^IMO that is still a bad business practice speaking as someone who has been very much involved in hiring throughout my career.
Without even considering the conventions of professional and personal courtesies, let’s just look at it from the hiring company’s point of view. What does a business gain to “ghost” someone after a decision to not hire this person has been made (different than still looking or the first choice has yet to respond)? Of course there are candidates that come in a close second that you want to keep on the hook. It is simple enough to send a soft rejection letter, along the lines of “we really liked you but your skills don’t currently fit the position; we will reach out to you if circumstances or our needs change.” While the applicant will be disappointed, he/she will far more likely have a more positive impression/inclination to that company than if they were ghosted. Costs the company virtually nothing. They’ve already invested hard $ and time in interviewing the applicant. Not closing the loop at this point at minimal costs makes little sense.
I think a lot of companies got into what I believe are lazy bad habits during the past period of high unemployment when they could get way with being jerks. Maybe the market will self correct with low unemployment.
Low unemployment seems to mean that anyone can get a job delivering packages, driving ride share, etc., but apparently many other jobs are now an employer’s market (i.e. like a recession).
Build new customers
Give current customers an option for gift giving
PR
Satisfy the person in marketing who thought of the idea
They got rooked into a contract to sell prepaid gift cards
The gift cards are almost enough to cover the average purchase
People will lose them before using them, so the company wins
Advertising: people see those cards on the rack at the store and get reminded of the brand
“People will lose them before using them, so the company wins”
To me, this is the big one. I’ve heard estimates that as many as a third never use them, and when they do, they often buy more than the gift card’s worth.
@sherpa - gift cards get people into the store and encourage them to spend more money, i.e. if the gift card is worth $25 and the customer spends $40 that is a win for the company.
There isn’t a single “right” answer; I see it more as an opportunity to see an applicant think on their feet. My answers are:
The company gets immediate revenue but doesn’t have to give anything in return until an unspecified future date (time value of money).
Cards that are lost or otherwise unused represent 100% pure profit.
The user might not utilize the full value of the card and any unused balance is pure profit.
In order to avoid #3 above, the gift card holder might spend more than the value of the card on things they otherwise wouldn’t have purchased.
If someone gives a gift card to someone who’s never been to the store, there’s an opportunity to gain a new customer.
General brand awareness, just by having the card out there, whether used or unused.
Creating a perception of prestige, as in, “if sherpa gave me this as a gift, then this must be a very special store. I’d never heard of it, but sherpa’s the bee’s knees, so this store must be the cat’s pajamas.”
Saw a statistic that hasn’t been mentioned here, people with a gift card are more likely to pay full price for an item (not wait for it to go on sale).
Good currency to use in trade for employee rewards/events. Worth face value to the recipient, only costs the issuer the cost of goods in many cases. E.g. Company A trades with Company B for GC’s. Company A employees get Company B GC’s and vice versa.
Regarding instant revenue from gift cards, if a job applicant said that, I would grill the person further on that point. Revenue cannot be recognized until the goods or services are provided. So accounting for gift cards is not very straightforward. Please tell me about possible journal entries a company would make when and after it sold a GC, I would ask.
@BunsenBurner - I’m not an accountant, but I believe the income would be booked immediately, and a corresponding liability would also be created. If I were interviewing for an accounting position I’d expect the applicant to know that, but for an non-accounting roll I’d have no such expectation.
But it raises an interesting accounting question: At what point does the liability of an unused gift card drop off the balance sheet? 5 years? 20? 100?
If the person had an MBA attached to the name on their resume, I would fully expect the person to know the basics of how that cash is accounted for. Regarding the latter, I am not an accountant, I would say that if I am the (hypothetical) CEO, I defer that to my CFO and her team - the rules for that are spelled out, and I am paying them big $$ to deal with those headaches.
See how a simple question can lead to multiple avenues for further questions on some seemingly unrelated topics?
CEO interviewing for a new CFO. Asks each candidate what is 2+2. All of them answer 4 but the last one who says “How much do you want it to be?” and gets the job.
Which is why it’s such a great interview question, allowing the interviewer to engage the applicant and get a sense of their mental dexterity and compatibility with the team.
@BunsenBurner - I’m not alarmed by the AI interview issue. If anything, it should reduce interviewer bias and add objectivity to the process.
My perspective is influenced by the fact that one of my kids is an analyst for a company that provides AI monitoring to call centers, where the call center employee is given feedback on their phone interaction, and coached in real time how to adapt to the idiosyncrasies of the person on the other end of the call. This eliminates the need for “this call is being recorded for training purposes” stuff, because the training is being implemented within the call, not later.
It’s very effective. The employees prefer this to “after the fact” criticism and the effectiveness of the calls is enhanced.
So I’m comfortable with utilizing this type of technology more widely.
At a previous company we had a new CFO join then quit after a month. A few months after that, massive financial irregularities came to light that tanked the company.
@BunsenBurner - It’s too late for me to edit post #256, but I just spoke to my kid who works in AI and was told that, depending on how the algorithms are written, these systems can either minimize or enhance biases. In other words, a force for good, or evil. And THAT is scary.
Regarding the latter, I am not an accountant, I would say that if I am the (hypothetical) CEO, I defer that to my CFO and her team - the rules for that are spelled out, and I am paying them big $$ to deal with those headaches. 
