My colleague has just informed me that it is the 15th birthday of the internet as we know it today (see how I pass the buck of blame there, for all those of you who know better), and she very kindly sent this ad from 1994.
Made me smile, so I thought I'd share.
Or is it?
I am less and less involved in the placement of banners and buttons on the UK job boards now, especially as my role is much more focussed towards the delivery of our website builds here, but every now and then I get asked to join a client, or sit in on an internal meeting, with some of our friends from the world of online recruitment.
Knowing what we can now deliver via our websites, and understanding the penetration of broadband within the UK – last I heard it was over 60% of the population and still rising, I am occasionally led to question why, in this day and age, we are given such limiting restrictions on the type of file we can supply to promote our clients on the majority of the traditional online job advertising platforms.
The animated gif for example – a file format so restrictive that you can only do so much – especially with the file size limitations we work within. So basic, yet still the benchmark and, in most cases, the standard deliverable for the majority of ads placed on UK job boards.
Some allow Flash, but only in limited circumstances. Some don’t allow ‘recruitment advertisers’ to use Flash in certain places, yet directly below that slot are Flash banners being run by product advertisers, and so the story goes on.
The work currently being developed by our counterparts in the product market can at times be described as fantastic – integrating video, audio, interactive functionality, linking within banners to different places, tracking this usage, measuring the success of the components of a banner, etc., etc. You know, really USING the available technology to enhance the message being presented.
And, there don’t appear to be the same restrictions we are presented with. These seem to be available almost across the board, with a reasonable file size limit, and at the same time, they do not seem to ‘spoil’ the user experience.
So come on ladies and gents, I’d like to better understand why we are still being presented with these draconian restrictions on the type of file we present.
And, if anyone deems to bring up ‘download times’ as an excuse, I would seriously like to understand why. Surely, whether it’s a Flash file, or a gif, the download time of a 12K banner is almost the same.
And yes, I know people will come back with tales of ‘not everyone has Flash’ or ‘’our users don’t want to be distracted’, but I often find this difficult to believe – especially as they are already being distracted by the 4/5 frame animated gifs that pepper our job boards.
So, my request is this, can we start to stretch ourselves a little more – technically – and perhaps bring the available advertising platforms up to the standards of those our product agency peers seem to be able to utilise on most lifestyle sites.
I’m sure not all of our clients will want to utilise these ‘new technologies’, but for those that do, I think it’s about time we offered them the option.
I’d be really keen to hear the point of views of some of our friends in the online recruitment media industry on this, and perhaps get a discussion going here about moving into the new generation of in-site promotional materials.
If, as a site, this does not apply to you – and you are embracing leading edge technologies and advertising practices, then just enjoy the opportunity to show the rest of the market what can be done – we’d still be interested to hear your opinion.
Cheers folks, and it is a Friday afternoon after all…
Oh, and sorry Matt, got impatient -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpEtArdI50s
Nice. And the supporting Gooootube (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=GooooTube ) section is fun too.
It looks like Cadbury's Creme Egg have come up with a good way of combining their marketing with YouTube's technology and reach.
It's funny. And it's not really in any way invasive or intrusive(in terms of creating something too corporate and not at all in keeping with YouTube's style and approach), with the video clips that have been sent in by members of the public support the current marketing/brand messaging. But my favourite aspect is that its still funny, entertaining and very much on brand for YouTube.
Obviously, this is not recruitment related, but to be honest, the stuff that has been seen on there so far that is recruitment-driven has been, to be polite, particularly bad (no offence Matt).
Maybe this provides us with a bit more direction as to what can be done by corporates wanting to use this platform, and could provide inspiration to our creative teams about what we could be doing. I was certainly impressed.
Nice work Cadbury's (or your marketing agency) - now I'm off to buy my first Creme Egg of 2007 (honest) where I'll no doubt think that they've shrunk again this year...
Having worked in the industry for a number of years now, I lik to think that I know when someone is talking sense, or when someone/something is just a little bit 'wide of the mark'
Normally, I keep my opinions to msyelf (!!) and very rarely have cause to rant - but having just received a news alert, the need to vent some frustration once again arises...
