Is Twitter the New Rolodex?
March 19, 2010
Recently I realized just how Twitterized I’ve become. I saw a blog I liked (One Louder, by Microsoft “Employee Evangelist” Heather Hamilton) and felt rather desperate when I didn’t find a Twitter bird on the site. Thinking it through, I found that Twitter (via Tweetdeck) is now the way I “file” people/websites I want to keep in view.
I still have a very nice set of categorized pages that gather RSS feeds–and almost every website/blog on earth offers RSS, so no problem there. But in truth I don’t look at those pages very often any more. I use them like a library, visiting when I want to browse or find something in particular. So if I were to put One Louder on a feed page, I would probably forget all about it until I went there to look for something else.
On the other hand, when someone I follow tweets about a new post on their blog, the tweet appears in the appropriate column on my deck display, and I can tell pretty fast whether I want to look at it or not. If I do, the post is a click away. And that’s just one of the many ways Twitter can be useful even if you don’t ever tweet.
I didn’t invent the Twitter/Rolodex connection, of course. In fact, a Fast Company blog post last year gave a nice example of how Twitter works as a a “living Rolodex that responds to you.” And around the same time, another blogger gave a good example of how Twitter has become “the new rolodex for every journalist.“
If you think back to the original Rolodex, its great virtues were simplicity (each card holds the indispensable information, with no frills) and consistency (every card has the same information arranged in the same way). Of course you could also scribble on the back of them, but that’s a matter of taste . . .
Twitter offers some of the same attractions. Everybody gets the same number of characters, so it’s a level playing field–and you can absolutely count on tweets being short! Few things in life are so certain.
At the same time, following a resource on Twitter adds a dimension of information by surfacing what they notice and choose to tweet. It’s amazing what you can figure out about an individual or company by just observing their Twitterstream for a while! And with the advent of Twitter lists and Twitter managers, you can now organize your Twitter Rolodex in many different configurations—for example, put the boring people all on one list and filter them out. They are still in your “file,” but you don’t have to see what they tweet.
Heather Hamilton wrote a post about why she is reluctant to engage Twitter, and I think she probably speaks for a lot of people who have the same concerns. But the potential usefulness of Twitter doesn’t really become apparent until you actually get into it, mess around with different approaches, and stick with it for a while. That process lets you figure out what role—if any–it should play in your work/life.
(Many thanks to Hannes Grobe for the original photograph of this cultural icon. It’s been reworked a bit here.)
A Handy Guide to Content Marketing. Plus—Employer Branding in a Nutshell
March 17, 2010
I hadn’t thought that much about the definition of “content marketing” until I visited the Junta42 site for another reason, and realized that I wasn’t sure exactly how they were using the term. While scouting around for clues, I found an abolute gem buried in one of the many (many) layers and offshoots of the site.
Junta42 is a content-marketing matchmaker (projects-to-vendors), and their site is super-rich in content about content. But there is such a thing as too much abundance! Luckily, though, I did discover the Content Marketing Playbook and recommend it very highly. Subtitled “42 Ways to Connect with Customers,” this nifty ebook has a page for every imaginable kind of content, from white papers to webinars. And! Each page has a brief case study that links right to a relevant example of the content type. So if you’re not completely clear on what an “Online Media Site” might be (Item 31), you can click right over to an example at Proctor & Gamble’s HomeMadeSimple.com.
For every content type there’s a handy cheat sheet, explaining what it is, who/what it’s good for, who/what it’s not good for–and ending with three quick tips. A cruise through this book provides a great refresher on content forms that are already familiar (blogging, newsletters, podcasts, etc.) and should also offer every reader at least a few new ideas. Get up to speed on magalogs, wikis, widgets, and more.
Suggestions: (1) Open/download the PDF version. You can page through the book via the website, but there’s a lot of visual distraction. (2) While visiting Junta42, bookmark their guide to the “Top 42″ blogs about content marketing. (The list is also an example of Playbook Item 11, the “Industry Ranking System.”)
