Marketing Headhunter

"WE'RE SORRY..." Why I'm switching to Bing.

We're sorry...

... but your computer or network may be sending automated queries. To protect our users, we can't process your request right now.

I'm not completely sure why I get this message from Google -- but I see it quite often.  I imagine that it's either related to a toolbar that I'm running which causes Google to limit my searches, or it might be Google itself that's blocking my searches because I'm using Google constantly.  'Twasn't always thus: This is a development I've noticed in the last 8 months, and I'm getting it on my home pc AND mac laptop computers.

Regardless, I'm going to do something that might NEVER have occurred to me had Google not driven me to this point: I'm going to install the Bing toolbar and split my searches between Google and Bing.

Think about that.

Heretofore (a $3 word!) Google had gotten 100% of my business, and now they are going to split it and may even lose it if I like Bing better.

That's not a threat.  It's a commentary on just how transparent the search "utility" has become to me. Google's search tool has always been a pencil, something of great value to be used over and over again, like toilet paper or toothpaste.  And as Warren Buffett has always said about consumer stocks, when people find a consumer product they like, they're not inclined to switch around much.  Unless the product changes.

I realize that Google is absurdly big and powerful and could care less about me.  Who cares if I defect to Bing?  Probably no one.  Google is too big to fail, right?

Yeah well, I remember a story about the development of Bing, when Microsoft execs did a user test that involved showing users Google results branded for Bing, and Bing results branded for Google.  Time and again, users thought the "Google" results were more accurate -- even though the answer wasn't always so simple.

I'll let you know how I like Bing. The way I figure it, even a slightly less relevant result is better than "We're sorry..."

Fw: JOE OPPORTUNITY

To Whom it May Concern:

Never start a cover letter with "To Whom it May Concern" and never send an email with a subject line like "Fw: JOE OPPORTUNITY" when I presume you mean "Fw: JOB OPPORTUNITY" ...

... which is a lame subject line in and of itself.

>delete!<

Meaning in the effort ...

Because there is darkness, light has value.

Because of the challenges, the rewards have meaning.

The essence of great art is in the authentic physical, mental and spiritual effort that creates it.  If it were easy, instant and free, no one would care about it.

When the path becomes steep, that's no reason to despair.  For it means you are making progress and nearing the top.

Do you find yourself wishing that life could be easier?  Take that as your prompting to go out and make it more meaningful.

Because a life free of effort is not really what you want.  What you really want is for every effort to bring a meaningful sense of fulfillment.

When your purpose is clear and honestly you, everything is an opportunity.  Feel the beauty of that purpose, and eagerly greet whatever may come.

~ Ralph Marston ~

BEST CATALOG EVER [video]: "Crutchfield mails in 3-D." You gotta see this.

CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA - People like to rag on catalogs as irrelevant and wasteful until they see one like this.  Leave it to Crutchfield Electronics to mail a 3-D catalog right as the "Summer of 3-D" is getting cranked up.  What a powerful branding device -- and think of the PR value!  If only my video did it justice.  RSS subscribers click here to view.

CORRECTION:  My video (which was unscripted and unrehearsed) says that Williams-Sonoma mailed 394 million catalogs in 2009.  That's incorrect, and I meant no offense.  The official Williams-Sonoma number is "more than 50 million."  My apologies.

RECRUITING STRATEGY: "Can a cost center make money?"

BIRMINGHAM, AL - My buddy, Kris Dunn, over at FOT has a great post today called Scared? Don't Hire More Recruiters. Check it out and then come back ...

Did you read the post?  What are you waiting for??  GO!!!

Kris talks about how the economy is recovering and then assesses whether or not the uptick is strong enough for companies to re-staff their recruiting departments.  The way Kris sees it, corporations have four options, which you can see in his article.

But Kris misses an option: Why not hire a recruiter to handle your own company's searches in addition to somebody else's searches as a third party recruiter?

I'm always amazed that companies don't treat their cost centers like profit centers.  When you think about it, any professional activity that may be a cost center to your company is actually a profit center to another company.  Are accountants a cost center on your company's P&L?  Well, an accountant working for a private CPA firm is certainly a profit center in that environment.

And so it is with corporate recruiters, many of whom are amazing – and some of whom have actually worked previously on the agency side.  Is it inconceivable to think that any candidate who submits her resume to a company with a great employment brand – REI, for example – wouldn't like to hear from REI about similarly great "REI partner companies" who might have a need for the candidate's services in the event that REI can't use her at the moment?  Some of my clients have larger house databases than I do -- maybe not for ecommerce, but certainly for retail.  And they ALL subscribe to the same third-party databases like Linkedin, CareerBuilder, Dice, Monster, etc.

