Marketing to older demographics is a disgrace to the profession

If you think this is how to appeal to mature consumers, you need to grow up.
 A lot.

By Neil Patrick


Many marketers view older demographics with scarcely disguised distain and patronise them with naive assumptions about who they are and how they live their lives.  The over 40's are a high value and discriminating (in a positive sense) target market, yet brands and marketers regularly fumble their marketing to them. Why?

At the time of the 2011 Census, the median age for the population of England and Wales was 39 years. 27% was aged 40 to 59 years, and 22% was aged 60 years and over. In other words, almost half (49%) of the UK population is aged 40 or over.

Not only that, all the data tells us that people aged 40 plus have greater wealth and disposable income than younger people. The over forties are the most valuable age demographic in the UK today.

No business with any sense would want to alienate its highest potential market segment. So how can such an illogical situation be explained?

I think the explanation is actually very simple. It’s because people in marketing and advertising are generally under 40 themselves. They see the world through a lens which reflects their own likes and dislikes. They simply cannot empathise with those who are older than they are.

Empathy is the cousin of understanding. And without understanding, communication is always going to be difficult.

In their defence, I was no different. When I was 16, anyone over 30 was really old. When I was 30, a 60 year old seemed positively geriatric.

But ageist hiring begets ageist marketing, so the origins are not so much the fault of marketing teams themselves, but rather those who decide who is on those teams.

It’s unconscious bias at its worst. It results in stereotyping and discrimination – something which the young are especially keen to call out - but only it seems when it’s about gender, sexuality or ethnicity.

Brands which either appeal only to the young and/or alienate the mature are setting themselves up as hostages to fortune if they choose to stake everything on the fast-changing and transitory loyalties of the young.

It just doesn’t make commercial sense to target only young people when older demographics are higher spending and less fickle. Chuck Shroeder, a former director at ad giant DDB and now 71 said:

“Advertisers assume that the “old” people of today are some monolithic group of codgers who don’t know anything. Product managers are all young and they don’t want advice from people who could be their grandparents. They have the same attitude I had when I was 30, largely based on hubris and youthful lack of experience. They don’t grasp that they could sell more product if they actually talked to the people who have the money.”

Asked to give examples of ageist ads, he said:

“I nominate the Esurance commercial with the elderly lady who is bragging to her friends that she saves time by posting her vacation photos on her “wall” rather than mailing them. We see her living room wall with pictures stuck on it. Funny eh? It implies that we old folks know nothing about Facebook, even though Facebook has more users over 50 than under.”

Last week I observed a brand in action which would convince any young marketer to rethink their entire preconception of older demographics. But guess what, there were no young people there to witness this live case study of brand loyalty in action.

This is a brand which has endured 50 years of highs and lows, drug and alcohol traumas, fickle fashion changes and more.

I went to see hard rock band UFO play a sold out concert in Cardiff. This band was founded in 1969 and it has been touring constantly ever since. Founder and vocalist Phil Mogg will be 71 this year. The concert hall was packed with men almost none of whom were less than 40 years old. And whilst they didn’t have a mosh pit, they were jumping and singing along just like any audience of on-trend hipsters. This was no chamber music or smooth jazz. It was a loud and sweaty rock spectacular:

This was brand loyalty by the over 40s in plain sight. This tour is sold out nationwide. It’s the very real, cash-till ringing manifestation of 50 years of customer loyalty and spending. And a wake up call to everyone in marketing who thinks older men spend their time and money on gardening and golf. Or hula hooping...

Wake up and smell the coffee kids.

P.S. I learned with great sadness that a few days after this gig, Paul Raymond, seen above on keyboards passed away unexpectedly following a heart attack. As a more or less permanent member of UFO, he will be greatly missed. My condolences go to his friends and family.

HR data and analytics drives profits but at what cost?

By Neil Patrick

HR analytics can punish your employees, but you won’t worry about that if you want to win.

In his 1976 book, 'Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation', author Joseph Weizenbaum laid out the case that while artificial intelligence may be possible, we should never allow computers to make important decisions, because computers will always lack human qualities such as compassion and wisdom. Weizenbaum made a crucial distinction between deciding and choosing. Deciding is a computational activity, something that can ultimately be programmed. But it is the capacity to choose that ultimately makes us human. Choice, however, is the product of judgement, not calculation.

Stephen Hawking went even further when he said,  "...the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race. Once humans develop artificial intelligence, it will take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn't compete and would be superseded."

I cannot say if this distopian vision will or will not ever manifest. But it is plain to anyone that we are racing down this path with scarcely any care. We are already seeing the first applications of big data and AI based workforce decision and management systems. HR leaders like it because it promises to solve several of their most longstanding and vexing problems.

HR has been fed up forever about not being taken seriously. HR big data and analytics promises to be their saviour. It suggests that HR can transition from being perceived (wrongly in my view) as fluffy and utilitarian to having a proper seat at the leadership table, because like its rivals in finance, sales and marketing, it can now deploy hard ‘scientific’ data to back up its proposals.

It also promises a happier, more engaged workforce. One in which every twist and turn of employee sentiment can be quantified and responded to. If the data says people are feeling worse about something, HR can know this quickly and help rectify the problem.

I wish this were true. But I fear the opposite. That’s because every technological advance includes the option of being deployed for good or evil.

What HR may not like so much is that HR data delivers an extremely useful tool for business leaders to push and punish people. It’s a deal with the devil, in which HR’s quest for happy, engaged workers, risks being hi-jacked by the rest of the business to brutally force up productivity and drive down cost.

Incidentally, my argument skims over the very real practical questions around HR data and its inherent unreliability as Marcia LaReau has convincingly described here in her post, ‘To a Hammer, Everything is a Nail’.

Business has some critical problems today. Growth and profitability are chief amongst these. And countless studies show there is little correlation between hard profit and employee satisfaction. Sure there are plenty of examples of firms growing successfully who also invest in their people. But when we look at the most established large firms who are making the most money, most care much less about their people.

This is actually a very simple economic truth to understand. In an open competitive market, whoever gets the most work done for the lowest cost, wins. And if that means some people suffer, then so be it.

Every employee survey I have ever seen identifies that a person’s manager is the single greatest determinant of job satisfaction. It’s not pay, it’s not perks, it’s not flexible hours. It’s the person who manages you. If they are inspiring, caring, transparent, supportive, their staff will enjoy their work.

But here’s the problem. Managers that display these qualities are becoming an endangered species. Because their bosses usually don’t care very much about strategic HR. They do care about smashing their immediate revenue and profit targets. HR gets people hired for them, sorts out people issues and keeps them out of court. Everything else is fluff.

It’s that simple. Good leadership (not data) delivers happy and productive teams.

