Digital Recruiting

Google & Nielsen link up for better view of TV ad watchers

I am going to have to stop drinking strong coffee … it starts me off on a rant. But I am not sure if anyone has seen the link up between Google and Nielsen to improve the accountability of TV advertising IHT.

There is a wonderful quote saying that Google executives are fearless and don’t mind who they upset … well … . I remember when I first moved into recruitment from consumer advertising I was shocked. The first thing I sold was a banner – to a rather large agency and I got into a conversation with the planner. They wanted to buy based on time – I wanted to sell on time and page impressions.

Not matter how much I tried to tell them that my method was more robust – they could not get their head around page impressions. In the end I sold on time and PI and they purchased on time. A good compromise but I was really not very happy – why? Well it felt like I was stepping back to the dark ages.

Why are we still buying using time? Well it is because we don’t have the time, the business process is not set up for performance models and we are trying to fit old business models to new mediums.

When buying in Newspaper, magazines etc … we were purchasing advertising in mediums whose primary aim was informing their readers. The main purpose was not and is still not to get people jobs.

Job boards are different … the objectives of the consumers and advertisers are very similar. A job board is a bit of software that sits between the two parties to make searching quicker and to open up the market. So there is a natural collaborative model – like PPC on Google.

The job boards, a number of clients and a few agencies have really pushed to improve accountability. But the vast majority of clients and people in the process still do not use this information. Until they do we will not be able to move towards performance models.

And believe me an optimized performance model always outperforms a time based purchase when you are driving response (both volume and quality). As a side note branding has different objectives and thus needs performance models that track these objectives (but the same principle of control is needed).

Why have we not changed? Well fear plays a big part and this industry has been under such pressure over the last few years – the well-oiled print processes now need to move to well-oiled digital processes.

The main difference between the two is the important of control and maintainance of digital campaigns. Going live is the starting point not the end, as is it with press advertising, to put it into the historical context – vouching is now done using media owner and third party ad-serving. Is it time for some of the media to start moving towards these new models? I feel that one or two will help to push the agency model.

The current growth rates in recruitment classified online is actually holding back the real opportunity. With huge increases in spend – why change our model?

Well because the more accountability we bring in, the more informed media decisions we make and the more time we focus on optimizing will really help to get us on track. That means better quality hires and more profitability all around. Clients, media and agencies all really have a vested interest in the change.

Strange Games and Funky Things

Nope, I am not chatting about the Masters At Work CD, but about all the current interest in games. All areas are currently interesting.

Advertising in-game or on gaming-sites – you have seen GCHQ, US Army and Royal Navy all currently using and getting a lot of press around the activity. The Royal Navy creative is especially good and you can see it on the link above. This is a traditional advertising approach applied to a new medium and probably the most effective at this moment in time.

Bespoke games to help the recruitment process – the US Army is the most high profile of these but the RAF & Navy also have good applications. Always great for a brand if you can get people to engage with your communications but there are ethical issues.

Also using games to provide feedback on peoples problem-solving and performance skills – apparently Google have a patent. There are issues on how applicable this is to job performance due to the ‘role-playing’ when using games.

My gut feeling is that we will start to see greater usage of all three applications over the next few years – I have even said this in public (so I must believe it). I also feel there are a few new applications that we will start to see developing in the online testing area – using gaming programming techniques to provide experience and feedback for candidates.

This is a trend that will combine with more powerful search algorithms and improved communication technology to really start to change recruitment communication.

But this growth in sensory mediums does keep raising a question at the back of my mind – do we (the industry) have the skills to drive this change?

The reason I ask this is something Dave Smith at Career Builder said earlier this year that we are all talking about web 2.0 but we are still not using job postings and search particularly well.

We are all looking to the future, which is great. But are we developing the skills to deliver truly integrated recruitment communications now?

I am really interested to see what people think?

Interesting Use Of Mobile Mkt For Recruitment

I was looking around today and found this http://www.gluelondon.com/casestudy/RoyalNavy_GetTheMessage.pdf

It is a very interesting application of mobile marketing ... plus a recruitment campaign winning awards (wow)

I just thought you would all find it interesting.

The Internet

Not sure what else i can say - THIS CHANGED MY LIFE

How Mark Zuckerberg Turned Facebook Into the Web's Hottest Platform

An interesting article from Wired Magazine - Wired Magazine Facebook

Aspiring to Excellence -Modernising Medical Careers

I am not sure if anyone has seen the report by Sir John Tooke on the Modernising Medical Careers fiasco?  The report highlights a number of issues we currently face when integrating communications with business requirements.

The CIPD offer interesting advantages, disadvantages and tips for any business approaching online recruitment.  I feel a few areas need exploring in more depth. 

The usability of employer sites and application forms – to be honest the majority of them are a joke and actually at times embarrassing. There is a huge skills gap across service providers together with a lack of willingness from clients to invest in research and testing - this is leading to service improvement not being factored into web projects. 

We spend a lot of time talking about creativity in the industry but in the search for creativity we have lost the meaning of the term ‘concept’. Concepts are used to find unity across target audiences for creative messages; it is a great way to stop individual differences putting people off responding.  But a concept should always have a deep connection with reality. 

People interact on three different levels visceral, behavioural and reflective (this is taken from Emotional Design by Donald Norman).  Our traditional communications channel – PRESS – is a visceral medium so our concepts were reflected with unifying images and text.  That representation we have all seen to bring the employer brand to life. 

We need to create an engagement strategy that deals with behaviour … but when you look at the report it highlights the need to more from just thinking about how people interact with websites but also making sure this reflects the business needs.  Something that was missed in the online system created for the NHS.

This really creates a difficult problem to solve – we need people who not only understand how we interact with computers but also with a good understanding of HR practice.

I see this in the need to improve the planning skills across the industry – it is a neglected area.  With the complexity created by the internet our ability to control messages, inspire response and manage the whole process is getting difficult.

I feel that there is a reverse snobbery from practitioners to the models that are formulated from the research and university sectors.  This rejection often misses the point of the models.  The models are designed to help the thinking and decision making process.  Using the models does not guarantee success but they help to improve the likelihood – and often help to avoid issues such as too much response or response from the wrong target audiences. 

When I look at the issues we face I feel there is a need to improve relations between theory and practice.  I also think that more collaboration is needed to look at current threats to the industry. Ignoring the reality of the current business situation - attracting talent to the industry, the need to develop existing skills across practitioners and the need to build our standing – will only make life more difficult.

When do we do this?

We have been accused of a few things ... so i want to clear up the meaning of a few things and also to say sorry if we have done this.

Plagiarism (from the Latin plagiare, "to kidnap") is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement. Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object, itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution. Plagiarism can also occur unconsciously; in some cultures certain forms of plagiarism are accepted because the concept can be interpreted differently.

WE ALWAYS TRY AND LINK OR ACKNOWLEDGE SOURCES

arrogance
The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption. Closely related to the act of arrogating.

THIS BLOG IS FOR EVERYONE TO TALK AND DISCUSS ISSUES - WE MAY NOT AGREE BUT EVERYONE HAS A VOICE.

ignorance (plural ignorances)
The condition of being uninformed or uneducated. lacking knowledge or information.

I WOULD SAY THAT NO PERSON SHOULD CLAIM TO KNOW EVERYTHING BUT WE ARE NOT COMING FROM AN UNINFORMED POSITION.

Growth In Classified Advertising

The text below is taken from the guardian ... here is a link to the full story

http://media.guardian.co.uk/advertising/story/0,,2181856,00.html

Mark Sweney
Tuesday October 2, 2007
MediaGuardian.co.uk

Internet classified advertising has surged 72% year on year - the biggest increase in two years - putting further pressure on the print sector, a report said today.

