Last week I read an article from the Daily Mail (a link I followed I don’t hesitate to add) from the inimitable Theo Paphitis entitled “Why ALL bosses should copy me and ban Facebook from the workplace”. I think it’s fair to say that it wound me up. REALLY wound me up. It’s true that many articles I happen across from that “journalistic (and I use the expression in it’s loosest sense) stable” do, and that why I try to give it a wide berth – but this one got me fired. His key points were:

1. the internet is responsible for “an orgy of self-indulgence and exhibitionism”.
2. Ryman stopped all time-wasting by imposing a “non-draconian” ban on ALL websites that couldn’t be justified as useful for work.
3. The internet has undermined dialogue in so many ways.
4. Online socialising (unchecked) could cause the end of the world – or something like that.

And just in case you were unaware of what sparked this typically Daily Mail one eyed opinion venting by Mr Paphitis, it was the news that Portsmouth City Council had carte blanche banned facebook after discovering that their staff were “wasting” on average 400 hours on the site every month (PTod article here).

Now never ones to let the facts get in the way of a good sensationalist headline, or indeed the sum total of a Daily Mail story, you don’t have to look too hard in other press to see that this actually equates to just 5-6minutes a month PER staff member. But more on that later.

- The Internet is responsible for “an orgy of self-indulgence and exhibitionism”

This was one of the most reprehensible elements of the article for me – mainly because of its un-abashed hypocrisy from someone who profits from participating in a programme that is itself a platform that encourages this very “self-indulgence and exhibitionism”.

The Internet elements collectively termed as social media simply provide a more accessible and inclusive window for and onto social interaction for those that are willing to do so electronically. Some people do, I’m sure, delude themselves that this channel for communication (or “egomaniacal drivel” as Mr Paphitis prefers to tar it all as) is the route to fame and success – but I’m sure most people using it (other than those already anointed “celebs” by whatever media powers that decide such things) actually see it for what it is: a way to stay in touch with a social &/or professional circle(s), potentially expanding your horizons and perspective along the way, sometimes to business or personal gain too, but most often it’s just about light hearted engagement.

And don’t even pretend to hide behind the “we’re a serious business programme giving people valuable business insight”. If that’s the case why is the programme the same week in week out, changing only the supporting cast of moron’s, the clinically deluded and the painfully naive, smattered, of course, with the odd sprinkling of genuine prospects? Because you profit directly from people’s hunger to get rich quicker and snatch their 15minutes of fame along the way.

- Ryman stopped all time-wasting by imposing a “non-draconian” ban on ALL websites that couldn’t be justified as useful for work.

So, if I understand this correctly, Theo felt that stopping EVERY website other than those that passed some “Paphitis management check list of suitability” was in some way “non-draconian” – as opposed to putting a block on a particular site/s which may have been discovered to be attracting too much of your employees attention. I clearly have no idea how you define “draconian” Theo – but might I suggest you check the dictionary, because I wouldn’t be surprised to find your staff referring to you as Theo “Draco” Paphitis.

And are you really that arrogant and / or ignorant to think that by putting a stop to what has appeared to you as a visible metric of “time wasting” you’ve done anything to address any time wasting propensity at all? I guess at least now your own staff are more likely to up the circulation of The Mail.

- The Internet has undermined dialogue in so many ways.

You state in your article that you are “never ceased to be amazed at the way people will email each other, even though their desks are only a few yards away” and that “Technological progress has brought linguistic regression”. I guess if you’re taking a very squinty eyed look at things over a short time lapse (very Daily Mail for sure) then it could seem like that, but what about appreciating the sheer volume and speed of interaction that modern communication technology enables and the fact that common human interaction protocols are also having to evolve as this advances?

Sending an email or text gives an instant, clear and auditable record of that engagement. Should it replace face-to-face dialogue (or even voice-to-voice)? It depends on the situation is the honest answer. And sure people get it wrong, but that’s who we are and what we learn from. So don’t give up on us just yet – when you started out I bet it was just phone and Royal Mail.

- Online socialising (unchecked) could cause the end of the world – or something like that.