But we also know that good leadership is a frustratingly elusive and expensive resource to acquire and maintain. One accidental bad hire of a psychopathic manager and the whole of an organisation’s carefully nurtured culture can be demolished in a few months.

So if good leadership is expensive and scarce, but data is cheap and plentiful, the choice becomes a no-brainer.

What is becoming visible now is that there are firms who take HR data very seriously. And what we can also see is just how punishing and dehumanising the application of HR data can be in practice. To verify this, all we need to do is examine the firms where HR data is most developed and embedded in the day to day operations of the organisation.

And right now, probably the most advanced organisation in this field is Amazon. In January 2019, Amazon became the world’s third most valuable company by market capitalisation, after Apple and Microsoft.




Yet in some US states, nearly one in three Amazon workers are on food stamps. For Amazon, this is even better than paying people almost nothing. It is the transference of part of Amazon’s wage bill to the taxpayer.

In Amazon warehouses, every second of people’s work is measured and evaluated. They may walk over twenty miles on a day’s shift. Their productivity is tracked and ranked against their peers, with whoever is at the bottom of the table likely facing disciplinary actions and threats. A toilet break can cost you your job if it exceeds a tightly prescribed time allowance. Many describe it as a daily hell, which they endure only because they have few other options.

Welcome to the brave new world of HR big data. It’s being corrupted from the get-go. And if you’re an HR leader, be careful what you wish for.

AI in recruiting really means ‘abdicated intelligence’

By Neil Patrick

What is advocated and marketed as technology-enabled recruitment processes increases the difficulty in finding and retaining great people. The best people are made not found. We don't need to get better at ranking people by increasingly tightly defined data points, we need to take ownership of our responsibility (and self-interest) to find good people and make them great. 

Artificial intelligence is the big topic in almost every professional field right now. From drones in farming to robot surgeons, the overriding narrative is about the tasks which AI will enable us to perform better, faster and cheaper.

HR and recruitment are no different. The application of AI is spreading like wildfire as new tools are developed which expand the range of tasks that AI performs to assist recruitment management processes.

Until now, it was relatively simple to integrate the digital world with our own professional world. Have a LinkedIn profile which is properly constructed. Expand our professional networking onto one or two social media platforms. Write some commentaries or blog posts. By these means, anyone checking us out could easily discover our credentials.

Some people understandably chose not to participate or did so in the most cursory way possible. They had no wish to participate in the online race. They had fears about privacy. They didn’t understand how social media worked. They had better things to do with their time. All these were legitimate grounds to not participate. But not anymore because…

This is now all set to change

The next wave of AI and big data is going to transform the processes of hiring way beyond anything we’ve seen to date. Traditional recruitment is a gruelling, complex process for employers and recruiters alike. Recruitment teams have to be heavily incentivised to commit to the heavy workloads involved. And this costs money. A lot of money. But AI will streamline and speed up these processes. It will be able to identify suitable candidates in a few seconds. It will message the chosen few and chatbots will perform initial screenings. Candidate selection decisions will be made on the basis of data and scoring algorithms rather than fallible human interactions. Very little human intervention will be needed.

Recruitment costs will fall even more. Hiring efficiency and speed will increase. Hiring choices will be validated and justified by the ‘scientific’ methods involved.

At least that is the vision. The reality is more worrying.

Why it’s flawed

Data is not science. The principal predictors of job performance cannot be discovered by algorithms. The first attempts to automate the selection process created a bigger mess than before. Online job boards and applicant tracking systems (ATS) drove application numbers sky-high and candidate quality tumbled. But acquiring 500 applications cost around $50. Using a professional head hunter costs about $30-$40,000 per hire for professional vacancies. These economics ensured that automated recruitment processes took hold and continue to grow in usage.

Nick Corcodilos explains in this video why the application of data driven metrics to recruitment ensures that employers miss many of the best candidates for any given role:





I agree with everything Nick says here. This process is flawed. It cannot find the best people because the available data points cannot determine that they will perform well on the job. And because quite a few of the very best people choose not to present themselves online in their professional capacity. Yet for all its weaknesses, automated recruitment is only going to expand because the cost differential is so compelling.

In a strong and growing economy, organisations can invest in quality processes. In an economy which is uncertain and faltering, when profits and growth are elusive, focus inevitably shifts to cost reductions. Cost trumps quality in such times.

Your career is at risk if you choose not to participate

It seems logical to me that the current and anticipated applications of technology and artificial intelligence in recruiting will continue to erode the quality of hiring decisions made. This may deliver short term cost gains, but will push up long term costs as turnover rises and employee performance falls.

Yet this is not my greatest worry. My fear is that the relentless advance of this technology will create a new underclass of smart, educated and capable people who have chosen for legitimate reasons not to present themselves online. These people will become completely invisible to the data capture bots. And that invisibility will slowly but surely eat away at their employment opportunities.

There’s not a ‘talent shortage’, there’s a leadership vacuum

 
For organisations, the deployment of recruitment AI encourages organisations to abdicate their responsibility to create and nurture their own human talent pool. This creates a downward spiral of ever increasing data point discrimination reinforcing the mythology of what employers disingenuously call their ‘talent shortage’.

And if the belief in the pseudo-scientific reliability of these systems persists within management, we will see the abdication of leadership’s responsibility for taking good people and helping them become great. Instead, the tools will be adjusted to cure perceived shortcomings, when the real shortcomings are rooted in the mistaken faith in progress through technology.

Artificial intelligence is well named. Because it’s not real intelligence…

PS. My good friend Marcia LaReau at Forward Motion Careers has a great post here about what jobseekers can do to avoid becoming a victim of this situation. 

Even more cut and paste catastrophes

By Neil Patrick

My impression of the people responsible for this job ad.

I never cease to be amazed at the idiotic job descriptions for professional roles which are posted online for supposedly reputable employers by supposedly professional recruiters.

Okay I am being deliberately inflammatory. I know that most employers are good at what they do. And most recruiters are good at what they do. If they weren’t, they’d be out of business.

But amidst all the daily pressures, some things just don’t get done properly. And it’s always easier to fix little problems than big ones. Job descriptions and adverts are little things that are worth doing well, because there’s a really handsome pay-off.

Better job descriptions, means better job applicants, means better people, means a better business.

For once, it really is that simple.

Which is why from time to time, I feature job ads and descriptions on this blog. I call them 'cut and paste catastrophes'. I don't have to search very hard. This one was the just the second or third I found after a few clicks. That's hardly scientific research, but it's reasonable I think to conclude that if terrible work is so easy to find, it must be very prevalent.

So I beg anyone reading this who is in HR or recruitment to take this post in the constructive spirit it is intended. I am not just being mean-spirited – as usual this job ad is anonymous, and I have provided a commentary in italics (admittedly frequently tongue-in-cheek) to show where I think there’s erm, let's call it, 'room for improvement'.

