How Would You Feel if You Received a Voucher after Being Unsuccessful in a Job Application?

spook290 on 27/10/2020 - 15:56
Last edited 27/10/2020 - 17:20 by 1 other user

Happy Tuesday OzB Community,

I work in internal recruitment, and an interesting idea was floated, the business I work for is a large retailer.

The idea is that candidates who progress to a certain stage in a recruitment process would receive a voucher if they were unsuccessful, a little way of saying thanks for thinking of us & to keep potential customers engaged with the brand.

I was interested to get people's thoughts if they found themselves in this situation, lets say you applied for a job at Amazon, got to interview stage, was made unsuccessful (given feedback post-interview also) and received a $10/$20/$50 voucher to spend how you want at Amazon, what would you think?

Poll has been included also :)

Poll Options

  • 727
    Yay for free money
  • 43
    Unhappy
  • 26
    Neutral
Education & Work

Comments

    • spook290 on 28/10/2020 - 07:36

      And then kick off the 'is this a deal or a hack, this should be in the forums' debate?

      Of course I will :)

      • SlickMick on 28/10/2020 - 09:34
        +3

        Free interview practice + a voucher. That's a deal.

  • Ghost47 on 28/10/2020 - 00:37
    +8

    I'd feel like a loser not getting the job and some voucher saying "here's your consolation gift" would make feel even worse.

    • netjock on 28/10/2020 - 10:37

      Actually if you think of it differently. The person who go the job is paying for your voucher.

      Considering not many companies check qualifications / do reference checks until just before offer stage you could just be a professional interviewer and be swimming in vouchers.

      If this spreads across all industries then vouchers don't grow on trees, someone is going to be paying for it and it won't be the person who doesn't get the job.

    • Scythic on 29/10/2020 - 17:21

      You might haven't been to enough job interviews to think so

      • Ghost47 on 29/10/2020 - 17:27

        Been to plenty actually. Graduate jobs back in the day were very competitive.

    • leeweesquee on 31/10/2020 - 00:44

      "No hard feelings?"
      That's the message im getting

  • MontyMacaw on 28/10/2020 - 08:19

    If it was attached to a letter saying that you were unsuccessful but could be considered in the future and here’s a little something for your effort and time then yes. If it just came in the mail it would probably cause some head scratching about the motive.

  • nancynobody on 28/10/2020 - 09:21

    Damn, I went for interview and was completely ghosted by the company. A voucher AND a phone call would have be sweet.

    • netjock on 28/10/2020 - 10:47

      Ghosted means no phone call and no voucher. If they called or even just sent out a voucher then it won't be ghosting.

  • ShannonN on 28/10/2020 - 09:44
    +2

    sounds like "every child gets a star, even last place gets a certificate as we don't want anyone to cry"

    recruiter for big clients should pay interviewees for their time and travel etc. if they're not successful, heaven knows they bleed the companies they scout for , I worked for Amatil way back via a recruitment agency I was paid by agency 1/3rd of the hourly rate they charged the company, found this out when the job became permanent and i successfully applied internally. and no I didn't get paid the same rate as agency but gained a 50 % increase

  • OzHunterNSW on 28/10/2020 - 10:08
    +3

    Actually, this should occur already to all participants. You should be paying travel expenses incurred for they to attend "your" interview.

    As an academic, I have sat on many recruitment panels, and it is a common curtesy to pay each respondent the typical rate for milage/km 66c per km in the old rate.

    Why are yo only offering a lousy $20… these people are professionals, and you toss them $20 (a bone).

    Wake up…. get "professional"!

    • spook290 on 28/10/2020 - 10:27
      -2

      Not sure if being facetious or not…. by that logic, if someone is applying for my vacancy, should they be paying for the hourly rates of the interviewers?

      • Whisper Quiet on 28/10/2020 - 10:33
        +1

        I think he's an ebay plus member :)

      • field1985 on 29/10/2020 - 09:20

        Not facetious at all. It's common practice in developed nations to reimburse candidates for their time/travel.

