By Ty Carver | Carver Corner
I hear it almost every day.
“We can’t find good people.”
“The candidate pool isn’t what it used to be.”
“Nobody wants to work in local television anymore.”
I’ve spent more than 15 years recruiting in the media industry, including leading talent acquisition for one of the country’s largest television broadcast groups before starting Carver Talent in 2019. I’ve heard just about every variation of the talent shortage complaint imaginable.
And some of those complaints are legitimate. The industry has real recruiting challenges. Compensation hasn’t kept pace in many positions. Relocation is increasingly difficult. Experienced people are leaving broadcasting for other industries, and the next generation isn’t exactly beating down the doors to get in.
But here’s something television executives might want to consider.
Maybe some of your recruiting problems are self-inflicted.
Maybe the people you’re complaining you can’t find are the same people you’ve been treating like they don’t matter.
Thirteen Interviews. Eleven Disappearances.
I recently posted something on LinkedIn about ghosting. Specifically, what happens when a candidate applies for a position, somehow survives the corporate applicant tracking system, gets through an interview or two, and then hears absolutely nothing.
No rejection. No update. No explanation. Just silence.
Shortly afterward, I received a private message from an experienced television news professional. This wasn’t someone trying to break into the business. This individual has spent decades working in newsrooms, including major markets and some highly respected television operations.
Someone who knows the business, has done the work, and understands what happens inside a newsroom when the phones are ringing, breaking news is unfolding, and everyone needs answers five minutes ago.
Over the past year, this person participated in 13 video interviews for television positions.
Thirteen interviews.
According to the message, only two hiring managers bothered to follow up and explain that another candidate had been selected. That means 11 interviews ended without the professional courtesy of a response.
In another instance, a manager started a telephone interview, had to leave unexpectedly, and promised to call back later that afternoon. The call never came.
Now, I’m hearing one side of these experiences. I haven’t independently verified what happened inside those hiring departments, and I’m deliberately withholding identifying details. I’m not interested in publicly embarrassing individual hiring managers or broadcast groups over one person’s account.
But I am interested in what this says about the state of recruiting in our industry.
An experienced media professional participated in 13 interviews and came away feeling that 11 hiring managers couldn’t be bothered to close the loop.
If you think this is an isolated complaint, spend a little time talking to people who are actively interviewing in television. You’ll hear plenty of similar stories.
When Did Basic Professional Courtesy Become Optional?
I’m trying to understand when we decided that interviewing someone no longer creates any obligation to communicate with them.
Think about what we’re asking candidates to do. We want them to research our company, study our market, understand our operation, prepare thoughtful questions, explain their career decisions, and discuss compensation. Sometimes we ask them to share personal information about their families, relocation considerations, and financial expectations.
We expect them to be enthusiastic, prepared, professional, and responsive throughout the process.
Then, after we’ve gotten what we need from them, apparently some of us decide the relationship is over.
Without bothering to tell them.
I’ve been on both sides of this business. I’ve hired people, rejected people, recruited people, and had candidates disappear on me. I’ve also had hiring managers tell me they’re too busy to provide feedback.
Too busy?
You’re running a television newsroom. You’re responsible for getting information to thousands of people, sometimes millions, every single day. Your entire business revolves around communication.
And you can’t find 30 seconds to tell someone they didn’t get the job?
Come on.
Nobody is asking you to write a dissertation explaining why a candidate wasn’t selected. Nobody expects a personalized career counseling session after every interview. A simple email will do.
“Thank you for your time. We’ve decided to move forward with another candidate. We appreciate your interest and wish you the best.”
There. Done. Thirty seconds.
Apparently, that’s become too much to ask.
Your Recruiting Process Is Advertising Your Culture
Here’s what I think a lot of hiring managers are missing. Every candidate you interview is evaluating you, too.
They’re paying attention to whether you show up on time, whether you’ve actually read their résumé, whether you seem genuinely interested in their background, and whether you can articulate why someone should want to work for your organization.
They’re also watching to see whether you do what you say you’re going to do.
When you promise to call someone back and don’t, you’ve communicated something. When an interview goes well and the candidate doesn’t hear from you for three weeks, that sends a message, too. And when someone has to chase you down repeatedly just to find out whether the position has been filled, you’ve probably told them more about your management style than you intended.
You may not like the message they’re receiving, but you’re the one sending it.
I’ve recruited hundreds of media professionals over the years, and I can tell you that candidates talk. They talk to former colleagues, friends, competitors, and recruiters like me. They remember the hiring manager who treated them with respect, and they certainly remember the one who couldn’t be bothered to return a phone call.
Those memories have a way of resurfacing.
