Archive for June, 2010

How we create the whole recruitment experience…to be continued

Next week on Wednesday is the awards night of the 30th CIPD Recruitment Marketing Awards. We at andsome with our clients ITV, Nando’s, Paul UK and Zizzi are all lucky enough to have five nominations on the night. And they’re not in what we call the ‘beauty’ awards such as Best Art Direction or Best Website.

No, they’re in the more ‘serious’ business-related categories of Best Internal Recruitment Communication, Best Employer Brand, Recruitment Effectiveness, Diversity and Best Candidate Experience. These categories are the one’s that show how client and agency can work together to create recruitment that attracts, engages and successfully recruits in an effective way. That’s why we’re always prouder to be nominated for (and maybe even win) these than the others. We love using our creativity but the true measure of it is when its effectiveness is proof of its success.

So in celebration, every day next week we’re going to blog about each one of these areas. We’ll show some of the nominated work and talk about their whats, hows, and whys.

And who knows, after Wednesday some of them may have even gone one better than being ‘on the shortlist’. Here’s hoping.

ROI – Return On Involvement?

What? ROI is Return on Investment surely? Budgets and all that. A financial viewpoint that has always been prevalent in recruiting. Especially for organisations in their dealings with Recruitment Comms agencies. (But interestingly, some of those same companies seem to ‘change’ those rule when using Recruitment Consultancies – but that is another blog story.) Nowadays ROI is even more under the spotlight. Press effectiveness is said to be dwindling. Online listings can attract oodles of interest. Digital advertising achieves heavy click-thrus. Company websites facilitate mass applications. While the new-found world of social media is just beginning to make a mark. All in all what offers the best investment? And which are the most effective in recruiting the right candidate?

But do you really want to sift a thousand ‘speculative’ applications rather than a hundred ideal ones? Surely a better ROI would be Return on Involvement. No? Isn’t it better to expect your recruitment comms to involve any potential employees? An employer branding that only you can shout about. Impactful executions that no other employer could hang their hat on. Campaigns that your targets feel involved with. Utilising every avenue available in Social media to stay connected and keeping your message out there. Messages and conversations that they’ll be influenced by, so the next time they consider a career change you’ll be top of their minds without having to ‘advertise’ anywhere. It’s a brave, long-term game requiring an investment in time as much as budget.

But doesn’t that ROI sound much more effective?  No more bullet-pointed job spec listings on job boards. If you go in the press, make sure the advertising sells your culture and the opportunity for the reader. Your online communications actually de-select people so only the best ones actually follow through. As does the application process on your website. Sounds simple and obvious, doesn’t it? But how many recruiters in HR would settle for low application numbers without fearing a huge recruitment FAIL? But remember there is no safety in numbers. What if they’re all the wrong type? Unsuitable for the role and unable to fit in with your culture. Then you just settle for the best of a ‘bad’ bunch (and we all know what happens then). All because, otherwise, your Return on Investment would be shot to pieces if you had to start the whole recruitment process all over again.

Clever Clogs Recruitment Advertising

“Would actually help if the HR profession (eg. CIPD) rewarded professionalism and candidate experience, not clever-clogs advertising.” Now this was tweeted on Monday during #truchat – a Twitter-chat predominantly ‘attended’ by Recruitment consultants and other JobBoard-types from what I could see. It’s a facile comment. And that ‘clever-clogs advertising’ is as annoying as hell to any decent Recruitment Comms business.

It’s the thought that ‘clever-clogs advertising’ has nothing to do with recruitment professionalism or candidate experience that really gets up my nose. And not just ours as a creative agency but for our clients too. Tell that to two of them, PaulUK and Nando’s, who were the winner and finalist in the Candidate Experience at the 2009 CIPD “Pretty Pictures” Recruitment Marketing Awards.

Maybe it’s borne of the fear that recruitment comms can obliterate the need for consultants that some hold that opinion. Last year, one of our clients saved over a third of their budget utilising a new employer brand and direct recruitment materials instead of relying on consultancies. They hired better candidates. Much higher calibre people. Increased their profile in their sector. And started to receive more speculative applications than ever before.

Famously, our work for Pret (which also won many of these clever-clogs awards) recruited more managers with just 4 trade ads a year than the previous consultancies who charged four times as much. Who’s being clever now? Creative impactful strategies and materials that improve candidate quality, reduce cost per hire and recruit effectively. What more could HR want?