Wendy Weber on Executive Recruiting

Interesting piece by David Streitfeld for the New York Times:

Amazon Has Tried Everything to Make Shopping Easier. Except This.
By DAVID STREITFELD
| February 3, 2012

Much of the discussion about Amazon is focused on its digital side, yet the company is relentlessly expanding into the physical.

It has announced five new United States warehouses since late December, all with more than a million square feet. It is testing out delivery lockers in New York and Seattle for those who cannot receive their goods at home. It has been experimenting with a grocery delivery service in Seattle for several years. It has expanded its Prime $79 annual shipping fee program, hoping members will order more of everything. In all sorts of ways Amazon is trying to remove the obstacles from home delivery. Does anyone remember how mail order once meant getting things a month later? Now Amazon thinks two days is too long.

One major reason the retailer seems to be giving up its hard-line position on charging customers sales taxes is that it wants to build its warehouses close to major population centers. If it does that, it cannot argue that it is exempt from collecting state taxes because it lacks a physical presence in a state. But the increased business from faster delivery might be a worthwhile trade-off to charging the tax.

Still, until we achieve the teleportation of objects, there is only one way to immediately get physical goods. It is called a store. For years, there has been speculation that Amazon will open its own outlets, presumably to sell Amazon-label products. The idea seems farfetched, but before 2001 so was the idea of Apple operating its own stores. “I give them two years before they’re turning out the lights on a very painful and expensive mistake,” a consultant told BusinessWeek about Apple’s plans in what has become one of the most celebrated bad guesses of the era.

So maybe that is where we’re going with Amazon. Instead of using everyone else’s store as a showroom for e-commerce, the retailer could control the process and operate its own showroom. “There wouldn’t have to be any inventory, you would simply play with the stuff, talk to a professional and swipe your Amazon Prime credit card (or Amazon phone) and have it at your house in the next 24 to 48 hours,” Jason Calacanis wrote in a recent blog post headlined: “Rumor: Amazon Retail Stores Coming.”

Amazon does not comment on rumors (or on much of anything, really.) But analysts do not think highly of the notion. The company wants to get closer to its customers to bridge the last mile of distribution, but not that close. “I don’t think the idea of Amazon getting more physical and adding more bricks would improve their return on invested capital,” said Brian Nowak of Nomura Securities.

Another problem: Apple, he noted, was focused on one category. Amazon ranges all over the map. Its stores might be pretty big.

Many of our clients sell their products through DRTV.

I liked this piece by Timothy Hawthorne about the damage done by counterfeiters: click here.

Interesting piece by Anna Maria Andriotis for the Wall Street Journal: click here.

In this difficult economy, many job seekers have negative credit histories, not necessarily because they are not responsible with their finances, but due to other factors. A trend is emerging in which a number of states are banning companies from conducting credit checks on prospective employees.

It has traditionally been assumed that a bad credit report is an indication of poor work habits and decision-making, and general untrustworthiness. Though this may be true in some cases, many otherwise responsible people have suffered financial setbacks due to circumstances beyond their control. And credit checks can turn a bad situation worse, preventing someone who genuinely wants to pay their bills from securing employment.

According to Persis Yu, staff attorney at the National consumer Law Center, the movement to ban credit checks would be “a game changer for people negatively affected by this economy.”

I’m sure it happens more than we hear of…online merchants bribing, enticing, or otherwise cajoling buyers for positive reviews.

A piece by David Streitfeld which appeared in last week’s New York Times, (click here), exposes the practice of offering a refund for a positive online review. “Hundreds of reviewers proclaimed the case a marvel, a delight, exactly what they needed to achieve bliss. And definitely worth five stars.”

Customers who purchased protective tablet cases from Amazon merchant VIP Deals received along with their purchase a letter extending an invitation “to write a product review for the Amazon community.”

“In return for writing the review, we will refund your order so you will have received the product for free,” it said.

Through the use of this product review campaign, “VIP pushed its product far above the competition, none of which had so much enthusiasm with so little dissent.”

“Asked why Amazon did not seem to notice that at least a few consumers called into question the VIP deal on its own site, a spokeswoman declined to comment.” Hmmn!

I attended my first Tweet Up last night. Held at a local mall, it was very well attended, and the crowd was welcoming.

It was an eclectic group, interested in “all things social”. I expected it to be an extremely youthful group…and was pleasantly surprised to see a mix of all ages. People were anxious to become acquainted, and introduce me around. And not because they needed jobs…truly in the spirit of sharing.

