90 Day
Job-Finding Odds

How To
Improve Your Odds

Job-Search 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" opinions:

"Networking is the best way to find a job"

This is a half-truth. If you ONLY use networking, recruiters, job boards and posting ... then yes, networking (at 30%) is the best of the low-odds choices. If you go direct with classic direct mail (at 85%), networking pales in comparison.

"Most executives find a job by networking"

This is a half-truth. Some experts claim that "60% to 70% of executives find a job through networking." Finish the sentence please: "60% to 70% of executives find a job through networking at least once in their LIFETIME." Don't think for a minute that you'll find your NEXT job with these odds.

"Networking nets jobs - 46% to 63% of them"

This 2006 survey by one of the top six-figure job boards rigged the outcome. They gave 1,500 professionals with an average salary of $190,000 a total of 9 choices for their source of interviews and 55% of the choices were networking. Statistically, any group will come up with 55%.

Here were the choices on their survey: 

1. Networking contacts you initiated
2. Responding to an online job posting
3. Unsolicited contact from a recruiter who was referred to you (another form of networking)
4. Posting your resume in a general online database
5. Responding to a newspaper ad (do executives still do this a lot?)
6. Referred by a networking contact
7. Online social/business networks
8. Through face-to-face or online networking/user groups
9. Other (Please specify)

Paradoxically, their 2005 survey reported that 37% of their members found interviews (not jobs) through a combination of three strategies, including networking. Since it typically takes a few interviews to get a job, one could easily argue that networking odds are MUCH less than 37%. And, their average member had been on board for 11 months. Networking (one of the three) is statistically less than 37%. Most would argue MUCH less. Our estimate of 30% in 90 days is VERY generous.

We challenged them on these claims, and they did not repeat these surveys in 2007. Instead, they made the comment that "broadcast resume campaigns are becoming a relic of the past" because so few executives use them. And why would would they say this? Because they're already on the record claiming networking as the best strategy (and coincidentally they sell networking services). If they changed their mind now, that would cast doubt on all their other intelligence reports. So instead, they stopped saying that networking was the best way to find a job ... and now say "executives with networks move faster." (That's true, networking is better than job boards.)

"Only 5% of job-seekers actually find jobs through direct mail"

This is good news! About 6 out of 100 executives used direct mail, and 5 of the 6 were successful. Do the math: 83% of those who used it were successful. If you don't use direct mail, it won't work for sure.

"Networking is NOT cold-calling"

This is a half-truth. If you're contacting someone through a contact in your inner circle, this is not a cold call. If however you're using a friend of a friend (or a friend of a friend of a friend) who does not really know you and does not have a clue about your job performance, then your name-dropping is little more than a thinly-veiled cold call.

Once networkers get outside their inner circle, they can do little more than find out about a job opening that many others already know about.

"What you need is a better resume"

If you're depending on networking, recruiters, job boards and resume posting, then this is true. But don't forget, with these traditional strategies you're competing with others to prove that you will do the best job for the lowest salary.

When going direct, your resume is FAR less important. You should be focusing on your value proposition instead. Here's an example: "Hi, I'm Mark and I turn lead into gold at the rate of $100,000 per month. My resume sucks, I am not polished or branded and I don't have a clue how to interview. Would you like some gold anyway?"

"Referrals make up 28.7% of all external hires"

This is not surprising given the source of the data. Most of the employees in this survey made a lot less than $100k and the data is significantly skewed.

When you get referred to someone, don't think for a minute that you're the only one, and don't expect the employer to tell you. And don't forget, referrals (aka networking) allow the employer to get the most qualified candidate at the lowest cost.

"Job boards represent 25.7% of external hires"

This is also not surprising for the same reason above - most of the employees in their survey made a lot less than $100k and the data is skewed.

At the 6 and 7 figure level, the playing field is very different.

"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 3% that "score" that matter - and they yield an average payback up to 10:1.

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. Here again, it's the small percent that "score" that matter - it's all about payback.

"I found MY job by networking"

Wow, that sounds promising. Right? Here's the problem: Most of these folks found a known job opening by networking - a job that was already available to everyone, perhaps on a job board or employer website, or intentionally networked by a company. This networking opportunity will eventually reach many people ... and competition will be extreme ... and the employer will get what they want: the best candidate at the lowest cost.

"Our testimonials prove it"

Have you read their testimonials? Many have a long list that lead you to believe their methods will work for you ... after all, they worked for others. But NONE of them post their success rates. There's a reason for this: their odds are so low it's embarrassing ... and if you knew, you wouldn't buy.

Do the math. Take their one or two dozen testimonials and divide that by their membership of 10,000 plus. See why they don't post their odds?

"I've used direct mail before and it didn't work"

This statement is typically followed by the number of letters they sent out, like 45 or 110 or 300, which only demonstrates their lack of understanding. Classic direct mail is a well-established science with predictable results and ROI. It takes thousands of letters - not tens or hundreds. See Going Direct for details. 

"Direct mail is too expensive"

A classic direct mail campaign will cost 4% to 7% of your salary ... and you probably need to do it every 3 years or so. The average is 2% 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 most of 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 payback as all executives know ... and the payback averages up to 10:1.

• Take a group of unemployed executives making $170k who each send out 5,000 letters. Most (85%) get a job in 3 months rather than the average of 10+ months. They spent $10k and saved an average of 7+ months of being out of work - about $100k each in lost income. Their average ROI comes to 10:1. Even if they only saved one month the mailing would pay for itself.
• Take a group of employed executives making $170k who do the same thing. With another job offer in hand, they reap the benefits of multiple job offers - typically 15% or more. Their average ROI is 2½:1 or better.

Why would any "expert" say that direct mail is too expensive?

• Do they not understand payback and 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 "expert" advice. They must perpetuate their hype (even though it's wrong) to save face.

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. Plus, all the empirical evidence shows that snail mail is FAR superior to email for finding a job.

Interestingly, the average business over one million in sales 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, 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 offer.

Got a good "expert" quote that you'd like to unravel?

Send it to Mark@JobBait.com