Ten Major Issues with Modern Recruitment

Recruitment’s core purpose is to find the best person for a job. Sounds simple enough, but in today’s oversaturated job market, even the simplest of positions can receive hundreds of applications. To cope with this, recruiters have adopted new tactics to streamline the hiring process. While it's admittedly a smart move at first glance, many of these methods end up doing more harm than good, often failing to respect the time and effort that struggling yet very talented jobseekers put into their lengthy searches. As someone who’s spent years navigating this brutal market, here are 10 key problems I’ve noticed, notably within the creative industry.

#1 - Timing Hypocrisy

Recruiters often expect candidates to respond quickly to interview offers, application queries, or job offers, sometimes as quick as within 24 hours, especially when a role needs urgent filling. But that same urgency rarely goes both ways. Many eager candidates are left in the dark for weeks, maybe even months, for updates on their application. In one case, I received a rejection two months after applying; and to add insult to injury, it was naught but an automated message with no feedback, no explanation, nothing. I no longer recognised the company due to more opportunities since so didn't really care, but it certainly reflected badly on their recruitment process, and that's just one of many similar scenarios I've experienced. Candidates can’t afford to focus solely on one role; they’re often juggling multiple applications at once. A bit more mutual respect, with timely replies, basic communication, and less ghosting, would make the recruitment process a happier place for everyone.

#2 - AI Paranoia

The rise of AI tools, ranging from ChatGPT to Google Gemini, has sparked a widespread fear among some recruiters that candidates are using it to essentially “cheat” their way through applications by having it write out their CVs and cover letters, thus requiring little to no effort on their part. But AI isn’t something to oppose; in fact, it’s a valuable tool that can enhance the quality of many applications. It helps identify mistakes, find the right words, and refine a cover letter that might otherwise be just a tad too long or unclear. Relying solely on AI is lazy and easily identifiable, yes, but using it to simply polish up an application and fix hidden errors is not. Plus, when it comes to a face-to-face interview, there’s no AI assistance. If a candidate impresses you in person, does it really matter if they used a bit of AI to assist with their application? Many employers should rethink their use of AI detection methods, as they risk alienating genuinely talented applicants due to such misplaced fears.

#3 - Tedious Applications

You all saw this one coming. How many applications have you had to do where instead of just submitting your CV and cover letter, you're instead required to fill out your ENTIRE life story, often fleshing out every single bit of background information when it comes to your school, college and employment history in thorough depth. Such applications can take almost an hour, and may also require the creation of an account unique to the recruiter's website. Even the best of candidates, if not truly desperate, may ultimately abandon the application before completion due to how tedious and overlong it ends up being; one for me once took upwards of 45 minutes, and in the end I was simply ghosted. Thanks a lot for the reward, chaps.

#4 - Interview Knockout Tournaments

Multiple rounds of interviews might seem like a fair way to evaluate candidates at first glance, but in reality, it just drags out the hiring process, pits applicants against one another, and piles on more and more stress with each stage. It can leave even the strongest candidates exhausted or disillusioned by the end, and some may drop out entirely in favour of more streamlined and respectful opportunities. Plus, if a recruiter spots a near-perfect candidate early on, they risk losing them altogether due to unnecessary delays. One job I saw proudly listed four interview rounds and a test task stretched over a three month hiring process. Clearly efficiency wasn’t in their best interests.

#5 - Big Brands = Big Bias

Though it's not the worst issue on this list, it’s still common for recruiters to quickly skim through applications and quickly assume that anyone who’s worked at a big-name brand, such as BBC or ITV, must be the perfect fit. While experience at prestigious companies can carry weight, it doesn’t automatically equal skill or suitability. Take a moment to actually read what their role was; they may have simply been a runner or a cleaner. There's no shame in that, but it doesn’t make them ready to be a Senior Video Editor just because the BBC logo rests on their CV. Meanwhile, candidates from smaller companies, who’ve been hands-on and trained as specialists, often get unfairly dismissed simply because their employer isn’t well known. This kind of brand bias leads to lazy recruitment and missed opportunities to hire real talent.

