The big idea: Charge $1 to apply to a job (hear me out)

A serious look at adding a paywall to your job application

I went through a job search last year and generally found the process terrible.

The most discouraging part was LinkedIn’s “number of applicants” feature; it wasn’t unusual to find a job posting and see that over 1,000 people had applied before me. That is absolutely insane! As a result, I (and probably lots of other people) applied to many more jobs than I’d like to, increasing that number of applicants even more.

What if we could add a small amount of friction, enough to make job seekers be a little discerning on where they apply? Introducing ApplyForward: an add-on for Workday that requires applicants to donate $1 to charity before they can submit their application.

People are applying for too many jobs, and that’s making it hard to find one

I don’t think that all 1,000 applicants on those LinkedIn jobs are being selective; AI tools now allow a subset of people to apply to thousands of jobs. This guy on Reddit applied to 1,000 jobs with AI! This other guy applied to 5,000! There’s multiple hot startups building this for job seekers!

It’s no wonder companies don’t call you back - they have hundreds of AI-written applications piling up in metaphorical stacks on their desk. Even the most fair HR person is going to start taking shortcuts, not fully review resumes, or outsource initial screening to an AI or ATS system.

This is a coordination problem. When you’re the only one doing this, it’s great! You’ll get seen by lots of people, and maybe you will get lucky and find a gem of a job through a random application. But people still need jobs! So when the noise increases, everybody starts applying more (whether using AI or hours of tedious manual applications).

All of the macrotrends - especially AI - remove pre-interview frictions in the job process. Finding an opening? It’s all online and on LinkedIn. Does it need to be local? Maybe not: apply to a hybrid job and see if they’ll go remote. Do you need to fill out an application manually? We already know the answer is no! Do you need to meet any of the qualifications? You might get lucky!

So, let’s charge you $1

A $1 fee is a simple, but brilliant, solution for this. Workday has plugin capability; just add a payment page on the application form before you can submit. The applicant simply chooses the nonprofit of their choice, enters their credit card, pays $1, and their application goes through.

Think through how this changes the job application experience - $1 is not significant for a job that you’re a fit for, but for those dropping thousands of applications it adds up quickly. I don’t think the Reddit guy would have spent $1,000 on his AI applications blindly; at a minimum he’ll ask his AI to stop submitting applications for hybrid jobs in Alaska.

But why $1? Why a nonprofit?

I guess you could charge a higher fee and just pocket it - Harvard made $2 million from MBA application fees. But that incentivizes them to give hope to some people who probably shouldn’t bother applying, which isn’t what we want! We also don’t want to create businesses that subsist entirely on being an appealing place to apply (not to mention, that’d be a pretty classist setup).

It doesn’t make sense to charge so much to disincentivize frivolous applications - there’s only a few substitutes for Harvard, there’s 55,000 software engineer openings right now.

So let’s just make it $1. It’s infinitely more than zero, while it’s low enough that it won’t stop most people from applying to the right job.

The biggest obstacle is the gut reaction to the paywall; people are going to go absolutely apocalyptic when they see this. Imagine the reputational impact to early adopters on social media - “why is Google preying on job seekers by making them pay to apply?” It won’t be long before this makes the rounds in traditional media, becomes the center of discourse, and any company affiliated has to offer therapy to their social media manager.

The $1 going to charity is actually a key part of this. If the company isn’t pocketing the money, there is at least a chance to negate some of the backlash that will naturally come out of this. And at the same time, this could be substantive charitable giving if you make it work.

Some friction in competitive spaces can be a good thing

I can already hear the immediate objection - “this is classist, helps wealthy people that can afford to apply for lots of jobs, and reinforces inequalities.” No it doesn’t!

Upwork’s freelancer marketplace uses a much-hated “Connects” system - essentially, you pay a dollar or two to apply for a job. Going by their subreddit, a vocal set of people absolutely despise this. But it’s brilliant! Pricing an application clears out untold numbers of irrelevant proposals, meaning that if you do apply your chances of being seriously reviewed increase dramatically.

The same phenomenon happened with the rise of the Common Application for colleges. It’s easier to apply, so students apply to more schools on average - 6.22 in 2021-2022 compared to 4.63 from 2013-14. For top colleges, selectivity skyrockets. The UC program has been hit especially hard; UCLA fell from 24% acceptance in 2002 to 9% in 2022. That flows down to a generation of kids who optimize their life to get into college; people intuitively want to remove friction for processes they’re part of, but the resulting equilibrium can just benefit sophisticated players who understand the rules.

This dynamic happens all over the job market today, and companies are reacting by increasing the importance of referrals. That is the part that hurts people applying without connections! If someone is reviewing 30 resumes instead of 300, you’ll have a real chance to be seen. People may hate the process, but increased application friction actually acts as an equalizer.

But, $1 is more for some people than for others

I also know that not everybody has a credit card, and $1 applications add up. What if we set aside a pot of money to subsidize some people’s applications? A large donor to - I don’t know, PETA - could turn their $10,000 donation into 10,000 job application subsidies. People can apply for a set number of subsidized applications, with the donation being drawn down as the applications are used.

ApplyForward could even put a portion of profits into a pool like this. It’s not 100% equitable, but requiring an application for the subsidy is as much - if not more - of a friction for job applicants as the $1. We don’t have to give up the idea in order to compensate those who it disproportionately affects negatively.

We could get to a world where the ApplyForward foundation becomes a major donor in itself. Open question for a tax lawyer reading this - would they be able to write this off of their taxes?

I’m a brave soul who wants to start this. How do I make money?

The core challenge of charging job posters as a pure SaaS is proving value. Do companies actually care about having fewer, better applicants? I think so, but it's a hard pitch to make - especially for early adopters, who already have customized ATS and AI systems.

What if you offered it to companies for free, but got paid by the nonprofits? We could do a revenue share, something like 5% of the money raised as a platform fee. The problem is the public perception - are you ready to defend taking 5% of donations earmarked for Meals on Wheels?

Maybe better is a fee to appear higher up in the dropdown of nonprofits. If we really channel tens of millions to nonprofits, being more visible could easily be worth six or seven figures annually. It’s logical, but I can see the backlash forming when the top option is a megachurch.

The answer is probably to raise some outside funding to operate, test all three, and see what pans out.

What if people go bananas and companies chicken out?

It could happen! I can imagine big employers getting cold feet when The New York Times does their first expose. But in some ways that situation is more interesting (assuming ApplyForward doesn’t immediately go bankrupt).

Would it become a signal for contrarian companies, like Jane Street, that want to filter for candidates for a certain mindset? What signal does it send to actually pay the $1 when it’s not widespread - does it show you’re serious or you’re desperate? And would a subset of job seekers take this logic to heart, apply for every company doing this under the assumption there’s less competition, and actually create a more competitive submarket?

And for those companies that don’t adopt it, the problem of mass applications will continue getting worse - only now, they’ll be focused on a smaller set of companies. The future may be that selective companies stop posting jobs publicly, hiring entirely through referral networks and closed job boards for feeder universities and trade schools.

We could end up in a two tier job market: one where people pay to apply, and one where you have to be invited to hear about opportunities.

Official Idea Rating

4.5 out of 5. This is actually a good idea, someone should make this and see if it works! You just have to be ready for the absolute firestorm of negative social and traditional media attention you’re going to get. Maybe the right founder is someone who can explain the economics, has experience handling trolls online, and believes in markets - someone on r/neoliberal. Is Jeremiah Johnson available?