Since the event took place at 6pm, a nice aside was that the mall restaurants donated food, so there were lots of good things to eat! Soups, sandwiches, snacks and beverages.

Before the evening ended, I had received several new invites/follows on my social media accounts. I will certainly attend future events with this group!

In a piece by Lauren Weber (no relation) in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, “more companies rely on technology to winnow out less-qualified candidates.”

“Recruiters and hiring managers are overwhelmed by the volume of resumes pouring in, thanks to the weak job market and new tools that let applicants apply for a job with as little as one mouse click. The professional networking website LinkedIn recently introduced an ‘apply now’ button on it s job postings that sends the data in a job seeker’s profile directly to a potential employer.”

To “cut through the clutter” many large and midsize companies have turned to applicant tracking systems to search resumes for the right skills and experience.

My frustration as a recruiter?

We have worked with some of these large companies, such as Citibank and Cablevision, who utilize tremendous tracking databases to store the resumes of everyone that has ever applied. Despite their tracking systems, they have engaged us to recruit talent for positions that are a challenge to fill. These systems are not foolproof; they don’t account for a candidate who may have added new skills and not included them on the resume, or who have not highlighted their responsibilities in a way that allows the system to identify them as viable. We take the time to become acquainted with a candidate before we present them, asking pertinent questions and delving deep into their experience and skills. But when we present a candidate that is “already in the system” we are cut out of the loop.

My feeling on this? Then don’t interview the candidate after we present them! If you already “knew” this candidate, and had not pursued them for the position, they must be treated as “new” in light of the introduction we make that highlights why they are relevant and appropriate for the role.

Perhaps for positions that do not require a specialized skill set this type of software is a convenience, but if you seek sophisticated direct and ecommerce marketers, there is no substitute for a trained eye and a live conversation.

To read the piece in its entirety, click here.

If you don’t know what it is – and I’m ashamed to say I didn’t – it is an anti-piracy bill making its way through Congress. It aims to crack down on copyright infringement by restricting access to sites that host or facilitate the trading of pirated content.

Wikipedia is the biggest name among the approximately 10,000 websites that pledged to go dark today in a broad Internet protest of the SOPA and PIPA (Protect IP Act) online anti-piracy bills.

This explanation of the issue is taken directly from Wikipedia:

“The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as House Bill 3261 or H.R. 3261, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by House Judiciary Committee Chair Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors. The bill, if made law, would expand the ability of U.S. law enforcement and copyright holders to fight online trafficking in copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods.Presented to the House Judiciary Committee, it builds on the similar PRO-IP Act of 2008 and the corresponding Senate bill, the PROTECT IP Act.

The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.

Proponents of the bill say it protects the intellectual property market and corresponding industry, jobs and revenue, and is necessary to bolster enforcement of copyright laws, especially against foreign websites. They cite examples such as Google’s $500 million settlement with the Department of Justice for its role in a scheme to target U.S. consumers with ads to illegally import prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies.

Opponents say that it violates the First Amendment, is Internet censorship, will cripple the Internet, and will threaten whistle-blowing and other free speech actions.Opponents have initiated a number of protest actions, including petition drives, boycotts of companies that support the legislation, and planned service blackouts by English Wikipedia and major Internet companies scheduled to coincide with the next Congressional hearing on the matter.

The House Judiciary Committee held hearings on November 16 and December 15, 2011. The Committee was scheduled to continue debate in January 2012,but on January 17 Chairman Smith said that “[d]ue to the Republican and Democratic retreats taking place over the next two weeks, markup of the Stop Online Piracy Act is expected to resume in February.”"

At issue is the concept that SOPA provides the ability of intellectual property owners (such as movie studios and record labels) to have substantial control – some feel too much power – in order to protect their interests. For example, if Paramount Pictures says that a website is infringing on their copyrighted work, the studio could demand that Google remove that site from its search results, that PayPal no longer accept payments to or from that site, that ad services pull all ads and finances from it. On top of that, SOPA could allow that the site’s ISP prevent people from even going there.

Content creators have battled against piracy for years, but it’s hard for U.S. companies to take action against foreign sites.

I will follow this issue with interest.

I just read a piece by Chicago business writer David Wolinsky entitled: Groupon Sinks Another Business.

