In my opinion, we’ve downplayed what it really takes to be successful in our profession — recruiting, counseling, and closing top people who have multiple opportunities, and making sure our hiring manager clients don’t blow it.

To start refocusing on the right stuff, I’d like to nominate quality of hire as the metric to assess recruiting department performance, and relegate cost per hire to the second page.

I believe cost per hire is a misguided means to judge recruiting department performance. For one, it rewards the wrong things and ignores quality of candidate and quality of hire. For another, it’s far too tactical and narrowly focused. Worse, improving costs could degrade quality.

This is a strategic mistake of huge proportions that too many HR and recruiting managers miss entirely.

These problems go away if the focus is on measuring quality of hire first and quality of candidate as a subset. Even if recruiting is reluctant to take on the responsibility of maximizing quality of hire, it must be responsible for setting up a system to measure it. While important, measuring quality of hire is not straightforward.

Here are some ideas on how to get started on thinking about how to do it:

Yves Lermusi, the CEO of Checkster, believes good reference checking before (external) and after the hire (internal 360°) might be the best way to measure, monitor, and improve quality. He might be right, but from what I’ve seen, if the measure of candidate quality pre-hire is different than after the hire, you’re not measuring the same thing. Regardless, Yves’ point of measuring candidate quality post hire and monitoring are absolutely essential. So you should check out Checkster as a means to do this.

Here’s another perspective. I was speaking with a senior recruiting manager with a Fortune 100 company the other day. She told me her company conducted exhaustive post-hire performance reviews at the 90-day, 6-month, and 9-month time periods for new hires. These reviews were based on comparing the new hire’s performance against the performance objectives of the job. If the person fell short here, the review was expanded to include an in-depth competency evaluation. This approach seemed spot on to me. However, the recruiting manager told me under-performance was generally attributed to lack of understanding of real job needs before accepting the offer and problems with culture, especially with the working relationship with the hiring manager, once on the job. This strengthens the argument of measuring pre- and post-hire quality on the same performance standard.

However, some differ on this view. For example, after a recent ERE article I wrote on a related quality of hire article, someone sent me a detailed LinkedIn message describing his company’s approach to measuring the quality of their candidates by sourcing channel. It consisted of a detailed scorecard examining a set of criteria that mapped to the traditional job description. This included things like quality of the academic background, quality of the experience, depth of industry knowledge, and the like. This is probably not too bad, but I suspect that this was not the focus of the interview. But none of this gets at the issues involved in a post-hire quality assessment. For example, the person could be a fine person with all of the experience and academic requirements noted, but someone who was no longer motivated to do the type of work required, or someone whose style was not compatible with the hiring manager’s.

From a pre-hire standpoint, some might argue that the traditional competency or behavioral-based interview is a great way to measure pre-hire quality. My 30-year concern with this is that it still ignores job performance and managerial fit. Being competent to do the work doesn’t mean being motivated to do the work. Nor does competency or behavior measure a person’s ability to prioritize the work, handle too much work, work under pressure, work with different resources, work with comparable teams in similar situations, or work with a weak manager.

For me, it’s pretty easy to conclude that if you want quality of hire to become a useful measurement tool, you must start by measuring pre- and post-hire on the same basis. