Now, Phil and I had known each other for a few years. We met through LinkedIn.
We have never actually seen each other, in person. He’s not even on the same continent as I am. Yet I wrote the article all the same. It’s on Food Addictions and Treatments.
Now, did I expect fame and fortune from all this?
Well, I’d be lying if I said it wouldn’t be nice. But do I honestly think that empires will rise and fall based upon my one little article?
Of course not.
Karmic Wheel Spinning
But I think it illustrates the point I have made about collaboration. That is, sometimes you just up and do something for someone. And you do it because you just, well, want to do something for someone.
So that ends up a reward unto itself, is it not?
And by the way, I hope you do read the article. Because I think it’s the kind of thing that’s got to be written about. And it continues to shock me that other writers wouldn’t touch the subject matter with a ten-foot pole, as if it would give them cooties to talk about addiction. As if being at all sympathetic with people who are ill would, somehow, mean they were condoning those lifestyle choices or admitting that they, too, were imperfect.
Hey, I will shout it from the rooftops – I’m imperfect!
And if I’m not mistaken, the sky did not just come crashing down.
Go forth, and I hope you’ll collaborate, and do things for others. And the karmic wheel will turn for you, too.
Adventures in Career Changing means job applications.
Beyond networking, education and research, there are just sometimes some forms to fill out. I have filled out – I have no idea how many. And while there are problems with many of these forms, there is also some good out there, along with other aspects of looking for a job these days.
#10 – Following Twitter to Find Jobs
There are all sorts of Twitter streams which showcase any number of openings. Company streams, in particular, can be a good source of leads. Make sure to watch for perhaps a week or so in order to determine whether the content is being updated frequently.
#9 – LinkedIn, Land of Opportunity
For power users of LinkedIn, there are numerous ways to look for work. One good way is to check their job listings, and apply through the site. Some openings allow you to apply directly via your LinkedIn profile. Others send you to a company’s website. But make no mistake; companies (or at least they should) check the traffic sources for the job applications they receive. And so by going to a job application directly from LinkedIn, you show that, at least in some small way, the biggest online networking site in the world matters.
#8 – LinkedIn Skills and Endorsements
If you’ve got an account on LinkedIn, surely you have seen these by now. So fill in your skills profile! And make sure to endorse other people as well, and a lot of them will reciprocate.
#7 – Scannable Resumes
Gone are the days when most resumes were eyeballed, at least to start. Because your resume is far more likely to be read by a machine before a human. So get your resume loaded up with keywords! Why? Because you’ll make the first cut, that’s why.
#6 – Personal Websites
The good, the bad and the ugly are out there. My own, for instance. Because the site is completely functional. And it comes up quickly, plus you can readily find everything on it. Finally, Google ranks it fairly well.
#5 – Clarity
Job descriptions can become very precise these days, as employers can (in part, in some instances) select software and versions from drop-downs to better communicate their needs to the job seeking public.
#4 – LinkedIn Recommendations
Unlike endorsements, these require a bit of prose. But they can be rather powerful. At the very least, you don’t want to be a job seeker who doesn’t have any. So ask! And not just your boss or former boss – ask your coworkers as well, and offer to reciprocate.
#3 – Blog
Just like this one, a candidate can use a blog to provide more information or get across personality without having to overload a resume. Savvy employers will look candidates up on social media. Why not give them something good to find?
#2 – LinkedIn Functionality
For jobs advertised on LinkedIn, for some of them, you can apply by connecting them directly to your profile. What could be easier?
#1 – Being Able to do this Online
Finally, of course, a lot of the job search still must happen in an old-fashioned manner. Interviews will, for the most part (except, perhaps, for quickie phone screens, particularly where relocation is at issue), be conducted in person. A lot of networking will still happen at events and not on LinkedIn. But a ton of it can happen in cyberspace. It makes the search far easier and faster than it ever has been.
Let’s say you’ve got a nice, growing network on LinkedIn.
Hurray! Now let’s say that it’s gotten large enough that you’re unsure of how it’s all trending. After all, what if your network is dominated by people who used to work at Fidelity but you want to get into Prudential instead? How can you see how things are shaking out? Or maybe you want to get a handle on job titles that you’re seeing – what if most of your network consists of tradespeople in your area, rather than people who might actually be able to find you something? If you’re an accountant, a network full of hairdressers and landscape contractors is lovely but it might not be really doing it for you, eh?
Essentially, what LinkedIn was doing is, instead of geographically mapping your connections, they were mapping other meaningful relationships among all of those people. So instead you could see things like job titles that frequently come up, and other connections. These included who used to work where. If you’d worked in several places (like I have) you might have seen one former employer dominate, particularly if you’d just left a particular role.