Last year my average invoice was $22,500.  Is it so crazy to think that corporate recruiters couldn't get a similar piece of the action during their down times?

Somebody please help me understand why this type of thing isn't done. If it's about the liability and the guarantees, I can assure you that those issues are not great enough to offset the profit potential of such an initiative.  If they were, I wouldn't be a recruiter.

Enlighten me.  Please advise your comments below.

JOB SEARCH TIP: "Did I reject you?"

I have a confession to make:  I hate recruiters.  Can't stand 'em.

As most of my readers know, I am a reasonably bright guy with an incredibly diverse professional background which includes multi-modal logistics, purchasing, inventory management, cost accounting, budgeting and reporting, international trade finance, sales, marketing, and ecommerce (obviously).  I had ALL of this experience at the time I was laid off in the 2001 recession, and I couldn't find a job to save my life.  Seriously.  I couldn't get arrested back then.

All of the recruiters I dealt with were totally useless.

In turn, each recruiter looked at my resume and saw a guy with "food industry experience" and stated flatly "I don't know anyone who's looking for a food guy.  We'll keep your resume on file, yada yada yada."  I felt radioactive.

It didn't matter that I was business-oriented.  It didn't matter that I was hungry.  It didn't matter that I had worked overseas three times and hold a Masters degree in international business from a top five school.  It didn't matter that I have great people skills and am self-directed.  It didn't matter that I had a track record of success in the food industry (and I had the references to prove it.)

All that mattered to recruiters was I was a round peg, and they had square holes to fill.

Now, I know what you recruiters will say in the comments section below: "What were they supposed to do with your resume, Harry?  If your resume wasn't a match, then it wasn't a match.  You know how that works.  We get paid to source candidates who fit the position requirements.  That's what we do."

Bullshit.  Complete and utter bullshit.

The resume is just a leading indicator of whether or not a candidate will create value for the client.  It's a starting point in the vetting process.  It's not the Bible.  In fact, resumes can be downright misleading.

The joke in the recruiting industry is that "a candidate is only perfect twice in their life: at birth, and on their resume."  That's why there's a cottage industry of resume writers trying to make balls look like strikes.  I've seen great candidates with lousy resumes and lousy candidates with great resumes -- and until some rocket scientist builds a web-based tool to separate the dogs from the stars, I'll have an important job to do.

A great recruiter is supposed to help his clients build better companies.  The goal is to source Game Changers.  Period.  In addition to sourcing the obvious rockstars, a world-class recruiter is supposed to bring the non-obvious candidates to the attention of the hiring manager and explain to them in the client's language why the candidate should be considered.  The client has Monster.com as a source of obvious candidates.

In any case, because of those lean years, what I have described above summarizes my approach to the recruiting business.  That's why I am a trusted advisor to my clients, who can draw on my diverse background to make equity enhancing candidate recommendations.

None of this makes me a genius.  It simply means that, evidently, I have an unconventional approach to recruiting.  It probably also explains why my team will touch 150 ecommerce searches this year.  Where other online marketing recruiters think their job is to knock you OUT, I think my job is to knock you IN.

But candidates:  Here is the point of this post ...

If you are an underdog in any search I'm managing, I absolutely promise you that I will do everything in my power to make sure that the hiring committee appreciates the unique ways that you can create value for their firm.  Very few ecommerce recruiters, I think, are as qualified or motivated as Harry Joiner to tell your story to a client in a way that leverages your strengths, mitigates your developmental areas, and positions you uniquely against the other candidates vying for the role.  However, ...

That doesn't mean you won't get beat!

I am very blessed to work with the most talented ecommerce directors and VPs in the North American online retail community.  The level of talent in this space is breathtaking.  And these are nice people, too!  That's what you're up against.  For my clients, picking the "best" candidate in one of my searches is akin to naming a favorite Beatle or picking one's favorite president on Mount Rushmore.  There are no wrong answers; there are merely "less good" ones.

Did I reject you?

If I did, it's probably not because of your background.  More likely, it's because of your competitors' [plural] backgrounds.  You just got beat, and there's nothing I can do about that other than help you understand where you came up short relative to the competition and how you can shore up those holes in the future.