+4 votes
asked ago in Job Market - JOE by (160 points)
The JOE pricing scheme charges on a per word basis (more accurately $400 per 200 words). Many schools and, I suspect state schools specifically, face institutional constraints on what they must include in their ads. At my school, ads must be approved at the central university level and include a lot of institutional boiler-plate over which we have no discretion and there are requirements to post the ad in full. This leads to an ad of over 1,000 words and a listing fee on JOE of $2,400: around the cost of an additional fly-out. It means that this year we won't list on JOE and will instead just run with econjobmarket.org. I suspect that we are not alone in this predicament and that this issue hits more-bureaucratized state universities particularly hard. I don't see a compelling rationale for the current pricing scheme for posting a digital ad.

2 Answers

0 votes
answered ago by (3.3k points)
Given your post, may I suggest they are charging on a per word basis to maximize their revenue from their pricing scheme? Clearly most schools are more than willing to pay it. I would think the cost per post is not a linear step function of the number of words, so I can't think of anything else that would explain it.

I do think you will get significantly less # and quality of apps by only being on econjobmarket.org though. I looked at both, but when I was on the mkt I was the only person I knew who did so.  Everyone thought I was crazy to do so. I was told quote, if the job doesn't post on JOE you should not apply there. Which I would argue speaks to JOE's authority or monopoly of postings, which points straight back to my first sentence.
commented ago by (160 points)
Thanks for the response. This was a somewhat rhetorical question. Appreciate the caveats but this priced us off JOE this year, and I was hoping to make the AEA aware of this situation - it's not obvious that econspark is the forum to do so.
It is hard to believe that the same pricing scheme has been optimal for the past 25 years despite the changing competitive landscape, and despite the shift from print to an online format. My guess would be inertia that has unintended consequences that I was keen to bring to light.
+1 vote
answered ago by (160 points)
In response to this question about JOE from a few months ago, as well as the comment regarding whether to apply to job postings...

It's not clear whether the AEA's pricing maximizes its profit, but it certainly generates a large profit: for the year ended December 31, 2019, the AEA reports revenue from JOE of about $1.2m and costs of about $230,000.  (See page 4 of the report linked from https://www.aeaweb.org/about-aea/financial-statements.)  EconJobMarket, a nonprofit, sets prices to just cover its costs (and has a tier of ads that are free).

Some recruiters post their ads only on JOE, others post only on EJM (and/or other sites such as the Chronicle), and many post on multiple sites.  You’re putting yourself at a disadvantage if you don’t post your ads on EJM, since it can do nothing but increase exposure to prospective candidates.  

It’s crazy to suggest that a candidate should not apply for a position that hasn’t been posted on JOE, unless the objective is to end the job-market season with no job.