The candidate you ignore today might be the news director you’re trying to recruit three years from now. The account executive you dismiss without explanation might eventually become the general sales manager at a competing station. The assignment editor you ghost could be exactly the person your newsroom desperately needs when your next opening becomes impossible to fill.
I’ve watched careers develop over decades. People move around, get promoted, change companies, and eventually end up sitting on the other side of the hiring desk.
This industry is smaller than people think, and reputations travel.
The Talent Shortage Is Real. So Is the Hypocrisy.
I don’t want to minimize the challenges facing television management. I know how difficult recruiting has become because I deal with it every day.
I see the compensation problems, the reluctance to relocate, and the experienced professionals leaving the industry for better pay, more predictable schedules, and companies that offer a clearer future. I also know many hiring managers are operating with fewer resources, smaller staffs, and more responsibilities than they had five years ago.
I get it. I’ve been there.
But being overwhelmed doesn’t excuse being unprofessional.
And this is where I have a problem with the industry’s constant complaints about recruiting.
You can’t spend Monday complaining that nobody wants to work in television, Tuesday interviewing someone who does, and Wednesday pretending that person doesn’t exist.
There’s something fundamentally wrong with demanding professionalism from candidates while treating your own obligations as optional. We preach culture, respect, accountability, and communication during interviews, then sometimes demonstrate the exact opposite once the conversation ends.
And we wonder why people are losing interest in working for us.
Somewhere along the way, we seem to have forgotten that the candidate sitting across from us is a professional with a career, a family, responsibilities, and other options. They aren’t just another name attached to a requisition number in Workday.
They’re people.
And when we treat them like they’re disposable, we shouldn’t be surprised when they decide the industry is disposable, too.
That’s a leadership problem, and it’s one we have considerably more control over than compensation budgets, corporate consolidation, or the shrinking pool of experienced television professionals.
Candidates Aren’t Innocent, Either
Before someone accuses me of giving candidates a free pass, let’s address the other side.
Candidates ghost employers, too. And trust me, I’ve seen some spectacular examples.
I’ve had candidates express tremendous interest in opportunities, agree to interviews, and then disappear. I’ve had people stop responding in the middle of a recruiting process, sometimes after multiple conversations and considerable time invested by everyone involved.
I’ve also seen candidates accept offers and subsequently withdraw, occasionally after an employer has already made significant preparations for their arrival.
It’s frustrating. It’s expensive. And it damages relationships.
I’ve written about it, dealt with it, and probably used a few words I wouldn’t put in this column.
But hiring managers are supposed to set the standard. You’re representing the organization, its leadership, and its reputation in the marketplace. That comes with responsibilities, including some that aren’t particularly convenient.
If your response to candidates ghosting you is to start ghosting candidates yourself, congratulations. You’ve managed to become part of the problem you’re complaining about.
What an accomplishment.
The Candidate You Reject Still Matters
One of the most valuable lessons I learned running corporate recruiting was that a candidate relationship doesn’t necessarily end when you reject someone.
Sometimes the person who finishes second is exactly the person you need six months later. The candidate who wasn’t quite ready for a management position might become an outstanding leader two years down the road. And someone who isn’t right for your organization may know three people who are.
I’ve seen all of it.
But those relationships only have value if you preserve them, and that starts with treating people like professionals even when the answer is no.
I’ve actually had candidates thank me for delivering bad news.
Think about that for a second. They thanked me for telling them they didn’t get the job.
Not because they enjoyed the rejection. Nobody enjoys being rejected. They appreciated the fact that I respected them enough to give them an answer, and when possible, explain the decision.
More importantly, many of those same people were willing to have another conversation when the next opportunity came along.
That’s how recruiting relationships are built. Over time. Through honest conversations, follow-through, and the occasional uncomfortable phone call.
Not through automated messages celebrating your company’s commitment to people. Not through glossy career pages featuring smiling employees and carefully selected testimonials.
I’ve worked inside large corporate recruiting operations. I know the pressure to fill openings, manage requisitions, satisfy hiring managers, and keep the process moving. There are days when you barely have time to eat lunch.
But I also know that the way you treat someone when you no longer need anything from them says quite a bit about who you are.
And frankly, it says a lot about the company you represent.
Someone Needs to Own This
If I were running a television station today, I’d ask my department heads a pretty simple question.
How many people have we interviewed in the past 90 days who still haven’t received a final disposition?
I’m not talking about every applicant who submitted a résumé through the website. That’s an entirely different conversation, and one worth having.
I’m talking about people who actually spent time interviewing with someone at your station.
How many are still waiting to hear from you?
For searches that have been closed, the answer should be zero. If it isn’t, I’d want to know why, and I wouldn’t be particularly impressed with an explanation about how busy everyone has been.
I’d also want to know who’s responsible for communicating with candidates. Is it HR? Corporate talent acquisition? The department head? The general manager?