Speaking of cheat sheets—there is an exceptionally concise summary of employer branding on the website of Singapore-based Human Resources magazine. It’s smart, short, simple, and clear. Here’s a highlight:
Generally, companies can focus on four types of employer branding messages:
Focus on offers: “At our company, you get more than what you get elsewhere. (E.g. benefits, culture, and career opportunities)”
Focus on personality: “You can find people who are similar to you in our company.”
Focus on values: “Values are important to us. If you share the same values, you can live according to what’s important to you here.”
Focus on tasks: “At our company, you will get the chance to do what excites you and you will love it here.”
This article provides a nice refresher for those already engaged with employer branding, and a useful starting point for those new to the topic.
All in all–two free reads that offer a lot of value.
(Thanks to Arnero for the . . . illustration. Wondering what it is? Me too. By title, a “Combustor with guide vanes.” No idea what that means, but it’s really cool to look at!)
Undercover Employee
March 15, 2010
I haven’t seen the new television show Undercover Boss—but the idea seems almost irresistible. Who wouldn’t want to see executives slogging around in the trenches?
However, I have done several stints as an undercover employee. Way back when I wanted to get out of academia and learn about the business world, I found it was easy to get temp jobs because I could type really (really) fast. So I got to snoop around a dozen or so companies, seeing how they were organized, how people behaved, and so on. The companies were in different industries, and the work cultures were superficially different. But what I learned in my adventure was that they all had the same problems.
Fast forward to today. I’m currently undercover again, this time because I wanted an inside view of a very famous employer brand. The “undercoverness” is not that no one knows my real identity–it’s that no one has the least interest in who I am. My role is to get X amount of stuff done in Y amount of time, and enter my hours into the appropriate project slots. As long as I do that, no one will pay any attention to me. I am a worker bee.
But I do get to see (or at least hear) how things run in one group. I won’t reveal my “findings” until I’ve finished the project and departed the company. For now, I just want to share this observation . . .
Probably nothing would be more help in improving the employer brand than finding out what new employees actually experience as they go through the hiring process, go through the onboarding process, try to do some work, and try to find their place in the group structure. How many companies substantively interview new hires and actively utilize feedback?
Come to that: How many companies provide ongoing support and resources for new hires? How many managers have the time, skills, or inclination to effectively integrate new employees? And how many Careers sites talk about the hiring and onboarding processes, or include interviews with newly hired workers as well as career employees?
Last question. How many corporate recruiters actually know what becomes of candidates after they get hired?
When you think about it—every new employee is “undercover.” Secretly observing, forming opinions, drawing conclusions. And those early observations will shape the relationship between employee and employer for a long time.
Check out the fantastic (seriously) New Hires site at Stanford University for some ideas. Especially impressive: a series of Manager Checklists that cover the first days, weeks, and months on the job.
(Thanks to Eric E. Castro for the original “Shhh!” photograph. It’s been reworked a bit here.)
The "New" Fortune List: Part 2
March 12, 2010
More observations on the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For list, 2010 . . .
A Lesson from the List: Right-sizing the Corporate Careers Site
Given the fabulous workplace at SAS (see Part 1 for details!), we can surmise that the main challenge for their recruiters really is tracking down those perfect passive candidates and luring top talent through the gates of paradise. Therefore, it’s not surprising that the SAS Careers site is truly minimal—just a (long) list of benefits and some job search tools. That’s all. No videos, testimonials, day in the life, social media. Just the opportunity to apply.
Over at Publix Super Markets, on the other hand, where many prospective employees can expect to work long hours stocking shelves or filling prescriptions, the Careers site has every conceivable bell and whistle. Publix has almost 140,000 employees compared with not quite 6,000 (U.S.) positions at SAS, and as of January 2010 they were looking for 1300 new employees, while SAS was in search of 52.
Point: In considering what is “best practice” for a corporate Careers site, we really need to look at the context. Arguably, SAS doesn’t need a state-of-the-art web presence. Publix does.
A Question about the List: Is It Still Relevant?