This characterization is completely unfair to Groupon

What is happening is that some small businesses, already on the brink of insolvency, are signing on with Groupon in the hopes of enhancing business. And Groupon delivers on its promise; which is to drive business to these establishments. The way they do that is to deeply discount the establishment’s product or service, making it more attractive to the consumer. The expectation is that by giving away a deeply discounted sample of that product/service, the establishment will gain a customer that will return to pay full price over time. Instead, Groupon often drives bargain hunters who are only interested in a 1-time “deal” to floundering establishments.

A number of businesses have not only not experienced the desired “turn around”, they have come undone as a result of participation with Groupon. The article referenced the “infamous cupcake incident“.

At the end of the day, we are all responsible for our own actions. Anyone who opens a business must do so with eyes wide open. We are risk takers by opening our doors. Sometimes the risks yield rewards; many times, sadly, they do not.

The article does close with these words, “Folks should slow their roll and not assume a Groupon is mandatory, or a save-all salve for an ailing business. Run the numbers. Calculate the risks. Don’t rush into it.”

From Recruiter.com…I cannot locate the name of the writer, so forgive the lack of attribution:

“There is an absolutely wonderful children’s book called 20 Heartbeats about a painter who paints a horse for a very wealthy man. I hate to ruin it for you, but I have to say what happens.

The rich man pays this famous painter to paint his favorite horse. But years go by and the painter won’t finish the painting. The rich man finally shows up at the painter’s house and demands the painting. The painter obligingly whips out a piece of parchment, dashes off a horse in black ink with his brush, and then hands the painting to the rich man. All this takes less than the time of 20 heartbeats.

The rich man is, of course, aghast. He storms after the painter to demand his money back. However, as he walks after the painter, he sees what has been taking so long.

All along the walls are hundreds and hundreds of painted horses. The painter wasn’t procrastinating, he was practicing. The rich man then finally takes a look at the painting that he purchased so long ago, now in his hands. It’s a perfect horse, a horse so real that he whistles to it.

As every art form takes discipline and practice to look easy, every kind of work takes years of diligence to perfect. Recruiting is no different, but few professions look so simple. It’s really hard to pass along a piece of paper, right? You can almost hear hiring managers thinking to themselves, “Yeah, I’ll bet your fingers are really tired from dragging all those resumes from a folder into an email. Real hard work.” Few jobs seem so easy to duplicate.

The end product of recruiting, for one thing, is someone’s else’s work – it is someone else’s talent, ability to interview, and everything else they have that gets them hired that is the end product of the recruiter’s process. It’s hard to pinpoint the recruiter’s exact role in this pseudo-science. Did they identify the talent? Spot them? Find them? Assess them? Understand the job? The culture? Have the right database? The right connections? The right insight into the department or hiring manager psychology? Did they make a lot of calls or know some secret strings to search for in Google? It’s hard to say what it is exactly that the recruiter does and so it’s easy to discount the recruiter’s role entirely.

However, we might be looking at it wrong. A recruiter’s value can’t be found within the process of a single hire. It can’t be found in that space that sometimes spans twenty heartbeats between talking to a manager about a job to the identification of a possible talent.

You have to look at everything that comes before that identification to see the value of a good recruiter. A great recruiter creates the conditions for that magic luck to strike. They don’t talk to a lot of different people. They talk to everyone. They don’t want to know their clients or their company’s competitors. They want to know everything that’s happening at every company in their area. It’s a massive amount of work that requires constant rejection, failure, stress, and is compounded by the minutiae of job offers and the uncertainty of human emotion.

That’s why very few succeed at recruiting. It’s not like there is anything special about that one placement. There is nothing about identifying a candidate and getting them a job offer that requires any particular kind of magic, or even a college degree for that matter. Unlike a beautiful painting, anyone or any recruiter can luck out and make a placement or two. But the background required for long-term recruiting success is much different. It involves the deep study of companies, products, markets, assessment, and professions coupled with a kind of brute force stamina to doggedly pursue the talents of other people. This is the process that forges the recruiter’s talent. This talent, when functioning at its best, is impossible to find.”

Don’t know what a “Cash Mob” is? I didn’t either.

Similar to a “Flash Mob” (a group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual and seemingly pointless act for a brief time, then disperse, often for the purposes of entertainment, satire, and artistic expression), a “Cash Mob” is a new social networking and shopping movement aimed at enhancing sales at selected small businesses.

They are “buy local” campaigns in which social media is used to drive throngs of customers into local businesses, where members are encouraged to spend $20 or $30 in the establishment targeted. Some reports link the cash mob phenomenon to the Occupy Movement.