“In the end, businesses and public services cannot survive if staff prefer to be socialising online rather than doing the job for which they are paid.” We’re talking 6 minutes per employee a month!!!! If you, Theo, or indeed anyone (even the most radical/crazed public sector union representative), can tell me convincingly whilst looking me straight in the eyes that the vast majority of council staff don’t lose more time on cigarette breaks, getting in late, sloping off early, having an extended lunch break, taking a personal call or 6, chatting over a photocopier or generally mopping up after other council incompetence in so many other ways – then you can have the deeds to my house!

Now I’m not going to go the other way and, for the sake of making a cheap point, pretend that every single Portsmouth Council employee has access to the Internet and a facebook account. But even if we assume just 10% of the workforce have that’s still not much over an hour a month – or 15-20 mins. a week.

Are some senior council officials and businessman / celebrity wanna-be’s trying a bit too hard to grab the headlines with misdirected draconian policies and commentary pieces?

What this really told me

So firstly I surmised that both Ryman’s and Portsmouth Council would be a pretty rubbish place to work. Why? Well not least because the middle management can’t tell who’s wasting time and who’s pulling their weight. If they could / did then they’d not judge performance on website logs, but rather by metrics that actually matter and then reward or sack appropriately.

When I was last an employee I probably strayed onto personal business or internet distractions a couple of times a day – but I also arrived early, didn’t smoke (no smoke breaks), generally ate lunch at my desk, generally stayed late, worked on the train on the way into and out-of the office and carried on working late into the night / early morning as the workload (quite often) required. Oh, and I also (I’d like to think) added a level of intellectual input and steering to the business over and above anything that could be judged purely on an hour by hour rate. What would a log looking at my social media access tell you of that?

If there are people taking the Michael within your business then shame on you and your inadequate management and personnel policies for not being able to highlight where that’s happening and take appropriate action against those individuals.

Through these actions you are quite simply, and very publicly, treating your employees like children – so expect them to behave even more as such. I have always worked damned hard, and been rewarded accordingly when appropriate, but if your management can’t sort the wheat from the chaff and you are happy bragging about this managerial inadequacy, then why would I want to work anywhere where I’ll clearly be carrying a load of slackers – because even without the internet then I’m afraid that “not pulling your weight” (might I be so bold as to suggest particularly in some corners of local government) has become a skill set in itself.

Secondly, by closing the door to accessing social media you’re demonstrating, in spades, your ignorance to the benefit social media can bring to your business. Even if we look at the tiny world in which I (and readers of this blog) operate – namely Recruitment / Employee Communications – it’s easy to conceive a bottom line benefit you’d miss out on. Let’s go back to my assertion that perhaps there are 450 staff spending 15-20 minutes a week on facebook (potentially within their own lunch time or before the 9am hooter starts or after the 5pm hometime bell!!) and let’s imagine that perhaps 10% of those people actually enjoyed their job (go on – go with me on this). Perhaps they mention how much they enjoy their job to their network (perhaps 100 strong each?) and then maybe a job arises: what-do-you-know – immediate audience of 4,500 who have already been positively engaged by your employer brand from afar.

So whilst I never had you down as a Mail reader Mr Paphitis – it seems to me that perhaps under your broadsheet-esque Dragons Den persona you’ve so lovingly nurtured, you’ve indeed found your true home writing the kind of brainless sensationalist knee-jerk integrity-less hyperbole-laden cr*p that the Daily Mail has become famous for trotting out to whip up middle Britain to sell more hatred based papers.

Only one question remains for me – anyone got any tips on how I can stop my Dad from reading The Mail?!

OK – I’ve been itching for ages to write about what I believe is probably my favourite company in the world, but saw something earlier that gave me a kick up the arse I clearly needed and to just blurt out “I LOVE ZAPPOS”.

So who are Zappos I hear you ask (well – you’ll know if you’re reading this in America of course as $1bn in sales kinds of make it a significant business, let alone its pioneering approach)? In short Zappos is an American online retailer that has not long celebrated its 10th birthday (Happy birthday!).

