Archive for the ‘web 2.0’ Category

 
Comments (2) 11.18.2009
Share |

Welcome to .jobs Universe

Wednesday, November 18th, 2009

A question we’ve been hearing over the past few months with great frequency is

What is .jobs?

So we’ve created a new informational site called Universe.jobs. This site was created to help companies understand how their company.jobs can be used, moreover how the new geographical.jobs, occupational.jobs and combination.jobs domains will automatically benefit their online recruiting efforts for FREE.

Why do we call it the .jobs Universe? Navigate through by watching the videos, reading the resources and blog which should provide a greater understanding and evoke more questions and hopefully innovation throughout the industry.

We also understand the .jobs Universe will be a welcomed addition to all recruiting eco-systems focused on cutting recruitment costs, improving efficiencies and driving innovation. So far, this new universe has been easy to understand and welcomed by companies.

 
Comments (0) 10.14.2009
Share |

DirectEmployers SEO clarification

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

Sometimes mere perception can prove not to be “mere” at all..

Being a non-profit we (DirectEmployers Association) take our knocks every now and again, regarding industry perceptions, although we generally just ignore the ignorance. Generally mind you, not always..

Lately the ignorance has been focused on our new automated SEO platform, Direct SEO. A few have questioned our SEO experience and others have questioned whether a non-profit could handle what is involved with SEO platform maintenance. Well today I’d like to try and educate the ignorant.

RE: Experience
DirectEmployers has been working with Joel Cheesman for years regarding SEO traffic strategies and in 2007 we started slowly implementing the overall strategy on the JobCentral, National Labor Exchange. We slowly rolled out locations and member company pages with great success, growing from a few thousand pages to around 25,000 or so. The very next step was to add in occupational titles which again bumped the pages indexed by Google by thousands.

Rick Wehrle joined the DirectEmployers staff and coordinated the final phase of JobCentral SEO with Cheezhead. This phase jumped JobCentral pages indexed by Google to over a million and within the next few months search engine traffic directly to JobCentral had doubled. What many don’t know is that Rick was responsible for Monster’s search engine driver, Jobs.com. Rick was also responsible for rolling out an SEO strategy so powerful Google had to dramatically change their index and organic page policy.

Back to JobCentral’s new SEO success.. Since this automated platform had proven to be successful for JobCentral we (DirectEmployers) decided to replicate the platform and provide it FREE to our member companies. This is where all of the questions and ridicule starts, imagine that..

RE: Maintenance
The platform is automated, so maintenance isn’t a factor. Initial set-up is the most time invested, other than platform UI changes and updates. One word you should focus on.. A-U-T-O-M-A-T-E-D, we’re trying to do SEO smarter not harder.

Oh and I did I mention it’s FREE to DirectEmployers members? In an economy where companies are trying to cut costs, improve efficiencies and INNOVATE.. Free works awfully well.. Am I suggesting you stop using vendor SEO platforms? No, I’m saying plug in our Direct SEO platform and start owning organic search results. Companies will have the analytics available to ensure all vendors are providing better return on investment and we’ll continue to provide new and innovative products to support that very same initiative.

UPDATE: Direct SEO is now being used and BETA tested by nearly 80 member companies. In Q4 DirectEmployers will launch out of the current BETA product and release the platform to the balance of it’s membership, which currently includes nearly 500 companies.

 
Comments (2) 09.30.2009
Share |

Breaking the cycle

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

In the late 90′s job boards were a necessity, if you wanted to recruit online. Why? Because many companies didn’t have websites let alone career sites. So if recruiting was to be done online it could only be facilitated through the job board, which started a cycle of dependency.

How did it become a cycle based on dependency?
Dependency was inherent in the process where companies would pay to ship their candidates to a community resume database, thus using their all mighty dollar to build a vendor product, moreover providing instantaneous talent to their very own competition. The question soon became, how could a company walk away from a database they’ve built with their very own dollars? The success of the platform rode square on the shoulders of the companies who funded this community database, unfortunately these platforms did not “belong” to them.

Prices rise, people change, dependency continues.
Let me state clearly this dependency process was not set-up with a fiendish plot to take over the recruiting world, although once the big dollars started flowing, prices, attitudes, staff, and values changed quickly.

The hook is set.. Or is it?
Hiring companies starting tasting internet recruitment success and then in January of 1999 the shift began. TMP Worldwide, who owned Online Career Center (OCC) and The Monster Board (MB), decided to shut-down MB’s quickly crashing database and move the cutesy brand to a much more nimble technology in OCC. Simply put the “new” product was OCC with cartoon characters, nothing more, nothing less. Although companies started to taste the first move in this online game of recruitiing chess with a 100% price increase. Companies paid because their dependency was now too deep, furthermore the new Super-Bowl advertisers added the star power necessary to try and justify the increase.

Schooling the System
Smart hiring companies started working the system by only paying for resume database access and not paying the prices for “candidate bait” or job postings. Rather they would lie in wait while their competitors spent huge cash on postings and then feverishly mined the database.

Evolution
In 2002 the very first job search engine was created to bypass the bait and switch game. The process focused on pushing candidates directly to the company site where they would apply into that specific company private database. At this point many companies were starting to turn on their own career sites fitted with early applicant tracking systems, but they were still hooked on the game and tied to their investment in this community database model even though their main complaint were that prices had now skyrocketed 500% or more since January 99. Prices were climbing and Return on Investment (ROI) was plummeting.

Broken
Companies now understand the old model only provided a bridge until they could build their own private career sites and databases. The hard part, for most “investors”, was accepting their community database investment was always a fleeting and short-term initiative. The wool has left their eyes and the investment has been focused on driving candidates to their private databases and not paying the toll for the entire community.

Are jobs boards dead?
Is the newspaper dead? No, although a fundamental change has taken place which forces a more cost effective and value-rich opportunity for companies who are no longer dependant and are breaking away from a vicious cycle. Job boards who understand this and evolve focused on ROI, providing more value and helping companies tap into hard to find niches will stand the test of time.

 
Comments (2) 09.03.2008
Share |

Chrome baby… Chrome

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

It’s Chrome time!?!

 
Comments (4) 04.29.2008
Share |

Peer Matching… Elevate Yourself?

Tuesday, April 29th, 2008

I ran across TalentSpring some months ago and have been scratching my head ever since… Now, I understand the concept because TalentSpring smartly hired Common Craft to explain their product through videos In Plain English. Where I get lost is TalentSpring’s Secret Sauce “matching technology” and how it could provide employers quality candidates…

Secret Sauce?
TalentSpring’s secret sauce is a peer voting system which, in a sense, forces users to score peer resumes upon upload or change of their own resume.

The questions…
Why would job seekers sit around and rate their peers? What’s their motivation? And if they are rating resumes who says they have a good enough understanding of their specific industry to do so? Are they really qualified enough to rate me? Are users going to take the time to seriously review and vote on their peers? And finally…. Does a social scoring system really make sense here?

TalentSpring’s videos also talk about the real problems inherent in the online recruiting space, which makes me even more anxious to see if this social driven job matching system provides answers to them.

Personally, I like the social or peer matching concept although I’m still struggling with practicality or what I like to call the “WILL IT WORK?” factor…

Notable: I believe TalentSpring is the first “matching system” that didn’t compare themselves to eHarmony