After all, when Hachette Book Group and I parted ways, suddenly I connected to the other seventeen or so people who were being outsourced. There was a bit of urgency to getting connected, and we wanted to maintain friendships. I’d had to dig a bit in order to find former colleagues further back in my career. And, by the way, FYI, this does behoove one to try to make connections. These connections would be both during employment and to reach back to older connections. This is because the natural push to connect might not come about if you’re thinking about a job you held twenty years ago, long before LinkedIn existed.
It would take a while for LinkedIn to generate an InMap. Particularly if you’ve got a lot of connections. This was a feature that never really got out of Beta, so that was totally understandable.
But here was the InMap for a woman named Leslie Gotch Zarelli. So this should give something of an idea about how the overall pattern looked. Her InMap (I would have posted mine, but LinkedIn never generated one) was dominated by general areas like Legal. Plus she had probably a former employer or two, and what appeared to be some job duties.
More information was here. LinkedIn discontinued the service in 2015 and never really replaced it. So your contacts now are static. A pity, as it was a great idea. LinkedIn – people want this! Get mappin’!
Like most books on Social Media, it’s a bit behind the times, but that is to be expected, as the time from concept to print is often longer than the shelf life of many Social Media initiatives and news items.
Now, I would like to be fair.
Since I have read a number of Social Media books, I already know a lot of this. The main thrust of this book is to get to corporate executive types. That is, this is for people who have no time, and little desire to actually learn much about Social Media, but they still want to be up on things. Okay, so far, so good. However, I think that the medium of a book is, perhaps, misplaced. After all, if busy execs are too caught up in other things to really get into Social Media, then how are they gonna find the time to read a book? And this is a short one — it’s only about 150 or so pages, but still!
Seriously, when I was doing rate analyses at a larger insurer, I was told to make them so short that any executive reading them wouldn’t even have to use their vertical scroll wheel (you’d be surprised what you can do with small print and graphics). And that was back in 1999. In the over ten years since then, every executive has only gotten busier.
Be that as it may, it’s a fairly breezy read. Like I said, I know a lot of this stuff already, so to me it’s mainly skimmable, but it could be of use to a person with limited familiarity with them new fangled things like Facebook. I mean, it explains that Twitter is a microblogging service, etc. Certainly this is true, but I do hope that the intended audience for this book has read a few articles in the NY Times, The Wall Street Journal, The ABA Journal, Fox News, The Washington Post, The Huffington Post, CNN.com or the like and so has probably already learned that nugget of information from one if not all of them.
For me, the most vital bit of information came at the end of the book (why is that always the case? For a book intended to be a cut to the chase for executives, putting this at the end is rather self-defeating). Essentially, it came in the form of an overall strategy, referred to as a New Media Plan, but really, this is decent advice for any sort of a corporate undertaking:
Set goals with timelines – well, yes. It makes sense to not just go blindly into things, plus budgets and patience are not infinite. However, I would say, there often needs to be more patience with this type of marketing than one might think. Yes, it’s fast and easy to get things out there — but it’s often not so fast and easy to reap what you have sown.
Develop a measurement plan – how else would you know whether anything was working? Ploof is careful to note that this might not just be raw numbers, and the items you’re measuring need to be germane. As in, if post a funny LOLcats Youtube on your site, you might get lots of hits but, unless you’re selling LOLcats tee shirts or the like, is anyone going to stick around and actually purchase your product? Plus, what if your market is B2C and only consists of five companies? Having three readers, and have them as major influencers in three of those companies is a home run, a rousing success, a touchdown, a hole in one, you get the idea and I’m tired of the sports metaphors. Having a million readers and none of them from the five all-important companies is one of those things that looks lovely on paper but means diddly.
Create a Content Creation Engine – this is vital and it really needs more play, not just here, but anywhere. Creating a blog (like mine, even) means a commitment to the readership. It means, you intend to be there for the long haul. And so that means finding ways to get good content, make it, polish it, etc. For someone like me, I look for books like this, and news articles and other things that I think my readers might like and that fit in with my vision of Social Media marketing. For a large corporation like Coca-Cola, content could be generated in lots of ways – say, recipes, or commercial archives or news stories just to name three off the top of my head.
Align with traditional marketing programs – absolutely. There should be a symbiotic relationship between the two.
