Corporate Eye

...compare, compete, excel

Archives for February 2009

CDP7 : A Growth Opportunity For Corporate Websites

Statistics are one of the great lynchpins of modern society. Everything is measured as a proportion, sometimes to mask the raw figures and gives marketing men something to hang a story on.

For example, a processed food product may scream “now with 50% less added fat!” Terrific, but it represents a tiny health gain for the consumer if fat was a minor ingredient in the first place.

Then there are the statistics which flatter to deceive. My favourite is the (possibly apocryphal) public relations statement that George W. Bush came in the “top 80 percent” of his class at university. Yeeeees.

Finally there are those statistics where the figures really do show major improvement. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is a case in point. [Read more…] about CDP7 : A Growth Opportunity For Corporate Websites

Silver Linings

job-angels-2

I’ve started at least five times to write a post on the current wave of bad economic news—specifically, how lay-offs, down-sizing, store closings, and other RIFs affect recruiting. And what that means for the Careers site in particular, and online recruiting efforts in general.

But I decided every time that I should really write about something else first. Here are some of the reasons I kept veering away:

  1. Circumstances are changing almost daily, and it seems unlikely that trends in the employment situation can be predicted accurately.
  2. Problems are so big and so many that it’s difficult to analyze the various factors that might affect specific companies, or even specific industries.
  3. There are assorted viewpoints and theories–and it’s too soon to tell which of them (if any) will prove to accurate or helpful.
  4. And (of course) this is just an unhappy topic to write about . . .

So I was delighted to find a story in this category that is not only clear and simple, but also very heartening. John Zappe’s post on ere.net tells how HR consultant Mark Stelzner recently sent this message to his 700 or so Twitter followers: “Was thinking that if each of us helped just one person find a job, we could start making a dent in unemployment. You game?”

They were. And the result is Job Angels. After just a couple of weeks, this spontaneous movement not only has its own Twitter following, but also groups on Facebook and LinkedIn. A Job Angels website is under construction.

Job Angels is partly a platform to connect people who can help with people who need help–and partly a mission to create awareness and provide hope. Stelzner explains on his blog: “When faced with hundreds of thousands of job losses, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed and helpless. But if the idea is for you to simply aid one person –a friend, a family member, a colleague or a complete stranger–that somehow not only seems possible, it seems probable.”

Even when recruiters and other HR professionals don’t have vacancies to fill, or they can’t hire as many people as they once did—they still have expertise and connections that can help people find work. I’ll bet a lot of people were already doing this without even thinking about it! Job Angels provides a way to capture and multiply some of that energy, through the power of social networking.

Is Free Content Always Good Content?

The business model of websites and blogs suggest that if they can get XX amount of traffic to a blog, then they can essentially charge advertiser’s XX amount of dollars to showcase their product or service on said blog. This works well of course for the business that is enjoying the traffic and the advertising dollars. It also works quite well for the company who advertise their product or service and have the opportunity to convince readers to buy from them. But what about the reader: does he benefit?

When you visit a popular or engaging website, or you click on one of your favorites in your menu, you are looking for good, quality information that’s going to help you in your a.) personal life, b.) business life, c.) in finances, or d.) in relationships. Most web-users are looking for information that will either inform or enhance. And, most of that information is readily available all over the web, for free, instantaneously and in massive quantities. But as a reader, how can you be sure that what you’re getting is good information and not some rehashed, regurgitated stuff that can be found most anywhere on the WWW?

In the online world, the word free is good and desirable. Especially given the economy that we are currently experiencing, businesses want as much as they can get for their money. This includes consumers too and no area is exempt. But in an attempt to find bargains, are we settling for and compromising on quality and value? Are we relegated to take what we can get and get out?

There are few websites who actually charge for information that can essentially be found anywhere on the internet with some time and a little digging/clicking. These websites who charge for information are appalling to those who think information should be free and without reservation. But let’s consider this…

Would you pay for content that, let’s say is readily accessible, but that is of higher quality, confirmed facts, real interviews and has limited access? In other words, would you pay for exclusive content that would be available to you if you paid for it? Writers and journalists make their living off of providing information that is of value, much of what I mentioned a few paragraphs up. A writer is only as good as the content they write, therefore the value of their intellectual material is relevant and dependent upon their audience and the demand for the information that they can provide. Question: What makes you want to pay for content?

Personally, I’d gladly pay for content under certain conditions:

1.) The content was not all over the internet. It was/is exclusive and only a limited number of people have access to it. If it news in nature, then there must some higher quality reporting and/or interviews to make it plausible.

2.) The price was fair. I don’t think it’s wise to overcharge, but by the same token, quality costs. So while a news subscription site may cost $20 a month, a few news articles sent to my inbox a couple of times a week need not be $50.

3.) I must see and enjoy the value of the content. How annoying is it to pay for something and then not be able to use it? The content must enrich my life and be applicable in more than one way.