        The idea a candidate should pay the company for the interviewers time is absurd. It is the company that is in need, not the candidate.

        If you want terrible candidates.. go ahead and try charging them. You will only get rich kids who wont work.

        If you want the best candidates you should reimburse them for their time. Otherwise they will never bother applying (it's a waste of their valuable time/money).

        • spook290 on 29/10/2020 - 09:40

          I agree a candidate paying for the interviewer's time is absurd, was just using a similar train of logic to your point.

          Your point around the company being in need and not the candidate is a bit of a blanket statement don't you think? Again on your logic, we should pay for employed people to come for interviews, and be paid by currently unemployed people who are on the job hunt?

          I don't believe it's common practice to reimburse candidates for their time, I've been in the industry for a long time now and never have, this includes 400k + candidates needing to travel interstate for jobs (flights/food/hotel paid of course).

          If it's a location away from the regular office they would work at then yes I understand reimbursing/providing for travel costs.

          I'll concede the point that I haven't worked within academia so different principles may apply there, but using Amazon as the example it's not particularly relevant.

          • 91rs on 29/10/2020 - 11:35

            @spook290: If it were the offer of a Uber voucher for example it would come across less slimy as someone else said.
            It could also be easily explained that it's to contribute toward a travel cost or something like that, something practical which could be handed on to someone else if they've got no use for it.
            However it's also a limited audience and you'd have to pick the city and where they are traveling from.
            I know people in Melbourne who've never used an uber (or uber eats etc) but know people in Sydney who couldn't live without uber now.
            That would feel more like a direct, hey we know you spent your time and money getting here, please take this to offset a future need for travel maybe we can contribute to in voucher form than unlucky you didn't get it, here's $10 voucher for amazon or woolworths or something else (BP, Shell fuel etc).
            It also depends on they company who will be employing them, do they feel its appropriate for something like a voucher to purchase stuff or credit for fuel or an uber as an example, maybe they're quite pro environment and 90% of the office rides bikes to work?

            I don't feel there is any advantage to it, like I said earlier, honesty, clarity and being kept informed is far more valuable to me than anything else.

          • field1985 on 29/10/2020 - 13:44

            @spook290: Smart companies reimburse job candidates because doing so attracts more qualified candidates resulting in better hires.
            If a cheap company chooses not to reimburse, they are making a decision to limit their candidate pool and their industry reputation.

            A candidate that travels is taking time away from a job, school, family and other parts of life. Not reimbursing candidates for their travel/time expenses only limits your candidate pool. It gives them a reason to turn down the interview. The goal is to reach and attract the best candidate for your company.

            Just because you filled roles paying $400k, doesn't mean you got near the best candidate, they probably weren't willing to waste their time/money on applying.

            My point around the company being in need and not the candidate, stands. The best candidates will already be employed in high paying positions. If you want to attract them, you need to work for it. If you want to scrape the dregs from the bottom of the barrel of unemployed, go ahead, but you will waste more time and money reviewing CV's then engaging real candidates.

            • cunningdrew on 30/10/2020 - 12:49

              @field1985: If someone looking at a 400k role was concerned about getting their Uber fare re-imbursed or parking pass clipped, I would be concerned they're not the droid I'm looking for.

    • netjock on 28/10/2020 - 10:45

      As an academic, I have sat on many recruitment panels, and it is a common curtesy to pay each respondent the typical rate for milage/km 66c per km in the old rate.

      Market research groups get paid decent amount, something like $50 - $60 for 30 mins. Way less stress than an interview.

    • Ghost47 on 29/10/2020 - 17:32
      -3

      Sadly these days with how many people have degrees and how people overseas come to Australia for a "better life" it's an employer's market.

      Employers could ask people to eat poo in interviews for $100,000 dollar jobbies and people who migrate here would do so happily. That's why they steal Australian jerbs.

      • CrowReally on 30/10/2020 - 12:05
        -1

        You don't get to actually blow the immigrant/job dogwhistle and then make the "jerbs" comment that calls out people who blow on the dogwhistle.

