Just so you know where I am coming from

In case you see this reply from me - it might help if you know where I'm coming from.

I come here to learn, share and just take a little break from industry and commerce. I am not here to shop. I am not hear to be sold. If there is a product I need - I'll check the RBC vendors....and ask my recruiting friends for their referrals.

I battle spam from every angle all day long. We as a community should hold ourselves to a little higher standard when it comes to blatant self-promotion.

Until I am otherwise told to stop doing so - each time someone just blatantly spams their product I am going to slap this reply on it.

I myself have personally developed THE MOST INCREDIBLE tool for recruiters to come along in many years - but you don't see my plugging it here every day.........

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Amitai Givertz on February 16, 2009 at 5:53pm

Jerry, having stamped a couple myself, I think perhaps we should start cataloging all the posts that get stamped here in the comments, don't you?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on February 16, 2009 at 6:13pm

Since we're being honest here, this is my $.02 --

I have a bigger concern with ads on RecruitingBlogs that are actually for poor products. IMHO, the real difficulty begins when the inner circle of RBC has to make decisions of maximizing ad placement revenue versus having great companies with great products advertise here.

I only say this because I purchased a product through an ad on RBC, only to learn I'd been scammed. The product wasn't ready for market . . . I even thought about starting a 'workaround' group on RBC to find other end-users so that we could put our minds together to find ways to rig the product to do basic things (like create a call-list, import states and cities correctly from resumes, etc.) In the end, I didn't make this workaround group here because I thought it would be a dis-service. While a workaround group would have been helpful to me, I didn't start it for the good of the community and the health of RBC long-term (in terms of not upsetting firms providing lifeblood ad revenue). I know that I would appreciate it if a community member thought about the greater good.

Now, is that RBC's fault? No way; not at all; not even in the slightest. I made the buying decision based upon a 3-day trial or so. But I had an expectation that solutions were vetted and that only the best were marketed to us as community members . . . because that's a big part of the value I find in RBC. Today, I'm currently in the process of starting my own social network geared toward something completely non-recruiting related, and I ask myself what kinds of ads I want presented to my community members. This presents tough decisions because ad revenue can be the lifeblood of a community . . . so much so that I'm already considering these things today, despite having a community in which the lights aren't even 'turned on' yet.

P.S. Kudos, Jerry - your posts over the last couple months have taken on a nice 'bouncer-esque' feel, and that may be necessary as the community continues to scale. You are wearing your newfound sheriff badge quite well for the good of the community :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on February 16, 2009 at 6:25pm

I'll have to think about that Ami. The way it looks now that could end up a full time job!

I'll have to dig around to see where you've stuck my handywork.......

Amitai Givertz said:

Jerry, having stamped a couple myself, I think perhaps we should start cataloging all the posts that get stamped here in the comments, don't you?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on February 16, 2009 at 6:29pm

Ami, if you really want to put an end to blatant promotion, perhaps you can simply 'feature' the referenced post in the forum where members can 'list' any companies that get the Jerry ("Nice Ad") Sheriff Stamp. This way, it's a true deterrent instead of being put here - a thread that will die and not likely be seen by 99% of the community after the next 48 hours.

Amitai Givertz said:

Jerry, having stamped a couple myself, I think perhaps we should start cataloging all the posts that get stamped here in the comments, don't you?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amitai Givertz on February 16, 2009 at 7:28pm

Josh, this is a very thorny problem.

In those instances where I have made an issue of self-serving spammy posts I sense that the person posting actually thinks they are doing something good. The egregious in-ya-face stop-me-and-buy-one posts are very different from the naive marketing messages posted here because it's free and apparently without consequence.

The egregious stuff is easy to deal with -- you just remove the post, ban the "member" and move on. But what about the misguided people who either don't get the concept of conversational marketing, social validation and/or social-media-as-marketing-platform? Should they be bounced-off without someone stepping up and saying, "If you start with getting a picture on your profile perhaps we could relate to as human being at least."

There are no shortage of vendors and self-interests represented on RBC. In fact, I can't think of one person regularly on the site who doesn't have an agenda -- hidden or otherwise -- can you? So, as it seems to me, whether it is a gentle rebuke or a communal stoning, how does one not silently pray, "There but for the Grace of God go I."

In the final analysis, what's the difference between public pillorying and a few heads conspicuously displayed on pikes at the city gate? Well, other than extremes, nothing. And it's so not-RBC!

Then there's the idea that any publicity is good publicity. For example, the more comments a post generates, however ire-filled, get the post read. A "Hall of Shame” might have the same affect. I don't know.

All that said, the great thing about Jerry's "Nice Ad" pic -- and to your point -- is that it conveys the right message in a way that hopefully doesn't alienate a member whose contribution -- and dare I say, products or service -- might otherwise be welcome.

