The Advert That Attracts The Wrong People
A vacancy that produces many unsuitable applicants is doing something specific wrong. What each part of an advert filters for, and how to write one that produces fewer, better applications.
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.
More applications is not a better advert
More more sorting, and the sorting is done by your busiest person
Better fit less sorting, and a higher share worth meeting
⚠️ An advert's job is to exclude, not to attract. Everyone who correctly decides not to apply has saved time on both sides.
Where the cost of a wrong applicant lands
Reading it Replying to it The conversation that goes nowhere
⇒ ⚠️ All three land on the floor manager, not on the business, which is why a high-volume advert feels like a success to whoever placed it and like a burden to whoever handles it.
What each part of the advert filters for
The title who reads it at all
Hours and place who can realistically arrive
How pay is stated whether expectations match
What the work is who stays past a month
⚠️ Vagueness in the third defers the disagreement to the interview, which is the most expensive place for it to surface.
Three ways to attract the wrong people
A title that could describe any job
Only the good parts
Leaving out what is genuinely required
⚠️ The third is the most common. Without the requirement stated, the people who do not meet it cannot tell, so they apply anyway — and the sorting lands back on you.
Stating a requirement is a kindness
⇒ ⚠️ It lets someone spend their evening on a job they can actually get. Omitting it does not widen your pool; it just moves the rejection later.
Say the hardest part out loud
The hardest thing about this job, stated plainly
⚠️ Hiding it attracts the wrong people; stating it leaves only the right ones — and anyone who applies having read it has already accepted the difficult part, which is most of what an interview is for.
Counting the right thing
Forty applications and one hire the same outcome as eight and one hire
Eight applications and one hire one fifth of the work
⚠️ If you count applications, you will optimise for a number that costs you time. ⇒ Count the share that reached an interview. It goes up when the advert gets better, and volume usually goes down.
After they arrive
Replied to quickly you keep the well-matched ones
Replied to slowly they take another job; the poorly matched ones wait
⚠️ Slowness filters in exactly the wrong direction. ⇒ Put one line in every rejection. This is a small town, professionally speaking, and you will meet these people 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.
Read next
Related articles
Who Types The Request In
A guest asks for somebody by name. Between that sentence and the figure on your monthly sheet, three or four people handle it. Every one of them is a place where it can quietly vanish.
What One More Regular Is Worth
Venues in this trade know what a quiet Tuesday costs them. Far fewer can say what one additional regular is worth over a year — which is the only number that tells you what you can sensibly pay to find one.
What a Listing Is Worth To One Room
A single-room salon and a twelve-room clinic get the same price from the same portal. Only one of them can work out whether that price is defensible, and it is the small one — because the arithmetic is smaller.
Map out your operations in 5 minutes
Eight questions cover reservations, customer management, shifts, and settlement. Results shown instantly with industry benchmark. Sales emails only if you request them.
Your answers are not stored. The assessment runs entirely in your browser.
Try tasteck free for 30 days
No credit card required. Full access to reservations, cast shifts, dispatch, and analytics.
- No card required
- Free data migration support
- All features unlocked for 30 days