        • Ghost47 on 30/10/2020 - 12:10

          Thought the sarcasm came through clearly by spelling it that way, but I guess not.

          • CrowReally on 30/10/2020 - 12:28

            @Ghost47: Line 1: Actual claim overseas people are coming here and saturating the market/taking Australian jobs.

            Line 2: Actual use of the "jerbs" line from South Park, used to make fun of people who believe the rhetoric of Line 1.

            If there's sarcasm lurking in there somewhere, please let me know.

            • Ghost47 on 30/10/2020 - 12:58

              @CrowReally: Yeah it's lurking in the entire second paragraph. Hope that helps.

              • CrowReally on 30/10/2020 - 13:04

                @Ghost47: From the large downvoted section of all your comments above this, you've spent a long time telling everyone that they're clueless and they don't really know how the world/jobmarket works (nEtWoRkIng, sHeEpLE!!).

                You've been poisonous and arrogant and not showing even the slightest soupçon of self-examination or humour.

                And now suddenly it's "oh well OBVIOUSLY I was making some jokes"?

                This is the same level of "jokes/sarcasm" that gets trotted out to explain a particularly bad Trump gaffe. Called out for suggesting internal sunlight/UV/bleach as a COVID treatment? "Oh well OBVIOUSLY that was sarcasm", and so on.

                You're bad at understanding how the world works and you argue in bad faith. And that's not sarcasm.

                • Ghost47 on 30/10/2020 - 13:56

                  @CrowReally: Cute of you to stalk my comments. Don't quit your day job. Telling me I don't understand how the world works, what stupidity.

                  • CrowReally on 30/10/2020 - 14:10
                    +1

                    @Ghost47: If by 'stalk' you mean "read through the thread before I made my first comment, and noticed you were being an argumentative prick along the way" then sure, I'm comfortable being called a stalker. It wouldn't be the first simple concept you'd gotten wrong today.

                    As for a display of stupidity, well, not only do you not know how the world works, you don't even understand how sarcasm works. Imma dunk on you for a while, homes, but there's a chance you'll come out smarter the other side. (A chance, no promises).

                    So, what is sarcasm?

                    Irony is when the literal meaning of what you write is opposite of your intended meaning. There's a lurking subtext in there (which may be unintentional - people can write things without intending to be ironical). "I just wish Trump would get onto social media and tell us what he actually thinks" is an ironic statement, given Trump is always on social media.

                    Sarcasm is a watered down version of irony where you've baked in an annoyed attitude, which shows your subtext plainly. It's only ever used as a form of disapproval/abuse, and can't happen accidentally. "Oh sure, because Trump never gets on social media" would be a sarcastic reply to the above ironic line, for instance.

                    Because sarcasm is so plain (which is incidentally why people refer to it as the lowest form of wit, and why it's the crutch of insecure teenagers), it's easy to find the subtext: you just take the opposite of whatever was said. If someone says "Oh thanks for the apples, I love the taste of apple so much", the de-sarcastic-ated version is "No thanks for the apples, I don't like the taste of apple".

                    So, let's find the sarcasm lurking in that second paragraph of yours.

                    "Employers could ask people to eat poo for $100k jobs and people who migrate here would do so happily".

                    If you meant this sarcastically, your point is "Employers could ask people to eat poo for $100k and people who migrate here wouldn't want to do so".

                    ??? Sure. That's probably true of most people? Is the point you're sarcastically making that immigrants wouldn't be willing to eat poo in a $100K interview [but non-immigrants would?].

                    Well, let's keep searching. "That's why they steal Australian jerbs". Okay, opposite of this is 'That's why they don't steal Australian jerbs'.

                    So, I guess the point (sarcastically) being made is: People who migrate here wouldn't be willing to eat poo in a job interview; they're not a threat to our job market [because they're not as eager as the rest of us].

                    Which is a consistent line of argument, but it's the exact opposite of your first paragraph saying they're saturating the job market and creating a position where employers have the power.