And the subject? Onrec's impending latest edition of the apparently 'can't live without' research document 'Top 100 UK online recruitment sites' - now in its 6th year.
Six years? Oh my god. Back in the day, when we were all a little naive/confused/scared, this report appeared and, based on the fabulous sales pitch, seemed like a great idea. And it is, don't get me wrong, a great idea. It's just that it's not worth the paper it's printed on. It's not worth the disk space the pdf version takes up. And it's certainly not worth the £60 Mr Hurst and his chums charge.
I get wound up quite easily by a few topics relating to the online recruitment industry in the UK - but nothing seems to make my blood boil so quickly as the mention of the dreaded Onrec 'Top 100 Online Recruitment Sites' report.
Research, in my opinion, is based on a clear and level playing field - one that is stated up-front, and one that incorporates all of the facts, and provides insight and conclusions that have been drawn based on the facts realised by the research that has been conducted. So, when a recruiter decides to part with their sixty quid, they are enlightened slightly. Surprised somewhat. They feel that they have had their opinion changed/altered by the facts that are presented to them.
The Onrec Top 100 report continually fails to achieve any of this.
Yesterday, I thought they'd launched another version - the 2007 report - but then I realised it was just the questionnaire that they release and ask job boards to complete.
Once again, the questions have not altered. Based on this, I assume the resultant report will be the same un-informative pap that has been produced in the past. I defy Onrec to provide me with one 'satisfied customer' from this report. I constantly bump into people - clients and colleagues in the industry - who express their total disbelief that this product is still being produced, and that anyone with an inkling of insight into the online recruitment industry find this in any way useful - other than as a directory of phone numbers for 100 job boards in the UK.
Why can David and his team not put in some thought to this years' document? Why can't they make inspried, intelligent comments on the information they are receiving? Other than a comment on the first page of the report which seems to repeatedly admonish OnRec of any responsibility relating to the information provided in the document, the report is of little value.
It does not mean anything. Who cares how many employees a site has - worldwide or in the UK? How can that be a 'Top 10/Top 20' statistic? No discrepect intended here, but how can eFinancialcareers be top of the 'Top 15 turnover' table? I know the answer - Monster possibly did not provide this information, Totaljobs appear to have dissappeared. And what about Jobsite, Jobserve, Hotjobs etc. Oh, I know, these sites possibly didn't respond. Not OnRec's fault, obviously - and no doubt this point is made in the document somewhere - once you've paid your £60.
But, by not inlcuding consistent measurables across all categories highlighted, the document is, in effect, totally useless. My favourite one of these ridiculous features was the year when the website 'TopJobswithDogs' was featured in the Top 10 number of staff worldwide - with something like 5 staff. What a joke.
So, I'll stop there. But what is the point of my rant? Well, isn't it about time that someone like an OnRec actually published some REAL research - some valuable insight into the industry - with some real expert commentary. Are they afraid of what it will highlight?
There are people out there desperate to make this industry better - not only within the leading rec ad agencies, but also from a client perspective. OnRec has positioned itself as the voice of the industry - why not put your money where your mouth is an publish some real research - carried out by experts - and start to put something back into the industry. Certainly offering more than just publishing press releases and inspiring the industry with 'Hurst's Law'.
Come on chaps - isn't it time you stopped hiding behind the 'pay for it and you'll see' approach to this non-sensical 'research' document (and I use the word 'research' in its loosest possible way) and show us all that you can do it properly. You have the connections. You have the profile. Please provide us with some research that actually adds value, and isn't just a revenue generator for OnRec.
Rant over. For now...
:-)
So what's the story? Well five of us like minded Digital Recruitment professionals have been meeting regularly in pubs in around Holborn for years to discuss and rant about the industry we've all chosen to spend a combined total of nearly 30 years working in! Last time we met we talked about setting up a blog and a few weeks later here it is. The idea is really to spark some alternative debate round the online recruitment industry, please feel free to join in!
Matt Alder - Barkers, Alex Hens - 33, Sinead Bunting - Mediacom Career, Ben Nunn - 33, John Buffey - Barkers, Paul Harrison - Carve Consulting
Recent Comments