TL;DR — A short video introduction gives a hiring team more signal than a CV alone, without the scheduling overhead of an early-stage call. Ask for one thing well-defined, keep it under two minutes, and review it against a simple scorecard rather than a gut reaction.
- Ask candidates to cover three or four specific points, not "tell us about yourself".
- Keep the request to 60-120 seconds; longer discourages completion.
- Review against a written scorecard so different reviewers judge consistently.
- State clearly how the video will and won't be used, and for how long it will be kept.
On this page
What a video introduction actually adds to a CV
A CV lists what someone has done. It says almost nothing about how they communicate, how they structure an answer under a small amount of pressure, or whether their tone fits the team they would be joining. A short video fills that gap earlier than a phone screen would, and it does so without asking a recruiter to find a shared slot in two calendars before either side knows if there is a fit worth pursuing.
The trade-off is that a video is a snapshot, not a full interview. It tells you how someone presents in sixty seconds on a given day, not how they perform in the role. Treat it as one input into an early-stage decision, not a substitute for a proper interview once someone moves forward.
What to ask candidates to cover
The biggest failure mode is an open prompt like "introduce yourself". It produces rambling, uneven clips because candidates don't know what you're actually trying to learn. A tighter prompt gets a shorter, more useful answer and is fairer to candidates, since everyone is answering the same question rather than guessing what matters.
A template that works for most roles:
- One or two sentences on what they're doing now, or most recently did.
- Why this particular role or team caught their attention.
- One thing from their experience that's directly relevant to the job description.
- Anything practical the team should know (notice period, availability, location constraints) — optional, and only if it genuinely affects next steps.
Setting a fair, consistent request
Send the same prompt, the same time limit, and the same deadline to every candidate at a given stage. Consistency matters for fairness and for your own ability to compare answers later — a candidate who had three days to prepare shouldn't be judged against one who had three hours. State the time limit up front (60-120 seconds is typical) so nobody over- or under-prepares relative to what you actually asked for.
Be explicit that re-recording is fine. A candidate's first take nerves say little about how they'd perform in the actual job, and banning retakes mostly penalises people who don't interview often rather than filtering for anything useful.
A scorecard for reviewing what comes back
Reviewing video submissions without a shared framework produces exactly the inconsistency a structured process is supposed to avoid — one reviewer weighs confidence heavily, another weighs content, and the two disagree for reasons neither can articulate. A short scorecard, used the same way for every candidate, keeps the review grounded in what was actually said rather than how someone comes across on camera.
| Criterion | What to look for | Not this |
|---|---|---|
| Relevance | Specific experience that maps to the role | General enthusiasm with no concrete detail |
| Clarity | Answers the actual prompt, in roughly the time asked for | Rambling, or ignoring the prompt entirely |
| Communication | Comes across clearly for the kind of role this is | Polish for its own sake — not every role needs a presenter |
| Practical fit | Availability, location or notice period flagged if relevant | Missing information that affects next steps |
Being upfront about how the video will be used
Tell candidates who will see the clip, how long you'll keep it, and whether it's used only for this role or might be considered for others. This matters for trust and, in many jurisdictions, for compliance with data protection rules around candidate data — see the Equality and Human Rights Commission for guidance on fair recruitment practice, and keep a simple retention policy so videos don't sit indefinitely once a role is filled.
If screening fairness is a concern for your process more broadly, see Video Applications and Bias: How to Keep Screening Fair.
Where video introductions fit in the wider process
Most teams use a short intro video at one of two points: instead of a first recruiter screen, to filter a large applicant pool down to a manageable shortlist, or alongside an application as an optional extra that strong candidates can use to stand out. Either way, pair it with a small number of structured follow-up questions rather than a free-for-all — see Asynchronous Video Interview Questions: 30 Examples for a fuller set of prompts once you move past the introduction stage.
For roles where screening volume is the real bottleneck, Using Video to Shorten Early Screening covers how to structure the review workflow once clips start coming in at scale.
How to do this in Whoosh
Create a recruitment campaign with your prompt and time limit, and share one link on the job posting or in your applicant tracking system. Candidates record from their phone or laptop browser, no app required, and clips land in one reviewable list as they arrive.
- 1.Write a three- or four-point prompt instead of an open-ended one.
- 2.Set a time limit (60-120 seconds) and a submission deadline.
- 3.Share the single link with applicants, or embed it in your job posting.
- 4.Review clips against a shared scorecard rather than individually scoring from impression.
- 5.Set a retention period and delete clips for candidates who don't progress.
Frequently asked questions
How long should a candidate video introduction be?
Sixty to one hundred and twenty seconds is enough to cover a focused prompt without becoming a burden for candidates to prepare or for reviewers to watch at scale.
Should this replace a phone screen entirely?
It works well as a first filter before a phone screen, especially for high-volume roles, but it isn't a substitute for a structured conversation once a candidate is seriously under consideration.
What if a candidate asks not to submit a video?
Offer a written alternative and don't penalise the choice — accessibility and personal preference both matter, and a video requirement with no opt-out risks excluding candidates for reasons unrelated to the role.
Do candidates need to download anything to record?
No — recording happens directly in the browser from the shared link, on a phone or a laptop.
How do we keep the review fair across a large applicant pool?
Use the same prompt, the same time limit and a written scorecard for every candidate at a given stage, and have more than one person review borderline cases.