What we found
Three kinds of job seeker, wanting three different things.
The sample divided almost in thirds, and the three groups wanted contradictory things. The clearest case: a $400 monthly childcare allowance was among the strongest positives for one group and a negative for another. Offered to everyone, it cancels itself out.
Fielded 30 and 31 July 2021. The wage figures belong to that labor market and should not be read as current rates; the structure of the finding is what carries forward.
Method
How the study was run
ProspX.ai drafted the audience specification and a preliminary list of back-to-work attributes, shared both with hiring managers across hospitality, manufacturing, technology and other industries, and used their feedback to cut the list to 16 attributes. Respondents then rated vignettes built from those attributes.
- Instrument
- ProspX.ai Optimize
- Respondents
- 150, national
- Vignettes per respondent
- 24
- Vignette evaluations
- 3,600
- Attributes
- 16, refined with hiring-manager input
- Screening
- A18-70, not currently employed, looking for work or expecting to be within 90 days
- Income screen
- Individually earned up to $58K per year before COVID-19
- Fielding
- 30-31 July 2021
Finding one
The market split almost in thirds
No group dominates, so no single offer wins. A job advert written for the average candidate is written for nobody.
How job seekers divided
Share of 150 respondents
- Benefits Driven · 35.3%
- Money Driven · 33.4%
- Package Driven · 31.3%
35.3%
Benefits Driven
Likely to have children, especially young ones. Wants to advance. Probably already has standard benefits through a partner.
Rated highly
- Paid or discounted K2-6 childcare near work
- Continuing education assistance
- Paid or discounted direct transportation
Rated poorly
- A 401K after one month
- Healthcare plan choices
- Medical, dental and vision insurance
33.4%
Money Driven
Averages the lowest hourly wages. Most likely single, or without young children.
Rated highly
- A starting salary of $18.00 per hour
- An extra $2.00 per hour for alternative shifts
- $500 employment bonuses
- Surge pay of an extra 25% per shift
Rated poorly
- Guaranteed time and a half for an extra shift
- A $400 monthly childcare allowance
31.3%
Package Driven
At the higher end of the non-exempt curve. Wants wage, culture and benefits in balance rather than any one of them.
Rated highly
- Guaranteed time and a half for an extra shift
- Healthcare plan choices
- A 401K after one month of employment
- A workplace that uses technology to reduce effort
Rated poorly
- A starting salary of $18.00 per hour, on its own
The contradiction between the first two groups is the finding to keep: the same childcare allowance that attracted Benefits Driven respondents pushed Money Driven ones away, and guaranteed time and a half ran the other way.
Finding two
The mindsets are not the demographics
Average hourly wage, by mindset
Among 150 respondents
Age and income differ only modestly across the three groups. What separates them is what they want, not who they are, which is why demographic targeting alone misses them.
| Mindset | Average age | Average income | Average hourly wage | Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mindset 1 | 42.7 | $27,360 | $13.15 | 33.33% |
| Mindset 2 | 40.1 | $34,447 | $16.56 | 31.33% |
| Mindset 3 | 40.2 | $29,113 | $14.00 | 35.33% |
| All respondents | 41.0 | $30,200 | $14.31 | 100% |
Source: ProspX.ai Back-to-Workforce Study, fielded 30-31 July 2021, n=150. The sample was 65.33% women and 34.67% men.
Why it matters
A single benefits package pays for items that drive part of the audience away
Most hiring decisions treat the offer as one package and the advert as one message. This study found a third of candidates rating highly exactly what another third rated poorly. A bundled package therefore spends money on benefits that are doing negative work with a large share of the people it is meant to attract, and the cost of those benefits usually comes out of the wage, which is what moved the group that did not want them.
The wage figure gives the budget conversation a number rather than an argument. An employer asking why its vacancies attract no applicants has a measured estimate to work with: 15% to 25% more per hour, varying by what the candidate earns now. That is a different conversation from "pay more".
It also sets the limit of what this study can tell you. These are stated preferences from a rated-vignette exercise, not applications received. They identify which offers and messages are worth testing in live recruitment advertising; they do not predict how a campaign will perform.
After the study
Know what matters to people, and where to reach them.
The hiring research identified groups motivated by different offers and benefits. We then used syndicated research to understand the media each group was more likely to consume, including websites, television networks and programs. That connected the message strategy to media planning: what to say, who to reach and where to advertise.
This was a separate analysis, carried out after the study. It was not part of the fielded research above. It matches the mindset profiles to syndicated media data at the audience level. No individual respondent was followed, and the media profiles are not reproduced here.
How to apply it · ProspX.ai recommendations
Where this changes a hiring or recruitment-marketing decision
These are our recommendations, drawn from the findings above. They are actions to consider, not outcomes the study measured.
- Write three versions of the vacancy, not one. Put the item that moved each group in the first line: the hourly rate for Money Driven, childcare and transport support for Benefits Driven, the whole package and the shift guarantee for Package Driven.
- Make benefits selectable rather than bundled. A candidate who does not value childcare support should not be paying for it through a lower rate. That is the exact trade the Money Driven group rejected.
- Take the wage estimate into the budget discussion before the advertising one. If the gap to market is 15% to 25% an hour, better creative will not close it.
- Pair the pay message with a retention incentive for low-wage roles. The group most moved by money was also identified as the least loyal, so a hiring bonus alone buys a short stay.
- Plan recruitment media by mindset, not demographic. Average age varies by 2.6 years across the three groups and average income by about $7,000, too little to separate them with demographic targeting.
- Treat the advert as a testable message. Run the three versions against each other and let applications, not the study, decide which wins in your market.
From the original report
What the 2021 study recommended
The recommendations stated in the original report, in its own terms.
- Life stage has some bearing on what matters most.
- For higher wage earners, talk about culture, wages and benefits together.
- For lower wage earners money talks, but they may be the least loyal, so retention bonuses belong in the equation.
- Be specific about advancement programs.
- Consider a menu of benefits options rather than one-size-fits-all.
- Plan media by mindset, based on psychographics rather than demographics.
- Quickly accruing PTO and vague pronouncements of value are just noise.
- You are not only competing for share of wallet. You are competing for talent.