The 4 Myths About Internet Recruiting

The 4 Myths About Internet Recruiting

There’s the maximum amount demand as ever for insurance and financial services. During a tough economy, people especially need their assets protected, and that they need sound professional advice for minimizing erosion of their investments. So it’s no surprise that the necessity for more, highly-productive agents and advisors is on the increase. There seems to be a frantic rush to expand sales teams.

Pretty much everyone I speak with about recruiting is using the web to recruit. When it involves recruiting locally (as against nationally), some use it as a tool, but most use it as a crutch. Those who use it as a tool understand that it’s extremely expensive, intensely time-consuming, relatively inefficient (yes,… INEFFICIENT!), and for the foremost part, yields only marginal results. They use results from the web to supplement their recruiting efforts. The opposite group (made from those that believe the web for all their recruiting, apart from the occasional agent referral) either doesn’t catch on or doesn’t know what else to try to do. The consequence is that a lot of managers exerting struggle to grow, run out of money, then getaway. It is a shame. It doesn’t need to be that way.

In order to interrupt the web recruiting rut, it is necessary to know why internet recruiting makes so little sense. Then, once that understanding is in situ, introduce more straightforward recruiting strategies. During this article, we’re getting to delve into why internet recruiting really makes no sense.


The internet is crammed with a lot of people trying to find a replacement opportunity.

See also  Supply Chain Management Process Activities

TRUTH: This sounds true, but it isn’t. Isn’t that tough to show this myth for what it is? Just answer two simple questions. the primary question is: “What quite people post their resumes on sites like Monster, CareerBuilder, and HotJobs?” you would possibly be tempted to answer with something like, “People trying to find new opportunities,” or “People who are dissatisfied where they’re .” But you’re over-thinking things. Those are answers to justify why you’re using the web. The straightforward, self-evident answer is that those websites are JOB sites. The people that post their resumes on those sites are trying to find a JOB! We, on the opposite hand, are trying to find potential BUSINESS OWNERS. Once you search for potential business owners during a pool of potential employees, you’re fishing within the wrong pond. It’s like trying to seek out a needle during a haystack.


The internet is efficient thanks to recruiting.

TRUTH: On the surface, recruiting on the web looks like it might be one of the only efficient means of finding people. Numerous prospects, so little time! But apart from only a few instances, it’s just not true. In fact, it seems that it’s one of the smallest amount efficient ways to recruit. Here’s why…

To start with, as we just discussed above, we’re fishing within the wrong pond. It requires an unprecedented amount of sifting, filtering, contacting, and turning-over of stones to seek out someone who has even a modest interest in our opportunity. Next, you’ve got to kiss tons of frogs to seek out that “prince” or “princess”. My informal survey of managers across the country over a variety of years confirms that, on average, you would like to interview about 20 of these mildly interested candidates to seek out one who wants to start out with you and who you would like also. Most of those candidates are “suspects” instead of prospects. And eventually, as if interviewing all those suspects wasn’t bad enough, you’ve got to affect all the “no-shows!” Managers consistently report no-show rates of 50%-75%!

See also  Creating a Sales Culture

Internet recruiting efficiency? Now THAT’S an oxymoron.


Internet recruiting is cost-effective.

TRUTH: OK,… I do not really think that anyone believes that, but I’ll take a minimum of drive the purpose home with some critical observations. The primary word is that just about every manager who relies on the web to satisfy their recruiting needs is struggling to be profitable. Besides having a tough time meeting their company’s growth goals, they find themselves going further and further into debt. The second observation explains why this is often. Over the years, I’ve asked managers to calculate the value of bringing on a replacement Internet-generated agent compared to the value of bringing on an agent from a referral. Here are the results. On average, an Internet-generated agent will cost between $20,000 and $25,000, compared to the value of an “actively recruited” agent, which runs about $4,000-$5,000. No wonder profitability is so elusive.


Even though internet recruiting is inefficient and expensive, a minimum of the assembly is worthwhile.

TRUTH: I feel that by answering a couple of simple questions, the reality of this may become painfully apparent. Ever have a replacement agent start then, a month or two into the program quit? They find themselves taking that job they were expecting. (See: “fishing in wrong pond” above) No production there. Ever had an agent work really hard simply to satisfy the minimum production requirements, then once attained, start to coast? (I call this “striving for mediocrity.”) Wimpy production there… and eventually, which agents typically have bigger businesses – those that were internet-recruited or those that were “actively” recruited? If you are like most managers, “active recruiting” always yields better production. And at the top of the day, the sole thing that basically matters is production, right?

See also  Managing a Multi-Generational Sales Force

So now that we have a transparent understanding of why internet recruiting makes no sense, what does? Although we do not have time to develop that answer here, I offer you a clue…