Recently I’ve been diving into social networks with an interest in automation.  Don’t get me wrong, I get a good deal of business from LinkedIN, but I worry about it’s future.

I have to thank Dave Mendoza and Jason Davis as being great examples of leveraging networks.  I’ve used LinkedIn from early days, but only recently have I started adding connections en mass.

In the past few weeks, I’ve been adding 1000+ LinkedIN connections per week.  Ok, I do have an unfair advantage.  Not only do I have Broadlook’s recruiting software tools, but I have all the fun stuff coming out of Broadlook’s skunkworks.   Profiler 4 is close.  nuff said.

Adding 1000 connections per week does take time and resources.  So I find myself building value in my LinkedIN account.   I am invested in LinkedIN.   One questions is:  What do I do with the invites I am getting to all these new social networks?   I’m getting so many, it’s getting ugly.  Right now, I use LinkedIN and RecruitingBlogs.com.  Any more than that and I would be spending my day inviting people and accepting invitations.   I prefer to have a life.

There are two concepts to track here.

(1)  A social network like LinkedIN was created to leverage a chain of trusted relationships in order to get to a target contact.   In reality, open networkers, such as myself have ruined that level of trust.  I fully admit it.  For me, I only need a person’s name and I can take it from there.  So now it’s all about getting numbers. Most members of the recruiting industry don’t care to get connected via social network speeds.  Social networks are sloth like to a type-A, impatient recruiter…like me.  Therefore, open networking was born. Combine a tool like LinkedIN with Broadlook’s Profiler tool and you can get to the people you are looking for… fast.

(2) Once you start adding every open networker under the sun into your network, there is NO WAY you can give every one of them a vote of confidence.  Without confidence, I personally, am not going to put my reputation behind someone I don’t know well.  To make matters worse, I am getting connection requests from people I don’t know to people I know very well.  Guess what?  Again, I am not going to forward most of these requests because they are not appropriate.

Where does this leave us?   I say “us” because I am looking for help & feedback from the community

I have a solution.   LinkedIN may not like it, but I think that it is inevitable.  Here it is.

At the last ERE conference, I was chatting with reps at the LinkedIN booth.  I told them about my 2 points.    The catch 22; you must make your LinkedIN network bigger in order for it to be better, but bigger ruins it.  Then I shared my solution to the problem and they really liked it.  Said they would pass it on… not sure if they did…So here it is.

Add a single setting to each LinkedIN connection.  I am talking about a single bit of information.  Very boolean for those techies out there.   Call this setting “inner circle”.

Think about it.  In real “social networks”  (not cyber ones),  you have your close circle of friends and then you have your acquaintances.  What are acquaintances but potential friends.

LinkedIN is too Boolean and it is time to grow up.  Cyber reality needs to mirror social reality.

Add a setting to differentiate friends from acquaintances.

What would this mean?  Open networkers could continue to add those aquaintances, but also have a sub group of their “inner circle”.   Best of both worlds.

I understand the purist idea Reid Hoffman had in creating the trusted social network, but reality has set in.  I’ll repeat.

Cyber reality needs to mirror social reality.  Social reality has been evolving for millions of years.  Lessons can be learned from it.

after thoughts

For me, I might have 20-25 people in my inner circle; people I would unconditionally pass on a recommendation for.  Why not automate the inner circle connections?   That would take care of the speed issue of using social networks.  Protection against abusing the automated, inner circle?  Limit the inner circle connections.   25 max and then a buck a month for more.  If I am getting charged for a connection

Been dark for almost a month.  Post when I have something to say.  Whoa… here we go.  Next blog about new technology. This one more linguistics, human equations.  Fun doing it.

Spring. The air was crisp and cool, sun was shining. I was on my morning commute. The radio station playing in my car was set the night before on my commute home.  Last night it was rock & R&B. Morning was the realm of, well, morning radio.  I have no specific memories of what the host was talking about, only that every sentence he ended with by saying “you know”.   At this point in time, I did not notice the proliferation of “you know”.  I did, however change the station for the same reason many people tune out these shows; Forced laughter, call in contests, traffic reports,  nothing I needed, so I changed the channel to National Public Radio (NPR).

