The Advert That Attracts The Wrong People

Forty applications, and none of them right. The conclusion drawn is that nobody good is looking.

More often the advert is doing exactly what it was written to do, which is attract as many people as possible.

Volume is not the goal

Every unsuitable application costs time. Reading, replying, sometimes interviewing.

A large pile hides the good ones. ⚠️ The three suitable applications are in there and the effort of finding them means they wait, and a good candidate who waits takes something else.

It teaches you nothing. Forty wrong applications does not tell you whether the right people saw it.

Fewer, better is the objective, and almost every advert is written for the opposite.

What each part filters for

The hours. ⚠️ The strongest filter available and frequently vague. "Flexible hours" attracts everyone and commits to nothing. State the actual pattern — the people who cannot do it self-select out, which is the entire point.

The pay. An advert without a figure gets applications from people who will decline the figure. Stating it removes that entire category.

The real content of the job. Not the title. What they will actually be doing on a Tuesday, including the unglamorous parts.

The difficult parts, stated. Late finishes, physical work, difficult moments. ⚠️ Saying them costs some applicants and keeps the ones who stay — and those are the ones who do not leave in week three.

Where it is. Including transport at closing time. A candidate who cannot get home is a candidate who will not last.

What attracts the wrong people

Superlatives. "Fast-paced, exciting, dynamic" appears in every advert and filters nothing.

A title that does not match the work. ⚠️ Inflated titles attract people expecting the inflated version.

Hiding the hours. The most common error. The people who would have been fine with the hours cannot tell, and the people who would not apply anyway.

"Experience preferred" with no specifics. Means nothing to anyone and excludes people who would have been good.

The line that does most of the work

One sentence, near the top, describing who this suits:

"This suits someone who wants two or three late shifts a week and can get home after 02:00."

⚠️ Specific enough that a person knows immediately whether it is them. That sentence will halve your applications and improve every one that remains.

What to do with the applications

Reply to everyone, briefly. ⚠️ Unsuccessful applicants talk, and in a local trade that matters more than most owners think.

Move quickly on the good ones. Speed beats process — the best candidate is applying elsewhere too, and the first venue to respond frequently wins.

Keep the near-misses. ⚠️ The next vacancy is coming, and a list of people who nearly fitted is worth more than starting again.

Three to hold

Applications received, and how many were plausible. The ratio is the measure of the advert, not the total.

Days from application to first contact. ⚠️ The number that decides whether you get the good ones, and the easiest to improve.

Six-month retention by hiring source. Tells you which channel actually works, rather than which one produces the most applications.

Where the record has to sit

Comparing hiring channels a year later requires knowing where each person came from and how long they stayed. Without it, the same underperforming channel gets used every time because it produces the most volume.

tasteck keeps staff records alongside shift history, so how someone was hired can sit with how long they stayed.

Nobody good is missing. The advert described a job nobody can picture, and the people who could picture it were not the ones you wanted.