Joshua Letourneau said:

Ami, if you really want to put an end to blatant promotion, perhaps you can simply 'feature' the referenced post in the forum where members can 'list' any companies that get the Jerry ("Nice Ad") Sheriff Stamp. This way, it's a true deterrent instead of being put here - a thread that will die and not likely be seen by 99% of the community after the next 48 hours.
Amitai Givertz said:
Jerry, having stamped a couple myself, I think perhaps we should start cataloging all the posts that get stamped here in the comments, don't you?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maureen Sharib on February 17, 2009 at 8:17am

Noted like a true Englishman: "...what's the difference between public pillorying and a few heads conspicuously displayed on pikes at the city gate?"
;)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin H.Snyder on February 17, 2009 at 8:45am

Josh I'm not wowed by this post of yours for a few reasons (qualified by the thought that I really enjoy many of your posts).

1) This notion that "solutions were vetted" before being cleared to advertise on RBC. Where does that come from? Who is to do the vetting? Jason? RBC Members? To ascribe any value to an offering because of the channel presenting the ad is sort of touching in its innocence in this day and age, but really.....ain't that how Madoff made his bones ?

2) Your own post is cloying in its way because you won't help do vetting yourself- you expect it done for you? Name the solution that let you down. As long as your comments are truthful and your own opinion, you have nothing to worry about- or are you worried about saying something unpopular or offending that vendor ? Either way, it's not helpful to other would-be buyers for you to withhold the one critical bit of information.

Fess up Josh !

Joshua Letourneau said:

Since we're being honest here, this is my $.02 --

I have a bigger concern with ads on RecruitingBlogs that are actually for poor products. IMHO, the real difficulty begins when the inner circle of RBC has to make decisions of maximizing ad placement revenue versus having great companies with great products advertise here.

I only say this because I purchased a product through an ad on RBC, only to learn I'd been scammed. The product wasn't ready for market . . . I even thought about starting a 'workaround' group on RBC to find other end-users so that we could put our minds together to find ways to rig the product to do basic things (like create a call-list, import states and cities correctly from resumes, etc.) In the end, I didn't make this workaround group here because I thought it would be a dis-service. While a workaround group would have been helpful to me, I didn't start it for the good of the community and the health of RBC long-term (in terms of not upsetting firms providing lifeblood ad revenue). I know that I would appreciate it if a community member thought about the greater good.

Now, is that RBC's fault? No way; not at all; not even in the slightest. I made the buying decision based upon a 3-day trial or so. But I had an expectation that solutions were vetted and that only the best were marketed to us as community members . . . because that's a big part of the value I find in RBC. Today, I'm currently in the process of starting my own social network geared toward something completely non-recruiting related, and I ask myself what kinds of ads I want presented to my community members. This presents tough decisions because ad revenue can be the lifeblood of a community . . . so much so that I'm already considering these things today, despite having a community in which the lights aren't even 'turned on' yet.

P.S. Kudos, Jerry - your posts over the last couple months have taken on a nice 'bouncer-esque' feel, and that may be necessary as the community continues to scale. You are wearing your newfound sheriff badge quite well for the good of the community :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on February 17, 2009 at 10:31am

Martin, I understand where you are coming from - I really do. But man-to-man, I just don't feel comfortable putting the product out there (btw, no, it's not PCRecruiter) :) See, the organization 'was' advertising here (and might come back), and that means revenue to RBC . . . which allows RBC to reinvest back into the community (hopefully - lol). By me calling an advertiser out, it's as if I'm looking to satiate my own desire to let the world know their product doesn't work (literally, it's like having a nice-looking car in the driveway, although the transmission is blown so you can't make it out of 2nd gear) :)

I'm not a very religious person, but I do have a 'confucious-like' mentality in the sense that I'd prefer to stand for the greater good of the community than for a self-serving post. I've been down on Bounty, much like 95% of TPRs I know, but they're not advertising here or I wouldn't say anything. Now, a 'workaround' group was an idea that I thought might be ok because it really was going to be a group for RBC members that purchased the product via an ad here. But, when I thought it through, I just dusted myself off and didn't look back at the $800 bones I dropped. I get way more value at RBC to worry about a few bucks. Know what I mean?

P.S. I'm not trying to 'wow' anyone with any of my posts :) Being very straightforward, I work from home 90% of the time, so a major value in RBC to me is that it connects me with other recruiters and TA pros . . . and in that regard, I have a loyalty to RBC as my social network of choice. Sure, there are other resources out there, but I like the 'down-to-earthness' over here. I'd even argue that if this site was on par with some of the other 'more professional' social networks out there, that members would drop off. It's a feel of reality here . . . a feeling of comfort. Today's day of social media is interesting because I'm more drawn to uploaded personal photos (i.e. someone with their family, a dog, a landmark, etc.) as opposed to high-gloss stock photography. I commend RBC on carving out this niche . . . and I further commend everyone at RBC for outstanding execution.