So let’s get stuck in!

Today’s job ad catastrophe plumbs new depths of sloppiness. Not only is it full of management speak nonsense (these days though, that’s no longer enough to get you featured here); it showcases hilariously bad grammar and punctuation and is frequently self-contradictory.

But worst of all, it is unquestionably in breach of UK discrimination law.

So here it is in all its catastrophic glory:



Digital Manager - London


Salary: £60,000 per annum + car / car allowance


Are you a digital native with a real passion for what you do? Do you have gravitas and authority and the ability to guide and collaborate with those who are not digitally savvy? If so then please read on?

NO! Stop right now. This is age discrimination. And yes, that’s illegal in this country:

Put another way; you could find yourself in court very quickly with careless behaviour like this.

Exhibit 1: The term “digital native” is defined thus:

This job advert essentially excludes anyone who was born or grew up before digital technology existed. Whilst this date is not precise, the internet first became accessible for public and commercial use in mid-1989 with the connection of MCI Mail and CompuServe's email capabilities to the (then) 500,000 (!) users of the internet. Anyone born before that date (i.e. older than about 30-35) is patently not eligible to apply.

Apart from being illegal, this requirement makes the assumption that if you were born much before the mid 1980’s, you cannot possibly be competent to do this job. In this case, being the ‘wrong’ age is a definite exclusion to being hired for this post. 

But apart from being young, the employer also wants you to have ‘gravitas’. Let’s just remind ourselves how this is defined:

I might be a bit biased, but these character traits are more readily found in older not younger people. You can see now why this job description contradicts itself. Let’s face it, whilst there are exceptions of course, those who grew up taking an iPhone to school are not widely recognised for their dignity, solemnity or sobriety.

Oh and please tell me, why does the invitation to “please read on” end in a question mark?

You will be working in an FMCG business with a large global travel retail team who look after everything from Russia to Spain. You will have line management responsibility of one and be the digital guru for the business. You will know how to communicate and coach those who are keen to learn more about digital. You will also be responsible for ensuring all digital capabilities are disseminated and driven through the business, both locally and globally.

I suspect that Vladimir Putin and Mariano Rajoy Brey will be upset to hear that this job involves the jobholder’s team taking over responsibility for ‘looking after everything’ from Russia to Spain. In fact since France, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Poland and the whole of eastern Europe lie between Russia and Spain, I really hope these nations have at least been consulted. Have they agreed to this? We should be told I think.

What is line management responsibility of one? One what? One person? One team? I am guessing it’s just one country. Shame, I had hoped for more, like say the whole of the EU or something.

Apparently it is a requirement to ‘know how to communicate’. No adverbs here. Such as being able to communicate clearly or persuasively. Nope. It’s just to communicate. Last time I checked, this meant being able to listen, talk, read and write. To make a phone call, write a letter or email. But this is all about digital so I guess we should assume it also means writing online content,  social media posts, compiling and disseminating online analytics, and perhaps writing a bit of HTML coding. If you cannot communicate, for example if you are profoundly deaf, dumb or illiterate and have no idea what a PC, tablet or smart phone does, how are you expected to be reading this advert or considering this job? So why is such an almost universal human skill in the 21st century mentioned without the essential adverbs?

You will always strive for digital excellence and be able to communicate with all levels to ensure the business is on board and believes in it as much as you do. You will deliver cross regional campaigns, whilst managing the KPI's for digital activations. You will provide digital training and capabilities to the wider business and work with the brand and customer teams to ensure synergy across all departments.

This is about as much as most people understand about creating synergy.

Ah synergy. Now that’s a can of worms. This is one of those wonderful management speak buzzwords which gets bandied about by those who have no idea how it is actually created, delivered or measured. Of course it’s an easy enough concept to explain; it’s the idea that 1+1 = 3. In other words, if we put A and B together, the outcome is more than A+B were worth separately. But if I were given the task of creating interdepartmental synergy in any organisation, without the essential authority to drive it through, I’d chuck it right back. Not because I have no staying power or competency, simply because for a mid-level manager, it’s like herding cats while being expected to turn them all into unicorns.

“Managing the KPI’s (sic) for digital activations.” Haha! My that sounds impressive doesn’t it? This is management speak for what normal people call hitting targets. Translation: if you can produce lots of nice graphs going ever upwards, you’ll be fine. If they don’t, you’re in trouble.

You'll be star if you can do this...

You will establish a roster of digital agencies and delivery digital asset management platforms to ensure efficiencies in delivering digital as a relevant channel. You will need to be personable, approachable and have gravitas. You will adore all things digital and this will show in your approach to everything you do.

I would adore to explain on my resume how I am passionate about “delivery digital asset management platforms”. Yes I have extensive experience of them all. From Royal Mail to Federal Express. Yup, I’m your man when it comes to delivery digital asset management platforms. And yes I really do simply ADORE all things digital especially digital delivery – analogue delivery is just like so totally ewww.

This is a 9 month maternity cover contract where you will be able to make an impact in a very short period of time.

Sorry but I don’t know how you can be so confident that I will make an impact in a short period of time. I mean, I haven’t even sent you my resume yet. I have to assume you have psychic superpowers. I admit I am impressed by that. And flattered too. Thank you.

Now for the serious bit. I will stop messing about I promise.

The point is this. Recruitment is a serious business. Every business wants and needs to get the best talent they can. But the best candidates are judging potential employers from the get go. And if you are not a big and well known business, a job ad might be the very first piece of information a prospective candidate sees. Which means the very least an employer should do is take some care to specify the job as clearly and professionally as they can. If you don’t, like here, the best candidates are going to at best ignore you and at worst put you down as a bunch of fools – which is a tragedy, because I honestly believe that's a totally avoidable own goal.

My guess is that this was written by someone in a recruitment firm and then emailed to the client for approval. Recruiters are busy people. Finely crafting words isn’t particularly high on their priorities. I get that and I understand it. Mind you, if this recruiter were recruiting staff for me, I’d definitely be on their case, because this sloppy piece of work has the potential to land us in court.

And whoever signed this off would be regretting their slackness too.

Cut and paste catastrophes – revisited.

By Neil Patrick

This feels like a topic which is going to run and run. But I couldn’t let today’s latest job description/cut and paste catastrophe that reached my desk pass without comment. It's time for yet more car-crash HR...

We want one of these and we want it cheap.

This latest example is so mind-boggling that I cannot even begin to add my usual line by line commentary. In fact I really don’t need to – anyone who's had a job in business can see that this job description has been written by madmen (or women).

It’s a job for a digital marketing manager allegedly. In reality, it’s a job for a whole department of specialists.

To perform this role effectively, you’ll need to have solid evidence of accomplishments in:

Coding, digital and traditional marketing, media planning and execution, search engine optimisation, market analysis, sales strategy development, marketing planning, data warehousing and analysis, software evaluation, PR, research and testing, creative skills, content writing and proof reading, outsourcing management, oh yes and hands on experience of the legal, property and conveyancing industries.

How anyone at the proposed salary level in this massively under-resourced jobs sector is expected to have acquired all or even the majority of these requirements is quite beyond me.

Whilst doing this, you’ll be held accountable for high quality and high volume results i.e. generating a lot of sales leads, all the while maintaining a cool head (despite your complete mental and physical exhaustion).

Obviously the people responsible for this job posting think such skills are so abundant in the marketplace that there will be an eager queue of qualified candidates, because the salary for this job is…wait for it… £25k-£30k a year – around $32k - $39k.

This is the natural outcome of what some have called the hunt for the purple squirrel. The self-defeating hiring strategy where a job is so massively, intensely and minutely specified that no-one could possibly come close to meeting the requirement – at any salary level.

How could any self-respecting HR or hiring manager sign off this job description? It almost appears as if someone has laid off a whole department and come up with the brilliant idea of replacing everyone with just one polymath (presumably supplied with large quantities of amphetamines) to do everyone’s work.

I really hope no-one I know is ‘lucky’ enough to get hired for this job. Perhaps some of my recruiting and HR friends who read this blog would care to provide your reactions in the comments section below – even if only to confirm I haven’t lost the plot?

Anyway for your delight and entertainment here’s the posting in full:



Digital Marketing Manager

Permanent, full time.



The Role:

To support the Sales and Marketing Director in the delivery of Company marketing strategies; with the main focus on managing online presence and supporting the long-term successful promotion and deployment of marketing initiatives of the businesses.



Responsibilities:

Plan and execute all web, SEO/SEM, marketing database, email, social media and display advert campaigns.

To manage PPC strategy constantly - reviewing performance and return on investment.

To oversee the online reputation management of all companies as required.

Design, build and maintain social media presence.

Measure and report on the performance of all digital marketing campaigns, and assess against goals (ROI and KPIs).

Identify trends and insights, and optimise spend and performance.

Brainstorm new and creative growth strategies.

Plan, execute, and measure experiments and conversion tests.

Collaborate with internal teams to create landing pages and optimise user experience.

Utilise strong analytical ability to evaluate end-to-end customer experience across multiple channels and customer touch points.

Instrument conversion points and optimise user funnels.

Evaluate emerging technologies. Provide thought leadership and perspective for adoption where appropriate.

Arranging the effective distribution of marketing materials.

Maintaining and updating customer databases.

Create, develop and deploy effective marketing plans and strategies.

Monitoring competitor activity.

Managing the production and distribution of marketing materials, including leaflets, posters, flyers, newsletters and e-newsletters.

Writing and proofreading press releases and copy.

Liaising with designers and printers.

Supporting the Sales and Marketing Director wherever needed.

Work closely with PR agencies to build strong relationships with the press and managing all aspects of PR for the business.



Education/Skills/attributes required:


Essential;

Proven working experience in digital and traditional marketing.

Experience leading and managing SEO/SEM, marketing database, email, social media, websites, news feeds and display advertising campaigns.

The ability to produce high quality, high volume results.

Highly creative with experience in identifying target audiences and devising campaigns that engage, inform and motivate.

Experience in optimising landing pages and user funnels.

Experience with A/B and multivariate experiments.

Solid knowledge of website analytic tools (e.g., Google Analytics, NetInsight, Omniture, WebTrends).

Working knowledge of ad serving tools (e.g., DART, Atlas).

Experience in setting up and optimising Google Adwords campaigns.

Working knowledge of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript development and constraints.

Strong analytical skills and data-driven thinking.

Up-to-date with the latest trends and best practices in online marketing and measurement.

Experience in managing the production of marketing materials, including leaflets, posters, flyers, newsletters and e-newsletters.



Desirable;

Experience of the Property/Conveyancing Industry.

Relevant marketing qualification (CIM etc).

Experience handling high volume digital campaigns in the legal sector.



Personal Qualities


Managing Yourself;

Self-motivated and willing to take the lead and be personally accountable.

Copes effectively in demanding circumstances showing confidence in own ability and judgment.

Able to manage priorities and time effectively adopting a flexible approach to work, willing and able to delegate as appropriate.

Demonstrates persistence and commitment to completing tasks and objectives.

Pays attention to detail and quality of work.

Demonstrates a commitment to improving working practices and supports company plans and policies.



Working with People;

Ability to build and maintain excellent working relationships with others.

Confident, logical and articulate in oral and written communication, including giving formal presentations to groups.

Ability to project a dynamic and positive image of themselves and our organisation to those outside the business.

Uses effective skills to present a case clearly and succinctly to achieve a positive outcome.

Operates effectively as part of a team, encouraging others to contribute ideas and seek improvements.

Willing to offer help to all colleagues to ensure company success.



Managing Commercially;

Understands the commercial environment and has a clear vision of where the business needs to be, developing creative and innovative marketing plans to achieve commercial success.

Shows strong focus on satisfying Introducer and Client needs, taking positive action to ensure needs are met.

Understands the importance of business targets and how they impact on their responsibilities.

Makes sound commercial judgments based on issues key to the success of the business.

Knows when to seek guidance or further input from others before taking action.



Salary is £25,000 - £30,000 per annum


My suggestion is that this job description can be streamlined to a much more truthful and effective description:

"Company with poor understanding of marketing operations seeks broadly skilled and energetic marketer with good digital skills. You should be ambitious and resilient and know how to generate a lot of sales leads via online media. Should thrive in a chaotic environment. Salary highly negotiable and will be generous to reflect the scarcity and high value of these skills".

But then HR would never sign this off would they?

The 12 elephants of the jobs apocalypse

From time to time, I am delighted to share the thoughts of others and their views on the future of work. Today I have a new contribution from my friend David Hunt. David's provided me with this widely and independently evidenced commentary on the real nature of recruitment in the US today as experienced by job seekers. 

Something is stirring in the jobs jungle... 

By David Hunt, PE

Photo: Khao Yai News Facebook page

Let’s cut to the chase.

On one hand, companies claim they can’t find skilled people for the positions they have open; they claim there’s a shortage.  Yet I see the same positions open for month after quarter – and in multiple instances still open after a year… an observation seconded by both job seekers and recruiters I know.  

Clearly something is preventing the “pulling of the hiring trigger.”  But the opportunity costs of unfilled positions are the ability to pursue new initiatives, develop new products and services, and handle new and existing customers.  Let us not forget the stress toll on employees working 60+ hours a week for months on end. 

On the other hand, we have – across America – untold millions… record numbers!... un-or-underemployed.  We have a labor force participation rate near record lows.  Networking groups, like local-to-Boston groups Acton Networkers and WIND, are overflowing with skilled, competent, accomplished, and educated people who are perfectly capable of stepping into new roles successfully.  As are, doubtless, such groups across the country. 

Clearly there is an enormous mismatch, a dissonance in the perception of reality between people seeking to fill jobs, and people wanting jobs.  Each side has their own points, but – to cite a Vorlon proverb – “Understanding is a three-edged sword; there’s your side, their side, and the truth.”

We need to talk, the two sides, candidly but without rancor, to burn away the irrelevancies until we are left with a pure product, the Truth.  Only then, when both sides are in agreement about the real nature of the problem, can solutions then be proposed and tried.  But the first step is to admit there is a problem.  And since employers indisputably have the power, let’s talk about them.

Multiple Elephants in the Recruiting Room

Elephant the First: Hiring managers do not believe they need to compromise on what they want from candidates.  Per a DeVry University survey (bolding added):

*Sixty-seven percent of hiring managers don’t feel like they have to settle for a candidate without the perfect qualifications for the job

As one hiring manager told me, “I want what I want, and will wait to get what I want.”  This desire for the fantasy date leads to a huge list of requirements, often impossible requirements, which feeds into:

Elephant the Second: ATS portals reject up to 75% of qualified candidates; e.g., from Applicant tracking systems – the hidden peril for job applicants (bolding in original):

Some sources quote that as many as 75% of applicants are eliminated by ATS systems, as soon as they submit their resume, despite being qualified for the job!

Paraphrasing Suzanne Lucas, “The Evil HR Lady”, when the impossible is set as the filtering criteria, it shouldn’t surprise that only the impossible – i.e., nothing – comes through.  Reinforcing this is another data point, specifically an interview with Wharton School Professor Peter Cappelli whose research focuses on employment (bolding added):

*One employer told me that 25,000 people had applied for a reasonably standard engineering job in their company and that the hiring systems indicated that none met the requirements.

And a recruiter I know told me that, as a test, a company put together what they considered to be a perfect resume.  Yup.  Didn’t get through the ATS.  As Careerealism’s J.T. O’Donnell observed, ATS portals are where applications go to die.

Elephant the Third: My own experience with trying to network into companies indicates that more and more companies are blocking the networking that hitherto has been one of the best ways of making contacts with decision makers.  For example:

*I … made contact with the hiring manager on LinkedIn. Despite having made contact through a mutual connection and (theoretically) a trusted source, they said they could not communicate directly with me, and that HR would have to pass my resume to them before they could do anything. (Nor could they request my resume even knowing I was in the system.)

Another company I know has, per multiple people I know working there, outright forbidden any networking contacts with hiring managers.  Even current employees can only bid for new positions through the ATS.

Elephant the Fourth: Terrified of making a (cue dramatic music) BAD HIRE, companies have signed up to conduct personality testing to determine fit to some idealized personality profile, despite many potential downsides, e.g., The Problem with Using Personality Tests for Hiring and The Lazlo Emergency Commission Report.  And it’s become a responsibility dodge:

When there's a test to fall back on, managers inevitably step back from responsibility and surrender to the test, instead of asking the tougher questions. Like "the claw" in Toy Story, the test "decides who will stay and who will go."

A personality test will never encourage your managers to have the kinds of flexible thinking you need, because the test makes the ultimate decision. No test will save you from the hard work of developing an intelligent hiring process. It takes effort to distinguish the drivers for performance in a job, and real thought to understand who will fit into your culture.

Elephant the Fifth: There is no pushback on the ability of hiring managers to play Goldilocks to wait forever, and no difficult conversations had with those hiring managers by their superiors about their Quest for the Purple Squirrel.  For example, blogger Aline Kaplan had a critical observation in her blogpost Hiring the Perfect Candidate: The Problem with Finding Goldilocks:

Had I ever taken this long to fill a position … my managerial competence would have come into question. I would have had to provide a very good reason why I could not find one decent candidate among the horde of technology marketing people let go by numerous companies when the Great Recession hit—and beyond.

Hidden in this lack of correction to such levels of indecision is an implicit message from upper management that indecision is tolerated.  That tacit approval of indecision in hiring will leak to other topics also needing decisions.

Elephant the Sixth: Despite the fact that the economy has sucked canal water since 2008, with – as mentioned above – untold millions (by some estimates over 100 million) not counted in the American labor force any more, there is still a perceptual bias against those who are unemployed, especially those who have been out for longer than six months.  Thus, I observe a lack of empathy or “EQ” for such people based on no allowances made for the current economic reality.

Elephant the Seventh: Something like 80% of companies search for candidates on social media and the internet, with no guidelines or standards.  Thus, any post – whether on LinkedIn, Facebook, twitter, or anything found with a google search – can potentially be viewed as disqualifying.  Now, companies are also scouring posts by people with whom you are connected, and searching for your image to see if you are in others’ pictures.  Yet on the flip side, having no social media presence is also seen as disqualifying, thus creating a social media presence is a Catch-22.

Elephant the Eighth: The only shortage is of people willing to take pennies on the dollar (and in parallel, a dearth of training dollars to fill in small gaps).  They keep looking for, quoting J.T. O’Donnell, “Bi-lingual brain surgeons for $10 an hour”.  Ask The Headhunter Nick Corcodilos wrote  – read the whole link, it’s really eye-opening:

"The McQuaig Institute (a developer of talent assessment tools) recently polled over 600 HR professionals. The #1 reason they lose job candidates — reported by 48% of U.S. companies — is because the offers they make are too low.

HR knows where the talent shortage comes from: Lousy job offers."

Elephant the Ninth: A standard complaint by job seekers is the treatment they receive.  This is not the carping of “angry job seekers” but observations by multiple “big names” in hiring and recruiting.  Job seekers talk and share stories, leading to companies getting bad reputations.  (And in parallel, sweatshop 12-plus-hour-days companies gain bad reps.)

Elephant the Tenth: Ageism and the parallel fear of hiring someone who is a threat to the hiring manager’s position.  There are a lot of very experienced, accomplished, and savvy people looking for work.  Given the youth-philia of industry these days, I opine that many younger managers are not just concerned about having to manage someone older than they are, but are worried that those seasoned people might become their replacements, or even superiors.

Elephant the Eleventh: Companies have invested untold millions in ATS software, personality testing, etc.  Nobody wants to report upward that the software they’ve pushed, the policies they recommended, may in fact be creating the very shortage they decry.  Yet… sooner or later, as the inability to fill positions noticeably affects the bottom line, company leaders will turn their eye to the situation.  CYA maneuvering only works for so long, and doesn’t generally end well for those who hid bad news.

