Merry Christmas! Besides Christmas, here’s a gift to my readers. Finding influentials isn’t that hard if you use Twitter and the right approach – and since it’s Christmas ….. here’s an exampl…
Bob wonders if there’s a difference. I’m pretty sure there is.
Hiring is what you do when you let the world know that you’re accepting applications from people looking for a job.
Recruiting is the act of finding the very best person for a job and persuading them to stop doing what they’re doing and come join you.
Hiring is easy and fast and is basically a retail operation.
Recruiting is artful and slow and is essentially a direct marketing effort.
Recruiting raises the bar because it demands you have a job worth quitting for. The recruiter doesn’t solve an urgent problem for the person being recruited, in fact, they create one. That person already has a job (hence no problem). The problem being created is that until they change over to your job, they’ll be unhappy. That’s a huge hurdle for a job to overcome, which leads to this key question:
Is your job opening so good you could recruit great people for it?
Let’s try a thought experiment:
A flying saucer comes to Earth, destroys a major city to get our attention, then announces that in 10,000 years it is coming back to destroy the Earth. In order to eliminate any doubt, it then blows up Mars.
Assume for a moment that you believe the threat and there’s nothing we can do about it…
Question: how would knowing that the planet would disappear in 10,000 years change your typical day?
Okay, now run the same story, but 1,000 years from now instead.
You can probably guess where this is going. What if it were twenty years? If it were twenty years, how would that change things?
Yesterday’s Times features a blog post about the Kindle. There’s a lot wrong with the post (which hopefully has been corrected by the time you read this) and I thought I’d point out two useful lessons. Nick Bilton, the author of the post, also did the graphs, and as a former newspaper art director, he has no one else to blame for the way the graphs appear or are interpreted. [Nick changed his post before my post went live this morning, and he dropped me a line indicating that his graphs weren’t supposed to be deceptive, they were merely mislabeled. I think the points in my post below still stand.]
As you can see from the graph to the right, [it appears that] he’s trying to make the case that lots and lots of Kindle owners are really unhappy (the large gold wedges).
Problem 1: The [original pie charts Nick used, at right, are incorrect]. The corrected one is below. 7% is a much smaller number than you see to the right.
Problem 2: Many of the reviews are from people who don’t own the device.
Problem 3: Amazon reviews never reflect the product, they reflect the passion people have for the product. As Jeff Bezos has pointed out again and again, most great products get 5 star and 1 star reviews. That makes sense… why would you be passionate enough about something that’s sort of ‘meh’ to bother writing a three star review?
Problem 4: This is a useful insight for anyone who markets anything–the people who buy the first generation of a product are more likely to be enthusiasts. They are more forgiving. They like new things. Bilton has tried to invent a trend by lining the items up in chronological order, but this is deceptive, both because of the number of reviews, but mostly because the people reviewing the new ones have a different agenda.
The Kindle has managed to offend exactly the right people in exactly the right ways. It’s not as boring as it could be, it excites passions and it has created a cadre of insanely loyal evangelists who are buying them by the handful to give as gifts.