This is my first post since my site redesign. Hope you like it. Getting it ready took me offline for a bit. Now it’s time to write.
For those of you who haven’t seen it in the news, there has been some serious flooding in Wisconsin. On my way into the office earlier this week I noticed that there was an extensive power outage from the same storms that created the flooding (I get in early). I had been thinking about SourceCon, it’s success last year and why it is really a must-attend show for sourcers and recruiters. How to explain that concept? I am speaking at SourceCon and I want my clients to see the educational value of attending the event.
Slamming on the brakes…. All the street lights out. Stop thinking. Don’t get into accident
Yes, all the street lights were out and I saw something wonderful, as well as disturbing. With the street lights being out, people had to cooperate. Ever watch an ant colony? What amazing cooperation. Drivers were taking turns, 4 way intersection, North side, South side, West Side, East Side. How did this cycle start? Order out of chaos? Neccessity? I don’t know, but I did have a child-like enthusiasm for watching the process. Before it was my time to go, I had a chance to see the “rules” of the crowd. North, South, West, East, North, South, West, East. When it was my turn, I had a small yet grand feeling of community. Just as it was my turn to go, some jerk in a SUV went out of turn, cut me off, and almost caused a multi-car pile up. He did not like the community process.
Stop a minute and think now. This stop light process, brought into order by crowd mentality and neccessity. It worked. People were taking turns and progress was occuring (except for the jerk). It became normal. Without thinking about it, I accepted the process. In this case, I had no choice.
Most recruiters and sourcers are in exactly this place in their day-day process. It works. it’s comfortable, others are doing a similar thing, it is accepted, you feel part of the norm.
Then it hit me. I just spent 25 minutes in near bumper-bumper traffic. This is WISCONSIN, I left California and the traffic jams 10 years ago. I hate traffic. I pass cows and farms on my commute and I like it that way.
Give me back my traffic lights. They add a 50X level of efficiency to traffic flow. (I would suggest going solar, however). I have no interest in doing what “everyone else” is doing
So what about SourceCon? SourceCon is to sourcing like a traffic light is to traffic flow. For those math geeks: ( SourceCon:Sourcing :: Traffic light:traffic flow )
SourceCon is an event to bring sourcing and recruiting to the next level. Companies are adding dedicated sourcers in record numbers. Don’t reinvent, find out the best practices from the thought leaders out there. Here are some talks that I am personally excited to see:
The Convergence of Sourcing, Recruiting, Technology, Man and the Machine: What the Future Holds - Dave Copps
The Utopian view of Executive Talent Sourcing -Jeremy Langhans
Metrics for Measuring Sourcing Effectiveness - Scott Biggerstaff
All the world’s a stage, and we are (not merely) sourcers - Matt Grove
Lastly, don’t miss my talk: The 7 Laws of Internet Research. I’m going to have fun with it.
I hope to see you all at SourceCon…except that jerk that cut me off…may all his lights be red.
ERE in San Diego was a great conference. It’s taken a week for everything to sink in and then bubble up out of my subconscious. My mission at these conference is to throw out some ideas, sit back and listen. While there are always the obvious tracks of discussion, my ear is attuned to different topics. While talking to people who use corporate recruiting software, the resounding theme that I was hearing is that recruiting and sourcing are further differentiating.
A few signs:
-More talk of sourcing getting it’s own budget.
-This seems simple, but it was noticeable: titles are starting to have the word “sourcing” in them.
-Increased discussions, sidebars, questions about “sourcing” vs. recruiting.
-Increased line length at the vendors booths that provide recruiting technology. This makes Broadlook happy!
-Sourcing has it’s own conference.
Last thought. Can someone talk to Microsoft? “Sourcing” is still seen in my Microsoft Word 2007 as a spelling error. When this gets fixed, sourcers are legit!
