Job-Hunting Hype
Is your networking not working? Are you blasting out resumes in vain to recruiters and job boards?
Ever wonder what's wrong?
Let's peel back the layers and see what's under the rock. Here are some "expert" quotes:
"We can't find enough good people"
This is a half-truth. Sometimes this is true ... but what they often mean is that they can't find enough good people CHEAP ENOUGH. Employers encourage competition to get the best person at the lowest cost.
"95% of our clients find jobs."
Okay, but how long did it take? 95% of all job-seekers find jobs eventually. Service providers from resume writers to outplacement to job boards can make this claim no matter what they provide. In fact, if all they did was make coffee for job-seekers, they could make this claim.
"Networking is the best way to find a job"
This is false. If you ONLY use networking, recruiters, job boards and posting, then yes, networking is the best of the low-odds choices. If you go direct with classic direct mail at 85%, networking pales in comparison.
"Most external hires come thru referrals and social media"
This is true - it's the most-used way that employers find employees. It does not mean that it's the best way for employees to find a job. Keep reading to see why.
"Most executives find a job by networking"
This is true, but is this what you want? With networking, you'll eventually get "whatever happens to come along next." You'll spend 12 to 18 months searching (on the average) and compete with thousands to prove that you'll do the best job at the lowest cost. Even if you get lucky and find a job fast, you will have missed 75% to 90% of your opportunities. Ironically, most executives take whatever happens to come along next, and 60%+ are not satisfied with their current job.
"Only 5% of job-seekers actually find jobs through direct mail"
This is good news! Only 5% of executives used direct mail properly. If you don't use direct mail, it won't work for sure.
"97% of direct mail letters get tossed in the round file"
This is correct, and you know it if you took Marketing 101 in
college. C-level and marketing executives are not the least bit
surprised - nor disappointed - but for the inexperienced, it's a
surprise. It's the 1% to 2% that "score" that matter - they
yield an average ROI up to 9:1.
Here's an example that
might help you. Suppose you place an ad in the paper to sell
your lawn mower, and the paper reaches 10,000 readers. Well,
you're not going to get 10,000 phone calls or even 1,000 calls.
It's the small percent that respond that matter - it's all about
ROI - it's a numbers game.
"I've used direct mail before and it didn't work"
This statement is typically followed by the number of letters they sent, like 45 or 110 or 300, which demonstrates their lack of understanding. Classic direct mail is a well-established science with predictable results and ROI. It takes thousands of letters - not dozens or hundreds. See Success Rates for details.
"Resume mass mailing is like throwing spaghetti against the wall"
Call it what you want, but it works. Sending only a value proposition letter works 6 times better.
Making the analogy to spaghetti is an inflammatory comment that's intended to enrage you. The person saying it has no data to support his claim. He obviously doesn't like mass mailing (he sells networking and resume writing), he apparently has not taken Marketing 101 in college, and without-a-doubt has never been accountable for an income statement - otherwise, he would know better.
"Direct mail is too expensive"
A classic direct mail campaign will cost about 1 month's pay and you probably need to do it every 3 or 4 years or so. The average is 2% per year. Businesses spend 20% per year!
Suppose you had devoted 2% of your annual income every year to getting maximum job-search traction and leverage. All these years you would have been finding the best job you could, averaging 90 days each time, and half the time getting multiple job offers (= salary negotiating leverage). How much have you already lost in favor of saving so little?
The issue is not about being expensive, it's about ROI ... and the ROI averages 9:1.
Why would any "expert" say that direct mail is too expensive? Do they not understand ROI? Are they trying to sell you something else?
Some of these well-known experts are stuck. They've already gone on the record as being against direct mail can't go back now - it would cast doubt on the rest of their published "expert" advice. They must perpetuate their hype (even though it's wrong) to save face. They're stuck! Apparently, they didn't take Marketing 101 in college, and for sure they've never run a company with a marketing department.
John
Lucht knows better. He's the author of Rites of
Passage and RiteSite.com.
John has consistently pointed out in his book and on his website
that "Classic Direct Mail is still the #1 way to reach the many
decision-makers who might want to hire you" and that it's the
"only polite and practical way."
Joyce Lain Kennedy also knows better. She's been a syndicated career columnist for 39 years and is well respected for her advice and counsel. She gives direct mail "two thumbs up."
There are many other experts who also know better.
Look around at the investments you made in your house, your car, your TV, your toys and your career. You decide which is more important - we can't make that decision for you.
"Snail mail is obsolete in our digital age"
The digital age is DEFINITELY here, and email is now THE way to go for most correspondence. The problem is, our digital age is DRIPPING with saturation. Job postings get hundreds or thousands of replies. All the empirical evidence shows that snail mail is FAR superior to email for finding a job.
Interestingly, the average business gets only one unsolicited resume every 34 days. Big companies get more and small companies get less. Chances are high that your letter WILL get noticed, especially when it's on engraved stationery in a monarch envelope.
"We found your resume on the Internet"
Have you received an email like this yet? It's very likely if you post your resume or set up a LinkedIn account, and it's possible if you respond to online job postings. The email typically says something like this: "We found your resume on the Internet and your qualifications are outstanding. Although we don't have an opening for you right now, we can help you find the job you want."
This is called bottom-feeding and it's akin to ambulance-chasing ... preying on the unsuspecting and vulnerable. There's an even worse bottom-feeding strategy going on now - they respond to your posted resume with a job opportunity and then oops, that job does not fit ... but conveniently they have something else to sell.
"Our success rate is 100%"
This claim in large bold letters is followed by "We have never failed to identify and reach the proper hiring authority ... never!"
Well, let's compare ... JobBait clients have never failed to identify and reach the proper hiring authority either ... never! Their 100% success rate claim is misleading. Identifying and reaching the hiring authority is not success. Landing a job is success.
