Recruiters - the new Mad Men

To work in recruitment you have to be a Mad Man

Most CEOs realise the importance of securing the best people in their industry. Having the top talent working for you gives you a huge advantage over your competition. Whilst most companies will have developed a compelling message that they are ‘the’ place to work, the reality is that majority don’t do much with it. It is often left sitting in the “Why work for us’ section of their website hoping that someone will stumble across it and contact them. Some are a bit more pro-active and will use things like social media to spread the word. Whilst some efforts can be effective, for most it is more of a hit and hope approach and this is typically true of smaller companies. Whether it is due to budgetary constrains, a lack of in house expertise or just a flippant approach, few effectively get their message out to their target audience.

What they really need is an on going campaign that constantly engages with their target audience and builds a strong brand presence. It might sound like a job for someone in marketing. The reality is that this is where the future of recruitment sits. After all, there is no one better positioned than a recruiter to do this job. They will know who the top talent is and more importantly have easy access to them. They will be speaking to the target audience all day, every day. They will also be actively engaging with the competition so can provide valuable and up to date market information. They will know how the brand is really perceived in the market place and be able to advise if changes need to be made.

As the competition for top talent increases, those companies that actively and consistently promote their employee brand will have the advantage. Similarly, recruiters who can provide this service become far more important to a client, and vital in a market that is increasingly sceptical of the value that agency recruiters provide. To achieve this recruiters and clients need to adapt the relationship they have with each other. Recruiters need to position themselves not just as an extension of HR, but also be a part of the marketing function, experts in engagement, brand development, communication and market analysis. Equally, companies who continue to use a recruiter to just fill vacancies will be missing out to their competitors that are actively engaging with the same talent pool.

Comment by Luke Collard on December 2, 2011 at 12:43am: Valentino - thanks for your comments. I would reply but I gave up reading them after the first couple of sentences as it was so utterly irrelevant to the topic.

Comment by Valentino Martinez on December 2, 2011 at 1:50am: @Craig,

So let me understand your unhappiness with me. You feel I should only make positive commentary and should keep my opinion to myself in situations when I disagree with discussion or blog content that I disagree with? And does this apply to me only or are you chastising others who take contrary positions with certain commentary on the RBC?

And regarding the commentary I do offer, and BTW I do often share positive comments as well--do you feel there is no value to it specifically or in total?

Frankly, it would never occur to me to ask a fellow RBC member to stop their roll of being too positive or critical of subject matter they addressed on the RBC because it is an open and welcoming forum for such input and participation. I have to ask—do you feel the RBC should magnify positive reinforcement only—or is their room for candid commentary?

Are you familiar at all with The Recruiting Animal Show?

Wasn’t it President Truman who said: “If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

Comment by Valentino Martinez on December 2, 2011 at 2:39am: @Luke,

You introduced a topic and now choose not to defend it. You say my comment is utterly irrelevant yet you haven't read my comment--so how relevant are you if you cannot defend your blog post with a controversial intro to your commentary on the RBC?

In your blog post it is your contention that to work in recruitment recruiters must all become MAD MEN. And the only reference point you provide as a clue to which Mad Men you refer to are the actors and story line of the television series Mad Men w/logo so that we’re not confused with A Few Good Men, X-Men or other such titles and related entities. Apparently it flew over your head that Mad Men the TV series carries some serious baggage that I outlined in my comment that you say you have not to read (though I feel you have).

Happy to hear your alignment or disconnect with a storyline and brand a la Mad Men you introduced as a motivator for current and future recruiters to be more like…or not.

Comment by Luke Collard on December 2, 2011 at 4:15am: I think most people appreciated the reference was tongue in cheek and not literal. As for your other comments, I won't dignify them with a response.

Comment by Sandra McCartt on December 2, 2011 at 10:10am: Let's face it Valentino, there is just something about the stuff you post that pisses people off. Maybe it's because you can't disagree without making or taking every thing personally..just an observation. No defensive response necessary just give it consideration.

Comment by Valentino Martinez on December 2, 2011 at 11:01am: @Sandra,

Are you suggesting that every comment you make as a person is not personal? I beg to differ. You, of all people, always have a passionate take on things and people are clear on where you’re coming from—including those people you piss off.

Being anything less than personal would make my commentary impersonal. If you’re going to post something on the RBC you should be able to defend it, or at least represent it. Luke feels he’s above being taken to task. He’s not—neither are you--and certainly not me. I welcome your pissed offness because it goes with the territory.

Comment by Sandra McCartt on December 2, 2011 at 11:46am: When you say something like, "Luke either doesn't understand or he espouses it". Then go into a long explanation of how yucky something is you make it a personal indictment of Luke not just a disagreement with what was meant to be a funny analogy and why.

When you strongly disagree with something it doesn't seem necessary to me to include phrases like, "it says more about you than about who you are taking about".

To me that makes it a personal insult rather than a personally I disagree.

Luke indicated that he felt your comment was not relevant not that he was being taken to task so how about you accept his feeling as stated.

Comment by Bill Schultz on December 2, 2011 at 12:31pm: In defense of Valentino, he is not always negative or combative. I thought he was a rather jolly fellow until recently. Something may be going on in his life that is affecting his patience. Lord knows, it's happened to me.

Comment by Sandra McCartt on December 2, 2011 at 1:18pm: It's happened to all of us a one time or another but when it does it's time to take a step back and self evaluate rather than lash out defensively. I hope he will do that. I have certainly had to at times.

Comment by Stephanie Wright on December 2, 2011 at 5:04pm: I read Luke’s blog and took from it that he used the term Mad Men for meaning that recruiters need to act like advertising executives, as an extension of their role to promote their client in a positive light and attract the “buy in” to the client’s brand by the candidate. I think a few people here may have allowed themselves to be swayed by the pretty picture attached to lead the meaning of the term ‘Mad Men’, however there was not 1 mention of Don Draper in there to tie it the TV show. The term Mad Men existed long before some TV show, and was a self coined term of Madison Avenue advertising executives, the “ad men”. I’m pretty sure the term has been around for longer than 50 years, or at least longer than the 3- 4 years since HBO found a new hit.

Back on topic, I completely agree with Luke here. If clients can sell their company and brand to the recruiter they partner with and that recruiter genuinely feels that company has a great brand it’s then easy for them to sell that company/brand to their hot candidates. I’m pretty sure no one here could say that they represent their A grade candidates to their D grade clients as a preference.
It’s simple, if someone (recruiter) believes in a brand (client) they will be able to sell that brand with a genuine belief that it is the best product (role) for the consumer (candidate).