Elephant the Dozenth: Interviewers have certain expectations of behaviors and personality types. In Fuzzy Limits, I outlined this situation related by a recruiter:

They described a person they were attempting to place at a company. Their client rejected the candidate, citing that the person came across as "too aggressive". Upon being told that feedback, the candidate altered their presentation to be more low-key… and was rejected at their next interview as "not dynamic enough".

One person's confident is another's arrogant; humble vs. uncertain, low-key vs. disinterested, enthusiastic vs. desperate, delegator vs. slacker? And so on.

For example, I tend to think before I speak. After one interview I got the feedback that they thought my "engaging brain before putting mouth into gear" made me look slow and indecisive. Had I known that, I would have adjusted. But since interviewers don't come with meters above their heads so we can get instant feedback on how our presentation is perceived by a total stranger, applicants are forced to gamble.

All these elephants lead to one inescapable conclusion – echoing a comment you will hear in almost any networking group meeting and often online in comments on LinkedIn essays: “The hiring process is broken”.

Destroying the Message

Across the board, corporate decision makers ignore the chorus of such observations, and even excoriate and label as “uppity” those who point out these elephants.  I suspect this tendency is an application of The Emperor’s New Clothes.  It’s one thing when a “job search / recruitment expert” points things out.  It’s another when a hoi polloi plebe points these things out – because then the elephants might actually have to be addressed as they’re visible to all. 

But problems don’t get better because they’re ignored.

So What Will We Talk About?

In 2002 my retired Harvard Business School professor father passed away suddenly at age 93.  Needless to say my mother was shattered.  Eventually she climbed out of her hole and resumed life, though not unchanged.  We talked daily; I also was going through multiple and simultaneous life crises.

My mother was the first woman to get – by a few months – a Doctorate of Business Administration from the Harvard Business School.  Incredibly intelligent, highly insightful, and scarily intuitive, she would grill me wanting to know what was going on in the life of her only child in the hopes of guiding me to constructive actions.  I would sometimes be forthcoming but, more often, attempt to evade the conversation through various tactics.  She would have none of it, and would scornfully deride my evasions of serious issues with “So, we’ll just talk about the weather.”

So What Are We?

Let me be absolutely, completely, blunt in asking this – because people interested in solving problems ask penetrating questions and brush aside evasions just like my mother did…

Are we a nation of problem-solvers, rolling up our sleeves and willing to discuss the elephants in the HR lounge candidly?  People are suffering from lack of work, and companies are losing from all the opportunity costs of unfilled openings.

Or… are we a nation of shirkers, avoiding talking about these difficult issues because they make us uncomfortable, are brought up by the “wrong people”, or might necessitate that companies admit “The Shortage” might be because of the decisions and policies and programs they themselves have made and enacted?

(pause)

Sigh.  Yeah, I thought so.

It’s been a surprisingly cool spring and summer here, very possibly because the sun’s gone quiet.  How are things where you are?



David Hunt is a Mechanical Design Engineer in southern New Hampshire looking for his "next opportunity" that allows him to design new products and shepherd them to stable production. His LinkedIn profile is: www.linkedin.com/in/davidhuntmecheng/; he blogs at davidhuntpe.wordpress.com and tweets at @davidhuntpe.

© 2016, David Hunt, PE

Don't fear hiring the 'wrong' person; fear not making good people great

By Neil Patrick

Fear is the new greed. And catching a dose of it is more life threatening to more people than any terrorist or viral epidemic.

Tomorrow’s UK referendum about staying in or leaving the EU has been dominating the media now for what seems like forever. Watching media interviews with the public on this topic reminded me of an old truth - many people fear change and the unknown more than anything else. Most people will stick with a terrible spouse, a toxic employer and a collapsing career rather than face up to the unknown. Their default is to stick with what they know, even to the point of it harming them.

Banks know this human failing well and even have a name for it and make a great deal of money from it. They call it customer inertia. It's what stops customers switching to another bank even when they are really unhappy about their current one.

And this fear is becoming the norm for organisational behaviours too. Risk management has become a profession which has expanded its death grip from sensible steps to mitigate calamity to an all-pervasive mind set which hampers any organisation seeking to do the sorts of things they aspire to yet often fail to successfully implement. Risk avoidance has become a surrogate for good practice.

Things like becoming agile. Being flexible and responsive. Being customer centric. The reason these management buzzwords cause me to retch every time I hear them, isn’t because they are unworthy aspirations, it’s because so few people who espouse them actually practice them, or have even figured out a way to make them a reality instead of a pipedream.

And nowhere is this commitment to mediocrity more prevalent than in the decisions around hiring people. The whole sorry process has (not unlike the EU) taken on a life of its own. It has grown from a sensible desire to avoid hiring totally unsuitable people for jobs, into an over-rigid and over-specified set of requirements which mean hardly anyone can meet such demanding criteria.

This is why so many vacancies remain unfilled. It's why employers claim they cannot find the people they seek. HR and hiring managers are so terrified that they might make a bad decision that they make no decision. So the post remains unfilled often for months, because no-one suitable can be found (allegedly). In the meantime, the organisation limps on, other employees carry extra burdens, and the whole environment becomes more toxic, more pressured and less productive.

Yet these thousands of person shaped holes are not because no-one can be found. It’s because the specifications and requirements are so extensive that almost no-one could meet them. In my career I have interviewed and hired hundreds of people and watched their careers develop. The thing I learned from this was that an average person can outperform a superstar every time if they are provided with a good environment. Put a superstar in a poor environment and the reverse happens.

And the responsibility for creating a good environment is down to employers not employees. Some employers know this and work hard at it. Too many abdicate responsibility and pass the buck for their failures to their employees.

Employers want good people. But good people are made not bought. And if your organisation is capable of turning good people onto superstars, you’ll not only have a more loyal and productive workforce, you’ll enjoy the benefits of people staying with you longer and critically, acquire the capability of attracting more good people more easily.

It’s time for organisations to stop talking about talent acquisition and start practicing talent manufacturing.

12 ways to make a recruiter love or loathe you

By Neil Patrick and Axel Kőster

I usually write this blog from the perspective of job seekers. And I often criticise employers and recruiters, but also give praise when I think it is merited. Sadly the former group is much larger than the latter.

So I was pleased recently to receive a very honest and heartfelt email from my good friend Axel Koster, the General Manager of the Manhattan Group, a major global recruitment firm based in Melbourne, Australia. In case you don’t know Axel, he is a specialist in recruiting employees for the global hotel industry. From chefs to general managers and CEOs and everything in between.

