I’m sure we’ve all played around with prompting LLM to generate job adverts.

The output is an echo of the majority of content out there, with many commonly parsed phrases.

If everyone’s ‘levelling up’ their career, is anyone rising above the pack?

I think one of the problems with LLM content mirrors the problem with much human output - it lacks situational insight, and so is reliant on other means to make words stand out and be attractive.

If all you have to go on is a job title and generic job description, how else are you supposed to promote a vacancy?

This doubles down when you don’t necessarily need effective messaging if you proactively contact a candidate at the right time, in the right place, with the right offer.

The message itself carries less weight.

I’m reminded of my dog walk conversation with a neighbour who was delighted to have been headhunted for a role, by a Norwich recruiter, whose message on LinkedIn was “I’ve come across your profile on LinkedIn for a PA role you are a great fit for”.

When how the message is conveyed doesn’t seem to matter one-to-one it may not seem to matter one-to-many in a job board advert.

There is a significant caveat to this, which plays a trick when considering advert response too - more on that later.

I’m sure most people want to zhuzh up their adverts, particularly when competing with other employers for similar people, or when multiple agencies are assigned to one vacancy.

If you can’t show situational insight, what can you do?

So it is that job boards are the battleground for the adjectives arms race.

Innovative < cutting edge < leading edge < bleeding edge

Market-leading < industry-leading < world-leading

Rockstar (drunk) < ninja (backstabbing) < guru (deceptive)

Client < favourite client < best client

Great opportunity < exciting opportunity < ultimate maximum opportunity (© Bircham Wyatt Recruitment, 2020)

Hey ChatGPT, give me a list of adjectives for a job advert.

My favourite example of this kind of writing is from a Headhunter whose public advert says:

“Are you itching to level up your career?”

Needs ointment.

There are a few issues with relying on adjectives.

What happens when a reader asks:

If you can answer these questions, why aren’t you doing so in the advert, rather than letting readers guess?

What happens when they don’t ask these questions verbally and move on, to the next advert that says much the same thing?

Why would they apply to any of them, if they don’t apply to all?

If adjectives don’t show meaning, or relate to what the reader needs, you can take them out of an advert without any loss of impact.

Indeed it might even be more trustworthy, given it will come across as less try-hard.

It might even stand out, by speaking normally, when every other advert screams adjectives.

What would happen if you weren’t allowed to use adjectives or copy a job description in an advert?

How would you write it to appeal to the right people?

I expect you’d need to understand exactly who those right people are, and why they might be interested in having a conversation.

I don't think anyone’s actually looking for a ninja <job title> with a bleeding edge market leader.

What they are looking for is flexibility, job security, a better place to work, to make a difference, more money, career progression and all those personal things a job might offer that will appeal to them.

You can only find out what and how a job offers these by asking questions and gaining situational insight.

Do so, and you don’t need to rely solely on adjectives, you can show the right readers why they should respond.

Write adverts in this way and you’ll start better conversations.

That caveat above, and the trick it plays on us, is the evidence of our eyes.

If sufficient good-enough candidates respond to DMs that are formed from the same message public adverts are, it may appear the message is effective.

But what you’ll miss is the people who don’t reply, and the people who choose not to apply.

This is particularly the case in a market where many candidates need a job, and others are sceptical about moving unless it’s for exactly the right reasons.

This is one reason why recruiters may never look at improving how they write their adverts, no matter how much evidence there is that effective adverts appeal to readers who don’t apply to ineffective adverts.

Instead, it’s easy to assume there’s a candidate shortage if the market turns when readers choose not to make a first step.

It’s also why recruiters who do improve their adverts will never look back.

Not just because we know it will improve response rates, but because the work required to generate effective adverts, makes vacancies more fillable.

Thanks for reading.

Regards,

Greg