influence of Pay Transparency Helping candidates negotiate better pay or terms is a privilege I enjoy. And there's more to understanding someone's existing remuneration than simply establishing whether they can afford to move. Sometimes these conversations reveal that someone is being underpaid. With evidence of what their experience and contribution might command elsewhere, they can go back to their current employer and make the case for a pay rise. That might mean they decide not to move at all. Which is a perfectly good outcome for them, even if it isn't for the vacancy in the short term. It also opens up the counteroffer conversation early. If their employer could resolve the reason they're considering leaving, I'd rather understand that before they accept an offer elsewhere. There's a benefit for prospective employers too. A new employer may budget £52,000 for a role, believing that to be market rate, based on historic data. But if conversations with suitably experienced candidates reveal that their existing remuneration, expectations and other opportunities consistently indicate otherwise, there's good reason to revise either the budget or the requirements. If that budget does prove unrealistic, and it's the same budget other team members are measured against, it can also create the argument to revisit everyone's salaries - subject to affordability, of course. After all, it's cheaper to retain fairly paid staff with all the knowledge they have than to replace them. Of course, conversations with candidates aren't a substitute for proper salary benchmarking. But they can reveal problems that wouldn't otherwise be apparent. There are also situations where understanding the whole package matters. What if someone currently receives a 16% pension contribution and moves to a role offering a 10% pay rise but only a 5% pension? Car allowances, RSUs, tax-efficient packages? Remuneration is a more involved conversation than simply salary. And none of this means someone's existing salary should determine what they're worth to their next employer. If their previous salary was unfair, using it to determine their next salary risks perpetuating that unfairness. And if an employer routinely offers a 15% increase on previous earnings, the new salary may have little relationship to the contribution that person can make. It makes sense to pay commensurately with contribution and capability, rather than what may be irrelevant history. So I understand the reasons for wanting to ban questions about previous salary. They're often used badly. But I think there's an important distinction between asking to establish someone's worth and asking to understand their circumstances. One can perpetuate unfairness. The other can help identify and correct it. If legislation restricts these conversations, I'll adapt how I offer this support. But I'd hope any restrictions recognise the difference between using salary history to determine an offer and voluntarily discussing remuneration to help someone make better decisions. I hope you’ve found these thoughts helpful to start a broader conversation in your business. My thoughts aren’t set in stone, so please let me know your opinions if you disagree. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg p.s. While you are here, if you like the idea of improving how you recruit, lack capacity or need better candidates, and are curious how I can help, these are my services: Commercial, operational and technical leadership recruitment Manage part or all of your recruitment on an individually designed basis for one client Outplacement support Email me on greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk if you'd like to discuss.

Tone deaf - No problem, pt 6

By Greg Wyatt • November 5, 2026
It's interesting revisiting this article from 3 years ago, especially now AI products are more embedded in market. If anything my view on AI is more polarised, bringing many new opportunites, brand new problems, as well as the existential angst many are talking about. For me, codifying my experience with AI tools means I can help more people, while freeing up my time to do more human work. It's certainly helped with job seeker support, and increasingly so in my recruitment work. Mainly it's giving me more time to talk to people, and when homogenous AI applications at scale are one new problem, as well as the increasing threat of deep fake interviews, in person conversations might be a necessary exnovation (just googled that - what a great word that I will now abuse at scale). While the article below has dated somewhat, I think the threat it assesses has never been more pertinent. I've said for some time that AI might be the death of knowledge and judgement, even so far as 'meaning', something that this recent research also indicates . Importantly the research doesn't say the recommendations were wrong, just how they were followed. Read that article and think about how AI recommendations on applications relate. I've certainly found them more problematic, so far, than the old school ATS style ranking and filtering - because of the false confidence they