If we learned anything during our moving pictures–focused #TChat, it’s that new forms of video are exciting, new and innovative, but it hasn’t really entered the global business discussion in the way that many had hoped. We all understand the intrinsic business benefits of working with video, but few in our audience see relevance from a job seeker’s and hiring manager’s perspective. Even fewer are convinced that anyone other than a digital media or video production candidate might need a video resume. Among those who are convinced, many, including our own Sean Charles, tweeted that it’s more about the quality and passion of the applicant doing the video submission than it was about the job itself. Yesterday, others concurred:
Bill Boorman, a #TChat regular, leader and recruitosphere contributor, also mentioned that production values have much to do with any use of video by a company. Others echoed his sentiments, although reaction was mixed around just how high the quality of video and production should be. Nearly all agreed that sound production quality is tremendously important for both HR/Hiring Leaders and Jobseeker Q. Public.
By the time we’d finished chatting around our first question, the general feeling was that a recruiter or hiring manager doesn’t want to view video resumes, and job seekers who send them do so at their peril. If the company or leader specifically requests a video, that’s another matter. Very interesting.
As we waded deeper into yesterday’s chat, one thing grew especially clear: The Recruiting, HR, Marketing and Leadership fields share a great deal of misunderstanding around video technology; our own questions, in fact, didn’t reveal the actual difference between video resumes, video interviewing platforms, video applications and video e-learning systems, instead lumping them into one hard-to-swallow group. This made it difficult for many to tell the difference, a phenomenon that might reflect market dynamics. Visual CV, for instance, launched in 2008 only to be promptly dismissed not because they were inefficient or difficult to squeeze into an ATS applicant tracking system (as many of our tweeters mentioned last night), but because of concerns about discrimination. #TChat touched on that Wednesday, too. Once the general tech-buying market had decided video was for the proverbial birds, the barriers to buyer education for video tech vendors mounted. This is very interesting – talk about crowdsourcing.
Wednesday’s tweets appeared to reflect these persistent and confusing market dynamics. Several participants (cross section includes Leaders, HR, Marketers, HR Tech Vendors, Recruiters, Social Media Lovers, you name it! we had a great sampling) asked what the point of video tech was in the application process, and the few who were working actively with video interviewing systems (e.g., Hirevue, Async Interview, InterviewStream, Montage and OVIA) quickly chimed in with candidate stories of increased efficiency, recently passed legislation, and additional features that make the platforms more than glorified Skype or Google+:
The perennial concerns about discrimination of all varieties continue to puzzle and vex leaders. One #TChat participant even asked if using video interviewing was plain unfair to unattractive or unkempt people who might have social skill deficiencies. Representatives from platforms OVIA and Hirevue hopped on the chat to combat platform fallacies, pointing out that screening is a better use for video tech in its current format. These participants also brought scheduling and ATS integration forward as strong benefits over DIY options.
As the conversation turned to learning and collaboration — #TChat faves! — participants started to turn the tables back on companies, insisting that they use video as a more engaging way to disseminate information to employees and candidates:
We have more talking to do. We are not done with this topic.