I see the value for some jobs, but audio seems like it is just as good as video, much cheaper, less intrusive, and vastly more accessible.
back
2 comments
This is almost a thing you have to see to believe. Video just gives you so much more resolution and insight. Social science studies have told us many times that 90% of communication is non-verbal - audio only captures that 10%.
Of course, nothing beats face to face, but it also comes at a cost (time, money). We built Active Interview to help those who need to quickly process a large number of applicants at as high of a resolution as possible.
Out of curiosity as much as anything else since you've quite possibly done the research, how much of that 90% of communication is reciprocal (body language towards interviewer, instinctive reaction to questions)?
One problem with audio is that it lacks the facial microexpressions that would be visible to a keen interviewer in a live interview.
Same problem with low-resolution webcam video.
I'm not arguing against the value of seeing someone in person (although depending on the context I would be happy to give up the extra data to get the whole thing done faster and more conveniently). I'm arguing against badly-lit, amateur video postage stamps.