                    This is why the very first thing I said was "wait, you can't say both things". If you'd understood that originally (and not tried a fake out 'oh but I was being SARCASTIC' weasel response), we would have been done. But instead, sarcasm school is in session.

                    Sarcasm is a weak tool that intellectual babies use, and you even got that wrong.

                    "Keep up the good work".

                    • Ghost47 on 30/10/2020 - 14:13

                      @CrowReally: Not going to bother reading your drivel. Clearly you're someone who doesn't know how the world works but act like you do.

                      That reply is hilarious though lol, so many words, well done on wasting your own time hahahaha.

                      • CrowReally on 30/10/2020 - 14:33

                        @Ghost47: I've never had the arrogance to claim I know how the world works, but I enjoy poking holes in the ridiculous arguments of people who do.

                        That's why I make long posts (or any posts) on this forum, because I enjoy doing so. I enjoyed typing out that massive wall of text above, and I'm enjoying writing this one. What, did you expect me to say this was a massive painful effort and waste of time? That I'm an unpaid volunteer who will only get pleasure if you admit to reading my posts, that I otherwise didn't want to write up? This is where introspection has failed you.

                        If it gives you pleasure imagining me shaking my fist at the screen because I've been outsmarted by someone who's "not even mad ur mad didnt even read it so you didnt score points lol", then you do you, amigo.

  • Slippage on 28/10/2020 - 12:09
    +2

    It depends… If it was a voucher for the place i interviewed at, lets just say i interviewed at a restaurant and the voucher was for that restaurant, I'd be offended.

    if it was for Amazon, eBay, visa gift card etc , yay! free money! (still sucks about the job)

  • peteru on 28/10/2020 - 13:05

    Taking time to give constructive feedback and answer applicant questions is really the important part. That's what's going to make the difference to their attitude towards the company. Giving them a voucher to the value that is equivalent to the time they invested in applying would certainly be going above and beyond what is expected. On it's own it may be a bit of a "meh" gesture, but when combined with the feedback and explained as a "thank you for investing your time in your application with us" it ought to leave good impression that will also generate some positive word of mouth.

    +1 from me if it is done correctly.

  • Brick Tamland on 28/10/2020 - 17:06
    +1

    I think it's a nice idea, it shows appreciation of the applicants time and effort that they have put in the interview process.

  • stumo on 28/10/2020 - 19:09
    +3

    In the UK it is common (or was 20 years ago) for applicants to get reimbursed for their transport costs to the interview.
    It cost me about 50 quid to get up to Leeds for an interview. At the end of the interview I asked about the re-imbursement. They were actually impressed since they said all the other people interviewed didn't even ask (or were too scared/stuck-up to ask). I got reimbursed and offered the job later that day.

    I think a voucher is fine for people who don't make it to an actual face to face interview. But for people seriously interviewed/considered I wouldn't do it unless it was $100 minimum. Even then it comes off as a bit cheezy.

  • wyrmy on 28/10/2020 - 19:24

    You would already be miles ahead of the majority of recruiters by giving feedback without a voucher. Depending on th e$ value the voucher could backfire. If you give a $10-20 voucher, but your store doesnt have anything which costs less than $100 it could come across pretty bad. An actual usable voucher = positive vibes with the candidate.

  • djgreedo on 28/10/2020 - 19:47
    +4

    I would be offended. It is so tacky.

  • This Guy on 28/10/2020 - 20:34

    Float this past legal…

    You want to pay people below minimum wage with basically company store scrip… Are you sure you are in retail and not in mining?

  • Payne on 28/10/2020 - 21:33
    +2

    This would be treading a very, very fine line between insulting and grateful. It'll depend a bit on the person themselves too.

    • For those who genuinely believed they had a good shot at getting the job and really wanted it, it'll feel like a cheap consolation prize. Something like "You've gotta be kidding me, I thought I nailed that, and all I got was this stupid voucher?!"

    • For those who didn't really need the job but thought they'd throw their hat in the ring, it'll probably be like "Ah well, back to my old job, but at least I got some free money."