But if I’m blogging about a company best I say what I “love” so much about a company that I have never interacted with as a customer (mores’ the pity). To me they are a shinning model of:
1.    a company that understands it’s employer brand is intrinsically linked with its product/service brand – and acts accordingly!
2.    a business that plays the long term game – putting the customer first everytime (and as more than just an advertising slogan), because they know a repeat customer is the most valuable sort and that a happy, neigh delighted, customer is also the most valuable marketing channel there is.
3.    management live and breath this approach, and are comfortable enough in their own skin to maintain the unified ethos and literally work alongside their colleagues.

There’s plenty written stateside about the company and what it does so right – mostly by the staff themselves.  Hell, they even had to do some lay-offs earlier in the year and they handled it all so positively the brand actually got a boost from it (although I’m glad to say they’re back hiring again – and pay attention UK retailer web management monkeys who insist on not giving hiring a prominent web presence – “we’re hiring” is splashed across their site. It’s a positive message and not something to be ashamed of!!).

Anyway – they also produce a book called “Zappos insights” – as Tony, CEO, mentioned in the video above, where he also offers for you to email him and he’d send you a book. So I did. What did I get? A personal email response from Tony and 4days later an excellent book from the states which Tony had signed. Did he need to send me a book? No – I was after a PDF as being in the UK thought postage would be excessive. Did he need to sign it? No – but for a few moments of his time and engaging with me this way I have gone from a fan of Zappos to a Zappos evangelist.

But there is a down side – I’ve just found out that they now deliver to the UK at a time when the exchange rate is a real killer   Never mind. At least I know that one day I’ll be able to partake in some of that legendary customer service built that they’ve from a clear understanding that employer brand and product service brand is truly intrinsically linked!

And the thing that kicked me into posting this – the offer of attending a Zappos insights live BootCamp. I am so gutted I don’t just happen to be in Vegas over those two days. Maybe next year eh!

Oh – and for all you social media aficionados out there – this company kicks arse there too. This is engagement 2.0

http://www.youtube.com/zappos

http://twitter.com/zappos

http://twitter.zappos.com/

http://blogs.zappos.com

My founding partner in crime, Tony, came across this post and whilst the original is very much worth the read I wanted to pull out the conclusion of this very astute and powerful piece. For us it’s nice to read a comprehensive and intelligent reasoning of what we knew in our gut to be so, which is why our SaaS platform, HARBOUR, has had designer input right from the moment it first started to take shape.

Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but whether you’re talking brand resonance or system interface usability, as humans’ beauty is a hard wired influencer that we simply can’t rationalise out and one we certainly ignore commercially at our (or our clients) cost.

In Defense of Eye Candy

by Stephen P. Anderson

In many design conversations, there is a belief that applications are made enjoyable because we make them easy to use and efficient (interestingly, whether it’s stated or not, these conversations value the role that aesthetics plays in cognition). However, when we talk about how emotions influence interactions, it’s closer to the truth to say things that are enjoyable will be easy to use and efficient. Allow to me explain.

You remind me of…

Product personality influences our perceptions. Think about how quickly we form expectations about someone simply based on how they dress or present themselves. Similarly, the UI design decisions we make affect the perceived personality of our applications. In the example below, which window is friendlier? Which one looks more professional?

Products have a personality. Why should we care? Consider this:

• People identify with (or avoid) certain personalities.
• Trust is related to personality.
• Perception and expectations are linked with personality.
• Consumers “choose” products that are an extension of themselves.
• We treat sufficiently advanced technology as though it were human.

…and so on.

By making intentional, conscious decisions about the personality of your product, you can shape positive or negative responses. Take a look at Sony and how they applied this knowledge in the Sony AIBO. Let’s consider why they made this robot resemble a puppy.

Here, you have a robotic device that isn’t perfect. It won’t understand most of what you say. It may or may not follow the commands it does understand. And it doesn’t really do all that much.

If this robot was an adult butler that responded to only half our requests and frequently did something other than what we asked, we’d consider it broken and useless. But as a puppy, we find its behaviors “cute.” Puppies aren’t known for following directions. And when the robot puppy does succeed, we are delighted. “Look, it rolled over!” What a great way to enter the robotics market.

Consider: What kind of personality are you creating with your application? And what expectations does this personality bring with it?

