Video resumes seem to be a "hot" topic in recruiting these days. Recruiters and, yes, employment attorneys are polarized on both sides of this very controversial fence. I received an email from a journalist I have worked with in the past on my opinion on video resumes and video conferencing for interviews, and how a candidate can best prepare for both/either of those.

The detractors have a couple of basic rallying cries regarding video resumes:
-It is too likely to open my company up to discrimmination claims.
-Viewing videos takes too long in comparison to reading a resume.

On the "It's coming, get used to the idea" camp, we have the "young" professionals who argue that:
-Video is how the new(er) candidates are communicating with each other (consider Youtube). It's inevitable.
-A video resume has no more possibility for discrimmination than an in-person interview.
-Look at how Europe has created a viable market using video and phones to communicate.
-Recruiters would get a chance to see how a candidate presents themselves on a video rather than just reading about them.
-It's a more polished, more personable and more professional way to interact with the candidate.

OK, first I'm going to address the *title* I have chosen for this topic. "Video Content", not "video resume". I believe there is a third option to using video media as a way for a candidate to communicate.

First off, I'm *against* video resumes. My reasons fall into the discrimmination category, for the most part. Rather than just prattle on it, I'm going to refer everyone to several studies conducted over the last decade that show that societally we are predisposed to discrimmination:

Attractive people make more money, are seen as more reliable, and generally have an advantage over their homelier counterparts. Below are just a very few articles referencing these studies.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/Careers/07/08/looks/
 
http://womeninquire.com/index.php/Why-Attractive-People-Get-Better-Jobs.html
 
http://www.onrec.com/newsstories/20805.asp
 
http://www.thedigeratilife.com/blog/index.php/2008/04/08/get-hired-get-a-raise-and-get-paid-more-by-improving-your-appearance/

This in and of itself is enough of a social phenomenon to alarm me as a recruiter. There is also the fact that not everyone has access to video equipment and software editing tools. Until such time as these tools are widely available to *everyone*, this is a form discrimmination against those that cannot afford access to such tools. Nowadays, every public library offers free computer usage, and all US unemployment offices have computers that are free to use for job hunting. In Europe, I had no problem finding Internet Cafes all over the place priced attracively for students. When this type of access is the case with video resumes, when it isn't cost prohibitive to access the tools that *create* the modality, then I'll consider it. With current resume formats, there is more help available to create a very accessible and relatively uniform way of transmitting information. On top of that, I see there being a plethora of IP issues that are lurking below the surface that haven't even been *mentioned*.

So, why do I mention "video content"?

I believe that candidates that are serious about reaching recruiters with video media consider using a video *portfolio* that is referenced in their standard resume. If a candidate has the tools to create a video resume, they certainly have the tools to put together a portfolio.

Although a portfolio conjures thoughts of creative industries replete with websites or digital imagery, anyone using PowerPoint can create a "video" portfolio. As a recruiter that often answers questions on resume construction, my first answer is "always make sure your resume is targeted. Use numbers and statistics", and if you can do that, you can create a PowerPoint presentation describing your project or work as it relates to your experiences, whatever it may be. If you truly want to create a "video", then taking before and after footage with your camera *without you sitting in front of it* gives your reviewer an idea of what you have done and the difference it makes. It takes far more creativity for, say, a recruiter to put together a compelling story with their account management and sourcing strategies than it does to sit in front of a camera and just "talk".  I work part time in a women's clothing store, and all over the back room we have signs and graphs showing our top producers, and their names get published monthly in our newsletter; certainly taking video footage of these would be a unique way for a top producer to "show" rather than just "tell" (an axiom in writing/publishing) their story.  Just a thought.

As a technical recruiter, obviously I try and keep at the forefront of tools and technology that impact not just my industry but society in general. The recruiting industry, at least in North America, is not ready to handle all the ramifications of video resumes. We need more time to analyze the longer-term effects of how this would impact discrimmination, not to mention time management. The fifteen seconds it takes me to scan a resume wouldn't be enough for a candidate to do more than introduce themselves on a video, and quite honestly I don't have the time to change those patterns. With the requisition load most recruiters have these days, it just isn't feasible to ask them to triple or quadruple their own workload, nor is it economically viable to hire sourcing recruiters for the sole purpose of evaluating "good" (and how would we apply a standard to video resumes to determine this?) video resumes and take the "pick of the crop" for further consideration.

Talk to me in five or six years. Maybe things will have changed, laws will evolve that don't include OFCCP and EEOC mandates that make recruiters and employees nervous about just *evaluating* a candidate via current channels.