    • For those who felt like they completely screwed up the interview, it'll feel like pity. Like "Wow, I suck so bad that they think I deserve a little voucher so I can buy my dignity back."

    • …and everything in between.

    So yeah, I think it'd be a real gamble. Could go either way.

    As others have said, the option for good, honest and thorough feedback would be preferable. I say 'option' because some of the people in the scenarios above will want to talk more, some less, and some not at all. Spend time with the people that want it.

  • field1985 on 28/10/2020 - 22:46
    +4

    It depends on the level and type the role being offered.

    If it's entry level, group interviews with teenagers/early 20's applying, sure, they'll love it.

    If it's highly technical/senior management with multiple rounds of interview panels, then they would most likely be insulted (it's below them) and feel like you are rubbing salt in the wound.

    Roles somewhere in the middle would be a gamble and get a reaction based more on applicants personalities.

    I would avoid it unless they are complete entry level applicants.

  • bigbadboogieman on 28/10/2020 - 23:07
    +1

    Would probably get all my friends to apply.. just for the free voucher.

  • wizzlesticks on 28/10/2020 - 23:19
    +1

    I'd be concerned that my personal data has been shared and stored with marketing, so would challenge the legality of it under privacy laws.

  • benjabot on 28/10/2020 - 23:37

    I would rather get nothing then receive a $10 voucher, though I would consider $20 as the minimum without being weird / insulting (in a sense) depending on the type of job and qualifications. To me, $10 seems petty and a cheap gimmick which would not end up with the intended result as per OPs post, though $20 for a casual / entry level / post grad job would be a nice surprise, and $50 if we were talking a high qualification job would be neat.

    OP also asked a question in the comments about receiving a 6 month prime membership instead. I am a prime lover, abusing it for so many heavy / bulk items such as pepsi max, use it for the streaming service etc etc, however even for me that would be awkward and weird to obtain after a failed interview, let alone if someone who has no idea what prime is receiving it. It sounds alot like those food / wine / whatever subscriptions you are "awarded" for "free' as part of purchases from alot of retailers.

  • TheBird on 28/10/2020 - 23:42
    +2

    I haven't been in the position to consider the question, but I can't help have my initial feeling that I'd be insulted.

  • cashless on 29/10/2020 - 08:48
    +1

    Everyone's a winner.
    When Ahh were a wee lad, there was only one winner for games like pass the parcel, or musical chairs.
    Fully accepted by all participants.
    Now, everyone, including losers, gets lollies.
    Extending that principle to job applications seems….well….childish.
    It's only a matter of time until we see joint winning teams of NRL/AFL grand finals.
    All eight Olympic sprinters in the 100m final get a medal for participating….etc

    I still like the idea of free money though, so voted for that….

  • dirtybigbjelke on 29/10/2020 - 09:35
    +2

    I've been ghosted after so many job interviews on the recruiter treadmill any contact afterwards would be awesome.

  • tik tok on 29/10/2020 - 09:40

    1) You will have more than the required number of people applying just for the voucher - wasting the interviewers time and other resources.
    2) Think what'll happen if you implement this voucher scheme, find out you have been ozbargained and then have to stop it. Will starting and stopping cause more damage?

    • spook290 on 29/10/2020 - 09:44

      It's a good point, but you would have to make it to the interview stage and be made unsuccessful to receive it, I see it that if you're withdrawing before an interview you wouldn't get it.

      It's a bit of a time investment to go through the initial screening & application, as well as having the right skillsets, for example, I don't suddenly see us getting 10x more applications for developers on our specific tech stack who are just going to withdraw, maybe we would get a couple, but the business I work for is pretty cool and they might actually want to work for us after hearing more :)

      • tik tok on 29/10/2020 - 09:52
        +2

        I have read a few of your other replies. My observation : This seems to be your personal idea - and you will run with it no matter how many points are made against it. Did you post this to prep yourself in case similar questions were thrown at you when you actually proposed this?

        Also note that this is not the first time such an idea is being proposed - none of the IT organisations I know of have ever implemented such a thing.