Put it all together and…

Why should we really care about perceptions? Consider these findings from research presented at CHI 2007:

“…users judge the relevancy of identical search results from different search engines based on the brand…Participants in the study indicated that the results from Google and Yahoo were superior to identical results found through Windows Live or a generic search engine.”

What is a brand but perceptions? In this study, functionally identical results were perceived as better due to brand attributes such as trust, personality, and perception. What’s rational about that?

Hold that thought.

Attractive things work better

Okay, so maybe perceptions are important to product design. But what about “real” usability concerns such as lower task completion times or fewer difficulties? Do attractive products actually work better? This idea was tested in a study conducted in 1995 (and then again in 1997). Donald Norman describes it in detail in his book Emotional Design.

Researchers in Japan setup two ATMs, “identical in function, the number of buttons, and how they worked.” The only difference was that one machine’s buttons and screens were arranged more attractively than the other. In both Japan and Israel (where this study was repeated) researchers observed that subjects encountered fewer difficulties with the more attractive machine. The attractive machine actually worked better.

So now we’re left with this question: why did the more attractive but otherwise identical ATM perform better?

Norman offers an explanation, citing evolutionary biology and what we know about how our brains work. Basically, when we are relaxed, our brains are more flexible and more likely to find workarounds to difficult problems. In contrast, when we are frustrated and tense, our brains get a sort of tunnel vision where we only see the problem in front of us. How many times, in a fit of frustration, have you tried the same thing over and over again, hoping it would somehow work the seventeenth time around?

Another explanation: We want those things we find pleasing to succeed. We’re more tolerant of problems with things that we find attractive.

Stitching it all together

Recent studies into emotions are finding that we can’t actually separate cognition from affect. Separate studies in economics and in neuroscience are proving that:

“affect, which is inexplicably linked to attitudes, expectations and motivations, plays a significant role in the cognition of product interaction…the perception that affect and cognition are independent, separate information processing systems is flawed.” [Frank Spillers]

In other words, how we “think” cannot be separated from how we “feel.”

This raises some interesting questions—especially in the area of decision making. In short, our rational choices aren’t so rational. From studies on choice to first impressions, neuroscience is exploring how the brain works—and it’s kind of scary. We’re not nearly as in charge of our decisions as we’d like to believe.

Consider what you’re doing with your interfaces to speak to people’s emotions? But user interface development is still maturing and catching up to what other disciplines already know: the most direct way to influence a decision or perception is through the emotions.

So, is “pretty design” important?

When we think about application design and development, how do you think of visual design? Is it a skin, that adds some value—a layer on top of the core functionality? Or is this beauty something more?

In the early 1900s, “form follows function” became the mantra of modern architecture. Frank Lloyd Wright changed this phrase to “form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union,” using nature as the best example of this integration.

The more we learn about people, and how our brains process information, the more we learn the truth of that phrase: form and function aren’t separate items. If we believe that style somehow exists independent of functionality, that we can treat aesthetics and function as two separate pieces, then we ignore the evidence that beauty is much more than decoration. Our brains can’t help but agree.

This is pretty much a completely lifted article by Sean Carton posted on ClickZ.com, but I just thought it was so well put that I wanted to paste it across. I have taken the liberty of amending it in a few places to make it more UK recruitment industry relevant (talking about TV ads isn’t really us), but I think the parallels are so striking overall it holds up. See what you think (oh – and there are some great posts linked to from the article too – so give yourself 15 minutes, get a coffee and have a good read).

The end of Advertising agencies as we know them

Do we really need advertising agencies anymore? Are we witnessing the great “reboot” of the advertising industry hastened (but not caused) by the current recession?

It’s pretty obvious to any reasonable person watching the tens of thousands of layoffs in the industry along with the simultaneous implosion of the newspaper industry that the ad biz as we know it is in serious trouble. Couple that with the ongoing decrease in advertising spending along with new studies (such as this one from Microsoft) that predict that the Internet will overtake TV in 2010, and it’s clear that advertising as we’ve all grown to know it is on the way out.

I’m not predicting the death of advertising. That’s baloney. If anything, we’re witnessing the rebirth of an entire industry that’s going to expand in ways we’ve never thought of before — especially if we expand our concept of what advertising means. And we’d better. Before we blow it like the newspaper industry has.

