The average job ad on Pracuj.pl gets 40–60 applications. Roughly 10% of them are worth reading. The rest are keyword matches — people who applied because the role showed up in their search, not because they understood what the job actually was.
That's not a sourcing problem. It's a copywriting problem.
Your job ad is the first piece of employer branding a candidate reads. It tells them more about your company than your LinkedIn page, your website, or anything a recruiter says in an intro call. And for most companies with 20–200 employees, the job ad reads like it was written to fill a position, not to attract a person.
Here's what that costs you — and how to fix it.
The cost of a generic job ad
A generic job ad doesn't just attract wrong candidates. It repels right ones.
Strong candidates — the ones who get 3 interview invites a week — read job ads the way investors read pitch decks. They're looking for signal. They want to know: what's the team like, what will I actually work on, what does day 90 look like, and is this company worth my time?
If your job ad answers none of those questions — if it reads like a requirements list with a company bio bolted on the end — strong candidates move on. Not because they're not interested in the role. Because they couldn't tell what the role actually was.
Meanwhile, the 60 applications you do receive skew toward people with more time than options. That's not always wrong, but it's almost never the distribution you want.
The 4 things every job ad does wrong
1. It describes the role instead of the work
"Responsible for managing social media channels" tells a candidate what the job is. It doesn't tell them what they'll actually do, what problems they'll solve, or how success gets measured.
Compare:
Managing social media channels for the company.
vs.
Taking over our LinkedIn and Instagram from scratch — we have 1,200 followers and almost no consistent posting. Your job is to build the rhythm: 3 posts/week, a comment strategy, and a monthly cadence report. In 6 months, we want to hit 3,000 followers with measurably better engagement.
The second version attracts someone who wants to build something. The first version attracts everyone.
2. It leads with requirements, not the offer
Most job ads front-load what you need from the candidate. 5+ years of experience. Proficiency in X, Y, Z. Fluency in English and Polish. Knowledge of relevant industry regulations.
The candidate reads that and does mental arithmetic on whether they qualify. If they're borderline on one requirement, they self-select out — even if they'd be excellent.
Flip the order. Lead with what the candidate gets: interesting work, real ownership, a specific team, a concrete mission. Then list the requirements. Candidates who are motivated by the offer will read further and take the risk on borderline qualifications. Candidates who are skimming for keywords won't — which is fine.
3. It uses language no real person uses
"We're seeking a highly motivated, results-driven team player who thrives in a fast-paced environment."
Read that sentence out loud. Nobody says that. Nobody thinks that. It's the output of a job ad template that got copy-pasted across 10,000 companies.
Candidates read right past it. It's not that it's actively harmful — it's that it communicates nothing. It takes up space where real information could live.
4. It tells candidates nothing about the team or manager
The #1 thing candidates say they want to know before accepting a role: what is my manager like?
Most job ads never mention the team. They describe the company at the top ("We are a dynamic, growing company in the SaaS space…"), list the requirements in the middle, and end with benefits. The manager doesn't exist as a concept.
This is a missed opportunity. Candidates want to know: who will I actually work with? What's the team size? What kind of manager is this? A single honest paragraph about the team and how it operates is more persuasive than 3 bullet points about benefits.
The rewrite formula
You can apply this to any job ad in 30 minutes. Use this structure:
Opening: the problem or opportunity (3–5 sentences)
Don't open with a company description. Open with the work.
What's actually happening in this role? What problem will this person solve? What will exist in 6 months that doesn't exist today because of what they build?
Before:
We are a fast-growing fintech company looking for a Marketing Manager to join our team.
After:
Our marketing function is 1 person right now — that person is leaving. We have a product that's getting strong word-of-mouth traction but almost no systematic marketing. The next hire owns this: build the function, find the channels, figure out what works.
The work section: what you'll actually do (5–8 bullets)
Make these specific. Not "manage campaigns" — "run 3 monthly email campaigns to a 4,000-person list, then own the analysis of what performed." Not "collaborate with stakeholders" — "work directly with the CTO and CEO; decisions get made fast."
Each bullet should answer: what will this person actually produce, and how does success get measured?
The team section: who you'll work with (1 short paragraph)
Name the team. Describe how it operates. Mention the manager — not by name necessarily, but by style. "Direct manager is the Head of Product — 10 years in the industry, strong on strategy, expects you to own your work without being micromanaged."
This is the section most companies skip. It's also the section most candidates wish they had before accepting an offer.
The offer section: what you're providing
Salary range (not "competitive") — if you're not listing a range, you're losing candidates who won't apply without it. In Poland, 72% of candidates say salary transparency affects whether they apply.
Benefits — but only the real ones. "Free coffee" is not a benefit. "Fully remote with no core hours" is a benefit. "25 days PTO with actual expectation that you take them" is a benefit.
Location and hours — be specific.
Requirements: what you actually need (5–7 items max)
List only what's genuinely required. If you'd hire someone who's 80% qualified on every item, don't list 12 must-haves. Keep it to the 5 things you'd actually test for in an interview.
For Polish labor market context: if your job ad targets candidates under 35, they read "5+ years required" as a filter that doesn't apply to them, even if they're excellent. Consider being specific about what the experience should cover ("has led at least one project from kickoff to launch") rather than using years as a proxy.
Closing: the honest filter
End with a sentence that tells the right candidates to apply and signals to the wrong ones that this might not be the role for them.
Example:
If you want a structured environment with clear processes and defined career levels, we're not the right fit yet — we're building that. If you want to build something from scratch and own the results, you might be exactly who we're looking for.
One sentence. Saves you 20 screening calls a quarter.
What to fix this week (pick one)
You don't need to rewrite every job ad. Start with one — the role you're hiring for right now, or the one you hire for most often.
Apply these 3 changes:
-
Add a salary range. If you're not listing one, you're getting fewer applicants than you would otherwise. Pracuj.pl data shows 30–40% higher application rates on ads with visible salary bands.
-
Replace the opening company paragraph with 3 sentences about the work. What will this person build, fix, or own? Write that first.
-
Add one paragraph about the team. Who does this person work with? What's the manager like? 4–6 sentences, honest, no jargon.
That's 45 minutes of work. It won't transform your employer brand. But it will change the quality of the first 10 people who apply — and that's where the ROI starts.
The long game
Job ads are the highest-traffic employer brand asset most companies have. More candidates read your job post than your LinkedIn page, your website's careers section, or your Glassdoor reviews.
But they're almost never treated as employer brand assets. They're written by a recruiter or HR manager under time pressure, reviewed once, posted, and forgotten until the next role opens.
The companies that win on employer brand — at 50 employees, without a dedicated EB specialist — treat every job ad as a piece of content that reflects who they are. It takes 45 minutes more per hire. It returns 3× better candidate quality and 20–40% fewer hours spent on screening.
That math is worth doing.
Run the free Embr EB Audit and get a score for how well your job ads communicate your employer brand — including a side-by-side comparison with competitors in your sector.