I develop a directed search model to study the recruitment decisions of firms competing for workers who ex post differ in two dimensions: (1) their match productivity and (2) their probability of accepting a job offer, endogenously determined by their choice of application portfolio. To attract these workers, firms post a recruiting intensity and a hiring standard, in addition to terms of trade. A higher recruiting intensity is costly, but allows the firm to select more applicants for an interview, which reveals their productivity. The hiring standard solves the tradeoff between immediate hiring and waiting for a potentially better match in the future. I characterize equilibrium and find that various outcomes, including uniqueness of equilibrium and the cyclicality of recruiting intensity, crucially depend on firms’ recruiting cost and workers’ search cost. Calibration of the model to the U.S. labour market indicates a continuum of equilibria. Given selection of a particular equilibrium, hiring standards are countercyclical while recruiting intensity is procyclical. The calibrated model creates more amplification than a standard model without intensive margins and gives rise to procyclical match efficiency when viewed through the lens of a Cobb–Douglas matching function.

On the leading job board CareerBuilder.com, high-wage job postings unexpectedly attract fewer applicants, and this is the case even within a detailed occupation. Viewed through the lens of our directed search model, this negative relationship is indicative of substantial applicant heterogeneity within an occupation. Empirically, we find that job title heterogeneity is key: within a job title, jobs with 10% higher wages do attract 7.7% more applicants. Furthermore, our findings are consistent with a higher return to worker quality for hires in “manager” and “senior” job titles. Overall, our findings demonstrate the power of words in the matching process.

We study the effect of diminishing search frictions in markets with adverse selection by presenting a model in which agents with private information can simultaneously contact multiple trading partners. We highlight a new trade-off: facilitating contacts reduces coordination frictions but also the ability to screen agents’ types. We find that, when agents can contact sufficiently many trading partners, fully separating equilibria obtain only if adverse selection is sufficiently severe. When this condition fails, equilibria feature partial pooling and multiple equilibria co-exist. We show that facilitating contacts can lead to a reduction in welfare. In the limit, as the number of contacts becomes large, some of the equilibria converge to the competitive outcomes of Akerlof, including Pareto-dominated ones; other pooling equilibria continue to feature frictional trade in the limit, where entry is inefficiently high. Our findings provide a basis to assess the effects of recent technological innovations that have made meetings easier.