Under what circumstances, if any, would you pay for content online? Would you buy content that was available anywhere else, free or fee? Can you see any inherent value in paying for content of any price? What would be your limit?

Free is good…sometimes. As consumers and as business owners, there must be some take-away value in the service that we’re a part of. What ends up failing is when no one can “see” what they’re getting and cannot maximize its use. When customers realize that what they’re getting is high-quality and of exceptional value, surely they will pay. Everyone wants free, but everyone wants the most for their money. Finding the happy medium is the seeking point. Beyond that, free is not good. It is simply a word that has no meaning. This is when free can be a farce.

Provide value and quality and perhaps you can charge whatever you’d like. Perhaps.

It’s Bankruptcy Number 3 for Trump Entertainment

trump_plazaJust four years ago in 2005, Trump Entertainment emerged from its second Chapter 11 filing, and today, the company, along with nine of its affiliates, went down that path for a third time.  Certainly, the recession played a significant role in the fate of Trump Entertainment, which operates three casinos and hotels in New Jersey.  The company is quick to point out that the Chapter 11 filing will cause no changes in daily operations or the company’s philosophy. 

The Chapter 11 filing did not come as a surprise to financial experts, and it certainly won’t hurt Donald Trump who vocally disagreed with the Chapter 11 filing and stated he would resign from the company’s board if it filed for bankruptcy.  Looks like he’s moving onto bigger and better things, because according to an article on Reuters, Trump claimed that Trump Entertainment, “represents less than 1 percent of his net worth and that ‘my investment in it is worthless to me now.'”  Strong words from the anti-brand champion who vacated the role of CEO of Trump Entertainment after the 2005 bankruptcy problems. [Read more…] about It’s Bankruptcy Number 3 for Trump Entertainment

What to do when you’ve Googled a candidate?

Thursday Bram offers us some tips on what to do when you’ve Googled someone’s name. We’ve all done it; but what do you do with the results?

If you run an online search on a job applicant, you can find pages and pages of information. For some names, search engines like Google can return millions of results. Interpreting all of that information — and ensuring that it’s truly relevant to a candidate — can take a little work.

Reading Social Networking Profiles

It’s common to find at least one social networking website in the results of a search for a particular name. Depending on the site, you may need a membership to view a profile or you may need to be ‘friends’ with an individual to look at their results. In other cases, you may be able to access a person’s full profile immediately. If you can access a profile, you can find a wealth of information: links to personal websites as well as accounts on other networking sites, details about past employment (sometimes even links to supervisors) and perhaps even updates written by the job candidate.

Reading through such information can be a lengthy process, especially if a candidate has maintained a blog or online journal for a long period of time. You can use Google or another search engine’s advanced search panel to search a website for particular keywords — if, for instance, you want to know about a candidate’s relationship with a former employer, you can search his or her blog for mentions of that company.

Interpreting Other Results

Results can range far beyond social networking profiles: if a prospective employee has been mentioned in a newspaper article or maintains a website, you’re likely to see such information in the results for his or her name. You can find products an applicant has endorsed and awards he or she has won. Not all of this information is relevant beyond proving a resume true or false, but it can help to build a clearer picture of a particular candidate — and help you make a decision on whether such an individual would be a good fit for a particular job.

Finding the Right John Smith

When you research a potential employee with an unusual name, it’s relatively easy to determine which search results are pertinent. On social networking sites, you can quickly compare education or work histories. On personal sites, it’s just a matter of looking for a reference to a particular employer.

But when you’re considering an applicant with a common name, you may run into a few more problems. No one wants to hold a job candidate responsible for the actions of someone else — even if they share a name — but it can be difficult to find an indicator that you’ve got the wrong John Smith. You can narrow down the search results by including a middle name, a location or a company in your search. You can also use other information to narrow down your hunt: running a search on a candidate’s email address can provide relevant information, as can searching a previous employer’s website for mentions of that employee’s name.

So: when you’ve got your search results, there is often more to be done to ensure you’ve got to the bottom of your candidate’s story …

Thanks, Thursday!

Sustainability Legislation : The Future of Sustainability Assurance

Gordon Brown at World Economic Forum, 2007Gordon Brown’s love of bondage is well known to all UK voters. He used to boast in Parliament how he’d snuggle up to the dominatrix Prudence and do whatever she asked, so long as she’d eliminate boom and bust.

Now Prudence has been kissed goodbye, her siren whispers left behind as conveniently as any thought of limiting public debt in line with domestic GDP.

It’s a salutary lesson in being so cock-sure of yourself that you forget that life has a remarkable way of turning out differently to how you envisage.

So I thought I’d do a little self examination. There have been several posts on this blog which have concluded along the lines of “business really has to pull its finger out otherwise governments will legislate”.

But would legislation be such a bad thing? [Read more…] about Sustainability Legislation : The Future of Sustainability Assurance