I was talking to a young friend today about the soul-destroying process of applying for a job in 2025.

He described the reams of online adverts that described this “fantastic opportunity” but listed only what the candidate must have by way of experience. He also said how few job ads contained any facts about the employer, or any indication of salary. 

Yet he was expected to jump through five or six selection hoops before any interaction with a human being. AI interviews, online forms that didn’t save but took an hour to fill in, online psychometric evaluations and puzzles. Record a video of yourself, etc.

I think the rush to use AI has allowed recruiters of all shapes and sizes to forget what makes a good ad – so here it is, in the context of the mistakes I keep seeing. Check out the ads posted by your recruiters and see if they meet the best standard, because they are costing you a fortune:

1. Not using a structure like AIDA – stands for Attention, Identification, Desire, Action.

In a Google search, every result will be for the correct job title and location. But when I can only see the first 2 lines of your ad in my search results, I will click on something that looks attractive in the first two lines. That’s Attention. Don’t waste it on “My client, a leading organisation, are seeking a XXXX”. 

Identification: Describe the candidate you are seeking. Use questions, like “Are you a recently qualified computer science grad? Can you also communicate well with non-technical customers?” (if that is genuinely essential)

Then comes Desire. The salary alone doesn’t cut it. Look at the structured learning and development, promotion opportunity, overseas expansion of the employer, for example, as well as the potential for remote working. 

Action: Candidates reasonably want to know that this job is real and still open. A named person to respond to, a reference number and even a “reply by” date all help. If possible, offer more than one method of application. Senior candidates in particular value the offer of a “confidential conversation” first.

1. Next, not including a salary range. LinkedIn’s own data confirms that “£ DOE” or “£ competitive” will reduce your relevant replies by one-third. If you are looking for a hard-to-find profile, that’s just silly.
2. Now, check that relevant search terms are repeated throughout the ad copy, in natural language. Keyword “stuffing” is penalised by platforms.
3. Check for legality. I found an advert today that said “Must be able-bodied”. I am not making this up.
4. Is your wording inclusive? This is a real issue. Studies have found that feminine-coded terms like approachable, supportive, team player tend to put off some men, and competitive, goal-oriented and ambitious tend to put off some women. You can use tools like the Gender Decoder for Job Ads to check your wording before publishing. The aim of this isn’t to remove personality from your job ads – it’s about removing barriers to attract the best candidates. It’s tricky, though – some AI tools that re-write ad copy for inclusivity end up removing any guidance as to what profile of candidate is sought.
5. Finally grammar. It has never been easier to check this, yet I find that people who don’t understand the suggested amendments just ignore them. And above, you can see just one of the stupid errors from recruiters that does nothing for my blood pressure. “My client, a leading organisation, are seeking a XXXX”. Still don’t see it? Really?

So sure, learn about the audience reached by different media. Understand the role of AI and SEO. Just don’t forget the basics. That’s how recruiters differentiate their service from the soul-destroying automated online funnel.