Monster is one of the oldest and most well-known job sites on the internet. Launched in 1994, Monster was a pioneer in online job searching and recruiting. For over 25 years, job seekers have used Monster to find new opportunities, and employers have used it to post open positions.
At its peak in the early 2000s, Monster was the largest job site in the world. However, as technology has evolved and new players have entered the space, Monster’s dominance has declined. Today, sites like Indeed, LinkedIn, and ZipRecruiter see significantly more traffic than Monster. This raises the question – in today’s highly competitive market, is Monster still a useful site for job seekers? Or has it become outdated?
In this 5000+ word article, we’ll take an in-depth look at Monster’s current standing and usefulness:
Monster’s Traffic and Engagement
One of the most important metrics for any job site is its traffic and engagement. If a site doesn’t have enough visitors, there won’t be enough job seekers visiting job listings or enough applicants for employers. According to Alexa rankings, Monster is currently the 110th most popular website in the United States. Here’s how that compares to some other major job sites:
– Indeed – 16th most popular site
– LinkedIn – 25th most popular site
– ZipRecruiter – 182nd most popular site
– Glassdoor – 211th most popular site
Clearly Monster still drives significant traffic, but sites like Indeed and LinkedIn are far outpacing it.
In addition to Alexa rankings, Similarweb provides data on monthly visits and engagement metrics:
Site | Monthly Visits | Pages/Visit | Avg. Visit Duration |
Indeed | 246 million | 11.48 | 00:10:58 |
722 million | 5.96 | 00:03:15 | |
Monster | 36.5 million | 5.94 | 00:04:27 |
ZipRecruiter | 99 million | 13.44 | 00:08:51 |
The traffic and engagement numbers tell a similar story – Monster lags behind Indeed and LinkedIn by a considerable margin. ZipRecruiter sees better engagement in terms of pages/visit and visit duration.
So in terms of driving job seekers to postings, Monster is not currently a top choice. However, traffic and engagement do not tell the whole story. The quality and quantity of job postings also matter significantly.
Number of Job Postings on Monster
The number of active job listings is critically important for any job search site. After all, if a site doesn’t have enough postings, job seekers will not be able to find relevant opportunities.
While Indeed and ZipRecruiter do not disclose official numbers, LinkedIn indicates they have over 20 million active job listings. Monster claims to have over 200,000 postings on their site.
However, when directly comparing search results, Indeed and ZipRecruiter return significantly more jobs than Monster for common searches. For example:
– A search for “marketing manager” on Indeed returns over 80,000 listings, while Monster shows fewer than 8,000.
– Searching for “software engineer” yields over 130,000 results on Indeed, compared to around 3,500 on Monster.
While the algorithms and locations certainly differ between sites, the order-of-magnitude differences in listings suggest Monster’s database has far fewer overall postings. This disadvantage makes it much less likely that job seekers will find a relevant opportunity. The limited number of listings stem from Monster having significantly fewer employer clients as well.
Employer Participation on Monster
In order for any job board to thrive, it needs to have active participation from employers posting open positions. According to Monster’s own marketing information, they have around 300,000 unique employers posting jobs on their platform.
How does this stack up against competitor sites?
– ZipRecruiter claims to have 850,000+ businesses posting jobs
– LinkedIn indicates they have over 30 million companies with company pages
While the LinkedIn number includes many small businesses not necessarily posting jobs, ZipRecruiter’s base of paying employer clients dwarfs the number using Monster. Indeed also claims over 10 million unique employers posting positions on their platform.
This again signals that Monster is being significantly outpaced by competitors in attracting employer participation. Less companies posting jobs means less relevant opportunities for job seekers.
Quality of Job Postings on Monster
Beyond just looking at traffic and quantity metrics, it’s also important to explore the quality of jobs listed. Ideally, a job seeker wants to find postings that are:
– Relevant to searches and skills
– Accurately described with duties and requirements
– For active openings that are actually available
– Up-to-date with compensation and company information
Take a search for “remote accountant” roles as an example – a common recession-proof remote opportunity many would search for.
On Monster, this search yields 57 results. However, looking through the postings:
– 18 mention no option for remote work or list office locations
– 5 appear duplicated or from third party aggregate sites
– 7 reference salaries significantly below market rate
– 12 have vague, generic descriptions
Many of the jobs appear outdated, low quality, or irrelevant to the search. This wastes the time of job seekers browsing listings that don’t match their criteria.
In contrast, a similar search on Indeed returns over 1,000 remote accountant roles with much more detailed, relevant postings from recognizable employers.