NPR you say, this guy must be a liberal.  No.  My role is the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of a software company.  I’m an entrepreneur and a capitalist.  Closer to a libertarian than anything else. That is important to state;  NPR gets a bad wrap sometimes.  Anyone heard of Bill Gates? aka Founder of Microsoft, backer of NPR via the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.  Enough on that.

So  turn the channel to NPR, usually I’ll give it a minute.  Good topic, I listen, boring topic… I put in a CD.  It was a good topic, so I start listening.  Can’t remember what is was about.  The guest was brilliant. However, every time he finished a sentence he said, “you know” at the end.  This time I noticed it.  I felt trapped in my car, wanting to hear what this guest was saying, but feeling every statement he completed with “you know” was completely diminished.   I was compelled to call in.

A very nice woman welcomed me and asked what I would like to talk about.  I felt guilty and petty, but I was compelled by a strange rage.

“I’m feel really strange about calling in about this”, I said

“I am a long time listener”  (everyone says that).  ”and I feel I’ve got to say something.  This guest you have on is saying “you know” at the end of every sentence.   It sounds horrible.  Can someone slip him a note or something.”

Uncomfortable silence.

The woman must have been listening to the live program.  At first I could tell she thought I was a crackpot.  ( I felt I came off as sincere).  She could tell I felt uneasy.   “Hold on a minute” she said.

A few seconds later, she came back and said “you’re right, I’ll see if we can do something”

I continued to listen to the program.  The “you knows” continued until the half hour break.  Every one felt like a stab at me.  When the break was over, a transformation had happened.  The guest WAS very intelligent and probably nervous being on the radio.  Most likely I had nothing to do with it, he might have just calmed down.   The “you knows”  had stopped.   

Pleased with myself.  Yes, internally, I took full credit for the commentators transformation.

Into the office I go.  Broadlook Technologies, my baby.

Late in the morning the “you know” monster reared it’s head again.  Normally, I would not even have noticed.  One of my star sales reps was having a 4-5 minute conversation with a prospective client.   In the few minutes I listened in (we have an open floor sales environment),  I heard 5-6 “you knows”.   He was saying everything right, handling objections with skill, leading the prospect into a solution sell,  actively listening and responding.   However, he was killing his passion and confidence, as perceived by any listener, with interjecting “you know” into his conversation.

That is when I realized what “you know” is.   Lack of confidence.  Seeking approval.  Sometimes just a filler. In his case, I believe it was just a filler.  This guys rules the crowd at conference.  No lack of confidence and not the type to seek approval.  Somehow, it grew on him.  My guy, my friend, my star.  

Has  ”you know”  become the “um” of the 21st century?  

I am guilty too.  This is not a “you say it and I don’t” kind of thing.  I am a “you know” offender.  Now, it is few and far between and I usually catch myself, but it happens.   And damn it, it is everyone’s fault.  We are our brothers keeper when it comes to the evolution of language.   Do you remember saying “google it” 5 years ago?

Remember the old movie, “Network”?  I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore?”  

I am mad about this.  It really bothers me.  Why?   I am not an extremely polished linguist.  I’ve got an average vocabulary for someone in my position.   I’m not concerned that “ain’t” is now in the dictionary.  I may be a snob when it comes to my mac powerbook, but changing the English language, no, I’m not a puritan.  So why does it bother me?  

Know thyself.

One simple reason.  I live with passion.  Passion about my beliefs,  passion about what I create and sell.  When someone ends or begins their statements with “you know”, it is reducing everything they said before.  Try the test of injecting “you know” into a famous speech.

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.  You know.”

“I have not yet begun to fight. You know.”

If you are in sales,  try injecting “you know” into your sales presentation.

“Our recruiting software is used by over 3500 client in 22 countries, you know”     ouch!

So where does this leave me.  Frustrated?  Hell no.  Let me give everyone that wants to sell to me a tip.  I love being sold to.  I love buying stuff.  I love being brought through the sales process by a person of excellence that is giving me a solution based on my needs.  

