Digital Shoreditch and the great tech swizzle

I'm beginning to think it's something about Digital. Perhaps the nature of an emerging industry, or the monopoly of skill currently held by the few. But that doesn't make it right.

Im talking about the way companies think its fair game to ask tech professionals (or graduates) for their 'game-changing' digital concepts, without fair acknowledgement.

The first time this happened I was at an interview for a start-up website, which helped people locate a restaurant which catered for dietary requirements. Ethical company, you might think. But when they asked me to sit down for half an hour and "think of as many good ideas as I could" for the website, my heart sank.

Eventually I was told I didnt get the job because "I wasn't close enough to the cause" (don't get me started on the ethics of not hiring someone because they aren't a vegetarian) but I later noticed some of my ideas appearing around the site. 

Perhaps that's just the nature of the recruitment process, especially in digital where 'ideas' are key and it's assumed anyone can come up with them. But I'd be highly surprised if a designer was asked to design a poster in an interview and that poster was then used in a campaign without thier permission...

Anyway, on to Digital Shoreditch.

It was my first year there this year and I did enjoy the event overall. We went to the 'make and do' session as it was the only one which wouldn't mean a day off work. At the beginning, after the (amazing) selection of pastries and coffee had been consumed  various companies asked for our thoughts/ideas/help on the digital problems they were having and then we would think about solutions throughout the day, whilst going to workshops and presenations etc.

Fair play to the companies - this is exactly the right sort of event for asking that question. A lot of curious, innovative digital minds are bound to come up with something. True enough there was collaboration, coding, brainstorming, the works. It was great. Some organisations were more structured than others in how they wanted the ideas presented at the end and the household name TV company that I had opted to helpjust requested I dropped them an email.

So I did my thing, came up with a pretty decent strategy, wrote it up as a powerpoint presentation and emailed it to them that day. Then nothing. This is the last I heard from them:

And that was ok...except that they didn't.

I know that we were all there out of personal interest and a willingness to help, I get that, and I'm not expecting payment or anything. But I did hope for at least an acknowledgement of the trouble I'd gone to, and if they do use any of the ideas I'd quite like to be involved.

Is that too much to ask? With the world becoming seemingly more social and collaborative, I felt like this was an opportunity, but instead I'm left feeling a little cheated by the whole experience. Is this justified, or should I have just kept my ideas to myself and attended one of the weekday sessions instead? Thoughts are welcome...

LinkedIn Recommendations - online endorsement pitfalls

LinkedIn has announced the launch of 'Endorsements' in the U.S, a way to recommend someone with just one click. This isn't live in the U.K yet so I can't trial it, but it got me thinking about the various pitfalls of online professional recommendations. Certain issues should be considered and a 1-click endorsement may not always be a good thing!

When used properly, LinkedIn recommendations are a powerful tool for advancing your career but if you don't use them with care they can give a negative impression about you, your contacts and the company you work for. It's helpful to think of them as a 'reference' from a  previous or current employer, but they're not exactly the same, so below are some things to think about.

Consider carefully who you ask. Offline, a great reference might come from someone well respected within the industry and their endorsement of you would add something extra to your application. This is no different on LinkedIn - do not just ask your friends to do it! Before requesting a recommendation ask yourself the following questions of the individual:

- Does he/she have an established LinkedIn account with lots of connections? (it may be assumed that a new account is fake)
- Is it obvious that you know the individual in a professional capacity? (avoid anyone with the same surname for example!)
- Is this person your junior? (If you want to highlight your management skills, you may ask for a reference from someone who has previously worked under you. Note that a reference from someone currently working under you may have the opposite effect, as it shows you have put your junior in an awkward situation!)
- Have you already recommended this individual? Reciprocal recommendations do not look genuine!

You should also consider the impression this gives within your current position:
- Most HR teams and management are aware that individuals updating their LinkedIn profiles may well be looking to move
- Colleagues may wonder why you want a recommendation from them and it may indicate you feel insecure in your position.
- Business development roles can be the exception to the rule - if the company employs you to find new business through LinkedIn they won't be suspicious if you are trying to improve the credentials on your profile!

Even so, a good recommendation from the right person at the right time may well mean you are considered for a role, so follow the guidelines and don't be afraid to get recommended. I'll blog more about 'Endorsements' when they become available to U.K users - watch this space! 

When to tweet and post - are you missing your market?

Social media marketing is still a dark art. Some do it well, some do it badly, and some are opposed to the very idea. For those trying to hone their social media marketing technique, there is a lot of guidance out there on what to tweet and post. What there hasn't been much focus on is when to do so.

The infographic below from Argyle Social got me thinking...

According to their research, B2C Facebook campaigns get better engagement at the weekends. When you think about it, that's not surprising - the majority of consumers are at work themselves during the week, no?

Does this mean Facebook marketing needs to embrace the weekends? Just as retail has seen the opportunities in staying open at the weekend, should marketers be tweeting and facebooking their way into a Tuesday-Sunday working week? If that's when the audience is most receptive, then perhaps they should.

