Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Archives for 2009

Test Question

Actually, it’s one strategic question with ten tactical sub-questions, and it was asked recently by recruiting guru Lou Adler: “Is Your Career Site Turning Off Top Candidates?” Adler breaks out his query into a scoring system for site assessment and discusses each item in some detail, so the article is well worth a read. Meantime, I’ll recap Adler’s questions here, and then add two more Qs for good measure.

I’ve put a brief explanation of each topic in parenthesis:

1.  Can candidates just look, or are they forced to “buy”? (Visitors should get plenty of information without having to apply.)

2. Are jobs easy to find? (Visitors should be able to locate relevant job listings efficiently.)

3.  Can your career site be found easily? (Visitors to the corporate site should be able to locate the Careers area quickly.)

4.  Are your job descriptions boring or compelling? (Descriptions should “wow” a top candidate.)

5. Is the application process simple or an endurance contest? (Application should take less than five minutes.)

6.  Is there a way to stay connected without applying? (Visitors should have options to submit a resume or sign up for something even if they do not apply for a job.)

7. Is there a CRM nurturing process? (Follow-up contact campaigns should be in place for “candidate relationship management.”)

8. Can your ads be found by those who are Googling for jobs or those not looking? (Jobs should appear on the first or second page of a reasonably targeted online search—and extra points if jobs appear on social media.)

9. Do you use SEO’d talent hubs for groups of similar jobs? (Adler uses the term “talent hub” in a specific way—best to read his explanation.)

10. Can your candidates find employees they know within your company? (This point is about the importance of an active employee referral program—not clear how it relates to the corporate website.)

Questions 1-6 make up a handy checklist for doing your own site review, and questions 7-10 provide food for thought about recruiting strategy in general and web presence in particular. But there are a couple of additional queries I think would make an excellent addition . . .

Adler begins the article with an assertion that “most career sites are designed to repel the best and attract the worst.” There’s definitely truth in that statement, though in most cases the effect is probably not due to design, but to lack of design. And lack of attention. So a very good question would be:  Is there a dedicated resource for coordinating and maintaining the design and functionality of the Careers site? And if so—does that person have the requisite skills to do the job, and enough time to do it?

The other question I’d suggest (and I would make it the very first one) is:  Can you state the mission of your Careers site? Different companies have different recruiting needs and strategies. Sometimes these are well-defined, sometimes they are not. And even if there is a definition, sometimes it is intentionally and skillfully utilized to create a “just-right” Careers site, more often it is not.

And that sets up another post. In the meantime–let me know if you think there are other questions begging to be asked!

The Bully Media Want Bloggers and Online Journalists to Go Away

Why?

Because they are cramping their style.

Google has been approached by the mainstream media to give them preference in the search engines for content-driven traffic. Here is an excerpt of the story, drafted from the Ad Age site:

Major media companies are increasingly lobbying Google to elevate their expensive professional content within the search engine’s undifferentiated slush of results.

They want first dibs, first choice and to be recognized first with top stories, news and developments, entertainment, etc. – – you name it. It seems that the mainstream media do not feel that they have enough of the pie and they want more. They want the pieces that the bloggers have too.

Bloggers and online journalists have a pretty exciting job writing on topics that are of interest to sparse sections of audiences online. They have the unique ability to act as sort of “rock stars” in the media world. Bloggers who are pretty popular even have their own groupies and people who hang on their every word, doing or trying whatever they say. Almost cult-like in a way. Right now, it’s pretty darn cool to be a blogger because your opinion, well-researched and fleshed out of course, can rank you right up there at the top of a Google search result. These rankings are giving the mainstream media a virtual headache. Why? Because they feel like since they are the “real” media source, that they should of course be first. Kind of reminds me of my kids and that whole “line-leader” business.

Of course mainstream media does have the advertising dollars and the resources to rank wherever they want, but is that good for the online user? Moreover, is it good for the media companies? Sure, it’s great for Google’s purse, but what does that for the discriminating online user who’s looking not for the most popular information, but the most accurate information? Do online users want to read “paid”, biased content or do they want good reads? What would you want?

What I find disturbing about the whole thing is the bullying that the online media (as a whole) is doing by throwing their weight around and saying that they should be more recognized than a lowly blogger. Says who?

 “You should not have a system,” one content executive said, “where those who are essentially parasites off the true producers of content benefit disproportionately.”

Why, I don’t think I’m a parasite at all! I simply feel that the role of an online journalist is to further research and capitalize on the information that is already out there. Are we “taking” anything away from anyone by doing this? Does this make our work sub-par? Part of me does understand and agree with the big media folks in that there are content millhouses and lazy bloggers who will regurgitate what they’ve read and not bother to investigate or put their own spin on a story. Those types get no points with me either. But good bloggers aren’t doing this. Good bloggers are opinionated, well-read sources who offer their readers a direct light into a story without the fluff, the “paid spin” or the salesy type of material that you will read in some places.

huffington-post

Ariana Huffington of the famed Huffington Post runs quite a controversial blog on her site. There are many, many bloggers over there who deftly report and blog on politics, news, business and even gossip. Does that mean because the site is full of regular bloggers and not professionally paid journalists that they should not be recognized in Google’s search engine as much as a designer media’s name?