#6 - Remote Work Refusals

With the growing advances in technology, remote work isn’t just a perk anymore, but in fact a norm for many roles. It not only saves companies buckets of money on office space, but also offers employees a healthier work-life balance. Granted, not every job can be done remotely, but in the creative sector and beyond, many absolutely can. Despite this, some employers still insist on “on-site only” roles, often due to outdated ideologies or a complete lack of trust. This hits disabled candidates, caregivers, and those living far from major cities the hardest. “Just search locally,” you say? But what if your local area isn’t as big a creative hub as your nation's capital? For me, that’s a 2–3 hour drive away (and I can’t drive due to a disability, so make that over 4–5 hours by public transport). Employers who outright reject remote work are cutting themselves off from a wide and valuable talent pool, all because they refuse to adapt.

#7 - The "Perfect Candidate"

Strong applicants may appear to meet every requirement on a job description, but that doesn’t mean they’ve stopped learning, for even the most acclaimed professionals are still evolving, expanding their skills, and adapting to new trends. Yet still, even today, some employers insist on clinging to the idea of a mythical “10/10” candidate who meets every single requirement with absolute perfection. It’s an obsessive, unrealistic approach that alienates countless talented people who could thrive with the right support and a chance to grow. Instead of training or nurturing this potential, these companies repost the same job endlessly, puzzled as to why no one quite fits. The answer’s simple: the person they’re looking for does not exist, and they never will. Nobody is perfect, but learning on the job is part of the journey. Quick and effective adaptability matters far more than ticking every box.

#8 - Discriminative Hiring

Many companies claim to be equal opportunity employers, but the reality is very different. Discrimination based on gender, race, and disability still persists today, despite it being something that belongs buried in the past. Often, it’s subtle or subconscious, with employers ghosting candidates they don’t want to confront, or hiding behind policies like “no feedback given” to avoid revealing their bias. As someone with epilepsy, I’ve faced this firsthand countless times. One employer (Youth Group) blocked me outright after learning I had it. Another (Little Dot Studios) gave me detailed, constructive feedback when they thought I wasn’t disabled, even suggesting a more suitable role, but once I reapplied and disclosed my condition, I was rejected within a day, and my follow-up e-mails were consequently ignored. Discrimination like this alienates skilled people for outdated, harmful reasons. Equality laws need to be enforced more strictly and transparently, or many talented individuals who "stand out from the crowd" will keep being unfairly shoved to the sidelines.

#9 - Compressed Jobs

A frustrating trend in today’s job market is companies trying to cut costs by merging multiple roles into one, before posting it under a misleading title. I’ve lost count of how many listings I’ve seen for a “Video Editor,” only for the description to reveal it also requires screenwriting, storyboarding, filming, motion design...basically the role of an entire creative team. Even when employers use the more honest but still dreaded term that is “Content Creator,” the same issue still applies. They expect demanding workloads to be fulfilled with full dedication, yet offer a salary that wouldn’t support a junior in London; sometimes as low as £18K from what I've seen, which is over £7000 below the city’s colossal cost of living. Roles like this lead to timely burnout, tremendous stress, and poor quality work, simply because one person can’t juggle five jobs a week. Expanding your skillset is one thing, but if a role demands the value of an entire team, then pay fairly (at least £50K) and be honest and supportive when it comes the workload. Anything less is exploitation. Case closed.

#10 - Unpaid Assignments

While a simple hypothetical scenario questionnaire is no real harm if brief and simple, many creative roles now demand unpaid assignments like editing videos or creative writing to assess an applicant's skills, which shows blissful ignorance towards the purpose of a showreel or portfolio. Such tasks are often painfully time-consuming, sometimes even requiring you to source your own footage etc, which just shows laziness on the employer’s part. If a company wants real work, they should pay for it - plain and simple. Sadly, desperation leads many (myself included) to comply with these "assignments", and this trend has also opened the door for scammers posing as recruiters to steal completed work and vanish, requiring employees to be extra vigilant when being asked to perform such tasks. If you’re not offering payment, don’t ask for assignments. Just review the candidate's portfolio like every fair employer should.