The report, by the Internet Advertising Bureau, also revealed 41.3% growth across the whole internet advertising sector for the first six months of the year - with revenue at £1.33bn - smashing some forecasts that predicted growth would slow to about 30%.

UK advertisers spent just over £277m on online classified advertising between January and June this year - an increase of 72% over the same six-month period last year.

Classifieds now account for more than one in five pounds of all internet advertising spend, driven by advertisers in the recruitment, automotive and property sectors.

The 72% period-on-period increase is the highest recorded by the IAB since the first half of 2005.

However, an IAB spokesman said that the massive growth seen in 2005 was primarily fuelled by the addition to the IAB's audit of websites that take classified advertisin, whereas now the growth surge is purely market budgets being shifted.

Overall, the report, compiled in conjunction with PricewaterhouseCoopers and the World Advertising Research Centre, found that online advertising's share of all media spend is just under 15%.

On the back of this growth, the IAB is predicting that the online advertising sector - which has overtaken the direct mail sector in size - could be worth £2.75bn by the end of the year.

Understanding The Medium

I get a little wound up by the lack of understanding people have of media in the ad agencies. This is not a ‘you don’t understand so you are stupid attitude’.

It is a …

PLEASE STOP TRYING TO SELL THINGS YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND.

I will send my apologies as I am about to rant about http://www.i-jobsforreal.co.uk/ - a little bit inspired by the article by Graeme Wright on ri5.co.uk. This is not aimed at putting the event down - but it is an excellent example of people not understanding mediums.

The basis that you need to understand is how the structure and nature of a medium meet the requirements of the communication campaign. So shall we have a little look at the nature of secondlife.com and Graeme has already looked at the structure.

This is how second life describes itself.

‘Second Life is a 3-D virtual world entirely built and owned by its Residents.’

If you then think about why people use virtual worlds … well it is to get away from the everyday world. People are looking to live a different life. So will they use it to look at an everyday job?

When you look at computer and human interaction – I always quite like Persuasive Technology by BJ Fogg - three key areas are important

1. A tool that makes things quicker
2. A social actor that improves communication and provides support
3. A medium that provides experience.

Where does second life fit into these three areas – well it is a medium that provides experience. Is second life a symbolic or sensory medium? Well it is a sensory medium that gives the opportunity to provide experience – so does the concept fit?

The event is described as the first virtual careers fair – I remember working on one of these in 1999 (it was awful but I would suggest that does not make this the first) and I even remember one for grads on msn last year with totaljobs (that was not much better but at least it was a careers fair). So I am positive it is not the first - maybe the first one on second life.

Sorry I was wondering off then. When you look at the concept – people could use the second life medium to improve their interview techniques, experience group events etc … and talk to employers - all to help with their real life job applications. I am not saying they will - i feel people use second life to live away from the real world - not within it.

This is the process for candidates on the site.

First, you need to choose a role and company you’re interested in, register and upload your CV. The closing date for receipt of CVs will be 9 October.
The organisation(s) you have selected will then review your CV before selecting a limited number of candidates.
Next, you will be notified as to whether you have been successful in getting a virtual interview.
We will send the application forms and CVs of successful candidates to the companies which they have selected for approval.
If you are successful, we will invite you to the event and provide you with all the information you need to prepare for your interviews.

When I look at this … it is not a careers fair. I always though the idea of an event is that you can wander around, get information, ask questions and maybe stumble upon a company you do not know.

Maybe I am being thick … it happens a lot. But this seems nothing like a careers fair and really they seem to be just using second life to conduct an interview. Well to be honest that is what is says on the site.

If this is what is happening … the point of second life has been missed. The BBH move to build a virtual advertising agency – hit the point. Second life is an experience and an experience that is based within the virtual world.

This world can reflect and even support the real world – but the basis of the interaction should be within the virtual world – not the real world. That is why people use it. There is no point running this in second life using the methodology on the site – unless you just want to say you are doing something on second life.