convey, especially when dealing with non-traditional applications. Things may improve, or so is promised. And while words might be the first facility of LLM, they are still the core facility, given all it does is determine the most probable answer in its outputs (I know I'm being reductive, some of the developments from AI are amazing). Whereas words should be the consequence of thoughts, lead to the development of thought, and distil ideas in a way you can act on. Much like job adverts should be the consequence of effective job analysis, rather than a polished word that lacks meaning. The greatest risk for me in recruitment isn't so much the answers AI offers, but that we become so reliant we forget to ask better questions. I've edited down the previous article, but if you're curious, you can see it here . September 2023 I’d commented about my hearing on a social media post on deafness. ‘Have you looked into these hearing aids - they’re designed to overcome head shadow’, came the impromptu reply from a hearing aid specialist. Head shadow? Not a phrase I’d heard before, despite having no hearing on one side, which effectively creates a sound-free shadow to my right. See, when I had mumps at 18 months it killed the vestibulocochlear nerve in my right ear and damaged the one on the left. But it was my balance that showed the nursery assistants that something was wrong - I kept falling over for no reason. I expect they thought my slow response was normal naughty-boyness. Balance, intermittently poor audio processing, energy required to maintain attention in noisy environments and that bloody tinnitus - all these issues are far more annoying than not being able to hear in one ear. That and not being able to tell where sounds come from. “Over here, Greg!” is the most useless call on a football pitch. And the head shadow thing? Well, it’s never been an issue - I just turn my head when in conversation. It might look like I’m turning to kiss you, but it’s just a conversation I want honest. Sure I miss out on certain audio cues, but it’s rarely an issue. Anyway, curious as I am I looked into the £4,000 hearing aid that solves head shadow by placing a microphone on the deaf ear and projecting it into the the good ear. Quite the brute force tech solution and one I’m sure some benefit from. But the key issue is one of reverb. While the product is good, it would impact the quality of sound in my good ear, which seems a pointless trade-off for me, when my process of life is more effective than shiny tech. It’s ironic that I consider myself highly excitable when it comes to technology developments, yet I’m never an early adopter. Because I always ask myself, other than giddiness, what problems does this solve and how will it enhance my life. And so it is for AI in recruitment, and the shininess of tech in general. They are positioned as solving problems, and indeed they do, but in many cases, it’s the wrong problem that detracts us from the real opportunities for better processes. Simpler administration, speed and scale are clear benefits. And some of these AI-branded automations are excellent. The Star Trek-style auto-translator makes me giddy. As does the sales bot conversation-as-a-human sales video that’s doing the rounds. But AI for writing? What problem does that solve? For me, it depends on what you consider sales to be. Is sales pitching a generic message and hoping someone will bite? Or is sales laying out the facts so that the right person can reach an objective decision? A decision which might mean getting in touch, or changing their view on what needs recruiting. For the former AI writing seems to solve a problem. The words are certainly better, but the message is even worse. Yes: prompting. But if you can prompt the right message, why aren’t you just writing it, so that you embed that knowledge for use across other mediums - conversations, meetings and so on? While AI writing does not meet the requirements for the second type of sales. You can only do this by establishing the right facts from a briefing, consultation or interview. Then interpret this with meaning to the right people so that it creates the right impact. Sales as data visualisation, if you will. And if AI doesn’t work for sales in this way, why would it work for content or marketing? I think the answer depends on whether you value contextual insight or not. Until AI is better at asking questions that create meaningful conversation, it’s a non-starter for me. I say until because this hesitation will be moot in the next year or so. Because it isn’t what AI is now that’s the opportunity - it’s what’s coming soon. I can’t wait to see what’s next. Until then, AI, for writing, is a question of in one ear and out of the other. Which, if you’re deaf in the one, is quite the problem. Go learn copywriting instead, and listen to how it transforms your approach to recruitment. Then layer tech on top, when it’s ready. Thanks for reading. Regards, Greg p.s. If you like good recruitment and you need help with it in the UK, drop me a line. DM on LinkedIn, email greg.wyatt@bwrecruitment.co.uk , whichever you prefer.