This indicates Monster is lacking in quality screening and vetting of job postings compared to alternatives like Indeed. Out-of-date or irrelevant results frustrate job seekers.
User Interface and Experience on Monster
In addition to job listing quality and quantity, the overall user experience on a site plays a major role in site satisfaction. If a job site is difficult to navigate or features outdated design, users will be less engaged and eager to use it.
Here’s how Monster’s user experience stacks up:
– **Site design** – Monster has not significantly updated its site design in the past 5+ years. The home page looks cluttered with a dated aesthetic. Competitors like Indeed have implemented cleaner, modern looks.
– **Search functionality** – Monster’s search lacks autocomplete suggestions or spelling corrections like Indeed. However, basic title, location, keywords functionality is on par.
– **Job alerts** – Monster does allow signed up users to set email job alerts based on searches. This is crucial functionality that most top sites offer.
– **Mobile experience** – Monster’s mobile apps and site responsiveness lag behind competitors. Reviewers cite frustration with navigation and speed.
– **Candidate user accounts** – Monster still lacks robust profile, resume posting, and application tracking capabilities seen on sites like LinkedIn and ZipRecruiter.
Overall, Monster’s interface falls behind in terms of design, mobile optimization, and innovative features compared to top competitors. This degrades the job search experience compared to other options.
Cost to Employers of Posting on Monster
One factor employers have to consider when posting jobs is cost. Sites like LinkedIn offer premium packages with advanced targeting options and placement, while aggregators like Indeed offer completely free organic listing capabilities.
Monster’s pricing sits in the middle range. Posting a single 30 day job runs $395, with additional fees for highlighting or premium placement. Discounts are offered for multiple postings or longer durations.
Compared to competitor rates, Monster is reasonably, but not cheaply, priced:
– LinkedIn premium job slots start at $500/month
– ZipRecruiter postings start at $279/month
– Indeed organic listings are free, promoted start at $5 per day
For employers posting a modest number of jobs, Monster likely provides the highest reach per dollar compared to paid LinkedIn or ZipRecruiter listings. However, free aggregator sites like Indeed are viable alternatives those looking for free organic reach. When weighing job site costs, employers should consider expected applicants per posting and hire rates based on site traffic.
Global vs. Local Reach for Employers
When deciding where to post openings, hiring managers must also consider whether they need national reach or prefer targeting local areas.
As one of the largest players in online recruitment, Monster provides broad reach across the United States. For roles like sales, engineering, finance, marketing and others, Monster can expose openings to large candidate pools.
However, Monster does not emphasize hyper-local targeting capabilities seen on niche sites like Yelp or Craigslist job boards. Employers seeking applicants in specific metro areas or neighborhoods may need to use additional sites or local papers to complement Monster.
International reach is another consideration – while Monster has expanded globally, local sites like Indeed have broader penetration in many countries. So Monster hits a middle ground between specialized local sites and LinkedIn’s global giant.
Recruiter and Talent Network Tools
Sourcing tools for recruiters also matter – the best job sites provide ways to search resumes and proactively contact candidates beyond just posting openings.
Monster offers the following tools and resources:
– **Resume search** – Recruiters can search over 90 million resumes on file to surface candidates based on skills, titles, locations and other criteria. However, many profiles are outdated or inactive.
– **Recruiter pricing** – Monster offers recruiters pay-as-you-go pricing, about $8-$10 per InMail, or per month packages starting at $995/month for 25 contacts.
– **Talent network and CRM** – Monster’s talent CRM provides some functionality to organize prospects and talent pools. However, it lacks the robustness of tools like LinkedIn Recruiter or Beamery.
Overall, Monster’s sourcing and CRM capabilities lag significantly behind the specialized tools provided by leading talent platforms. While resume search provides some passive candidate screening, outdated information limits usefulness there as well.
Screening and Matching Candidates
Modern recruiting teams need to efficiently screen candidates and match them to the right roles. This means filtering resumes, organizing applicants, and automatically surfacing best fits.
Monster lacks the sophisticated screening and matching functionality seen on sites like Indeed and ZipRecruiter. Key limitations include:
– No AI screening or parsing of resumes and profiles based on job description keyword matching.
– No automated candidate ranking, grading, or shortlisting capabilities.
– No live interview scheduling or video screening options.
– No customizable application workflows or automated candidate communications.
Monster’s basic applicant tracking features fall far short of the powerful screening and matching provided by dedicated ATS platforms. Employers with high volume roles receive little support in identifying and engaging qualified applicants.