To understand the tectonic shift we’re in the midst of now, it’s helpful to remember where ad agencies came from. Originally advertising agencies were “agents” for newspapers, placing ads produced by clients in newspapers. In 1877, the J. Walter Thompson Co. figured out it could sell more advertising space if it created the ads instead of relying on clients to create ads. The modern agency was born.

As new media developed, the advertising agency adapted. Radio and TV required new creative skills and new people. Agencies kept growing and adding more overhead. Agencies became more unwieldy, more rigid, and more set in their ways.

Then along came the Internet and all that changed.

It took a while, but today advertising is less about the big colourful press ad campaigns and more about producing measurable results across a host of media and channels. Social media, search marketing, and online direct response (with its associated need for candidate-relationship management and other data-handling technologies) have required new skills and and a new way of thinking.

And that’s the crux of the issue. Advertising as we’ve known it has always been about an “interrupt” model that requires candidates to pay for content by sifting through pages of classified print ads. It’s been about grabbing and holding attention in a linear way because that’s how media worked.

It doesn’t work that way anymore. And neither does the advertising agency as we know it.

Why? The full-service monolithic agency model worked fine in a world where there were a small number of national newspapers, a local/regional champion or two and perhaps a niche industry magasine too. It doesn’t work when you have to deal with dozens of media channels and a plethora of options within each that change on a nearly daily basis. New technologies pop up (social networking, Twitter, online video, etc.) and new skills and new thinking are needed to deal with them. Large organizations with large payrolls, hierarchical structures, and well-defined (and well-defended) areas of expertise can’t possibly hope to make any money when they have to staff themselves with a constantly expanding cast of experts to deal with new media challenges. Add to that a compensation model based on a world that’s long gone (retainers and media commissions) and the agency model we’ve all grown up with starts to look like a relic of the past. Turmoil in the industry provides proof.

So what to do? Simple: explode the idea of the monolithic agency. Get rid of the concept that only an agency that does everything can possibly create and manage large campaigns. Look for more flexible and fluid models that expand and contract as needed, bringing in new expertise when needed and ditching it when it’s not. Think distributed, not centralized. Think “collective,” not “company.”

As more people get laid off and can’t find jobs at other agencies (who are also laying people off), more people hanging up their shingle and do whatever it is that they do best, creating an explosion of entrepreneurs and experts who (without the overhead of a big company) can do things cheaper, faster, and more flexibly than their counterparts at big companies.

If this sounds suspiciously like the “free agent” and “new economy” predictions we heard eight years ago, it kind of is. But there’s one big difference: now we have the (free!) tools to actually make it happen. Social networking, collaborative tools such as Google Docs, and advances in mobile technologies make it possible to create a distributed team that doesn’t need to be in the same place to work effectively.

So what’s the agency of the future going to look like? Probably a lot smaller and focused on strategy, account/project management, creative leadership (but not execution), and media strategy (but not planning and buying). Most agencies will revolve around these hubs if they’re honest with themselves. Agencies will exist to provide high-level strategic guidance that clients need in a media-chaotic environment. Agencies will expand or contract as needed or will explore radical solutions such as crowdsourcing to get work done for less money.

Whether this scenario turns out to be completely accurate or not remains to be seen. But nobody can look at what’s going on today and say that the agency of tomorrow is going to look much like the agency of today or yesterday.

So what do you think? Has Sean hit the nail on the head – or am I just part of that “explosion of entrepreneurs and experts” and therefore my judgment is clouded by hoping that the new world that Sean talks of is to become the new reality?

Just incase you’ve not seen one of the funniest videos the UK recruitmemnt industry has produced in quite some time (maybe ever) – then you have to go check out the Tribal resourcing Star Trek Spoof. My money says this is a pure internal effort that the Senior Management didn’t realise they would never be able to keep a hold of, however (and I guess you can’t really blame them) in an ri5.co.uk article they’re trying to spin it as a master stroke in viral marketing.