But Axel isn’t an average recruiter. For a start he has over 660,000 followers on Twitter. He’s taken the use of social media for recruitment to a level that no-one else has in his industry. This level of exposure places him in the top 10 most influential people online in Australia. That’s no mean feat considering there are at least two members of the Minogue family in that list too!

Axel Koster GM of the Manhattan Group

So today we are going to turn the lens around and look at things from a recruiter’s perspective. For job seekers, understanding how recruiters think and FEEL is critical to understanding why they do what they do. It’s called empathy. If you can empathise with someone rather than simply judge them, you are in a much better position to influence them.

And surely having influence over a recruiter is much better than simply resenting them if you don’t get the outcome you seek?

Of course no amount of empathy is suddenly going to turn you into a must hire candidate. No recruiter on earth is going to drop everything to ensure you get hired.

But when you read what follows from Axel, you’ll discover the amazing amount of nonsense, unprofessionalism, rudeness, lying, laziness and unreasonable expectations from job seekers which he experiences day in day out, 24/7.

And you will also discover how not to shoot yourself in the foot when dealing not just with Axel, but in my opinion ANY recruiter.

Simply by avoiding these obvious and sometimes not so obvious mistakes, you will ensure you get at least fair treatment by recruiters and possibly even get them to come a little more onto your side…

Remember empathy begets empathy!

And if nothing else, Axel’s comments will reveal the truly crazy expectations that some jobseekers have.

Here’s what Axel has to say:



I’ve thought long and hard about expressing my views about recruitment, candidate search and follow through and so here it is at last…note that I speak purely for myself & not the industry as a whole.

I feel terrible some days (and I do really mean that) because I just do not get the time to respond to all mails and messages sent to me via direct mail, Skype, SMS, LinkedIn, Twitter , phone and Message bank to name just a few.

Believe it or not, I'm on the job seven days a week, working long hours and always with my phone next to me. So even over dinner, or using public transport or relaxing at home or any other location, I spend my time reading messages and answering as many as I can - time is unfortunately a commodity in itself and I simply just don't have enough.

A few years ago, we established some custom built recruitment programs for our clients and in general we work mostly on retainers. Moreover, our clients actually pay us up front - and in full. We are often trusted with the most attractive jobs on the market and we enjoy a close relationship with many senior managers. These people are not just our clients but often they become our applicants as well. It is not unusual for other recruiters to ask us to share their candidates; however we never do.

9 out of 10 times we receive a clear profile of the candidate requirements. This usually consists of regional experience, a specific skill set, preferred nationalities, time lines and employer names and sometimes sex and age. In Australia, it would of course be illegal discrimination to reject applicants on age or gender etc., but many other countries have different laws, preferences and practices.

But let's face it, only one person can secure the position. Only one individual will be appointed; so from let's say 100 applicants (sometimes many more), 99 will be disappointed. The very best applicants make it quite clear why they should get the position. They explain to us WHY they are the IDEAL candidate.

Our shortlist usually incorporates a maximum of 3 people, sometimes more. If they are all turned down by our clients, then we try our utmost to find out the reasons why, so we can communicate this back to the applicant. You can be assured if we introduce you to our client, that you are matching the client’s profile. And yes we argue (we call it a discussion!) with our clients too. I do understand and respect that careers are vital for families and lives and I will go the extra mile to assist you on your journey. Many candidates of mine have over the years stayed in close contact and have become friends.

I have no time for nonsense and those people who know me understand that I hold honesty and integrity very close to my heart as this is how I was brought up.

Here are the top twelve things that candidates do which antagonize, dismay, alienate, annoy and frustrate me. Some are obvious, but I am sure some will astonish you that they happen at all!

 
1. I am not your servant: Someone sends me an invite on LinkedIn and as soon as we have connected, I receive a message – “I need a job!” (every new LinkedIn connection of mine receives a response mail very clearly stating how to approach us, even my email address is stated, and where to find open positions – do not tell me to ‘check your profile’! 

 
2. I am not responsible for your life: Don't write me letters telling me that your future or your life is in my hands as I do not own you; it’s ridiculous. It is time for many to take responsibility for their own career and choices and stop blaming others for their misfortune.

3. I am not here to do your work for you: Asking us to check your profile as you don’t have the time to apply correctly ...(I match suitable candidates for positions who are actually applying). 

4. Don’t expect me to put you forward without a resume: Applying back to me through my regular alerts but not being able to attach a resume (I clearly state on my mail that I'm working out of the office and therefore need a resume with all applications). 

5. I execute my clients’ wishes, not yours: Some people DEMAND to be forwarded to a client! (Actually you are not paying me....it is the client who pays me to find the right candidate.) 

6. Do not hide behind alleged confidentiality: Sending resumes where the last position is confidential or a cover letter masking gaps or whatever by claiming your work was confidential...if your work is confidential then please just don't apply - if you work for the CIA, better stay there. Believe me I have better things to do than to tell the world that you are looking for a new job. 

7. I am not able to provide everyone with free coaching: I do many sessions offering free advice, correct resume set up, career mentoring, etc. for people I have met but please don't demand this service from me, especially if I have never even spoken to you before! 

8. Don’t expect me to provide you with my clients’ contact information: I will never provide my clients’ and connections’ names, email addresses or telephone numbers as I work with complete confidentiality in all my placements. 

 
9. Don’t think you can jump the queue: Asking me just to set up an interview with company A or B and ‘you will do the rest’...(it never works this way and just shows me your arrogance and naivety).

10. Don’t lie: Don’t mail false resumes or place false profiles on LinkedIn ...(missing jobs, incorrect employer names, time frames wrong or false titles)...remember, if this happens I will never deal with you again and thanks to our comprehensive database you will definitely be red flagged...like the “owner representative” in Cambodia or the “general manager” in the Maldives. The list goes on...caught and never forgotten. 

11. Treat me as you would wish to be treated: Writing a personal letter to me and you can't even get my name right or you address me as Dear HR manager or Accor , or Interconti etc ...(And you are supposed to be so proud of your attention to detail?!!!) 

12. Don’t try to bribe me: Offering me money or other inducements if I manage to place you…(Once again, we charge our clients and NOT our applicants).

I hope the suggestions above are helpful. I know that in today’s jobs market, it can be hard to find the right job at the right time. But if you understand me and my life, then you will also understand how the system works and how not to sabotage your own endeavours to find a job. We may not like the ‘rules’, but the system works the way it does and none of us can change that. Trying to cheat or trick the system is a surefire way to lose.

