Recruiting content has a weird superstition attached to it.

If it gets likes, it must be working.

If it gets comments, it must be building the brand.

If it “performs,” someone will eventually apply.

That’s how you end up with a content calendar full of motion… and a funnel full of meh.

Because the thing that actually matters isn’t engagement.

It’s choosability.

Do your posts make the right people think: I get this place. I want this place. I trust this place.
Or do they just think: Cute.

I built a simple framework to answer that question fast: the Hierarchy of Recruiting Content.

It ranks recruiting content in six levels, from strongest to weakest, based on how much it actually helps you win talent (not attention).

And here’s the point that tends to irritate people (a good sign):
Most teams publish at the bottom three levels and wonder why they have to keep buying more ads.

What the hierarchy does (in plain English)

It helps you look at any post and diagnose what it’s really doing:

  • Is it building a differentiated employer brand or just repeating safe adjectives?
  • Is it aimed at a specific audience or “anyone with a pulse and a LinkedIn account”?
  • Is it optimized for platform tricks or for belief and conversion?
  • Is it moving people toward a decision… or just filling the feed because Tuesday exists?

The hierarchy is intentionally blunt, because recruiting has a tendency to reward polite nonsense.

This framework doesn’t.

The trap most teams fall into

They confuse “branded” with “strategic.”

Branded content is fine. It’s consistent. It sounds like you. It repeats the promise.

But strategic content does something harder: it makes you an only, not one of many.

That’s the difference between “We have a great culture” and “Here’s the specific way work happens here, and here’s the proof.”

One builds familiarity. The other builds preference.

The content calendar problem

When strategy isn’t clear, the calendar fills itself.

First with tactical posts that chase reach.
Then with generic posts that chase applicants.
Then with… let’s call it what it is: filler.

And filler is not harmless.

Filler teaches your audience that you don’t have anything real to say.

Which is a brutal thing to communicate while asking someone to bet their career on you.

A quick self-check (takes 30 seconds)

Pick your last five recruiting posts and ask:

  1. Could a competitor publish this without changing a word?
  2. Does it give a specific audience a specific reason to choose you?
  3. Does it include any proof, or just claims?
  4. Would the right candidate feel smarter for seeing it?
  5. If this disappeared, would your employer brand lose anything meaningful?

If that felt uncomfortable, good. That’s the framework doing its job.

Want the full model?

The full PDF includes:

  • all six levels (with clear definitions)
  • how to spot which level you’re publishing at
  • what to upgrade first (without posting more)
  • examples and a simple scoring method you can hand to your team

Download the complete PDF

If you’re tired of recruiting content that “does numbers” but doesn’t create belief, this will fix your aim.

‍