Trot over to DigitalRecruiting.co.uk and have a look see for yourself. Tribal Resourcing boldly viral marketing where others fear to tread or more a case of the person who concepted & executed the whole thing needing the vulcan death grip? Either way – it’ll certainly raise a smile (after you’ve uncurled your toes perhaps).

Well I certainly think it is the question businesses need to be asking of themselves in these times – when you add the speed of digital progress together with the rising expectations of clients and the cost/uncertainty of investing in expensive specialists to deliver the quality of solution an agency wants to be associated with.

So anyway – to raise the point we created the following advert (placed on the recruitment ad industry B2B social networking site www.MyLongLunch.com) that then leads through to a campaign specific landing page that offers (what I feel to be) some insightful video content, from some very bright people, about how the world is becoming one where collaboration is the only way to succeed. There are 3 videos, and I’ll say in advane that they’re quite long – but go have a peep and if you’re interested you could always bookmark them to come back to again sometime, but I hope you find them as interesting (and compelling) as I did.

MPU banner as running on MyLongLunch.com

OK, perhaps a bold statement, but I really can’t think of another presentation on Employer Branding I’ve seen that really does the ‘hitting the nail on the head’ job in terms of content as well as this (picked this up on ERE.net). Of course maybe I’ve not seen that many – please comment if you have seen better.

Anyway – if you, like me, are passionate about Employer Branding and think that taken seriously and done properly it could actually be THE most powerful business tool to leverage in the ultra-networked world we increasingly live in, then my advice is get yourself a meeting room, sign yourself out or just make yourself a coffee and close the door / put on your headphones – this is excellent stuff (but be warned, you’ll need an hour).

The presentation is by a chap called Frank Lane who has, quite literally, been there and done it. He’s written a book called “Killer Brands”  (which despite being a self-confessed rubbish book reader, with 4 already on my “to read” pile collecting dust, I’ve just ordered) and explains from his first hand experiences just how powerful, with quantitative proof, getting your employer brand right can be and why in the long run it’s the business investment that you can’t afford to overlook.

Frank’s presentation style is old school – but stick with it – the man’s got great insight. He’s literally been there, done it and clearly deserves the t-shirt he wears. Added to which as his case builds the clarity with which he sets out his perceptions makes it all, I think, phenomenally powerful.

Oh – and 3 things that particularly jumped out at me:

1. c.36mins – ICG Commerce – where they brought Marketing & HR into one department into one entity. This is exactly the approach that I think more companies will start to adopt in the future (as set out in this post from earlier in the year).

2. Bit of a not thinking/not getting it summary from the Brendon (Production Manager at ERE media doing the hosting) – saying people will “walk away from this… knowing how to market themselves as a more desirable choice than the competition” – because it won’t tell you that. What it will do, hopefully, is give you clear explanation and proof based examples as to why an inside out approach, recruiting and retaining the best talent to then inspire and deliver the best product / best customer experience and from that grow a successful business, is the only long term business strategy that makes sense.

3. And one of the questions at the end asked how in the Internet age where it’s far easier to see the comments/opinions of disaffected employees you avoid situations of negative alignment (where your marketing is trying to say one thing but the people commenting disagree so loudly that it counters, in some cases even ruins, your efforts). Frank’s response: “Tell the truth & live the truth… [it’s] fundamental to branding in any category, but now more important than it ever has [been]”. But for me most important of all when thinking about your business: “the first thing to do to get good people is deserve them.”

To be honest I’d give my right arm to work with a business where the CEO had watched and “got” this – so if you know of any then send them this link and tell them we could do some beautiful things together, in the short-medium term for their bottom line, in the long term for their overall business success.

Hope you find the time to enjoy/be inspired/go fight the fight with your business.

If you are already aware of the research piece that Barkers & the Guardian have conducted and are publishing then well done you – move along then – nothing new to read here.

But I’m so impressed by the quality of the output that I wanted to blog on it just incase you haven’t come across it as of yet. ACE (Assessing the Candidate Experience) is a piece of research work done last year that is currently being published in digestible chunks, some pieces naturally more fascinating than others, but all very relevant if you operate in any kind of candidate (or indeed customer) engagement capacity. I really take my hat off to those involved for grabbing the opportunity to do something that informs us all whilst at the same time strengthens their brands’. In a previous life I had a very similar discussion with a colleague – trying to push them to seize such a research led opportunity to gain some spotlight time, unfortunately, for what I’m sure are very good reasons, it never happened and now that space (and column inches and radio airtime) belongs to Barkers & the Guardian. Well done them.