  • slk77 on 29/10/2020 - 10:09

    I'm unsuccessful in so many applications, I could make a living off these vouchers

  • foolsgold on 29/10/2020 - 10:11
    +1

    If it was some sort of entry level retail position, or a straight out of school, side job type of scenario I would be more than happy with the voucher, and would reapply etc. If it was a more senior job and got offered the voucher I would be indifferent/cheesed off.

    edit: I think it's how you go about it. Say it was a job at Foxtel, or Stan or something like that, and they go hey you weren't successful, but we love to keep in contact, here is a free 6 month kayo/stan etc subscription on us so you can stay farmiliar with our product that be cool.

    I think if it was a 90k a year warehouse manager role and your like here's a $50 AWS voucher I'd be more offended than grateful. When I worked in retail, after the launch of the iPhone we received a free 12 month subscription to Apple's MobileMe service, which was only useful at the time if you owned an iPhone or an Apple device, which was just useless in the end as I had neither.

  • blitz on 29/10/2020 - 10:14

    Hell I'll take any mofo's money if he giving it away. Sheeeeeeeeeeeet.

  • AustriaBargain on 29/10/2020 - 10:46

    Also no one has mentioned it here, but when you're looking for a job then chances are a woolworths voucher really would help you out. If you're applying for a jobs then you have a higher odd of currently not having a job than the average person, so maybe your food budget is tighter than it normally us while job hunting. If OP works for Woolworths then considering Woolworth's profits it's the least they could do really.

  • Hvrd on 29/10/2020 - 10:49
    +2

    good idea, I'm that petty that when i didn't get a job i applied for i would avoid that place. When i was 16 I applied at a burger place across the road that i ordered from every couple of weeks - haven't been there for 8 years now where i would have spent ~4,000

  • jellykingdom on 29/10/2020 - 10:52
    +2

    WTF, this is a very strange thing to offer

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 29/10/2020 - 11:59

    Sounds like a premise for the show Nathan For You. Except he would create a fake job interview and give applicants a 10% off voucher they were pressured to use before the fake job interview. The job interview itself would involve the applicant ringing a friend and proving how convincing they are in getting them to buy the company's products.

  • Cusack on 29/10/2020 - 12:31

    I'm happy to take the voucher only coz it's free, then I'd laugh at the company for doing so. It wouldn't give me any feeling of loyalty or appreciation for that company just because of that.

    • Cusack on 29/10/2020 - 12:33

      Reminds me of the kids these days getting a 'Participation award' when they lose a race. LOL

  • Cherry12 on 29/10/2020 - 12:44

    That's an excellent idea! Anyway most people get rejected a few times before landing a job. I'd certainly feel better to be rejected with a voucher.

  • gromit on 29/10/2020 - 13:57

    would depend entirely on the position and how much money, how much time spent in interview process etc. For instance where I work I had to go through 6 interviews from various technical peers and management. This was over several weeks and took probably a couple of days of my time at least, if you offered me a $10 voucher at the end as a thanks for trying, I might take it but I would actually feel even more peeved off that they valued my time and effort so incredibly poorly as if I had gotten the job this would represent less than 10 mins of pay.

    • spook290 on 29/10/2020 - 14:16

      That's good insights, thanks!

  • wallet72 on 29/10/2020 - 14:16
    +1

    Loyalty to an employment agent? When I look for work I would never rule out any agency (unless they were dodgy or had screwed me over in the past). When people look for work they really don't have the luxury of saying no to an interview just because it's with a certain agency.

    • spook290 on 29/10/2020 - 14:17

      This would be for a business itself, in my situation I'm part of an internal recruitment function/HR function.

  • DemocracyManifest on 29/10/2020 - 14:24

    That's a great idea, participating in interviews etc take lots of your time and money, pretty annoying when you know for a fact as well they've already got a preferred candidate/someones mate lined up

  • Tinkle Ass on 29/10/2020 - 14:56

    I applied to Daniel Wellington last Christmas and did not make it past the first stage. Everyone that failed got a 20% voucher to use till the end of the year. Great discount for the Daniel Wellington stuff with high margins. I like watches, but I will not find myself purchasing a Daniel Wellington in my lifetime. Those that are more into the brand will likely appreciate and use the voucher.