Because I’ve seen what happens when everyone assumes somebody else is handling it. Nobody does, and candidates fall through the cracks.
Sometimes the hiring process drags on because corporate hasn’t approved the salary. Maybe the position has been put on hold. Perhaps the general manager is waiting on budget approval, or the company has frozen the requisition altogether.
Fine. Those things happen.
Tell the candidate.
If the search is still active, let them know. If you’re waiting on a decision, explain that. You don’t have to disclose confidential internal information or promise something you can’t deliver. Just give people a reasonable understanding of where things stand.
Silence isn’t a recruiting strategy. It’s avoidance.
And here’s something else hiring managers might want to think about, particularly those working for larger broadcast groups with sophisticated HR and legal departments.
When experienced candidates repeatedly interview for positions and never receive an explanation for why they weren’t selected, some are eventually going to start asking questions that go well beyond professional courtesy. Questions about age, hiring practices, and whether everyone is actually getting a fair shot.
Those questions can become expensive.
To be clear, failing to follow up with a candidate isn’t, by itself, evidence of discrimination. Employers aren’t generally obligated to provide detailed explanations for every hiring decision, and there are legitimate reasons to keep those communications brief.
But when hiring decisions are inconsistent, poorly documented, or influenced by factors that have nothing to do with qualifications, the lack of a disciplined recruiting process can create real problems.
And if an employment attorney eventually starts asking questions, “We were too busy to follow up” probably isn’t going to inspire much confidence in how the rest of the process was handled.
Broadcast groups might want to think about that before dismissing candidate communication as some minor administrative inconvenience.
While we’re at it, let’s talk about all the technology we’ve supposedly introduced to make hiring more efficient.
We have sophisticated applicant tracking systems, artificial intelligence, candidate assessments, automated scheduling, and elaborate interview procedures. Companies spend significant amounts of money trying to improve the candidate experience.
Yet somehow, with all those tools at our disposal, we still can’t consistently manage the simplest part of the process.
Telling someone where they stand.
If your recruiting technology can automatically reject an applicant in six seconds but can’t help you communicate with someone who spent an hour interviewing with your hiring manager, perhaps we’re investing in the wrong things.
No software upgrade is going to fix a lack of accountability.
The Industry Can’t Afford This Anymore
Local television is fighting enough battles already.
Audiences are changing. Advertising dollars are moving. Ownership groups are consolidating. Newsrooms are being asked to produce more content with fewer resources. Experienced professionals are retiring or finding opportunities outside broadcasting, and the pipeline of people willing to replace them isn’t nearly as deep as it once was.
We need talented people who still believe in what local television can be.
People willing to work the difficult schedules, handle breaking news, build relationships in their communities, sell advertising in an increasingly complicated marketplace, and bring experience into operations that desperately need it.
And when those people raise their hands and say they’re interested, we owe them better than silence.
The experienced news professional who contacted me didn’t ask for special treatment. Didn’t ask for a guaranteed job. Didn’t ask me to publicly embarrass the stations involved.
The frustration was much simpler.
After 13 interviews, only two managers had the courtesy to provide an answer.
If that account is accurate, two managers did what every hiring manager should consider a basic responsibility. Eleven apparently didn’t.
I’d like to believe that’s an embarrassment to our industry rather than an accepted business practice. But the more candidates I talk to, the less convinced I am.
I also wonder how many good people have quietly decided they’ve had enough. Not because they couldn’t handle the work or didn’t love the business, but because the organizations they wanted to join couldn’t demonstrate even a basic level of professional respect.
We spend an awful lot of time talking about how to attract the next generation of talent into television. Maybe we should spend a little more time examining how we’re treating the experienced people who are still interested in being here.
Because once those relationships are damaged, a better job posting, a new recruiting platform, or another corporate initiative about employee engagement isn’t necessarily going to bring them back.
I’ve made a career out of connecting good people with good opportunities. I know there are outstanding hiring managers throughout this industry who take candidate communication seriously. They return calls, deliver difficult news, and understand that recruiting is about relationships, not just filling openings.
They deserve credit for doing it right.
But the others need to hear this.
The next time you’re sitting in a management meeting complaining that nobody wants to work in television anymore, consider how your station treats the people who still do.
If you’re interviewing qualified professionals and then disappearing, you might want to stop complaining about the talent shortage.
You’re helping create it.
Ty Carver is the founder and CEO of Carver Talent, an executive recruiting firm specializing in media leadership, sales, and digital talent. Before founding Carver Talent in 2019, he led talent acquisition for Raycom Media. He is also the author of Exit Signals: How Leaders Spot Decline Before the Numbers Do.
Carver Talent | exitsignals.com