It’s all about bringing people in. Broadlook is the undisputed leader in Internet Research Automation and Recruiting Software. Our challenge: Letting people know about it. Stop by ERE in San Diego, see what is all about. It far exceeds any hype or description of quasi-competitors.
Quick post. Rob McIntosh made a great comment on my recent post List Metrics; how to measure quality in a list?. Instead of replying to the comment, I though I’d write a quick post on this, as it is something I have some strong feelings on.
Rob asked, “Who owns list validation?”. Rob goes on to point out that sometimes great lists never get acted upon. Sometimes a recruiter will point to a sourcer and ask if a list is validated, and to what level, cross-referenced, email, phone validation, etc.
Here is the real problem: Lists get stored and archived are simply structured wrong. Add validation fields to each record. It does not matter who owns validation, as long as the list is coded correctly and expectations of the list recipient are accurate.
I’ve had years of experience pioneering this research at Broadlook Technologies. We look at validation from a statistical perspective. For example, our flagship recruiting software, Profiler product SCORES all contact data.
Scoring of data allows the human using the data to make decisions with respect to where to put their efforts.
What are the source dates of the web pages someone was pulled from? Was the person cross-referenced on multiple sites? If a resume, what is the date? Does the date on one resume board match the date on another? Are you saving both dates? What type of page was the information taken from?
What this makes me think about is that maybe Broadlook should break-out the logic inside the Profiler, enhance it, and create a product that simply scores list data. Why? All data is not equal. After scoring data, a recruiter would have much more insight as to where they should put their efforts first.
I would like to hear from people on this one?? Implications in the recruiting software business but definitely wider appeal in general B-B sales.
Example: What is the likelihood of someone from New York, NY moving to Boston vs. Milwaukee? That affects the score. What is the ability of the recruiter getting the list to build rapport with a technical candidate? That affects the score. What is the track record of the Internal recruitment staff to actually recruit these candidates vs. an outside agency? (Would be interesting to test this). Agency recruiters tend to be better, that is why they make the big bucks. It may be the first step building an ROI study that corporations should be doing the sourcing and getting the short list to a few select recruiters to work the magic.
Axiom: Regardless of all other variables, all records in a list should have a score
Axiom: Validation level within a list should persist and be updated throughout the life of the list
Axiom: Lists should be scored differently based on the need.
Fun stuff. Thanks for making me think Rob. enjoyed the rant!
Proving ROI is what will empower one of my clients at Broadlook to sign up for year #2, 3, etc. Without good metrics, corporate budgets won’t open up year after year. To help my clients track ROI, I’ve put together some concepts over the years to help examine the pipeline of sourced data.
Without a perfect record of all hires, measured against years past, ROI is hard to prove in a single year. Don’t get me wrong, some companies do this very well; however, they are the exception. In most cases, metric must be applied to the pipeline of data and the quality therein. (For recruiters, data=candidates, for sales reps, data=leads)
How do you measure a list? How important is it to keep a particular list updated? What is the frequency that a list should be updated? When is a list too old? What resources should you apply towards building a list? When is it cheaper to outsource the creation of a list vs. build it yourself? Do you want to create a one-time list OR do you need to have a documented, systemic process for keeping a list updated?
What I want to present here today is a concept I call List Metrics. Instead of boring you with numbers and formulas, I am going to share, at a 10,000 ft view of how I think about lists and data.
To determine the value of a list and the resources that should be applied to creating a list, I teach my clients to create a scoring system. One score for an existing list, another score for the importance of creating a list.
Yes, a list can have a score. A list score is determined by 2 factors: Data Quality and Competitive Advantage. Data quality is a combination of Accuracy + Timeliness. Competitive Advantage is weighted by the degree of targeting and Exclusivity.
Some thoughts on the 4 measures of a list:
Accuracy: Does your list give you dead people?
Is the list static or does it exist within a data-driven website? (1995-2002 static, 2003-2008 data driven)
Is it someone’s passion? (i.e., top 100 rutabaga growers (Typically high quality, timely, comprehensive))
Was any verification process used?
