On Cheezhead’s popular recruiting blog there is talk about VisualCV, video resumes and the traditional resume. There has been talk for years about the traditional resume dying… that is, being replaced by cooler, sexier technologies. The video resume keeps popping into this discussion, as does more visual presentations of a professional’s background, experience and expertise.
In this post the CEO of VisualCV comments about Monster’s new stuff and strategy, and how he thinks they missed the boat. But more interesting to me were the comments on non-traditional resumes from RECRUITERS (that is, one of the decision makers in the job search process):
VisualCVs may not be for everyone, but don’t confuse them with video resumes (which universally suck). (SoCalRecruiter)
and, more interseting, Bobby says:
Regarding video resumes, I wish the few proponents of them would STOP trying to convince the rest of us that they are viable alternatives to current, standard, good ol’ fashioned resumes. If video resumes had been “the next big thing”, they would have broken through in 2007. Recruiters don’t have time to watch inane videos of candidates. Candidates with the time to make a quality video production are suspect. The legal issues around discrimination and video resumes are ever-present. I wish the whole video resume thing would just finally die. Its slow death and attempts to resurrect it are so tiring and pointless in today’s world.
This argument has always intrigued me, since I heard that your blog is your resume, or google is your resume (meaning get a strong online presence, which you can determine by googling your own name), etc. Can traditional resumes die? Hardly.
As a hiring manager, let’s look at what Bobby says again:
>> Recruiters don’t have time to watch inane videos of candidates.
Haven’t you heard that each resume gets about 10 seconds of attention from the recruiter? If a resume can be scanned by a recruiter in 10 seconds, and a decision is made, how in the world would a recruiter have time to look at a 3 minute video (or multiple videos)? I’m guessing the average quality of the video would suck to the point of driving the recruiter nuts.
>> Candidates with the time to make a quality video production are suspect.
This was an intriguing statement. Made me think about what message the high quality video is sending – whatever the message is, it is premise for being judged (having too much time, too much money, too much talent for the particular job, too desperate, etc.). I’m still noodling on this one, but it is quite interesting.
>> The legal issues around discrimination and video resumes are ever-present.
If a video shows you are in a class that might be discriminated against (gender, religion, race, ethnicity) then there’s a problem. Since the video would show that, then there definitely is a problem. I’ve heard recruiters are cautious about seeing profile images on a LinkedIn Profile… much less have all of the judgmental information that is provided in a video resume!