The buzz around video resumes has been going on for some time now, yet we have seen an explosion on the usage.

With the low cost of webcams and the ease of implementation of video recording software and technology, more and more companies are moving away from traditional marketing means such as print ads and TV commercials to online video advertising. People have found that short video clips are easy to digest and deliver (Share with a friend!). It is also a known fact that images and sound sell much better than words written on a piece of paper (or words shown on your computer screen). The biggest benefit of using online video advertising is that it creates a more personal bond with the viewer.

Therefore, video resume seems to be the logical evolution to traditional paper resume because you can form an instant bond with the reviewer to better market yourself; you are no longer just a piece of paper in the reviewer’s hands.

However, why hasn’t video resume been widely adopted by hiring companies?

First of all, when a job position opens, a company would usually receive hundreds of applications. Recruiters would need to sort out resumes in a timely manner to set up interviews. Because of the time crunch, the average time a recruiter spends on going through a copy of printed resume is about 20 seconds, no more than 30.

If a recruiter hopes to spend the same amount of time sorting out applications in order to achieve the same timeframe to start the interview process, it means a video resume would need to have a length of no more than 30 seconds.

What can you say in a 30-second video that’s presentable without rushing? Not much.

Keep in mind, too, that while viewing your video, the reviewer needs to make notes on points you’re making. He or she may need to replay the video again to catch some of the points. Now a 1-minute video may turn into a 2-minute view, which would delay application filtering process.

This is a scenario where written words can pack in much more information on a piece of paper than a video clip.

Secondly, because you are able to see the face of the applicant prior to making a decision on calling the candidate in for an interview, some companies may not want to adopt this method of job application due to possible gender, racial, or age discrimination issues.

A written resume allows the applicant to remain faceless and allows the hiring company to be mostly neutral about the applicant’s gender, race, and age. Traditional resumes allow applicants to compete fairly for an interview based on skills and qualifications presented to the hiring company in the same format.

Traditional resumes could offer protection to hiring companies from possible lawsuits.

With that said, I am not completely dismissing the use of videos in job application process. Video is a great technology and a useful tool. If anyone would like to use videos in this process, my suggestion is to use a hybrid approach: Replace traditional cover letters with video clips that are no more than 30 seconds, and keep resumes in printed format.

This method makes sense because the applicant would be able to make an introduction in person via video to talk about basic qualifications and skill sets allowing the “best possible first impression” to be made, and leave all the glory details in the traditional format that is easy to scan by the reviewer. This way, recruiters would still be able to sort out applications efficiently within a reasonable timeframe, while making highlights and notes on applicants’ resumes to determine eligibility for an interview.

The use of video resumes can be effective and exciting. However, traditional resumes will never go away… Just like email will never replace fax.