Questions about results

A candidate who, after screening, demonstrably matches the requirements of the role: experience, availability, commute and motivation. Counting applicants is easy, but says little. That is why we report inflow and quality separately, so you can see exactly what the funnel really delivers for your vacancy. We define the criteria together upfront, so there is no debate afterwards about what quality means.

Per stage of the funnel: reach and clicks at the front, applications and qualified candidates in the middle, interviews and hires at the end. On top of that, we steer on cost per hire, time to hire and candidate experience. Which KPI weighs heaviest depends on your goal: volume requires different steering than a scarce specialist.

Because those promises cannot be made honestly. Results depend on your target audience, labor market, offer and employer brand, and those differ per organization. An agency that promises the same percentage everywhere is either measuring selectively or promising something it cannot deliver. We prefer to show per situation what is realistic and then make it measurable.

You get regular insight into the full funnel: what was spent, what it reached, how many candidates it delivered and what the quality was. No report full of reach figures to mask a lack of hires: the steps that matter take center stage. That way you can judge for yourself whether the approach is working.

The first weeks are all about setup: analysis, proposition, content and campaigns going live. After that, the funnel gets going and predictability grows week by week, because data shows what works. How quickly the first hires land differs per target audience and labor market. Together, we agree upfront on what is realistic for your situation.

Applicants are inflow, hires are results. In between sits the funnel: screening, qualification, interviews and an offer that gets accepted. A campaign that delivers lots of applicants but no hires is not a success. That is why we measure the whole chain and steer on what comes out at the bottom, not on what flows in at the top.

By dividing the cost of the recruitment effort by the number of hires it produced, following the definitions in our measurement methodology. What you count is what matters: we calculate transparently and agree upfront which costs are included. That way you can compare our numbers with what you currently spend on agencies, job boards and internal hours.

Then the funnel data shows where things are stalling and we intervene right there: proposition, targeting, content or process. That adjusting is not an exception but the core of how we work. And if the cause lies outside recruitment, for example in employment terms that are not competitive, we say so honestly instead of dancing around it.

Yes, our client cases show how the approach worked out at other organizations, from engineering to healthcare. In them we share what we can substantiate and what the client is willing to share. We deliberately do not publish numbers without context: a result only means something when you know the circumstances under which it was achieved.

That differs per target audience. For common operational roles, inflow can pick up quickly once campaigns are live. For scarce specialists or senior profiles, more time goes into mapping and personal outreach. We give an honest estimate per vacancy upfront instead of a standard promise that does not hold for half of the roles.

Yes. Candidate experience is a fixed part of how we steer: how quickly candidates received a response, how the process went and where people dropped out. A poor experience does not just cost you that one candidate, but also their network and your reputation as an employer. On top of that, drop-off points in the funnel predict where the process can improve.