Early Monday, I sounded the alarm about LinkedIn's latest guidelines for third-party job postings — a prime example of the platform weaponizing "authenticity" to fatten its bottom line. The move to tighten visibility rules for third-party jobs, effective August 2024, is a strategic play to further intertwine the platform with applicant tracking systems (ATS) and recruiting agencies that rely on free listings. The new rules demand an introspective moment for Agencyland.
The upcoming changes are set to enforce stricter visibility requirements for third-party jobs, with audits ensuring compliance. Fail to adhere, and your listings might get the ax. LinkedIn’s stance on transparency and quality is unyielding, but the devil is in the details.
When speaking to RecrutingDaily, there are the two conditions that ring alarm bells:
The employer name on job listings must match the source listing and cannot be hidden (no more "Confidential" job postings).
Starting August 2024, some third-party jobs won’t be visible if they're ingested as Basic Jobs or Limited Listings from ATSs and job boards. These restrictions aim to curb abuse, enhance product quality, and boost transparency, while ensuring job seekers access top-tier opportunities. LinkedIn also reserves the right to mandate job promotion.
This means agencies must now ensure their listings are genuine, comprehensive, and unique. Fail to comply, and your job postings could vanish. Agencies will need to tighten up their game, ensuring every job post is legit, thorough, and pristine.
Sounds good in theory, right?
Wrong. This move is a double-edged sword.
Recruiting agencies play a crucial role in connecting talent with employers, particularly in niche markets. By imposing tighter controls, LinkedIn risks hobbling the intermediaries that inject vitality into the job market. Increased compliance costs and bureaucratic hurdles will hit smaller agencies hardest, reducing competition and stifling innovation.
The threat of job postings being removed for non-compliance introduces uncertainty and risk. Instead of fostering a competitive landscape, LinkedIn’s guidelines could inadvertently favor larger agencies with the resources to navigate these changes, consolidating power and reducing market diversity.
Here's another kicker that should give you pause: LinkedIn reserves the right to remove partners and terminate Basic Jobs contracts for any third-party job site that fails to adhere to guidelines after one warning or generates excessive member complaints.
This policy is a textbook case of corporate overreach. One misstep or a few unhappy users, and it’s curtains. This environment disproportionately affects smaller agencies, handing more power to the big players who can weather the storm.
Are these guidelines a precursor to corralling more agencies into costly job-posting packages? History suggests yes. If the inMail policy shift a decade ago is any indication, LinkedIn is hunting for fresh revenue streams.
What’s next? LinkedIn's own version of Blind or Glassdoor?
In sum, LinkedIn's execution here leaves much to be desired. Job seekers might enjoy a cleaner interface, but the cost could be a less vibrant job market. It’s a classic tale of good intentions, flawed execution.
Hi there, I’m Brian, and in addition to this Substack, I’m writing the proverbial (no surprise here) sequel to Talk Tech To Me. I take on the stress and strain of complex technology concepts and simplify them for the modern recruiter.