Recruiter Sends Identical InMail Template 5 Times To Same Person Over 2 Weeks
We've all received those generic recruiter InMails. You know the ones: "I came across your profile and think you'd be perfect for an exciting opportunity at [Company]" with zero indication they actually read your profile.
But receiving the exact same InMail from the same recruiter five times in two weeks? That's a new level of lazy recruiting that deserves recognition.
The Messages
October 28: "Hi [Name], I came across your profile and was impressed by your background in software development..."
November 2: "Hi [Name], I came across your profile and was impressed by your background in software development..." [Word-for-word identical]
November 6: "Hi [Name], I came across your profile and was impressed by your background in software development..." [Still identical]
November 9: "Hi [Name], I came across your profile and was impressed by your background in software development..." [Yep, same one]
November 11: "Hi [Name], I came across your profile and was impressed by your background in software development..." [At this point it's performance art]
Each message was sent from the same recruiter at the same agency. Each promised an "exciting opportunity" at a "fast-growing tech company". Each asked to "schedule a quick call to discuss further".
None acknowledged that they'd already sent the exact same message four times before.
The Candidate's Response
After the third identical InMail, the candidate responded:
"This is the third time you've sent me this exact message. Are you okay? Should I be concerned?"
No response from the recruiter.
After the fifth InMail, the candidate had enough:
"You've now sent me the same message five times. I'm documenting this and posting it. This is absurd."
So the candidate kept their promise and posted the entire screenshot thread on LinkedIn with the caption: "Tell me you're using mass InMail automation without telling me you're using mass InMail automation."
It went viral. 12,000+ reactions, 3,000+ comments, shared across Twitter, Reddit, and recruiting forums.
The Recruiter's Defense (Or Lack Thereof)
The recruiting agency initially didn't respond. Then, after the post hit critical mass, they issued a vague statement:
"We apologize for any inconvenience caused by automated messaging. We're reviewing our outreach processes to ensure better candidate experience."
The recruiter who sent the messages never commented publicly. Their LinkedIn profile went private shortly after the post went viral.
How This Happens
This isn't a one-off mistake—it's a system failure that reveals how some recruiting agencies operate:
Mass InMail tools without deduplication: Recruiting automation platforms allow bulk messaging. If you upload a list of 500 profiles and send the same template to all of them without checking for duplicates, people on multiple lists get multiple messages.
No CRM tracking: Proper recruiting CRMs track all candidate interactions. They show message history, prevent duplicate outreach, and flag when you've already contacted someone. This agency clearly wasn't using one—or was ignoring it.
High-volume, low-quality approach: Some agencies prioritize quantity over quality. Send 1,000 InMails, hope for 20 responses, don't worry about the 980 who ignore you or the duplicates. This candidate just got unlucky and appeared on their lists five times.
Overworked recruiters: Individual recruiters managing 40-50 reqs simultaneously don't have time to personalize messages. They rely on templates and automation to hit activity metrics. Sending five duplicates means they met their "outreach target" five times.
The LinkedIn Comments
"I've received the same template from three different recruiters at the same agency. They don't even talk to each other."
"My favorite is when they send 'I saw your experience at [Previous Company]'...a company I left four years ago and isn't even on my profile anymore."
"I once responded to a recruiter's third identical InMail asking if they'd had a stroke. They blocked me."
"The 'I came across your profile' line is insulting when it's obvious you ran a Boolean search and bulk-messaged 500 people."
"This is why candidates ghost recruiters. You treat us like we're disposable, we treat you the same way."
Recruiters also chimed in, mostly with embarrassment:
"This is why our industry has a terrible reputation. This recruiter makes us all look bad."
"Anyone using mass InMail without deduplication and tracking deserves to get roasted."
"I've seen agencies where recruiters hit 'send' on automated campaigns without reviewing who's on the list. It's pure laziness."
The Bigger Problem
This incident is a symptom of how recruiting has been industrialized and depersonalized:
Recruiting agencies operate on volume metrics. Recruiters are evaluated on InMails sent, calls made, candidates submitted. Not quality of relationships, response rates, or candidate satisfaction.
Automation makes it easy to send 100 InMails per day. It also makes it easy to send the same 100 InMails five times to the same people if you're not paying attention.
Candidates are treated as leads in a sales funnel, not humans with careers and goals. Send generic messages, see who bites, move on if they don't.
The result: recruiting has a reputation problem. Candidates don't trust recruiters, don't respond to messages, and publicly shame bad behavior when it goes too far.
What Should Have Happened
Basic recruiting hygiene would have prevented this:
Use a CRM that tracks candidate interactions: Every message sent, every call made, every email should be logged. Before sending an InMail, check if you've contacted them before.
Deduplicate candidate lists before bulk outreach: If you're using automation, run deduplication before sending. Remove anyone you've contacted in the past 90 days.
Personalize messages: Reference something specific from their profile. Mention a project, a skill, a mutual connection. It takes 30 seconds and dramatically improves response rates.
Monitor outreach campaigns: Review who's being contacted and what messages are being sent. Catch errors before candidates start posting screenshots on LinkedIn.
Respond when candidates call you out: If someone replies saying "you've sent this three times," acknowledge it and apologize. Don't ghost them and hope they forget.
The Aftermath
The candidate's post got enough attention that the recruiting agency's reputation took a visible hit. Multiple people commented that they'd never work with that agency based on this incident.
The candidate received dozens of InMails from other recruiters trying to capitalize on their viral post. Several started with "Unlike that other recruiter..." which is at least slightly more creative than the original template.
The Lesson
✅ CRM tracking of all candidate interactions ✅ Deduplication before bulk outreach ✅ Personalization (even minimal) ✅ Response monitoring and error correction ✅ Quality metrics, not just volume metrics
Otherwise, you're one viral LinkedIn post away from becoming the next recruiting horror story.
And five identical InMails is definitely horror story territory.
Sources:
AI-Generated Content
This article was generated using AI and should be considered entertainment and educational content only. While we strive for accuracy, always verify important information with official sources. Don't take it too seriously—we're here for the vibes and the laughs.