Participate within the community – this means, figure out (use Google Analytics for this) which keywords your customers and readers are using to get to you. Also, use those same keywords to go out into the ‘net and see what else it is they are seeing. Which blogs and communities are they getting to? Or which Flickr photo streams? Which Youtube videos are up? Add comments, like on Facebook, etc. And do damage control if you have to — as this is a way to find the bad with the good, too.
Learn how to help community leaders – which bloggers really get your company? Maybe you’re a role-playing game site and there are fan fiction writers – so, who’s really good? Who are your fans? The ‘net has a lot of positives with the negatives. It’s not all about putting out fires. It’s also about promoting the good stuff.
Build your own online community – this can be through forums, it can be a Facebook page, it can be getting Twitter followers, etc. and,
Analyze and Adjust – but of course! If you’re about to hit an iceberg, you might wanna change course.
All in all, it was a decent read,. However, the strategy piece at the end, for me, mattered the most. Otherwise, I would suggest reading Avinash Kaushik or Shama Hyder Kabani.
So you’ve got a decent presence on LinkedIn. Your resume is complete, searchable and easy to read. You’ve been networking, on and offline. Now what? What’s LinkedIn Q & A.
You may be seeing questions and answers coming up. Your contact feed might be dominated by notifications that Mary joined a group, or John answered a question. What does it all mean?
Once you’ve exhausted your basic set of contacts, the natural next step is to attempt to link to their contacts (e. g. convert your secondary and tertiary contacts into primary ones). And it may take you a while to make your way through all of these people. Or you might decide that some of them aren’t worth your time, perhaps due to simple geographic remoteness or their field(s) being significantly different from yours. So, how do you get a new and different crop of potential primary contacts? And, more importantly, how do you target the right people better, and spin your wheels less?
Here’s where the Groups and Answers functions on LinkedIn can truly help you.
By joining, say, a group about cycling, you’ve opened yourself up to more possible connections. But why would I want to join a cycling group on LinkedIn? Isn’t that what Facebook is for? Well, yes, if you want it for purely socializing. But here are a few reasons why you might want to join a LinkedIn cycling group:
You own a company that sells cycling equipment and are looking for possible future customers, distributors and suppliers.
You work for a healthcare company that is promoting proactive health initiatives, such as getting more exercise, and you’re looking for potential enrollees/customers or even physicians who share this outlook.
You want to connect with someone and you know for a fact that this is an interest you have in common. So long as you aren’t faking the interest, this is a perfectly legitimate way to telegraph that commonality, or,
You really like cycling.
That last reason might seem to be flip but there is absolutely nothing wrong with showing a little of your inner self online. Hiring Managers are often looking for little flashes of personality amidst all of the talk of tasks and company awards. And cycling, fortunately, has much less of a chance of turning people off, unlike being associated with a group devoted to the Tea Baggers, Catholicism or Gay Rights. Not that you can’t join any group that you like, of course, but do recognize that, just like joining such groups offline, there is a potential for some unintended consequences.
Keep in mind, too, that there’s a limit on the number of LinkedIn groups you can join. Hence your cycling group might have to be dropped in favor of a group of realtors in South Florida. So be it.
Answers can be another way to expose your profile to people outside of your immediate network. Answers may be accessed from here. There are any number of questions out there that are dying for answers. So long as you don’t try to hard sell your company, goods, services or yourself, and your answer is on point, your answer will be appreciated by the asker and/or by your fellow answerers, if any.
Or ask a question yourself. Give it a good, descriptive title and make it short. If it is answered, be sure to thank all of the responders, even if their answers weren’t very good, so long as the reply isn’t a spammy one (report spammy replies, of course!). And, be sure to select the Best Answer. When a responder’s work is chosen enough times as a Best Answer, he or she can get an Expert Designation on LinkedIn. I’ve actually gotten 5 Best Answers in Using LinkedIn, which I feel helps to showcase my approachability.
And you can be showcased, too, if you provide good responses to enough questions. Do that enough times, and people will ask to link to you because of that. They might even wish to hire you as an expert in the future, thereby fulfilling even more of LinkedIn’s promise.
Like many people, I am a member of LinkedIn. I use the service even when I am employed. It is a decent means of building and maintaining a connection. However, much like Facebook, it can turn into a bit of a popularity contest. You can also end up connected to people you don’t really know. That is not necessarily a huge problem, however. After all, when you build a network offline, you are encouraged to meet friends of friends and expand your circle. Job seekers in all sorts of fields are urged to mention their searches to anyone who will listen (and, perhaps, to those who couldn’t care less). You’re told to tell your hairdresser, even if you don’t work in that field. And on and on.