Anyway – of the posts so far this one particularly resonated with me, and if you can’t be bothered to read all of the posts to date (there’s only 7 so far though, so not much of an investment in your time) then just follow this link to an article about banner blindness (the capacity we all have to switch off to irrelevant banner ads online – especially when we’re in focused search mode).

It explains very well how challenging advertising in the online world actually is (or at least is if you’re going to get it right) as well as the power of establishing a strong underlying employer brand to back up your activity. But whilst it’s not as easy as many have sold it to be (”bung up a banner ad to increase traffic”), it’s clear (and well explained) that with proper planning & good execution we have the best targeting capability at our disposal ever. Too often people have and still do say that online advertising (banners in particular) hasn’t worked for them – well here’s that broad research those who have worked to try and force through better understanding of the digital medium have grown to know: actually it’s down to how it’s used and executed thank you very much.

A single banner splashed across generic pages stands as much chance of working as placing a recruitment ad for a Bolton located Car Mechanic in the automotive pull out section of the Sunday Times – I mean it might work, but you wouldn’t really waste that money. Would you?  And that’s the equivalent of what many people/agencies have been guilty of doing for so long: create the campaign, get the studio to knock out a banner that follows clients brand guidelines and copies the headline of the press ad and then when you’re buying the media get the job board to lob in a couple thousand impressions around the site – all hoping/knowing that the actual success of the specific elements don’t matter so much as long as overall the campaign generates roughly the required level of response. Well with this research it hopefully shows that it’s unequivocally time to change that thinking – time to engage team’s that understand these fundamental principles of online advertising – time to work with people that have the capability to deliver and track each element’s success (or failure) so everyone learns for next time. It’s time to stop wasting your money online – it’s time to see the returns of investing in people who can do it properly online.

In the ACE team’s words “We’re no longer in the age when job hunters will turn a page and be intrigued by an employer and a role they’d not considered previously. Instead, we’ve the most sophisticated marketing tools any society has ever seen. And – too often – we’re not using them very proficiently.”

A really good job – thanks for sharing Guys n Gals.

What follows is a response I wrote to a “discussion” that came from a question raised on a LinkedIn Group on Employer Branding (I scaled down the response on LinkedIn though – I generally see that environment as more about questions & answers than a forum for debate). The question was posted asking (basically) if anyone within the Employer Branding Group had any research on the measurable effects of an employer brand on an organisation’s bottom line. Steve White (from TMP) thought his Head of Planning & Research had some work on it, but as of writing this post other examples weren’t exactly forthcoming, which got me writing about my personal experience, opinion and hopes for the evolution of Brand as a single entity in the emerging hyper-connected world:

Recruitment and employment experiences touch a person more directly and intimately than any other channel of communication – that is surely an incontrovertible fact. It still blows my mind that organisations who pump millions into marketing and branding haven’t cottoned onto this and invested accordingly in their Employer Brand – instead leaving it to generalist HR departments to try their best to understand, establish and promote with their ever shrinking resource and broad remit, viewed (as I generally believe they are) as a business necessity but all the same pretty much just an operating cost (despite the glib “people are our greatest asset” statements that seem to spew forth with regularity from CEO annual statements).

If TMP’s Head of P&R does indeed have such research then I applaud them for nailing it down and following it through. I’ve always been amazed that those companies who actually do invest in significant Employer Branding activities seem to stop short of the ongoing investment to comprehensively track the fundamental effect and returns of their efforts. Even long served recruitment industry Employer Branding experts I’ve listened to and spoken with seem to never have delivered the complete circular service to prove actual ongoing ROI measurement – which I think if you were to start now with current tracking & measurement technologies and a broad enough remit and reach would be quite startling and incredibly compelling.