And then there’s my former colleague, Darren Rowse who I had the pleasure of working with for a while when I probloggerblogged for b5media. The man is a gold mine of knowledge and information when it comes to blogging and making money from it. In the online world, he is the go-to person for whatever you need to know about professional blogging. Darren started his whole blogging gig as a hobby and has built it into a leading, multi-business online venture. Since he doesn’t blog for any of the mainstream media, should his opinions on “how-to” be ignored? In addition, should he rank lower in the Google search engines for “pro-blogging”, “online entrepreneur” because he doesn’t have the backing of media dollars and resources?

There’s a place for the mainstream media and there’s a place for the blogging journalist in the online world for both parties to be a cohesive unit together. There is a way for everyone to get along and be successful in whatever venue they choose to find their way into Google. It’s called competition, and it’s doing quite well, thank you.

If the mainstream media wants to really be recognized, then they should do what it takes to be recognized. Throwing their resource weight around does nothing but make them virtual bullies. In a healthy dose of good old-fashioned competition, the search engines will pick up content that is relevant, pithy, original and unique. If that’s coming from the media folks, great. If that’s coming from the blogger journalist, great again. But the media has to understand that they can’t be greedy, they can’t have it all with resources, money and paid rankings and search results. Play fair and let the “best” content win. Readers deserve that. Message to the mainstream media: You can’t have your cake and eat it too! It’s not that type of party.

Information, Please

In It’s not the R, it’s the I, I opened a consideration of how ROI analysis applies to online recruiting in general and social media investment in particular—and I planned to follow up with posts drilling down on these topics. This has turned out to be much more of a challenge than anticipated!

So I’m falling back on an old journalistic trick: make the story the story. And the story is . . . there is very little information or analysis to use in discussing these aspects of recruiting expenditure. Although there are many software products, consulting companies, pundits, and industry associations that refer on their websites and in their literature to metrics (aka “analytics”), online recruiting, electronic recruiting, and so on, their commentaries and presentations seem to be long on rhetoric and short on facts.

I did not find any up-to-date, in-depth case studies or white papers. Maybe they are out there (and please share any knowledge you have!), but I couldn’t find them—and not only could I find no free information, I couldn’t even find anyone selling expensive reports that seem to promise illumination. This is true for HR and recruiting in general, not just the online aspects, as confirmed by experts:

Noted HR commentator Dr. John Sullivan starts off an ere.net post on Talent Management Analytics with the sentence “the subject of analytics is often discussed but rarely executed well, even in the most well-established talent management functions.” He continues with a long discussion about why this practice lags (short version: it’s too hard) and how new techniques like predictive modeling and text analytics will be revolutionary—except that “unfortunately, leveraging new and emerging tools often requires that users step out of their comfort zone.” So it seems we will have to stay tuned a while on those developments.

Ray Schreyer (Program Manager of Interactive Recruiting Channels for IBM and co-author of The Employer’s Guide to Recruiting on the Internet) observes on his Corporate Recruiting Blog that the “big three” job boards experienced a 35% drop in traffic during 2008, explaining that “2009 looks to be the year of Job Aggregators and Job Distribution Networks. The Job Board destination model is near dead, and seems only perpetuated by HR Recruiting folks who are lacking metrics and an ‘in the tank’ Wall Street crowd who does not understand the dynamics of the online recruiting marketplace. More to come in the weeks ahead.” But (again) unfortunately, twelve of the weeks ahead are now in the past, and there’s no further word from Schreyer.

In their Hiring and Recruiting Challenges Survey 2008, well-known consulting firm The Adler Group included a section on how recruiters and recruiting managers rank their use of specific recruiting metrics. An article by Bryan Johanson explains the findings, and notes among key conclusions: “Even with all the talk and focus on metrics over the last few years, recruiting departments and recruiters still struggle to implement real-time metrics.” (Though the survey information dates to 20007, it’s worth browsing Lou Adler’s summary of the findings.)

Of course the connection between internet recruiting in general and the Careers website specifically is another topic—one which also is noted by many as (a) very important and (b) not given sufficient attention. I’ll turn to that in the next post, and in the meantime, will keep looking for hard data to support the discussion.