Is the list mandated via state or federal? (Registered Professionals, Banks & Credit Unions, Hospitals, SEC filings)
Timeliness: How often is the list updated?
By the minute (Federal contract opportunities) www.gsa.gov, www.ebay.com
Hourly (Job Boards, Social Networking Sites) www.monster.com, www.linkedIN.com
Daily (Find an agent pages, Associations) www.prudential.com, www.mbag.org
Is it categorized by a outdated concepts such as SIC codes or general industry classifications?
Does it serve a niche market? (List of Microsoft CRM resellers)
Exclusive: Who else has YOUR list?
Was the list made for profit? Is it for sale?
A custom created list is always far superior then renting a list from a source that will sell it to anyone who coughs up the $$
Does your #1 competitor have access to the same data as you? Every single online database falls into this category, Zoominfo, Spoke, etc. It does not matter how large a database is if everyone has access to the same tiny fish bowl.
How many times was your list sold?
Are the same people from the same companies being called over and over?
Developing a scoring system:
Every niche in recruitment or lead generation will have varing degrees of importance. In one business, fresh data may be more important, in another…lets say in a comodotized market, it may be exclusivity. Determine which of the 4 factors are most important to you. Next, using a 5 point scale, plot the “score” of your list by placing it on a Gartner magic quadrant.
For recruiters, the most valuable list would be one that (1) exclusive and (2) fresh data. Typically, this type of list is created on demand based on a current need.
YOU CAN’T BUY A LIST LIKE THIS.
You can commission one to be created from a great name sourcer like Maureen Sharib. This type of custom list has high value. I am surprised more recruiters don’t use name sourcers and research for hire.
FISH BOWL DATABASES
As more “online” databases proliferate, more and more people will be fishing in the same fish bowl of overused candiates and sales prospects. Why fish from a fish bowl when you can go directly to the ocean? If everyone has access to the same fish bowl, it doesn’t matter how big it is. We all know what happens when a fish bowl gets too populated…
THE GROWING TREND OF NAME SOURCING
The demand will continue to grow in the next few years for researchers and name sourcers. Recruiting and sourcing are diverging into separate entities. I am excited that Broadlook is announcing our Broadlook Remote Research program early next week. We’ve had it running in stealth for about four months now. Combine a fully trained researcher in concert with an entire suite of Broadlook tools. Put them to work for either 16, 20 or 40 hours per week. Instant staff augmentation. We’ve had overwhelming success. Fun stuff.
Thank you to all the clients that piloted the program with us and help us work out the kinks.
I’ve seen several speakers recently comment on the fact that it is coming to a world where everyone has access to ALL the contact data. The concept was furthered in saying that since everyone will have all the data, the playing field will be leveled as everyone will have total access, ergo, it will come down to the ability to network as the sole determiner of success.
The second part of this concept, (ability to network) has always has been dead on. A poor salesperson or recruiter will not do well even if given a great list. A great networker can do wonders starting with one point of contact.
However, the idea about everyone having access to ALL the data… This is a pipe dream of the uninformed. It may be a great material to pontificate on, but it is pure fiction. The science and trends behind information and going the opposite direction. I don’t know where this concept was started, but it’s taken off with all the indications of mob mentality (great conviction, but little facts to back it up).
Some facts:
The Internet and information in general is growing faster than our ability to index it.
Corporations are starting to silo their own data, vs. use public databases. These are closed systems that are not being shared and the are diverging like mammals and marsupials.
A UC Berkeley study from 2007 details that search engines like Google index less than 1% of the Internet. (when I find this link, I’ll post it..too late right now)
Who are these people that have access to ALL the information? Methinks it’s the great Oz.
1984 is not here yet. Good networking starts with your own unique knowledge of where to start your research. Dig in and roll up the sleaves. Being given a great database does not make you a great recruiter, being able to create a great database makes you a great recruiter.