One of the contributors to the LinkedIn discussion mentioned that some published research done by Tesco discovered the difference in sales volume between stores with high and low levels of engagement (although it wasn’t stated how that was qualified though) was no less than 36%. Whatever the specifics of that research piece a few years back I produced a site for Tesco (HR) and their driving force was pretty much to keep the price as low as possible – so I wonder at what point Marketing departments start to realise how powerful the employment and recruitment experience is as a key brand influencer and appreciate the opportunity that is quite literally right under their noses to manage and leverage accordingly.

Recruitment Advertising has for so long played the role of being the poor relation of “proper” Advertising and Marketing Communications and perhaps it’s a form of snobbery that prevents businesses Marketing Departments looking into themselves rather than at “sexy” external reach campaigns, but as Social Media continues to bring conversations online (and therefore eminently more broadly influential and at the same time trackable) maybe the day when Marketeers get to understand the influencing power that many brands have available through their own workforce and recruitment activity is finally approaching.

So I too hope that Steve White opens up whatever research TMP may have in a web2.0 collaborative style – maybe it’ll give renewed impetus to unlocking a greater appreciation of what a brand is all about: an enmeshed product and employer entity that is as much individual and peer conveyed experience & perception as it is straplines, PR and marketing cleverness.

Of course with greater attention from Marketing and the budgets they carry then the face of HR would change from being what is effectively IMHO&E a ‘department of doing’ to being a key group of specialists within a newly created division called Engagement. Engagement would be headed by a C level representative who truly understands (and critically can illustrate) the £s & pence effect to the businesses bottom line of really treating “people as our greatest asset”– creating a business that in this highly connected world truly embraces the full power of people engagement right across the communications spectrum.

Hey – why not start the year with some near hallucinatory day dreaming and far reaching predictions. Seems to be the thing that breaks bloggers back into the new year.

What I especially love in this game is when something happens that brings home the real potential and actual value of a particular technology/platform. Today’s example: the internet and the potential to engage, influence and convert opinion – AKA e-brand management (and I honestly think this formula might hold water too – clearly I did pay some attention in that Economics degree!).

I started the day picking up an RSS feed from the Bairdyblog – highly amusing find by Andrew of one of the worst types of corporate “engaging wiv da yoof” / trying too hard that I’ve seen in a long time (video below too). It was too good to let go without sharing so I posted a Tweet (a posting on the Twitter microblogging network) that commented:

“in case you missed it – this from the Bairdyblog – http://is.gd/ak75 Toe curlingly bad from CapGemini US! Or is it Sacha Baron Cohen?”

So the comment’s out there. I know a couple of people picked it up and probably passed it on enjoying it too – but then a couple of hours later I get a Tweet back from @capgemini saying “I have to agree. We’ve discussed this internally and it makes many people cringe! – Richard”

So let me explain what excited me so much about this.

They can’t retract the original video – it’s done & it’s out there. Hey, we all make mistakes, and clearly this Sacha Baron Cohen lookalike may be thinking his was to press the record button. But now it’s out there people will chatter about it – it’s human nature. But rather than doing so just down the pub, in the student union or wherever else people may gather, it’s now going on louder than ever online too.

But it doesn’t take a lot now for brands to hear what people are saying and by taking part then to at least to some extent put themselves in a position to positively influence the conversation. And are they going to stop me laughing at this guy? No. Am I now going to apply for a job with them? No. Am I now going to buy a product or service off them? No. But if I’m ever in such a position where I might be in a target audience for either of the latter then my first recollection will not be of Jonathon “getting wid da kidz” (although it will take a while for that to fade completely), but how CapGemini then engaged with me and in that one act of listening and communicating showed their empathy and human face – and the fact is that as humans we all prefer to do business with humans.

There’s a lot of talk about “listening to” or “joining the conversation”, this is certainly not the first (nor the last) post on this subject – but here is an example that I felt made it all very real. Well done Richard – and you never know, thanks to him/his teams work then Jonathon’s recording faux pas may actually be turned into a positive, or at the very least something less negative (although I think it’ll test Jonathon’s personal skills of Internal Comms management if he manages to turn this into a CapGemini career enhancing positive – I’m sure already he’s writing a white paper on how he planned this whole thing right down to the follow on digital engagement and PR benefit of his “out there” personal style humanising the CapGemini brand).