If we've learned anything in the world of HR Technology, it's that there's always a hook that vendors/partners are creating scale and mass around.
In no area is this more true than the Talent Acquisition/Recruiting side of the house. Consider the following areas of our world dominated/owned by specific partners/vendors in recent history:
--LinkedIn - owns eyeballs related to the world's largest candidate database
--Glassdoor - owns eyeballs related to company reputation/reviews
--Indeed - owns SEO on job search (by its very definition, eyeballs), although many expect that to change as Google for Jobs comes to scale
What's interesting about each one of these plays designed to create scale of users and overall interest is that the real product isn't what I've listed above for each vendor.
If you use a site and it's free, the product - as they say - is you.
More to the point, the real product is Job Postings.
I know, I know. You can get your head around that being the case with Indeed (duh), but LinkedIn sells a variety of things beyond job postings and Glassdoor wants to charge money to help you manage that very average reputation you have on their site.
But when you really dig into the packages offered by all of these vendors, the hook is what they're known for (biggest database, SEO, company reputation) - but make no mistake, the monetization is job postings.
Why? Because that's what people like you and me most want to buy. We want ROI on our recruiting budget. If a site has enough attention and a connection to the workplace, there's a chance that job postings might work, and more importantly, it's WHAT WE WANT TO BUY.
Let's look specifically at Glassdoor. The fact that monetization for GD is really found in user traffic that sees job postings and converts to applicants at your company means the model won't change, even when it's obvious that it would help users.
Here's an example of a tweak that is needed on Glassdoor. If GD really cared about employers/your company (and I could argue candidates looking to do research), they'd make it simple for you to search reviews by current employees vs past employees.
You know what doesn't drive as much traffic to Glassdoor? Balanced reviews. We live for the car wreck in turn four - the flaming review that's fun to read and just really takes apart the company.
But if we're honest with ourselves as candidates, we don't value that review (or the 5-stars) as much as we value the balanced 3 star review.
So Glassdoor should change that. But it won't because the car wreck 1-star review from a past employee drives eyeballs. Eyeballs are traffic that see job postings and covert (hopefully) to applicant flow.
Simple search of reviews by current employees vs past employees won't happen anytime soon on Glassdoor.
The product is you/me/us. The Glassdoor 1-star review by a disgruntled, anonymous employee is the equivalent of a TMZ camera catching Bernie Sanders exiting an Applebee's drunk and belligerent and being available for viral distribution within 30 minutes.
Traffic always wins.