Facebook’s decision to shut down its jobs product in March 2022 came as a surprise to many. Jobs had been a feature on Facebook since 2017 and allowed businesses to post job listings that could be seen by Facebook users. Here we’ll look at some of the main reasons behind why Facebook removed this functionality.
Declining Usage
One of the key factors was that usage of Facebook Jobs had been steadily declining over time. When Jobs was first launched it saw strong initial adoption, with over 2 million job listings posted in the first 24 hours. However, over time both job seekers and employers gravitated away from using Facebook as a platform for recruitment.
There are a few possible reasons for this decline in usage:
- Facebook users did not go to the platform specifically looking for job opportunities, so the job listings had limited visibility and engagement.
- There was strong competition from dedicated job sites like Indeed, LinkedIn, and ZipRecruiter. These sites offered more advanced job matching and applicant tracking capabilities.
- Employers had concerns over the effectiveness of job ads on Facebook due to issues like low application rates.
As usage declined, Jobs was no longer seen as a strategic priority for Facebook. Other products like Marketplace were growing faster and seen as more central to Facebook’s offerings.
Increased Regulatory Scrutiny
Facebook also faced increasing regulatory pressures around its ads-based business model. In 2019, the company paid a record $5 billion fine to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to settle an investigation into its privacy practices. There were also ongoing antitrust probes into Facebook’s advertising dominance.
Job ads represented a very small share of Facebook’s overall ad revenue. By removing Jobs, Facebook eliminated a source of regulatory risk and scrutiny at a time when it was already under the regulatory microscope.
Limited Monetization Potential
Facebook Jobs did not align well with Facebook’s ad-based business model. Job listings are essentially classified ads, not a typical brand awareness or direct response ad. The ads were not very lucrative for Facebook compared to its other high-margin offerings:
- Job ads followed a listings-based model with mostly free postings, whereas Facebook makes most of its ad revenue from pay-per-click and impression-based ads.
- There were limits on the ad targeting capabilities for job ads due to anti-discrimination laws, reducing potential ad customization.
- The job ads marketplace was already dominated by incumbents like Indeed, leaving Facebook with a smaller share of the pie.
Essentially, Jobs was not generating enough revenue and profit potential to be worth investing resources in supporting and maintaining the product.
Desire to Streamline Product Offerings
Shutting down Jobs aligned with Mark Zuckerberg’s broader vision to streamline Facebook’s product portfolio. In early 2019, Zuckerberg announced plans to integrate Facebook’s messaging services (WhatsApp, Messenger, Instagram) and focus the company’s direction. Jobs did not fit neatly into this focus on messaging, groups and Stories.
Removing Jobs helped Facebook eliminate a standalone product that was disconnected from its core offerings. Rather than diverting resources into Jobs, Facebook directed its focus towards higher strategic priorities.
Issues Recruiting Product Team
According to inside sources, Facebook also struggled to recruit and build out the product team responsible for Jobs. Many candidates were reluctant to join Jobs because they saw it as a dying product with lackluster user adoption.
This shortage of talent on the product side likely contributed to stalled product development. The existing Jobs team was stretched thin just keeping the lights on. Without a robust staff of engineers and product managers, it became hard to justify further investment in Jobs.
Increased Focus on Groups and Local
While Facebook shut down Jobs, it actually doubled down its focus on other initiatives like Groups and Local. Mark Zuckerberg spoke about realigning Facebook around these “discovery engines”.
Groups and Local better leveraged Facebook’s strengths in connecting people and communities. They offered more potential than the flagging Jobs feature. Doubling down on these emerging priorities hastened Jobs’ demise.
The Rise of Remote Work
The shift to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic was likely another factor. As more companies hired remote employees located anywhere, Facebook Jobs became less relevant.
Employers are far less concerned about an applicant’s specific geographic location with remote roles. Job seekers are also much more geographically dispersed when applying for remote roles. This reduced the need for a localized job board.
Additionally, demand fell for service & hospitality roles that make up a sizable share of Facebook Jobs postings. Overall job market uncertainty also led to reduced hiring in early 2020.
Table Summary of Factors
| Factor | Description |
|---|---|
| Declining usage | Engagement with Facebook Jobs decreased over time as users gravitated to other platforms. |
| Regulatory scrutiny | Removing Jobs helped Facebook reduce regulatory risk related to its ads-based business model. |
| Limited monetization | Job ads were not very lucrative compared to other Facebook ad offerings. |
| Streamlining product portfolio | Cutting Jobs aligned with focusing on messaging, groups and stories. |
| Recruiting challenges | Facebook struggled to build out the Jobs product team. |
| Focus on Groups and Local | Facebook prioritized building out these other discovery engines. |
| Remote work trends | Remote hiring reduced the need for a localized job board. |
Conclusion
In the end, Facebook Jobs simply failed to gain traction and was not delivering enough value to justify continued investment. Facebook directed resources towards more promising products. While scrapping Jobs made sense from a business perspective, it did remove a potential employment resource. However, abundant alternatives remain for both employers and job seekers.