Sorry for singling out this event BUT it is a perfect example of people doing things because they are new. We should work with new mediums, this is the only way we test and deliver innovation.

BUT we really do need to improve the level of understanding of mediums within the agencies and clients. Because if the structure and nature of the mediums don’t meet client objectives then the campaigns will not work – this is a perfect example of an idea missing the point of the medium.

You see examples of this across all levels of the industry from simple job posting campaigns through to the main digital recruiters in the UK. If we say we understand the media – then we should actually understand the media.

http://www.i-jobsforreal.co.uk/ misses the point of how people interact with the internet, the concept of a careers fair and the nature of second life.

The trialogue has arrived

I did not write this but thought you would find it interesting - so for those of you who want to read the original source.

http://www.i-level.com/resource-centre/opinion-pieces/trialogue.php

For lazy people - here is the trialogue

Andrew Walmsley, co-founder of i-level
13 June 2007

When Moses climbed the mountain to collect a set of tablets, he wasn’t expecting a consultation exercise. No focus groups had been conducted, and no quantitative research. The tablets came with commandments on them, and there was a certain amount of implied definitiveness that came with that term.
And media’s been pretty much like that for most of the several thousand years since then. A small number of people told a large number of people what they thought, and there was very little opportunity for the mass to respond – and if they did, it was subject to the editorial control of those in power.
Which is why when the web appeared in 1994, people started getting excited. A new paradigm was emerging, they said. In the future, where there previously had been a monologue, there will be a dialogue. Consumers will be able to respond to communications just as easily as they can receive them, and the implications for brands are enormous.
I went to a conference in 1996 in Edinburgh, where hundreds of marketing and media folk debated hotly the exciting opportunity this new world of dialogue would bring their brands. We spent three days talking about how brands would be able to have a dialogue with consumers, and that this would be a more powerful means of communication because of the level of involvement that consumers would have.
Throughout the debate it was clear what benefits a dialogue with consumers could have for brands. The trouble was, there wasn’t much in it for consumers. Speaking for myself, I don’t really want to have a dialogue with Persil, or Sainsbury’s or Yoplait. I don’t even want to have a dialogue with Audi or Vodafone or Selfridges, in which I would normally be expected to be considerably more interested.
Ultimately I want them to get on with being them. Make my clothes clean, connect my calls – the hygiene factors are important, but the emotional elements are just as much theirs too, and I either buy into them or I don’t.
So the ability to create real, meaningful dialogue often ended up being too costly, too difficult and often simply too much work for the value generated.
But emerging over the last few years has been a new dynamic, infinitely more powerful than the dialogue ever promised to be, more threatening, more revolutionary and more valuable.
When we look back in another ten years, we will see that the true impact of digital media was not to find new ways to connect brands to consumers, but in connecting those consumers (or “people” as they like to refer to themselves) to each other.
This simple fact has created a new ecosystem.
Now, people collaborate together to create software, which they release back onto the web where it outperforms the ‘commercial’ competition. They share information about medical conditions, challenging the authority of the medical establishment. They co-operate to drive down fuel prices, publishing the cheapest price for your postcode. And they join forces to bring down brands who let them down, publishing video of underperforming products.
The age of the Trialogue has arrived.
The challenge this poses for brands is that they’re no longer handing down the tablets. Their consumers have relegated them to the position of supplier, and are talking about them, not to them.
Whilst this is a threat to those who adhere to the status quo, it’s an opportunity to those brands who can reinterpret themselves as facilitators. They recognise that the bulk of the discourse will take place between consumers, and their role in this is to enable, empower, listen and just occasionally, talk.
The trialogue will influence every aspect of marketing, from product design (threadless.com) through to product recommendation (tripadvisor.com), and its potency derives from opportunity brands now have not to talk at people, but to be a small part of billions of their conversations.