P.S.S. In terms of naming the product, I would be happy to do so if someone calls me or messages me here. I'm not withholding . . . but I just don't feel right broadcasting it. I hope you understand.

Martin H.Snyder said:

Josh I'm not wowed by this post of yours for a few reasons (qualified by the thought that I really enjoy many of your posts).
1) This notion that "solutions were vetted" before being cleared to advertise on RBC. Where does that come from? Who is to do the vetting? Jason? RBC Members? To ascribe any value to an offering because of the channel presenting the ad is sort of touching in its innocence in this day and age, but really.....ain't that how Madoff made his bones ?
2) Your own post is cloying in its way because you won't help do vetting yourself- you expect it done for you? Name the solution that let you down. As long as your comments are truthful and your own opinion, you have nothing to worry about- or are you worried about saying something unpopular or offending that vendor ? Either way, it's not helpful to other would-be buyers for you to withhold the one critical bit of information.

Fess up Josh !

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Martin H.Snyder on February 17, 2009 at 10:55am

Josh,

Oh I know its not PCR because one of the things PCR does well is produce call lists- but even it were, that would be fine with me- there are plenty of posts already on RBC both negative and positive about us- as there will be with any major vendor.

Human nature demands a Ford for every Chevy, and some folks won't like one or the other no matter what you do. Mac v. Windows, Tom v. Jerry, Bush v. Gore- the world is full of em.

Plus sometimes we just screw stuff up- not afraid to admit it or talk about our mistakes because we value transparency, and we try not to make the same ones twice, which is more than twice as bad. Not going to go out of our way to draw attention to them, but not going to try and spin them away either. Most vendors don't get out in front about their issues, but we all have them, because we are all human beings and no enterprise of any nature is flawless (to say the least).

It's a little odd these days to have a personal motto, but I do have one; "knowledge is a hard won thing".

That's why I find your post problematic- why type it out in the first place ? If you won't name the vendor, your complaints are without context, and in this case, to ponder any sort of vetting that could or should have happened and yet be unwilling to provide some yourself is in a real sense inviting more trouble for your fellows by withholding what may be a useful warning.

As to the harm to Jason's revenue stream that could occur with a negative review of this offering; not only can he take good care of himself, but I would highly doubt that such a thing would impact any advertising decision anyway, unless it were from Jason's own hand, which is another aspect of your vetting post.

As of now, your position does not help the vendor or the RBC community- I hope you reconsider it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joshua Letourneau on February 17, 2009 at 11:09am

Martin, your recommendation is duly noted. As to why I wrote my post, I was simply conveying a concern from a macro-community perspective.

My discussions were with the vendor themselves, over the phone, not on a public discussion board. Maybe I'm old school in that sense.

Again, let me repeat that your recommendation and statement is duly noted, but I will not retract based on any form of pressure to out one of PCR's competitors. My post was from a macro-perspective and if someone wants to discuss the product, they can reach out to me personally.

Moving on . . . and not looking back . . . and I mean that positively. Let's catch up at an event one of these days because this discussion is much bigger than me or you, and we are now dominating this entry.

Martin H.Snyder said:

Josh,

That's why I find your post problematic- why type it out in the first place ? If you won't name the vendor, your complaints are without context, and in this case, to ponder any sort of vetting that could or should have happened and yet be unwilling to provide some yourself is in a real sense inviting more trouble for your fellows by withholding what may be a useful warning.

As to the harm to Jason's revenue stream that could occur with a negative review of this offering; not only can he take good care of himself, but I would highly doubt that such a thing would impact any advertising decision anyway, unless it were from Jason's own hand, which is another aspect of your vetting post.

As of now, your position does not help the vendor or the RBC community- I hope you reconsider it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Levy on February 17, 2009 at 11:13am

Back in the old days of ERE (meaning anything before RBC and Recruiting.com) apparently I was one of a group of people who were purported to be the bullies of the community who vetted vendors, crushed callous commentors, and vilified those who were vociferously vocal.

Of course, this was the furthest thing from the truth. Sure some of us noted when arguments were wholier than the best Swiss cheese and offered our POVs but we never made it a practice of going after people unless they attacked without merit (like when they'd try to blatantly sell company directories - tsk, tsk, tsk). Never.

As far as blatant ads - or accounts that are clearly spam - I see it just as clearly as directory sellers: The mass posting to all groups is simply a moral violation of the community's basic tenets. One solution is an ad group where just ads are posted not requests for information; RFIs can be posted anywhere but there needs to be a "respond to me privately" rule or else it becomes a blatant ad.

But if we take this we-need-to-manage-things-that-are-detrimental-to-the-community line of thought further, we're into the slippery slope of looking at individuals who add little or no value to the community other than to build a network. Is there really a difference between these?