To try and be as helpful as I can, I have set up several online resources designed to help jobseekers in the hotel industry find their next job more easily. If that’s you, you’ll be welcome to join and engage with us on our two LinkedIn Groups:

Upcoming Hoteliers & Careers Group http://ow.ly/4nlEm4 (designed for all levels in hospitality)

Hoteliers & Careers Network http://ow.ly/4mPZB7 (Department Head onward including owners, CEO's, VP's etc)

Beware the killer job description

By Neil Patrick

Sloppy job descriptions are hurting businesses and employees more than you ever thought possible. Here's how...

From time to time, I like to look at job postings. It’s like car crash TV to me.

My earlier post, titled “Why are so many job descriptions cut and paste catastrophes?  ” seemed to resonate with people, so I thought it was time to revisit the subject.

Job descriptions (JDs) have far reaching consequences. How they are framed dictates who applies, and in this age of numerous unhappy employees and busy recruiters, there’s rarely a shortage of applicants. Unfortunately, this flood of applications deludes employers into thinking their JDs are not a problem.

They are wrong. They are damaging their businesses every day. And in this post I will show you why.

Employers frequently moan not about the quantity but the quality of applications they receive. And I would push this right back at them and say they are largely responsible for this, not the job applicants.

Get the JD wrong, and everything else will go wrong...

JDs are frequently scrabbled together by a junior HR person and/or recruiter in a rush to meet some deadline or other. The hiring manager ‘approves’ it and the die is cast…

But there is a more critical aspect. A JD determines not only who applies, but also after the hiring decision is made, dictates what that person does from day to day. "That’s obvious", I hear you say, but if the way a JD is framed completely misunderstands how the job holder can add value to the business, the foundations are wrong. The daily work and focus is wrong, the job holder fails to achieve expectations, the employer loses out and everyone is disappointed.

And right now, there are few JDs which get this wrong more than digital marketing roles.

So here’s a real JD I took at random this morning for such a role. A few details have been changed to protect the guilty.

Let’s ignore the spelling and grammatical mistakes. Although these are also circumstantial evidence that insufficient care and thought has been applied to this task.

This firm is looking to employ a Digital Marketing Manager. Here’s the summary and the job holder’s responsibilities:

A rapidly expanding business is looking for a top flight Digital Marketing Manager to take on and develop a new role in this ever expanding company. This is a chance for a hands on practitioner to take on a more strategic role and make your mark in a senior management role.

From the off there is a dangerous assumption here. The assumption is that this ‘top flight’ (whatever that means) digital marketer is currently in a more junior role. And the terms ‘strategic… senior management role’ are used to tempt them into believing that this job could be their big career break.

In this case, I believe this is disingenuous as I shall explain if you read on…

Responsibilities:

* Devising strategies to drive online traffic to a portfolio of websites with a B2C, D2C and B2B activity

The first thing said is usually the most important. And unfortunately if this is the job holder’s biggest goal, they will be focused on pushing those numbers up. So what, isn’t that what they are supposed to do? No it’s not.

Effective digital strategies first and foremost are not about traffic numbers. They are about connecting with customers, not chasing clicks. They are about establishing a customer preference for us over our competitors. They are about building goodwill with customers, about understanding them better, about showing we care about them. If we reduce them to clicks that we count, we are travelling in the wrong direction from the get go.

Calling a task a strategy doesn't mean the role is strategic. Moreover, there is nothing in this JD which I would consider to be strategic. So you can see why I think there's something of a ruse going on here.

* Establish and track and optimise conversion rates Developing (sic) and managing digital marketing campaigns

There’s no such thing as optimising a conversion rate. Since most firms regard conversion rate as a quantification of enquiries to sales, these need to be maximised. ‘Optimised’ implies that we can have too much as well as too little. Nonsense. No business I have ever encountered has grumbled about too many sales.

Conversion is a stupid term to apply to digital marketing. ‘Outcomes’ is much better. If the FT shares our content, that’s a great outcome. If a hundred people love our tweet so much they retweet it, that’s also a great outcome. But if we are defining conversion as 'sales', these wonderful successes score zilch.

* Develop and implement strategies utilising a range of techniques including Email, Social Media, SEO, Affiliate and PPC

This is interesting. The firm seeks to leverage every channel available. Nothing wrong with that, but I sense here that this is all about numbers. We can get x clicks from this and y from that. We’ll measure and compare the cost per click and then do more of the cheapest and less of the most expensive. This is putting the cart before the horse. It’s the old throwing mud at the wall game…

* Working in conjunction with the corporate marketing team implement the social media strategy to support existing and new business opportunities

In my experience, most marketing teams have a chronic misunderstanding of the role that digital media should play in the strategy. I cannot prove this is the case here, but my guess is that the corporate marketing people will be expecting the digital marketing manager to be playing second fiddle to their client acquisition goals.

E.g. “Let’s tweet about our latest meeting with XYZ Corp because they are a potential client.”

"Erm…No. Let's not - their reputation is atrocious.”

* Managing online brand and product campaigns to raise brand awareness and increase revenue

A brand campaign functions to raise awareness. Period. It is therefore about growing the firm’s intangible assets. Its part of the balance sheet. Revenues appear on the P&L. The connection is indirect and impossible to connect. Attempting to do this is a waste of everyone’s time.

* Managing the updates of the company websites for Europe

Fair enough. But I wonder if these sites are multilingual? They should be…

* Improving the usability, design, content and conversion of the company website

Once again, here is evidence that the firm’s ideas about digital are all mixed up. Websites exist for a multitude of purposes. It’s sensible to have sales goals for an e-commerce site. It’s idiotic to set this as a goal for a corporate or B2B one…

* Responsibility for planning and budgetary control of all digital marketing

Fair enough, but I would have liked to have seen a specific statement that this job holder could have a voice in deciding exactly what these budgets should be.

* Evaluating customer research, market conditions and competitor data

Good. For once I like this! That said, because this is so important, it is disappointing that it appears so low on the list of tasks.

* Review new technologies and keep the company at the forefront of developments in digital marketing.

This is naïve and unreasonably optimistic. If you truly want to be on the bleeding edge of digital marketing, you’d better be prepared to invest a whole lot of time and money in wasted pursuits and blind alleys. This is counterproductive and a gamble which flies in the face of everything else on this JD.

* Stakeholder management. Both internal and partners

Okay. I know this is a cut and paste on most JDs. But please tell me what it means. Unless you do, I will assume it just means don’t p**s off the bigwigs.

What we have here is a recipe for everyone to be unhappy a few months after this hire is made. The new hire will be full of enthusiasm for their new ‘senior’ and ‘strategic’ job. They will set about driving all those extra clicks with every trick they know. They will probably succeed in pushing these up a bit too.

But the real value will fail to materialise, because they have been hard at work doing the wrong things. Because the JD tells them they must do these things and their appraisal will be measured against them.

They will become disillusioned. The firm will likely think, “We made a bad hire. And this digital stuff isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.”

And so it will all end in tears.