This just shows how ‘mainstream’ social media for recruitment has now become.
And illustrates why you really do need to differentiate how you do it.
So what happened to 2013?
This time last year, we listed our take on 13 things we hoped not to see so much of during 2013.
How did it go?
Copy Heavy Careers Websites.
Nope, still around and strangely as more sites become mobile-focused, so the content remains more copy based than visual/video
Employer Blanding.
Still plenty of me-too companies out there and for all the talk of the importance of employer branding, due to social activity, still not much movement on differentiating. (Guess that the focus on content curating means similar content?)
The Like, Comment, Share Game.
Thankfully RIP for 2013 in most cases.
Chip Shop Award Entries.
Again another one that seems to have died away, real entries for real clients is the name of the day.
Token Social Media-ism.
A difficult one – determined by how you define tokenism. Running a campaign using social media for it then leaving it to become mundane, or non-existent, would say it’s still around. But most now seem to realise the benefits, even if they’re still toe-dipping.
Social Recruiting Conference Overload.
This one has gone into overdrive this past year.
Big Data instead of Big Ideas.
Data still seems to be everyone’s fav, but…
The Over-Importance of Liking and Following.
Still here and still being used to say how successful your presence/campaign/employer branding has been unfortunately.
Design by Powerpoint.
Doubt this will ever go away for some people.
Facebook is just for Recruiting Graduates.
Nope, still the focus for so many. Shame that other sectors of recruitment are missing out.
Technology over Real Engagement.
Tech has remained the big beast as more often than not it promises engagement but then fails to deliver.
Curating Content rather than Creating Content.
More and more it’s been about creating content – for blogs. Wish for 2014 that there’s a realisation that blogging isn’t the only content creating that’s valuable on social media (especially in recruitment).
and not forgetting the infamous #NewYearNewCareer
Doubt that this perennial will ever disappear, no matter what the media.
Happy New Year from the andsome bunch.
Now there are no winners…
Back in August, we wrote “And the loser is…” about how in recruitment awards you now only get to see the winning entry and none of the other nominations/shortlist/finalists/whichever. In recent award events, that situation has changed. Now you don’t even get to see anything about the winner. Apart from their logo. Oh, and the people who go up on stage to collect said awards. Brilliant. So what won? Why? Who knows. Does anyone care?
Now there’s always a huge appetite for case studies. Are award-winning entries not such evidence of successful practice, if they’ve been entered and judged properly? Especially as they’re judged by a panel of peers, rather than an organisation or agency’s take on their own project, aren’t these the shining examples that should be taken notice of? So why In-house Recruitment Awards and The Firm Awards have they been ‘hidden away’? The only people to take advantage of seeing the winning entries being the judges themselves. Great, eh?
One argument may be that the winners aren’t ‘visual’ but strategic or people based. So? Can a strategy not be demonstrated in more than a couple of lines on a website or a random link to the winning company’s career site. Plenty of the entries are visual, so what is the excuse for those? At least represent them in some way that shows and tells why they were the best.
Is winning all that matters nowadays? OK, let’s try this. Imagine if last year’s Olympics had been held behind closed doors. You just saw lists of the finalists and then the name of the winner. That would have been enthralling and inspiring, wouldn’t it?
What is innovation in recruitment?
In the recent surge of interest in all things Google+, we came across a piece extolling the virtues of the much vaunted Hangouts… for recruitment. Basically, one of the many (questionable) selling points used referred to the fact that a G+ Hangout – which offers 10 participants on a growing, but still under utilised platform – was much better than say a Twitter chat. The reason? Well, Twitter chats aren’t really innovative any more – and Google+ hangouts are. There you have it.
So, communicating in a so-called less ‘innovative’ way to an unlimited number of participants on a more actively used channel, populated by more candidates is dismissed because its been around a while and isn’t the shiny and new thing it was a few years ago. Odd reasoning, don’t you think? Considering how there are many companies with resistance/doubts/troubles about using the social stalwarts of Facebook and Twitter effectively for recruitment or comms even now. You probably only have to #AskJPMorgan for more details, if you wish. (And then you could also #askgarybarlow for a second opinion too.)
It’s interesting that the more mature ‘social recruiting’ channels are now starting to be questioned. Even in their relatively short lifespan. There are lots of assumptions. Mainly by those who haven’t utilised them effectively or experienced what they can do over time. Just because the industry thinks certain aspects are now passé – does your actual audience? For example, they haven’t been exposed to a multitude of industry Twitter chats or conferences that expound the virtues of social media/recruitment. They’re too busy watching TV, tweeting and Facebooking what’s just happened on X Factor, instagramming their latest GBBO-style masterpiece or snapchatting everything. Getting on with their lives. Where looking at a company recruitment page on Facebook is the norm. Using a #hashtag is everyday. And Google+ probably doesn’t mean much.
It all kind of typifies how the recruitment industry is obsessed with ‘must do something new’ even if they haven’t ‘done something right’ with their current approach. Don’t get us wrong, we’re all for innovation. But for the right reasons. Don’t ignore where your audience is. Who you should be talking to. And how. So let’s not just do something innovative because you can. Do it because you should. There is a difference.
andsome blog 