But we need to be careful abut generalising. Does this apply to all sectors, not just retail? Should recruiters, for example, try to market new positions online at the weekend? This strategy might not apply here, as people are perhaps not thinking in a work mindset and would show less interest. Also, from a recruiting perspective, is it a case of quality over quantity? The people who are responding at the weekend are perhaps more conscientious workers. Would you put someone forward for a job if they were on Facebook replying to an advert at 10am on a workday? 

Additionally, the B2B data shown above may not be as straightforward as it seems. Many people have different work and personal accounts, and who is to say that the same individual that B2B's are trying to sell to during the working week, isn't more receptive from a personal account at the weekend?

Analysing when to post is great, but only if you're very clear on your target market and what they will be doing at that time. You need to ensure the audience is there, willing to engage, and engaging in the right capacity. This may mean not only adopting weekend and evening posting, but also adopting a different strategy for posts and tweets published at this time, compared to those posted during the working week.

Digital Recruitment Confusions

Confession: I am a jobseeker. Otherwise known in recruitment as 'talent'.

Since leaving my previous job (end of 2010) it's been an interesting experience to say the least. The digital landscape is so new, and changes so rapidly, that it seems to be a confusing time for both the jobseeker and sometimes even the recruiter!

I'll give a couple of personal examples here and then a few thoughts on what could be causing all the confusion. The first example is a real conversation I had with a recruiter, X who rang me up after finding my CV on Monster.com :

X:   So, I see from your CV that you have worked in social media?

me: Yep, most of my roles have involved social media work, and it is definitely something that interests me.

X:   Great, so in these previous roles were you involved in structuring social media?

me: Uh, I was involved in developing the social media strategy, for the companies I worked for, yes.

X:   Yes but what about the structure? 

me: I implemented staff social media training, so I had a positive influence on the communications structure...

X: [long pause]

Me: Or do you mean the structure of the platforms? I'm not a developer so unfortunately I can't claim to have built or altered the structure of a social media platform...

At which point I was cut off. I'd be really interested to see what the brief for that job actually was! Was he talking about being a thought-leader, how I had shaped  and structured the social sphere itself? Was he trying to get me to describe myself as a social media 'guru' (I wouldn't, I hate the term)? Or had he just got the wrong end of the stick when my CV said I developed a strategy and thought I built a new Twitter? I guess i'll never know. He had called from an unknown number, and I didn't catch his name.  

Experience number two was with a recruitment company I sourced myself. I found their website (a bit flash heavy, but creative and professional) and sent them my CV. They called back for a chat and told me they'd email over a job description that suited what I was looking for. Less than 10 minutes later, someone else called from the same company, to ask if i'd be interested in a job 6k under my expected salary and for a fluent French speaker. He said he saw I had a French A-level and wondered if I'd be happy doing SEO in French??

I realise these two examples won't be indicative of digital recruitment as a whole, and I am also (of course) grateful that my CV is attracting calls at all, but it does seem a bit concerning. I think I may also know one of the problems: terminology. As I said at the beginning this is a very rapidly changing environment, and the English language is slow moving. Unsurprisingly there is a bit of disagreement about we call these people that do all these newfangled things! For example:

Content Manager - this is not necessarily a managerial level role. It could be executive or even entry level. What matters is that the individual is managing content i.e curating what copy and images are on the website. They could be writing the copy themselves or just co-ordinating and sub-editing it.

Web Editor - pre web 2.0 this used to mean the guy/girl that had built the website. This now more commonly means someone who edits the copy on the website, so needs much less technical experience. Of course the web editor should preferably know some HTML, and the principles of SEO but will nowadays be more likely to be editing text via a content management system (not to be confused with the content manager, above) than coding anything.

Q: What do you call the person hired to run the company Twitter, Facebook and Youtube presences? 

A: Social media Executive/Assistant,  Social Media Marketer,  Digital Marketer,  Online Marketer, Social Community Manager (again not managerial level), Community Moderator and many many more. If they also run the blog, this can extend to job titles including the aforementioned 'content' and 'editor' keywords as well.

I have held (and also applied for) many of these roles, but that doesn't necessarily mean I have a skillset to put a swiss army knife to shame! What it does mean is I have looked past the sometimes arbitrary titles, to what the role will actually involve on a day to day level, and seen whether my experience matches this. 

For the moment, until there is an established nomenclature for positions within digital, perhaps this is the best we - as individuals - can do. Recruiters can try to gain deeper knowledge of the digital sector, listening to their clients, and listening to the jobseekers and really trying to get what the person will be doing. This is no longer as simple as "agency side (check) , account manager (check), digital experience (check)" as that last term could me a whole lot of things, in a whole lot of contexts, with a bunch of different names! 

Of course I wouldn't tar all recruiters with the same brush. Some agencies specialise in digital, and others are just genuinely very good and take the time to get to know the client and the jobseeker. I have had the pleasure of meeting and dealing with both these types. I am just interested in the way recruitment has been affected by the myriad of changes in this developing sector, and what might be causing the communication difficulties which appear to be faced by jobseeker and recruiter alike. I'm interested, as always, to hear your thoughts.