Async Video Screening Saves Time Only on the Candidates Who Finish

There's a way of measuring a screening process that makes almost anything look efficient: count only the people who made it through.

Async video interviews are a good example. They've become the standard first-round screen for a lot of teams, and the case for them is easy to see. A recruiter doing 30-minute phone screens gets through about 12 candidates in a full day of back-to-back calls. The same recruiter watching recorded answers at 1.5x speed can review 20 or 25 in the same time, with no scheduling at all. Multiply that across a team and it looks like an easy decision.

The ATS side is tidy too. When a candidate reaches a qualified stage, a link goes out automatically, the responses come back into the same dashboard, and reviewers watch them whenever they like. For a team that has been trading scheduling emails across time zones, that's a relief, and I don't want to pretend otherwise.

But notice what those numbers count. They count the videos that came back. They say nothing about what happens between sending the link and getting a response, if one arrives at all.

How big is that gap? One set of estimates puts average completion for async video invitations at 55 to 65 percent, depending on the platform and the seniority of the role, and the platforms with the best numbers report around 72 to 75 percent. Senior and in-demand roles tend to come in lower. So even in the good case, roughly one in four candidates you had already decided were worth screening leaves before the first real conversation.

It isn't hard to see why. Picture the person you most want for a role: employed, being approached by two or three other companies, and not yet convinced your job is going anywhere. Now ask them to find a quiet room, test their camera, and give polished answers on demand to a blinking red light. For them that's a real cost, and the team that designed the process never feels it. The people most likely to finish are the ones with the most free time. The people least likely to finish are often the ones you wanted most.

So your shortlist is the best of the people who applied and also happened to have twenty spare minutes on the evening your link arrived. That's a filter, and it has nothing to do with the job.

Put the missing people back into the efficiency math and it changes. If you send 100 invitations and get 62 videos back, you haven't saved 38 phone calls. You have a shortlist drawn from a skewed sample, and 38 qualified people who may be talking to whoever called them next.

What I'd do instead is move the effort off the candidate. That's the idea behind Asendia: we make software that phones applicants and interviews them. There's nothing to download and no camera, and nobody has to hide from their family or from an employer who doesn't know they're looking. I'd expect more people to pick up a phone than to record a video, simply because the call comes to them. The recruiter gets a ranked shortlist with qualification summaries and verbatim highlights from each call, written straight into the ATS, so there's no separate review queue in the way.

For agencies the difference is easiest to see at volume. Say a campaign gets 300 applications over a weekend. At the completion rates above, that's something like 185 videos by Monday, and which 185 depends on who had time between Friday and Sunday. Asendia calls all 300, so Monday's shortlist comes from everyone it could reach, rather than from whoever had a free Saturday afternoon.

The timing matters beyond screening, too. The post on offer rejection rates argues that the clock on a candidate's commitment starts when they apply, which is much earlier than most teams start worrying about it.

Async video solved a real problem, the pain of scheduling phone screens, and quietly created another one. When candidates drop out between the invitation and the recording, I don't think it says much about their commitment. People with options won't reliably perform on your terms at your convenience. If you use async video now, look up one number: how many invitations went out last quarter, and how many videos came back. The difference is the part of your pipeline your efficiency numbers don't show.

Ready to transform your hiring strategy? Schedule a Demo with our founders today!