How an April Fool’s Joke Exposed the Flaws of Recruitment Advertising

Last week, I posted an April Fool’s job advert – a confidential search for a new UK Prime Minister.

It was deliberately tongue-in-cheek, and obviously so. Subtlety wasn’t the point.

And yet, by the noon deadline (with responses to “the Rt Hon Sir A.P. Rilfool”), I’d received over 20 genuine applications. A week later, that figure has more than doubled.

Even more remarkably, more than half of the applicants referenced how closely they’d read the advert “with interest”, and how well the brief aligned with their own experience, (including the desire to find someone with traits resembling a ‘Little Britain’ or ‘Viz’ character).

It was intended as light-hearted. But the responses, especially from those who missed the joke entirely, was eye-opening.

It highlighted, yet again, the growing problem with recruitment advertising: 

People don’t read job ads. They just apply.

In the era of one-click applications and pre-written (or AI) cover notes, it’s easier than ever to apply for dozens of roles with little thought or context. The result? A flood of irrelevant responses from individuals who haven’t even properly read the spec, let alone considered if they’re truly suitable.

When I first entered Executive Search, it was known as “Search and Selection.” We headhunted (Search) and advertised (Selection). Even then, the former was consistently more effective.

Back then, advertising meant a quarter page advert in the Sunday Times or Financial Times. It was expensive, and time-consuming, for everyone. Candidates had to write a letter, tailor a CV, and physically post it. (or fax it for the more technologically enabled).

It was a slower process, yes. But it filtered for quality. People took time to read the ads properly. They responded with care and consideration. The introduction of e-mail helped the speed, but retained that due consideration; it was as reassuringly time-consuming process.

Now? Those dedicated newspaper sections are long gone. Digital platforms have replaced them, but in turn, volume has replaced value. The ease of applying has diluted the quality of applicants beyond recognition.

That April Fool advert? Over 1,200 views in the first 4 hours and just under 3,000 in the following week, despite it only appearing on LinkedIN and via my Instagram stories (where you’ll find plenty of recruitment anecdotes).

A quick interrogation of the data from my last 20 concluded appointments demonstrates the reducing effectiveness of advertising.

Advertising generated an average of 350 responses/CVs per role; search produced an average longlist /CVs of 47.

27 interviewees were from our search; just 4 from advertising.

Most telling? Only one of the 20 roles was filled via an ad respondent – with 19 out of 20, the searched candidates were the successful.

More junior roles, or those where quality isn’t everything may elicit different results; these 20 roles saw salaries range from £70k to £275k. Critical , senior/leadership hires. The kind of roles where “good enough” isn’t good enough.

Headhunting targets the people who have no need to look for an alternative role. Those who are successful, respected, well-compensated. We have to find them, engage them, entice them. Not just settle for people blindly firing CVs into the void.

That’s the difference. And that’s why search works.

It finds the best. It avoids the noise. And, crucially…it filters out the would-be Prime Ministers.