And LinkedIn’s got a premium service. For $29.99/month, you can get your resume tossed onto the top of the pile. You get a sweet little badge on your profile page, telling all and sundry that you’ve gone premium.
Of course everyone else who goes premium gets identical treatment. If you are vying for a position where there are 100 applicants, and five of them are premium, then all five of you are at the top of the heap. Furthermore, there are no gradations of quality. LinkedIn neither knows (nor cares) whether you or any of the other premium members are better qualified than the other 95 applicants. You’re still up at the top of the stack, although of course the impact of being premium is diminished when others are, as well.
Does the premium service pass ethical muster? Why or why not?
Using the SAD (Situation, Analysis, Decision) method, the situation is, I feel, somewhat exploitative. The job seeker (often an increasingly desperate individual) is tempted to spend their limited capital on the service. The moral agent, I feel, is LinkedIn itself. While the job seeker might be the one deciding on whether to go ahead and go premium or not, it is LinkedIn itself that has decided on pricing and on providing the service in the first place.
The service is a dubious one at best, I feel. The job seeker is pushed to get his or her resume to the top of the stack, but the reason for promoting the candidate is a financial one and is not based upon merit at all. Such a practice preys upon a job seeker’s insecurities and desire to get something, anything to pay the bills.
Does the employer have an ethical responsibility to prioritize LinkedIn’s premium service subscribers above other candidates? Why or why not?
The Employer’s Side
The employer has no ethical responsibility to prioritize premium service subscribers over other candidates. For the employer, if he or she knows how candidates pay for placement, then the intelligent thing to do would be to ignore stack placement in favor of other criteria, such as whether a candidate has experience in an area, or is a veteran or a disabled person that the company is looking to court (such a practice may or may not be legal or ethical, either).
Practically speaking, though, piles of candidate resumes, much like slush piles at publishing houses, are glanced at unless the employee is really looking for something or for a certain type of someone. The fact that certain candidates are at the top might mean that they are the only candidates seen by a rushed Hiring Manager. LinkedIn is counting on this behavior by Hiring Managers, as are job seekers who avail themselves of the service.
What ethical arguments could job seekers use against this LinkedIn’s practice?
Beyond the question of whether it works at all (e. g. charging for a service that does not seem as if it would work at all), a job seeker can also present an argument about exploitation. Job seekers are on fixed and unreliable incomes at best. To push for nearly $30/month for a service of dubious efficacy means that a job seeker might go without any number of necessities. It may not seem like much, but that’s grocery money. $360/year is the cost of a decent new suit and accessories.
Does this situation fall under contractarian ethical theory (based upon mutual agreement)? Not exactly. The mutual agreement is skewed heavily in favor of LinkedIn, which created the ‘service’ in the first place and does not allow for negotiations on price or features. LinkedIn isn’t acting from an altruistic standpoint, either. For LinkedIn, the situation seems to fall under utilitarianism. E. g. for them, it is a maximizing of benefits and a minimizing of downsides.
For the job seeker, it seems like just another way to prey on their circumstances without providing much of a benefit at all. Under a deontology theory in particular (act morally under all circumstances), the LinkedIn premium feature fails particularly miserably.
Social Media Today recently compared these three types of online advertising, namely: Facebook Ads, Google AdWords, and LinkedIn.
Google’s ads have gotten more expensive, and their success often seems to be hit or miss. Wide geographic ranges can give dramatic numbers but few results – narrowing things down geographically seems to accompany a commensurate rise in click quality. According to the article, Google advertising, “… works if you have a unique and popular product or service. The interface feels professional, with excellent reporting tools, great usability and many various options.”
The Facebook advertising experience seemed to be the most satisfying to the writer of the article. With a demographic and geographic focus (and fast service by Facebook support), ads could be created with near-pinpoint accuracy. When speaking of Facebook, which is much more of a leisure time site than LinkedIn or Google is, the article stated, “(t)he secret is not to become too serious in your ads and keep them simple.”
LinkedIn was seen as being great for ads intended to reach strictly professional audiences. However, the LinkedIn admin team took significantly longer to approve advertisements than their counterparts at Facebook and Google took. The reporting was also rather restricted, only offering a CSV file for download.
I agree with the conclusions drawn in the article – Facebook was overall the best, Google would be helpful for targeted ads for specific, unique or well-known products, and LinkedIn lagged, big time. To my mind, this also dovetails well with these sites’ overall purposes. Facebook is seen as for socializing and so it seems to work with ads in the same way that we are used to be served television commercials. Google and LinkedIn have other purposes and so there is less of an expected marriage of content and online advertising.