I understand about pulling all of the jobs does not automatically lead to getting all of the people. But according to the last earnings call, Monster has yet to start publishing all of the jobs. From Mark Stoever:
"I'll note that prior to this initiative, our jobs content would average around 250,000 job advertisements in any given month. So you'll see this is a massive increase in job content, which we will be introducing to candidates in the coming months."
They keep talking about testing, research, and working on the aggregation but they have yet to actually start publishing the jobs so that users can view them. That's the delay I don't understand.
It's a money grab. All job boards were aggregators when they started out. You need content in order to get traffic, then you monetize via sponsored content and stop aggregation. The piece of the model of Indeed and now Monster are using is simply allowing pay per click on job ads. It doesn't scale, doesn't renew and isn't really a better experience for the seeker or the employer, but it captures transactional revenue. The delay is that when you pull all the jobs you don't really get all the people. You basically have the same people with all the jobs and so performance dips significantly for existing customers. The same thing happened when they purchased HotJobs. Same traffic numbers + twice the jobs = performance drop for postings.
My guess is that they see it as an opportunity to try and upsell the non-paid postings with higher ranking and other bells and whistles. What I don't understand is if this is the strategy, then why is it taking so long to roll out? LinkedIn announced in May that they were also going to start aggregating "all the jobs" and on the last earnings call said that the aggregation is working and they now average over 3 million job postings. So LinkedIn put aggregation in place in about 6 months.....why is Monster taking so long?
So someone explain to me how and or why this is a good strategy?
First - why post (pay) on monster if they are going to scrape jobs for free? Especially the bigger companies - once they figure this out why pay? If you are craiglist or someone else that would be the pitch - give us $25 for your job - we'll get it posted on Monster as well.
Second - I think monster loses a lot by allow companies to post jobs but to apply they are taken to the company website and not Monster. Monster loses the resume, some may keep a resume on monster, which is where they make a lot of money by selling access to the resume database.
If the strategy has been in place for several quarters now (still ramping up) where is the revenue?
dude - i told you to buy and you could have made money but instead you flawed investing methodology lead your ego down the wrong path - the path losers always take and are doomed to repeat .
Your logic is sound. At least my rants are backed up with data that you and others chose to ignore.
The made up Adjusted EBITDA numbers they use were as follows....
In Q3 of 2014 the company forecast .00 to .04 and came in at .05 20% pop over the next few days.
In Q4 of 2014 the company forecast .04 to .08 and came in at .07 33% pop over the next few days.
By your logic last quarter should have been 50% or more of a pop.
THEY DID NOT MAKE MONEY. THE REAL GAAP NUMBER IS A LOSS OF $4.1M OR -$0.05 A SHARE.
That's why they bought 0 ZERO shares for the quarter even though the stock hit $3.41 a share.
They don't have any money left to do anything - they are going to keep cutting - hope is not a strategy but that's all they really have now.
AND Linkedin - glad you asked they grew revenue $196M YoY - or more than Monster did in the entire quarter. They likely would have done better if it weren't for the uncertain economic environment especially in Europe (they grew only 58% YoY in Europe/overseas versus 44% total growth.)