Dell Named Leading Green IT Brand

green-factorAccording to a new study called Green Factor (a joint program from Strategic Oxygen and Cohn & Wolfe), IT managers and executives believe that Dell is the greenest brand.  3,500 CIOs, and senior IT managers in 11 countries were given 26 enterprise IT brands to choose from and asked to select the greenest.  Dell captured 30% of the votes.  Hewlett Packard came in second place with 26% of the votes.

The more interesting part of the survey is the criteria that IT professionals used to evaluate companies in terms of their “green-ness.”  According to the survey, IT professionals look for companies that have: [Read more…] about Dell Named Leading Green IT Brand

Energizing Your Brand Through the Media: Act II Popcorn Finds a Way

Act II popcorn has been around for quite some time and perhaps even appears in a lot of our cabinets at home. Their popcorn (in my own opinion) is light, awfully good and buttery and is just perfect for a movie night at  home or with friends. It’s even good with a 52-hour movie stint, something Act 11 did a few years back that caused them to buzz the market and explode with their product.

Act II Popcorn, parent-owned by the Conagra Foods Company, held a movie fest/movie marathon that was used to introduce their newest product into the market. History begins with its predecessor—ACT I, an early microwave popcorn that had to be stored in the refrigerator. In 1984 ACT II, a shelf-stable microwave popcorn, hit the stage. It was the first mass-marketed microwave popcorn. ACT II has brought Americans many firsts since then, including the first flavored microwave popcorn, the first fat-free microwave popcorn, and the first kettle-corn-variety microwave popcorn.

To introduce this concept and product to the consumers, Act II held a movie fest which lasted for approximately 52 hours at the Heights Theatre in Columbia Heights, MN.

Con Agra foods was holding the ACT II popcorn “pop fest” at the Heights, which broke the (then) worlds record of continuous movie watching. The first movie started on Friday Morning at. 9:30AM, and the last movie did not end until 7:00PM on Sunday night.

The participants could have ALL of the popcorn they desired, with 15 minute incremental breaks at designated periods, but NONE of the participants at any time could fall asleep or leave the theatre. They were competing for a Guinness Book of World Records championship. The winners of the movie competition would receive a year’s worth of Act II popcorn free, their faces on specially marked packages and the chance to claim bragging rights in the Guinness Book. And all of this for doing something that really is fun: watching a movie and eating hot-buttered popcorn.

This clever act of advertising, media relations, branding and marketing helped to make Act II a popular popcorn with a hard-to-forget creative branding strategy. Their goal was to embed the image and thought of their product into their customers minds, and create a desire for their product for the next time they’re in the grocery store on the popcorn aisle. Has it happened to you yet? Are you an Act II popcorn eater? Does their marketing strategy work on you?

What was so clever about this campaign is that they involved, heavily involved, the participation of their customers and made it fun for them to interact. The marathon lasted for about three days or so, and was just enough time for the product to create a buzz and gain media attention. (YouTube News)

Conagra Foods actually ran this campaign over a year ago, but the residuals are still evident today. The company is still enjoying profitable increases in their stock with a growing and successful product line. Is is all or partly due to the Act II commercial? Not really of course, but it is branding strategies like this that can help a corporate entity establish themselves as a market leader and a competitive force. Kudos to whomever the advertising executive or committee was who thought of this type of marketing strategy. It did well for the brand!

What kind of creative things can you think of that would explode your brand? Would your company be willing to try anything that would bring them exposure? Is it worth it to them or is it something that is reserved only for the “creative brands?”

Lexus Loses J.D. Power and Associates Dependability Survey Top Spot – Three Brands Take the Lead

Since Lexus hit the luxury vehicle market, the brand has been extremely popular and closely associated with quality and reliability.  Those brand messages were supported year after year (since 1995) when Lexus took the top spot in the J.D. Power & Associates annual ranking of auto brands based on reliability (problems experienced by consumers after three years of ownership).  That is — until 2009.

The newest ratings from J.D. Power & Associates show the Lexus brand not only dropping out of the top spot in terms of reliability but actually dropping to #3.  So which brands stole spots #1 and #2 — Jaguar and Buick, which were up from #10 and #6 in 2008, respectively.  Bet you didn’t expect to see Buick there.  Other brands that followed behind Lexus were Toyota (who owns Lexus), Mercury, Infiniti and Acura.  And which brand came in dead last?  Suzuki.

This J.D. Power & Associates dependability survey rating is for the vehicle brands overall and includes all models under that brand name.  J.D. Power & Associates rates a wide variety of factors related to the automotive industry, and companies often use the ratings in advertising and promotions throughout the year.  Of course, we can assume Lexus won’t be releasing any ads this year that say, “Look — we dropped from 1st to 3rd in the J.D. Power & Associates dependability survey.  Now is the time to buy a Lexus!”  And the new tagline – “Beat by Buick” – now, that has to hurt the brand ego. [Read more…] about Lexus Loses J.D. Power and Associates Dependability Survey Top Spot – Three Brands Take the Lead