Video Resumes Still Suck
Despite all of the hype about video resumes, they still suck.
I have written about video resumes all of two times. All of them get regular reader responses from people trying to convince me that they some how give me more information than I have already stated. Even though I wrote the first one about eight months ago by the way.
Video resumes give me one piece of information: How do you do in front of a camera? Are you good? Are you bad? That’s what I’ll get.
Everything else is better utilized and much more efficiently done using paper or electronic means. End of story. If recruiters hate using video resumes, where is the market for this? Some silly studies based on straight curiosity?
People are trying to shove a square peg through a round hole on this one. I don’t have too much more to say then that. If I want to waste five minutes on YouTube, I am going to watch clips from Chappell’s Show or Saturday Night Live, not an amateur performance of “Hire me please!”
Comments
4 Responses to “Video Resumes Still Suck”
Leave a Reply








I’ve seen two video resumes now and they’re horrible. I’m sure the individual would come off much better in an interview, but when you’re in front of a camera - you come across as silly.
OMG, did you ever see the video resume with the guy playing different sports? It was horrible. I wish I had the link still but the worst was him ballroom dancing. Just awful.
[...] how video resumes aren’t the answer to your job hunting woes. Surprisingly, they talked to me. I wonder [...]
Although the video resume has its problems such as time it takes to review, lack of integration into present day hiring processes, file size, etc., the goals are still worthy. Candidates want to differentiate themselves, and prospective employers want to make more well-informed candidate selection decisions.
There is a viable alternative and that is to complete an assessment that measures what employers are looking for in a video resume - basically information about the candidate’s character or persona. A candidate could complete an assessment that measure their workplace personality as well as their workplace competencies. The candidate then simply uploads the resume they’re now using, and identifies where they want the scientifically based information inserted. Their resume is digitally signed by a trusted 3rd party (vendor who inserted the scientifically based info). The digital signature provides proof of data integrity as well as bullet-proof document alteration detection.
In other words, the candidate can’t edit or alter the scientifically based information once its digitally signed. Without the digital signature, the information becomes inherently untrustworthy. Since it’s in MS Word it can easily integrate into past, present, and future hiring processes.
The candidate is better represented and their prospective employer(s) can make more well-informed candidate selection decisions. especially at the top of the candidate selection resume funnel. Other verifiable information could also be included such as education verification, credit check, employment verification, et al. What information to include to make a resume better for both candidate and employer is not the big issue. The big issue is trusted data delivery using MS Word. A sample next gen resume can be viewed / picked up at http://www.resumefit.com.
PS. The entire process takes 15 - 20 minutes and you need only complete the assessment one time. After that it takes only 2 - 3 minutes to insert the data into any resume you wish to use.