This isn’t an attack on every employer, for many are thankfully still caring and authentic. But a quick glance through social media, particularly LinkedIn, reveals just how widespread these issues are. Modern recruitment, both in creative fields and beyond, is in urgent need of reform. Too many employers follow outdated, harmful practices that not only overcomplicate the process, but also alienate strong candidates and burn out even the most dedicated of workers. The result? Talented people being left unable to secure roles they’re fully qualified for, all while the rising cost of living puts them in an increasingly painful position. Without change, this cycle will only worsen, and unemployment rates could rise to shocking levels.

Movie Review - Sonic the Hedgehog 3

I've said it before and I'll say it again; video games and movies don't often blend well, with even the best of video game franchises resulting in fairly weak cinematic outcomes. However, despite a poorly received debut trailer, the renowned gaming icon Sonic the Hedgehog appeared in a fairly respectable live action film back in 2020, with an equally well received sequel (albeit one I'm not too fond of) in 2022. It's certainly not easy to craft a live action depiction of such a cartoonish video game character, but the end results are nothing to sneeze at, and with this latest sequel now debuting to similar positivity, it's clear a bigger franchise is but among us from here.

The newest cinematic adventure of Sonic the Hedgehog (Ben Schwartz) has him clashing with the mysterious Shadow the Hedgehog (Keanu Reeves), an ultimate life form hidden away for decades only to finally escape when awoken by mad scientist Gerald Robotnik (Jim Carrey), the equally manic grandfather of Sonic's arch nemesis Ivo Robotonik (also Carrey), which leads to a mission for Sonic, joined by Tails (Colleen O'Shaughnessey) and Knuckles (Idris Elba), to save the world from their newest rival's vengeful plans before time runs out.

There's nothing truly groundbreaking in this latest sequel, it must be said; it was clearly written with simple and fairly formulaic ideas in mind, featuring familiar themes of friendship and judiciousness, and it's certainly a film that seeks to priortise action and humour above everything else. There's a lot of fun jokes and corny one liners, and while the leading heroic trio have their fair share of decent humour, it's easily Jim Carrey who carries the majority of the film's comedic weight, providing some of the best jokes in his perfectly performed dual role as the Robotniks, which are also edited together flawlessly to provide a convincing pair of characters depicted by one talented actor. The vocal performances from the leading trio are largely solid, with a notably energetic and funny one by Schwartz, but while Idris Elba is a very talented actor and does a decent job with what he has, I myself never found him to be a fitting voice for the character of Knuckles. Just a personal thought really.

Sonic's human friends Tom (James Marsden) and Maddie Wachowski (Tika Sumpter), who had somewhat greater importance in the previous films, find themselves hardly relevant this time round, to the point where the film would work just as well without them. They contribute very little to the overall plot, and they'll be among the last things you remember when leaving the cinema once the credits roll. It's not a serious issue as their presence was perhaps a little overdone in the previous sequel, and most viewers will of course want the focus to be on the eponymous blue blur; however, shunting them to the sidelines instead of involving them interestingly shows once more that not much thought was put into the film's overall plot and themes, instead focusing more on the action packed (and, to be fair, definitely impressive) visual set pieces and humourous tone.

Finally, there's newcomer Shadow; his backstory doesn't have much depth but is similar to its original basis from his debut appearance in Sonic Adventure 2. His backstory probably provides the film's most emotional moments, but none still tug on the heartstrings an awful lot simply because said scenes come and go and lack much depth. Keanu Reeves does his best with the material he's given, but his performance is far from award winning and at times quite bland, and once again it's mostly Schwart's Sonic and Carrey's Robotniks that demonstrate the best of the film's acting talent. The end result here is a reasonably fun and exciting adventure, with dazzling effects, impressive set pieces and a number of big laughs, but, like the other installments of its series, it's nothing truly memorable or consistently engaging.