That is actually a surprisingly good ratio. I work for a company that deals with this kind of data and the applicant to hire ratio at some companies, especially in retail or unskilled jobs can easily hit much, much higher than that.

When I see people complaining about the hiring processes for many low qualification jobs they often have no idea just how many people they are up againt. They get annoyed because they didn't get an interview, but if you are getting 50 applicants for every position you're not going to interview even half of them.

As my boss likes to say, bulk recruitment is an exercise in saying "no" as efficiently and quickly as possible, whilst pissing off as few as possible (you want them to reapply or not hold a grudge against your brand).

Recruitment is very easy to screw up.

Honestly the rules aren't that difficult (applying them might be). You just have to answer quickly (either with "sorry no" or even with "you're in consideration", really anything), not hearing from people for weeks is the worst. And ideally, provide a reason for why you weren't hired and what they would like to see from you. That's really all. If you do that, people most likely won't hold a grudge. Casually mentioning that there were 50 other applicants probably helps, too. ("Out of the 243 applicants, we are only able interview 10.")

People do hold a grudge, I see it all the time in our data and feedback. People applying for entry level jobs angry because they were rejected quickly based on their CV.

You can do all the basics right, but a lot of people are still going to be pissed off when they get automatically rejected based on a computer scoring the 100 candidates for the position, even if you explain why that is necessary.

I do think more companies need to be more honest about applicant to hire ratios, but the reality is that a lot of people treat anything short of hand-written letter from the hiring manager explaining in detail how they could have done better as a slap in the face.

I think my best experience as a (student) job seeker was McKinsey. They called me to provide me some detailed feedback about why they wouldn't hire me. I was very grateful and it is true that it contributes to their brand. The students they turn down may be their client in a distant future.

FWIW, one local supermarket cashier job near me got almost 500 applications - so the 3/20 for this isn't horrible.

The last back-end position I applied for had like 15 applicants

Less than 4 applicants per seat. Pretty low.

It probably isn't distributed like that though.

Huh? 200,000 / 30,000 = 6.667

Huh? 200,000 / 30,000 = 6.667

I firmly believe we are getting closer and closer to the truth here...

6.666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666

Touche, 6.333. Still a low number of applicants per seat.

Its actually 400 positions according to the article. Another 25000 are to open in the next decade.