Advertise here
Reach people whose capability your funnel is built to miss — because it was built to read employment history, and theirs does not read that way.
Who reads this
People building careers that do not run in a straight line.
Career changers carrying a decade of capability under the wrong job title. People who ran a household, a ward, a floor, a congregation or a small business and have never had it counted as experience. Immigrants whose qualifications the market cannot read. Technologists who got cut and are deciding what to build next rather than where to reapply.
They are early to things. Not because they are trend-chasing, but because a person who has already rebuilt a career once has no attachment to how it is normally done — which is the same trait that makes somebody useful in a market that has not settled yet.
If you are hiring into a niche you are still defining, these are the people who will recognise it before your job title does.
Why the usual funnel misses them
Every claim below is measured in this database, and the first one is a fault we found in our own code and published rather than quietly patched.
A career break costs 30% of everything you know
That is not an opinion about your funnel — it is a line in ours, and we found it by auditing our own scorer. One decay curve applied to every capability, penalising returning parents, carers and anyone who took time out for their health. Most matching systems have a version of it, and none of them mention it.
“Reasonable accommodation” is a legal footer, not a signal
8,782 postings in this corpus mention it. 6,847 carry standard EEO language, and only 382 mention accommodation outside that boilerplate. Anyone filtering on the raw count is measuring who pastes a paragraph, not who accommodates.
Keyword matching is confidently wrong
In this corpus, “safe” matched SAFe, a Principal ML Engineer landed in Transportation because his title said “Delivery”, and 139 customer-service jobs matched “advisor” as board advisory. Every one of those is a real person filtered in or out for a reason nobody could defend.
3,327 postings say a degree is optional
Their own words — “or equivalent experience”. The filters in front of them frequently do not agree.
What we can prove today
- 31,115
postings analysed
ingested, classified and scored against real capability profiles
- 5,772
employers in the corpus
from graduate schemes to the trades
- 73
kinds of work
a fixed taxonomy that only grows through a review gate
What we will not tell you yet
Audience size. The Bag™ is early and the number is small — small enough that printing it dressed up as reach would be the exact dishonesty this product exists to argue against. Every figure above can be reproduced from the database on request. When the audience is worth quoting, it will be quoted the same way: a real number, with the date it was true.
Until then, the honest offer is a founding placement at a founding price, with the reporting to match.
What a placement looks like
A role, shown to people it actually fits
Your opening scored against real capability profiles rather than keyword-matched — including against people whose titles look nothing like yours.
A bridge, not just a listing
Where a candidate is one certification, licence or course away, the app can say so. That turns a rejection into a pipeline, and it is where most of the value sits for a hard-to-fill role.
Your own words, quoted
Requirements, pay and conditions are shown as you wrote them. Employers who are specific do measurably better here, because vagueness is scored as unknown rather than assumed to be favourable.
Honest reporting
Impressions and clicks as they happened, with no modelled reach and no attributed conversions we cannot evidence.
The line we will not cross
We do not sell access to people by protected characteristic. Not by race, sex, age, disability, religion, national origin or anything adjacent, and not by proxy. You cannot target a demographic here, and no report will break an audience down that way.
What is on offer is different and, we would argue, worth more: reaching people whose capability is real and badly labelled. That is a statement about how the market reads a CV, not about who anybody is — and it is the only version of this that is both lawful and worth doing.
Postings that screen on those characteristics, or that carry the patterns this app flags as predatory, are declined. That is not a courtesy to candidates; it is the entire reason anybody trusts what is on the page next to your advert.
Start a conversation
Bring the role you cannot fill and what you have already tried. If this is not the right audience for it, we would rather say so than take the money.
Talk to us →Or plainly: tobianiekansmith@gmail.com · What this product is