My previous two posts on video-enabled talent acquisition focused primarily on benefits derived directly from the features available from top-tier solution providers (The Power of Video Interviewing and The Benefits and ROI of Video Interviewing) . Here, I’ll highlight the benefits that arise from smarter decision-making in a more collaborative hiring environment that, in the end, bring better candidates to your organization. I’ve been in touch with Montage, a solution provider in this emerging space, and this series on video interviewing is done in collaboration with them.

The first and primary success for anyone integrating video interviewing will be an enhanced candidate experience. Candidate experience, a notion now so common as to erode much of its meaning, is referenced often by those in the talent acquisition sphere. Yet, from my vantage, it’s so poorly reflected in practice that when an innovation appears on the scene like video interviewing, which can do widespread good for the profession, it’s worth trumpeting.

So, let’s explore why video interviewing is a blessing for recruiters and organizations that care about candidate experience, and want to do something about it.

Firstly, it’s respectful of the candidate’s time and acknowledges commitments outside the recruiting process – participating in a video interview creates an infinitesimal fraction of the strain generated from the travel, logistics and scheduling of competing priorities that an in-person interview demands, not to mention the enormous cost savings it delivers. It demonstrates a level of consideration for the candidate’s life that, historically, the job searcher has not enjoyed. Of course, the video interview will never replace a final in-person meeting, showing that when travel is called for, both parties are serious about moving forward. For the passive and highly sought candidate, this awareness is invaluable

Victors in the war for talent need more than logistics to enhance candidate experience, though. Candidate experience also means that the candidate can easily acquire a truer sense of the organization. “Fit” works both ways – especially for the highly qualified candidate – and the video interviewing process can be embedded with messages and context from the employer to the candidate that can shape the process in ways previously uncontrolled by the employer. Recruiters, supervisors and peers can share a sense for the role, the team, and the culture in a more nuanced way than a job description or on glassdoor.com.

Consider two realistic, yet, hypothetical scenarios. In Scenario A, which most closely resembles current reality, a candidate’s experience follows a worn path: from resume submission to phone screen to phone interviews to on-site interviews to offer. At any point during this process, a candidate may withdraw or the employer may stop engaging, or scheduling might be too cumbersome. After just the first two steps, a thoughtful candidate may have invested several hours pursuing the job – and regardless of candidate quality – the employer has likely spent about an hour preparing for and conducting a phone screen. The recruiter relays his/her notes to other stakeholders in the process, which may or may not accurately reflect what happened, then both the recruiter and candidate enter a holding pattern of undetermined length. Ugh… equally predictable and disappointing.

In Scenario B, a candidate applies for a position. Then on his/her own schedule completes a short video profile that’s triggered automatically through the employer’s applicant tracking system. While completing that profile, the candidate hears from future co-workers about the job and the company, and gets insight on how to respond to questions. The candidate is in control of his/her submission without the presence of an unnecessary countdown clock or the authoritative 1-take rule that repels so many candidates. (Evidence suggests that the more engaging the process, the more likely candidates are to complete it.) Recruiters forward to stakeholders worthy links to candidate profiles, and discussions can begin instantly.

The gap in the results for these two scenarios is obvious, right? Hard costs and soft costs skyrocket with the first approach even though we haven’t moved past initial screening. In the second scenario, a candidate is more directed, more educated and more likely to continue engagement. The candidate and the employer both know each other better. The result will be a smarter, faster decision for all parties.