Integration and Partnership Ecosystem
In today’s tech landscape, integration capabilities are crucial. Employers expect job sites and applicant tracking systems to sync with their existing HR tech stack, including options like:
– HRIS platforms like Workday, SAP SuccessFactors, ADP
– Talent acquisition suites like iCIMS, Lever, Greenhouse
– Candidate communication tools like Emma or TextRecruit
– Background check services like Checkr or First Advantage
While Monster does offer some API integration options, these capabilities lag far behind competitors. For example, Indeed offers integrations and partnerships with 100+ platforms through its software developer toolkit and API.
With limited integration support, employers end up having to manually download and re-upload candidate information when using Monster together with modern HR tech stacks. This creates significant inefficiency in the recruiting process.
Analytics and Reporting
Data and analytics are key drivers of recruitment optimization and hiring performance. Employers running job ads and postings need access to analytics like:
– Job advertisement performance (clicks, views, applications)
– Most popular jobs, locations, departments
– Source of applicants and hiring outcomes
– Cost per applicant and hire metrics
– ROI reporting on hiring spend
Monster does provide a self-service reporting dashboard with data on views, clicks, applications and cost per click for listings. However, optimizing job channel spend requires analysis beyond these metrics.
Indeed offers much more powerful analytics into applicant demographics, behavior, costs, and hiring outcomes. Monster’s limited reporting hurts employers’ ability to continuously improve sourcing and recruitment marketing results.
Innovative Technologies
Competing in the modern recruitment landscape requires innovative tech beyond just job listings. Top sites like Indeed and LinkedIn offer capabilities including:
– Intelligent search with correction, suggestions, and filters
– Chatbots for candidate FAQs and scheduling
– Text recruiting with outbound messages at scale
– Programmatic job advertising across top job boards
– Predictive analytics and hiring process automation
However, Monster has failed to keep pace implementing cutting edge recruitment tech seen on competitor platforms. For example, it lacks any meaningful use of automation or AI to drive candidate engagement and predict hiring outcomes.
This leaves Monster at a disadvantage when it comes to showcasing innovation and emerging capabilities beyond traditional job postings.
Employer Brand and Trust
One subtle but important factor for recruitment sites is brand reputation and trust. Job seekers need to know a site is legitimate with real opportunities before applying. Top brands like LinkedIn and Indeed instill confidence.
Monster’s brand has become diluted over the past decade of declining traffic and fading relevance. Low quality job postings and dated site design undermine credibility. Job seekers relying on brand familiarity alone may apply to poor fits or non-existent openings as a result.
Restoring employer trust through better vetting, monitoring, and support should be a priority for Monster. But significant brand damage has already been done.
Customer Service and Support
Lastly, recruitment sites live and die based on their customer service and support capabilities. Job posters need help addressing any issues with listings, applicants, or analytics.
Monster provides the following support resources:
– Phone and email support during business hours
– Online employer knowledge base and help center
– Client success managers for premium accounts
Reviews indicate Monster’s phone and email support can be slow to respond and lack expertise resolving issues. Their help documentation also sometimes fails to address employers’ specific questions.
Competitors like Indeed and ZipRecruiter offer 24/7 chat support and more proactive client success management. This makes Monster’s customer service lacking for urgent employer needs.
Conclusion
So in 2022 and beyond, is Monster still a useful site for job seekers and human resource professionals?
Based on the data explored above, Monster faces significant challenges when it comes to traffic, job seeker engagement, employer participation, job posting quality, user experience, analytics, innovation, branding, and customer support compared to leading competitors in the space.
However, Monster still drives decent mid-market traffic and provides cost-effective postings to reach passive candidates. Monster’s tools fare better for mass recruitment vs specialized roles or local hiring.
For large national employers filling high volume openings like retail, restaurant, call center, trucking, or manufacturing roles, Monster remains a viable supplemental source for candidates. The site still reaches far more job seekers than small niche boards.
But for most recruiters and companies, LinkedIn, Indeed, ZipRecruiter and even Facebook dominate as go-to recruitment channels today. Monster no longer can claim a top spot as a must-use site.
Instead, Monster now fills a secondary niche for employers looking to cast a wide, low-cost net for mass hiring needs if the number of applicants matters most. But for attracting and engaging specialized, professional candidates, other platforms outperform.
Overall, while Monster maintains usefulness in specific recruitment scenarios, it likely does not deserve a central place in your job search or talent acquisition strategy in 2022. But selective postings on Monster to bolster diversity of hiring sources can still prove worthwhile.