I am behind the times. Kicking back tonight I caught the Apple TV commercial that you can now access facebook with the iPhone. My facebook profile needs updating. I do love my iPhone, so I jumped on and learned that AmyBeth Hale was having coffee with her bro and that her space heater was on the blink. Not the information I was looking for, but, the ease of accessing it made me think (I am a fan of AmyBeth, so don’t say any different).
The biggest explosion of the social networks will be when voice recognition nears 100%. Yes, everyone types, but we are just putting up with it because we don’t have something better. Think. Microsoft software is now in cars. It does voice recognition. Microsoft invested in facebook. Soon we will be seeing in AmyBeth’s profile that she just took a left turn on the drive over to the next SourceCon event. AmyBeth won’t have to type it in. It will all be controlled by a set of preferences. If she does not want the world to know her whereabouts, that option gets turned off. Technology converges and then excelerates. The key elements are (1) Superior/intelligent input devices and (2) rules to determine what to do with the input. We will see it.
Back to the stream of thought: Ease of access to information. Back on facebook. Political commercial on TV. Check out how the candidates are doing. Search on each candidate. Stats found:
In race John McCain 59,902 facebook supporters Hillary Clinton 113,248 facebook supporters Barack Obama 515,332 facebook supporters
Mike Huckabee - not on first page of results for “Mike Huckabee”
Not in race, but worth mentioning Ron Paul 84,145 facebook supporters John Edwards 32,630 facebook supporters
Wow. The Internet cannot, will not be ignored in this election. Ignore it or don’t leverage it is political death. It will be interesting how the numbers affect momentum and final results. Businesses and consultancies will be built on the analysis of this information and how it affects the real world. Keep in mind that this is the presidential election and we are seeing it many months in advance. Closer to election day we will start to see the congressional candidates more visible as well. They are there now, we just don’t see “facebook groups” for state and local elections popping up. We will.
On the other hand Ron Paul is doing better on facebook than John McCain, but he is out of the race. Interesting variables. Where is the buzz to influence ratio? Ron Paul, buzz, McCain has the support of the voters. I take no sides here, I just find it interesting. I’m curious.
This data can and will be data mined. What will be done with this information once it is stored? What information do you add to the social network? Who will cross reference this data with national cell phone databases? Who will I be getting calls from on my cell phone come November?
Has anyone thought of a version of the do-not-call-list for data stored on social networks? One repository with permissions for usage of data. Google has their Open Social system for working with many social networks. Maybe someone can leverage it.
Never know where a blog is going until I’m done. Meeting with my adopt-a-blogger Dan Hughes in the early am. Should I spend time posting my appt on facebook or find a facebook appointment interceptor widget? I vote widget.
I am in Disney World. My 4 year old daughter crashed in the hotel room after a non-stop day of fun. It’s a happy place. I’m happy. I quickly check my email and what do I get? Blog spam. Lots of it. Ok, good, I’m happy I’ve got a bunch of readers now. For those of you who leave comments email me directly, thank you. I enjoy the feedback, positive and otherwise, as long as it is thought out.
But 50 blog spams? Ouch, I didn’t sign up to be an administrator and a human spam filter. (please oh experienced bloggers out there, tell me what you do to avoid this.)
The blog spam gave me an idea. It is a cool one. I have often received spam at my private email address even though it is one I never have given anyone. This private email I use to register for sites that I never intend on using again. (newspapers, register for white papers, etc). The strange thing is that the spam I get in this email account has nothing to do with sites I registered for. Someone is selling my information. Are they breaking the terms of service for their site? I don’t know.
A discovery process. Here is what I am going to do:
Step 1: Setup
-create a fictitious company
-register a new domain.
-not use my real name & make whois information private
-add phony names, titles & emails to the site. VP of sales, Director of Marketing, etc
-add some basic content to the site and make sure the search engines can find it.