I am putting the world on notice:  If you talk to me and say “you know?”, I will assume that you are asking me a question.  If you ask me a question, I am not going to stand idly by.  I am going to answer:

“No, I don’t know”

Will I be mean? No.  Will I do it until they get the hint? Yes.  Will they be insulted?  I do not know.  My basic tenet is that there is a spark of intelligence in all people.  There is no need for this in our language.  Let’s bring “um” back.   It was kinder and it did not pose a question. 

This plague can be eradicated.  Doing nothing spreads it.  

Join me in just saying, “No, I don’t know”.

I need your help,  for if I’m the only one saying it then people may be thinking I am saying:

“I, Do nat o”

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!

What is a good vertical market to recruit in?   I get asked this question every week.    

However, most often the question is more a question of what I “feel” would be a good market to start a new desk specialty in.  

“Donato, what do you feel a good new desk specialty would be?” 

I say. “I feel like a great market would be placing sales reps in recruiting software companies that do real time data mining of contact information.”  

They respond, “but Donato, Broadlook is the only company I know that does this kind of thing.”

“That’s right”, I say.  “..and I don’t pay fees”   <grin>

About this time they realize I am having fun at their expense and I chime in. “You asked me what I feel, not what I think.”

Most recruiters don’t think it through thoroughly when starting a new desk.   Lets face it, thinking is hard.  A day of designing software wipes me out more than a triathlon (ok I’ve only done one). It’s not their fault.  This is how they were taught.  Or I should say, this is how they learned.  They watch someone who was a big biller and tried to do what they heard.

When discussing the creation of a new desk, I hear a good deal about reading everything from an industry, articles, journals, etc.  Wake up, this type of activity is about learning about the industry, not if the niche will support a desk.  If I am going to trust my livelihood to one vertical or another,  forget the gut, give me data.

“Hey Donato, are you telling me to ignore my gut instinct?”  

NO

The role of the “gut instinct” in this whole process should precede the data gathering.  The gut should lead you to the top several candidates and then you then expose to the scientific method.  The gut gets excited while reading and learning.  Don’t let it get carried away.

The gut is the emotion, the wind.  Let the data be the rudder and the sail.

To start a new desk, I would prefer solid facts about a potential specialty, such as:

How many open jobs, by state and nationally?   (size of universe)
How many recruiters specialize in the niche?     (competition)
What are the average fees paid to recruiters?    (compensation)
What resources can I use to build a candidate pool?  (sourcing)
What resources can I use to win business?  (marketing)
Will I enjoy working this desk specialty? (mental health)
Can I own the space, can I brand this space as mine?  (branding)

Once you do decide on a new desk specialty, based on the data, the first thing to do is think about branding yourself.  I’ll focus on the other questions in my next few blogs.  A great example of branding is Harry Joiner and his site MarketingHeadhunter.com

How easy is it to brand yourself?   Two areas that I know are hot are Physical Therapists and Nanotechnology.  Very different, but both very hot.  So I went out to GoDaddy.com and checked the following web sites:

PHYSICALTHERAPISTRECRUITER.COM   (FREE)
NANOTECHNOLOGYRECRUITER.COM      (FREE)
BIOFUELRECRUITER.COM                            (FREE)
FUELCELLRECRUITER.COM                          (TAKEN)
GREENENERGYRECRUITER.COM                 (FREE)

Most of them were free and only one was taken. Again, all hot, hot, hot.

Heads up.  Don’t try to go register, PHYSICALTHERAPISTRECRUITER.COM or NANOTECHNOLOGYRECRUITER.COM because I just registered them.  The others are free as of this writing.  I may not fetch the 99K that Jason Davis is asking for CEOjobs.com, but they will sell for a hefty profit.

The first Physical Therapist Recruiter to purchase the Broadlook Suite, you can have that site for free.  (I have no passion for that desk).  New clients only.

Don’t ask for nanotechnologyrecruiter.com.  Nanotech excites me.  It’s mine.

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.