telephone. I daresay that's been the case for all of us here. My argument is that the phone was most effective when it was mandatory for the receiver to pick the call. With the growth of other channels of communication, of which email is only one, the phone is now in competition with other tools as a first contact mechanism. I think it's losing 'market share' for the 3 reasons I outlined in the article.
CB - I'm sorry but I'm not sure I entirely understand your comment!
Paul - thanks for your kind words, glad you enjoyed the post
Masood - I like the way you put it, 'cold calling will not remain cold' - that resonates with the theme of the piece. The phone call won't die, it just declining in effectiveness as a first contact tool - even if we forget social media for a moment, voicemail & caller ID have done their bit to damage the efficacy cold calling once had.
Ken - that's exactly it - the effectiveness of cold calling is trending down as people leave the phone to ring to voicemail, and then go through the messages to see which ones are spam. It would be interesting to see whether there are any historical metrics which could illustrate the theory - i.e. how many dials it takes to get through to a decision maker. 20 years ago, if you rang someone's phone, I'd wager they would always pick up if they were available to do so. But now?
Jeremy - of course you have an obligation to do what works, and I'm glad it's still working for you. In search for common ground, I think we can agree that there are now many more tools available for sales people to initiate first contact - have you tried booking a meeting solely through twitter? It's easier than you might imagine.
Scott - love the level of analysis. Exactly right - most cold calls are for appointment booking, not the 'real' sale itself. I'm not sure it's all about decline of skill on behalf of the caller though - it's also about the information overload overwhelming the receiver - everyone simply has less time - so picking up a phone call from an unknown number is consequently higher risk than it was ever before. And when they do pick up, there's an ever smaller window of opportunity to present those compelling reasons. Where are we trending towards?We're little further along that road than most think
Miles - You're right about IB - I am aware of sector variance and I do agree that certain sections of the economy are inherently tied to one form of communication as opposed to another. And I fully agree that a recruiter has to be confident in the value they add - they have to have a reason to call - otherwise it's not going to work. But there's a gap in your knowledge on building business without outbound sales - there are hundreds of examples and I'd readily share them with you. In fact, I'd count myself as amongst them!
Thanks again for your contributions guys - lets keep talking
L! England v Canada a Recruiting free for all
Listen (or read) don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of both "men" and listen to both shows religiously, but can I have such allegiences? (OK I know I can't spell) .
Now let me tell you Recruiting Animal has a posse of vigilanties Recruiters, sourcers, bloggers etc, who at one stage took it upon themselves to harass and identify BS on blogs etc.. a scary group of people. (If you've been around RBC for a while you may have seen them, if not.. ssshhhh I didn't say that.. it is just stuff of legend and myth) Whilst Bill, well Bill is just knowledgeable and really well mannered. Has he got the grunt in his constituents? (I feel Jerry Jerry could be easily swayed though) However the English are known for their historical wars, and well the Canadians... OK lumberjacks are pretty tough...
Well the question was.. OK is... Am I more @animal or more @billboorman?
What are you?…
erfect a small business franchise. This is a part-time thing initially, but I expect it would become a full-time business and more over a horizon of about five years.
You can look at my company here: http://trantor.ca
My name is "Bob Trower" and if you search Google with the quotes on you will find that I have been around a long time and am not prone to 'selling stuff'. I develop software and do systems stuff and research.
A supplier to a supplier (my supplier is the largest company of its type in the world) has made an extraordinary offer. It is time-sensitive (drop-dead end of next week) and that has forced my hand.
I wonder if anyone here can help me to develop the network of 'point-persons' for the fifty United States and Canada or offer some advice as to how this might be done quickly.
I initially need approximately two people per state or province. The franchise network would be initially on a par with the distribution of McDonalds (geography only), but I expect that within less than a decade those territories would support two or three times the number of franchises per 'population sink'.
It is a long story, but my company is poised to take advantage of certain 'historical confluences' of the type that have spawned Google, MySpace, LinkedIn, Flickr and facebook.
Time is of the essence here. I need to drill down to small businesses or professionals that do not have a 'web presence' (about half of all of them do not). That means that I need savvy people to help get good faith promises down the line so that I can secure the resources that my supplier is making available before the end of next week. The cost after next week increases dramatically (more than four-fold).
I apologize for being 'coy' about this. I need a little bit of a 'big bang' to ensure that I get to the gate first.
The kind of people that are required are ones with a small amount of skill with web-based stuff. If you can manage your account at facebook, that should be good for many things. Slightly more technical people are needed, but the intention is that the 'point' people help one another. Things like experience with sales, franchise development, recruiting, etc. are all needed.