    It was the first time I came across a different rejection letter instead of the usual professional short & cold 'unfortunately' and 'unsuccessful'. There was a picture of a dog with a Christmas hat that the voucher was named after. I really liked it. First time I thanked a company for a rejection letter.

  • NigelTufnel on 29/10/2020 - 15:34

    What if I got the job, but all I really wanted was the gift card!

  • aimpacc on 29/10/2020 - 17:20

    People came for the position to interview, if the person was unsuccessful, the best you could do is perhaps refer them to either another team where their skills could be of use or refer to another recruitment consultant that might help them get a job. Even if the referral didn't work out both parties still gets a "connection" for the future. If it works out you can ask for referral fee. It might cost a bit of time but as a candidate this is the best I would hope for if I get rejected for a position.

  • Ghost47 on 29/10/2020 - 19:31

    I just realised, you said you work for a large retailer. In that case the job I am assuming people go for are jobs like cashiers and shelf stackers. If that's the case then a voucher would be good.

    My original comment was more from the angle if I was going for a white collar role.

  • Misterpompom on 29/10/2020 - 21:05

    In my early desperate job seeking days, I wished only for genuine and wholesome feedback and tips which seemed non-existent when you get knocked back.

    Probably 5-10mins of "have you thought about xyz?", "how to improve" or what i may be missing would have meant more to me than money or a voucher at that time.

    Seems that you guys really want to say thank you though the goodwill gesture to give voucher might be taken in various ways by different people.

  • tryagain on 29/10/2020 - 21:38

    $25 or $50 uber voucher depending on the role (covers vouchers and meals), it could then be worded in a way to say thanks for coming in for the interview, we are sorry you didn't get the job but here is a voucher to either help get you back next time or just so you can enjoy a meal on us. If said in a way that made people believe that although they weren't successful in that application, they might be in a subsequent one, it might go a long way to help people feel more positive about the experience.

    • cunningdrew on 30/10/2020 - 12:30

      Yeah good post. It's about 'here's a dinner and beer on us for having a crack' as opposed to 'we think 3 hours of your time is worth 25 bucks'.

  • tikei on 30/10/2020 - 00:06
    +1

    Nah, would find it insulting

  • havabeer on 30/10/2020 - 09:17
    +2

    I know this is OB but I'm surprised approval for this is so high.

    If Amazon were the example I think maybe free Prime for X months might keep brand loyalty but honestly I think $ vouchers will help, but for some they will certainly be offensive. I would find it extremely tacky.

    • Payne on 30/10/2020 - 09:47

      I know this is OB but I'm surprised approval for this is so high.

      I think that might be because it's a hypothetical situation. A real job with an application, interview process and rejection letter has a lot more complexity and emotion to it.

      The wording of the poll is a little skewed too. 'Yay for free money' doesn't cover how much money and the kind of job we're talking about.

  • lonix on 30/10/2020 - 09:53

    The money isnt really free, I'm sure a lot of time and effort went into the job application.

    But, if it was offered to me I would take it.

  • dbro2792 on 30/10/2020 - 10:30

    i mean you'd take it…. but it would also a feel a bit like rubbing salt in wound for me personally. Agree with another user who says a bit tacky and slightly offended

  • mousie on 30/10/2020 - 10:32
    +1

    I'd apply for the job again and again = Profit

  • rr64 on 30/10/2020 - 11:05
    +1

    Honestly if you sent me a simple template email to let me know my application was unsuccessful you'd be in the top 5% of company recruiters.

  • cunningdrew on 30/10/2020 - 12:27

    It's all about the voucher value.

    If it's $50 or $100 then maybe not a bad idea.

    If it's $10 or $20 I would feel outright offended.