A few years ago, the Fortune List seemed to be investigative and informative. It offered examples of what worked in the workplace, and showed off companies that had built solid employer brands. Getting on the list was a valuable achievement, and falling off would presumably be a disgrace.
When you look at that set-up, it becomes obvious that the list is not likely to change much. There are only 100 spots, and once you’ve identified 100 companies that meet the criteria, the quota is full. New places will only open up when a listee messes up seriously, goes out of business, or gets bought up. So by now the news is not who’s on the list, but whether they rise and fall in relative rankings.
This year SAS vaulted from a respectable Twenty all the way to Numero Uno. Why? No way of knowing. Fortune doesn’t explain its rankings. But some suspect that companies figure out the secret of improving their rank and deliberately work their way up. I.e., they study the test.
This year I spotted five newcomers: McCormick, FactSet, Mercedes-Benz, LifeBridge Health Care, and DPR Construction. There are probably more, as I didn’t make an exhaustive comparison—but I’m pretty sure I recognize 90% of the companies as perennials. Given that 353 companies competed . . . the apparent conclusion would be that at least 248 competitors (2/3 of the set) fell short of whatever it would take to dislodge an incumbent.
Point: Maybe it’s time for Fortune to shake up this drill. What about categories for small, medium and large enterprises, to establish a more level playing field? What about special recognitions for innovators and most improved companies? What about breaking out the citations for listees in terms of (a) tangibles like pay and perks, and (b) intangibles like respect, fun, loyalty, etc. And what about adding a new point of view, so the Great Place to Work Institute is not the sole arbiter?
Just some thoughts . . .
"New" Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For: Part 1
March 8, 2010
The February 28th edition of CBS’s popular Sunday Morning show led with a profile of SAS, the top shop in this year’s Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For. But the title of the story wasn’t “Workers in Paradise”—it was: “The Great American Paycheck Squeeze.”
Fortune explains the choice for first place:
SAS boasts a laundry list of benefits — high-quality [onsite] child care at $410 a month, 90% coverage of the health insurance premium, unlimited sick days, a medical center staffed by four physicians and 10 nurse practitioners (at no cost to employees), a free 66,000-square-foot fitness center and natatorium, a lending library, and a summer camp for children.
There’s more about the culture (based on “trust between our employees and the company”), the continuity of leadership, the profitability of the company, and so on. But the big deal is obviously the Edenic workplace, which also boasts 40 miles of running trails, a hair salon, three subsidized cafeterias, an onsite massage therapist (of course), and an artist-in-residence program.
So what could possibly be wrong with this picture?
As the Sunday Morning story observes: “The reality is, for more and more Americans in these recessionary times, SAS might as well be Disney World.”
There’s an inherent discontinuity in the list between what we might call the “campus” companies, where life is made easy for employees (Intel, Intuit, Genentech, Qualcomm, the list goes on) and the “shirt sleeve” companies, where employees are offered emotional reward in lieu of creature comforts. Stew Leonard’s, Build-a-Bear Workshop, Umpqua Bank and a few others compete mainly on charm—fun at work, family feeling, respect for and from management—plus health care benefits, with few other tangible perks.
There’s also a discontinuity between companies where many people might work and those where few need apply. SAS actually did grow jobs last year, by a modest 2%. But the people they hire are for the most part already selected out of the general population by high skill levels. And many of the more applicant-accessible companies on the list had negative job growth, ranging from -2% to more than -20%. Across the board, from FedEx to Zappos, CarMax to Men’s Wearhouse, the job news for non-geniuses was not good.
So who grew? Biggest increases were at the Scooter Store (up 51%) and Smucker’s (up 44%). The “why” at Scooter Store seems obvious, given the aging population and the general decline in fitness. As for Smucker’s . . . well, sales have increased 58% since their acquisition of Folger’s in 2008, so effectively they bought a bunch of new jobs. And coffee has turned out to be a great space for expansion, since decreases in disposable income have driven coffee drinkers to brew at home. On the flip side, job growth at Starbucks was -27%.
More analysis, and some lessons from the list, in Part 2.
Get our updates
 |