The reason I posted here is that the people on here are likely to have many contacts and likely to be able (as a group) to marshal enormous resources quickly.
be filled, recruiting takes a combination of business sense and sales skills and not administration or process skills. As Michael Homula, owner of Bearing Fruit Consulting in Michigan has written, "Recruiting is not an HR function and vice versa. Great recruiting is most often the result of significant sales type efforts and competencies. Networking, cold calling, competitive intelligence gathering, strong relationship management, prioritization of tasks, the art of negotiation, consultative needs analysis, great scripting, leaving voice mails that get a call back, getting around the gatekeeper, finding passive talent...I could go on and on....are sales skills and not HR skills. Rarely, and I do mean rarely, do the skills required to be great at recruiting and the skills required to be great at HR intersect. As a result, the vast majority of recruiters in corporate America are ill equipped from a training and recruiting skill development perspective to actually get great results for their company. Often, companies are hiring the wrong people with the wrong skills and behavioral competencies into recruiting roles. Too many companies use recruiting as the entry level job into Human Resources when in fact it should be the role to aspire to and be separated, at least in strategic direction and tactical execution, from the HR environment in a company. That is not to say one is better then the other. They are just different and require different skills and competencies."
I think he made my point for me. Hope that provide clarity and insight into the differences and intricacies between the two.
o me this is an important endeavor that I hope you can support with your well wishes and/or your tax deductible contribution!
Please see my wife’s message below!
Thanks so much for your time and support!
After a 2 year hiatus, I'm doing it again - I signed up for the 2008 Breast Cancer 3-Day! I had such an incredible experience doing the 3-Day in 2004 & 2005 that I'm going back for more. I'm so excited about this event, despite the fact that this year I really know what I've gotten myself into.
This event isn't easy, but I promise you, I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't believe 100% that it was worth every muscle ache, weary night and training walk!
I do this walk for a friend who has battled this disease, as well as for the friends and family that have been affected in one way or another. I also do this so in the hopes that my daughters will never have an idea of what breast cancer is, only in a historical reference.
I am hoping to surpass the $2,200 required fundraising level for this year. Below is a link to my personal fundraising page to make a donation.
Thank you for all of your support. I'm incredibly lucky to have people like you in my life!
You can visit the web address:
For more information about the Breast Cancer 3-Day, Susan G. Komen for the Cure or the National Philanthropic Trust Breast Cancer Fund, visit http://www.the3day.org/ or call 800.996.3DAY.…
an assessment test used for basics evaluation) is the potential that is ahead for us using the Social Web and good ol recruiting know how. All of this is available today by the way...not sure if I'd use "ultrmae" as a marketing term... :)
The gist of my post was not the death nell of the resume - it was the hiring process (see title). Somehow in the comment thread this got skewed a bit, but that happens... Ten years ago we sat around at my firm and posited the way hiring "could" work best and the flaw that always came up was the fact that a resume is used as a defacto job report, not different from a credit report does for those considering to extend credit. The big problem here is that a credit report is created by independent analysis of third party experts (TRW, Experion, etc.), and the resume is a marketing document created by the person looking to get a job. Could you imagine giving credit based on what a person tells you about their credit worthiness (lets leave out the Mortgage debacle as an historical anomoly for the purposes of this analogy - OK?). We sat around a decade ago and came to the conclusion that there should be Career Bureau to do it independently like credit...then we went back to sourcing Diabetes Cell Biologists and Chem Engineering Formulation Directors...
Anyway, its not just the resume, its the whole shebang with average interview accuracy less than 25%, phone screens where you can't see a person, and refererence checks where every person you contact sing the praises of their friend/colleague - what I am saying is that with the Social Web there are many avenues available to improve on this - what most candidates call an "archaic" process. Go review the Monster Survey from earlier this summer and see what 5,000 people had to say about it if you disagree... (oh yeah - we use resumes everyday in our work and in our Talent Communities for the member to provide a work history...)
Now about the 50 people - again read my post - recieving 50 resumes of people whose resumes "indicate a qualified match" - much different than 50 people 100% qualified you write...and if you are a corp recruiter with finance, HR, Ops, customer service, sales, marketing, quality type openings - our research indicates (surveying 200 companies) that they are getting so many on-target applicants that it is hard to decide on who to hire. Conversely, if you are a TPR working on jobs where there are 50-75 people total in your geography that can do the role - period - and these are the types of jobs one of my companies has been getting for the past 8 years...well, like us you're probably hoping to get 2-3 on-target candidates...
Don't forget its a big world out there!!…