    I've written a cover letter, had 2 interviews (2hours) and corresponded with you. I am okay doing this in the context I may get a job from it. That is my investment. If you send me a $10 or $20 voucher it feels like this is what you are equating my 3-4 hours effort to. Twenty bucks. It feels like you feel that we're now square. We're actually not. I've given up my time and got my hopes up for a job and it's not worked out.

    Put another way, if you help someone out by fixing their computer and it takes you an hour and a half and you then tell them no issue. They're a friend of a friend so you're happy to help out. They then offer you $10, tell me you're not offended. You either pay me my rate of $100 to fix your computer or I do you a solid and give it for free and you pass it on. Offering me $10 makes me feel like that is your opinion of the cost of our transaction when that is not the cost.

  • [Deactivated] on 30/10/2020 - 12:42

    It depends.

    A gesture from a 3rd party recruitment agency would be welcome.

    I would be insulted if a prospective employer gave me the voucher.

  • NopeNopeNope on 30/10/2020 - 14:46

    Cash it tricky, too little and it feels insulting and might be counter productive. Honestly if you could provide any useful feedback i would much prefer than to any small voucher amount.

  • [Deactivated] on 30/10/2020 - 15:47

    Can anyone tell me how to get the voucher without having to apply for a job?

  • fullmetal on 30/10/2020 - 15:55

    Red bull sent me a pack of red bull when I wasn't successful. Maybe its better to send a product of gesture?

  • chet on 30/10/2020 - 16:16

    I recently had an interview and they gave me a $50 voucher for their streaming service (won't say which one). I accepted their offer earlier this week.

    • earth worm jim on 30/10/2020 - 17:30

      Pornhub

      • chet on 05/11/2020 - 12:19

        Don't tell anyone if you find my OF.

  • demeter on 30/10/2020 - 16:45

    I think if people knew that they would get a voucher if they applied for a job then there would be a lot of ungenuine applications.

  • earth worm jim on 30/10/2020 - 17:34

    50 or 100 would be nice.
    10 or 20 not so much and more towards the offended side.
    A phone call even if you didn't make it is always great. I hate it when companies don't even bother calling back and ghost you.

  • pharkurnell on 30/10/2020 - 18:55

    Your lucky you actually heard anything - yes you got it - or sorry you were <> this close..
    most times you dont get shit.

  • hsimo on 30/10/2020 - 19:45

    From the perspective of someone who's recently gone through a few interviews (thanks COVID) for professional positions, what actually made the difference to what was more likely to encourage me to use a company again is how I was treated after the fact.

    You can throw all the free money at me you want but:

    If I make it through three or four steps in an interview process which will likely involve me spending a not insignificant amount of time and money to prepare and then get turned down and thrown to the curb, you bet I'd be spending what I was given and not a cent more ever again.

    TL:DR

    If you treat people with the dignity they deserve and provide genuinely useful and constructive feedback which they can go and build upon, I suspect you'll find brand loyalty is kept regardless of the circumstance.

  • drfuzzy on 31/10/2020 - 02:22

    Not getting a job at Dan Murphies as a reformed alcoholic….here have a $50 voucher….

  • harrywwc on 31/10/2020 - 07:28

    Hi OP,

    I was going to ignore this, as no doubt many others share a similar sentiment.

    On receiving a 'gift card' on being unsuccessful in the latter round of interviews - I would thank "you" (or maybe the organisation) for appreciating, at least in part, the value of my time.

    As you would be aware, there is a cost involved in preparation, travel and just spending the time in a (later round) interview, and to have the company show a little appreciation for that (no doubt tax deductible ;) would be encouraging.

    In the past I have had many interviews where I made it through the first round or two, only to be pipped at the post by an internal candidate (who was less qualified than I) demanding a review and receiving the position. In each instance, having driven several hundred km, paid for overnight accommodation and other sundry items, having some sort of "consolation prize" would have taken some of the 'sting' out of the disappointment.

    .h

  • mr_asstight on 31/10/2020 - 07:48

    One of the perks of applying for jobs is that I've been flown for free internationally and around Aus to meet f2f. Never accepted the roles but it was a great holiday

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join