Step 2: Seeding
-Register for as many sites as I can. For each site, I will use a unique email and name that is not printed or listed anywhere for the fictitious company domain. In addition, I am going to save the privacy terms of each site in a database.
-Save every email for each unique email address. Each email should only be getting email from one source.
-Let the experiment run for a period, it might be 6 months to a year.
-I will make sure to include all the major email services (Google, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc) and I will always select “NO” to share my information with partner companies (when that option is available)
Step 3: Publish
-all sites registered for
-dates & sources which each unique email received email from
Who is breaking terms of service? What is the implication of registering on various dot com sites? It should be an interesting experiment. If something like this has been done already. I would like to see the research.
hmm, on second thought, this seems like a darn good deal of work.
Now I think I’m looking for an intern who wants to do a research project. Anybody have a referral? I’ll give them full access to the Broadlook set of Internet research tools.
To many ideas, too little time. Daughters awake, back to the magic kingdom. Time for fireworks!
Over the past few weeks, I’ve been asking every new prospect and client, how many Internet passwords they have to remember. The question has several levels.
“How many places on the Internet do you log into on a regular basis”, I ask
Usually the answer is 4-8.
“What about associations, alumni sites, facebook, myspace, LinkedIN…sites that you may not access every day?”
Usually the answer is “another 10 sites”
“Ok, what about sites that you have signed up for, but may only need to log into once in a blue moon. Examples, account management for your cell phone provider, your 401K account, sites like classmates.com, etc”?
Usually the answer is “10 or more”
“Lastly, what about sites you signed up for and you do not expect to return to in the next year. Althought you still may need to access the it in the future to update account, billing or contact information?”
Typically I get 20, 50, no idea, or “lost count”
This is when the average sales rep or recruiter realizes they have anywhere from 25-100 (or more) places they have have passwords to. (Personally, I have well over 200 and I’ve lost count).
Then it gets fun.
“Do you use the same password?” I ask
95% of the time I get a …….YES.
This is a security nightmare. What happens if facebook or myspace or one of these well trafficed sites gets comprised? Then someone has YOUR password to all the other sites you use.
Yes, there are password managers. I am not a fan of them. You can’t take them everywhere and computers do crash. Today, I present a humanistic solution to password management.
It’s a simple concept I call password schemas. It starts with picking a core password and then modifying it based on the attibutes of the place you are using. I am going to use my dog’s name as an example of a core password. Her name is Captain Janeway, so the core password is CaptJane (for those of you thinking it…no, I don’t use my dog’s name).
Password schemas, used badly, can be dangerous. You could expose all your passwords should someone figure it out. However, using a schema is far superior to using the same password everywhere. The more creative you get with the schemas, the better your protection is.
Here are some schemas: (I just made up names for these). For each schema I am going to use mail.yahoo.com as the site example
Alpha front/end: using the first letters of a site in front or end of your core
yaCaptJane CaptJaneya ( “ya” comes from first letters in “yahoo”)
Syllable front/end: use syllables of the site in front or end of your core
yhCaptJane CaptJaneyh (”yh” from first two syllables in “yahoo”)
Keyboard replacement: In the password below, I used the key above each of the letters “CaptJane” on the keyboard. Example: the “D” key is above the “C” and the “q” key is above the “a”, etc. Downfall here is that may need the keyboard in front of you to remember your password.
Keyboard wrap: if the site name starts with a “y”, start with y and use the next 7 additional characters to the right. If you hit the last letter, wrap around to the other side of the keyboard.
These are just a few ideas of password schemas. One of my favorites is to replace vowels with full words: example A=Alpha, B=Bravo, C=Charley. The key thing is to sit down with a paper and pen and create your own. Be creative, have fun and come up with something that you will remember. Make sure it would be hard for someone to guess your password by looking at a few examples. The combinations are endless.
Captain Janeway & Donato
(she thinks she is a lap dog)
Entries (RSS)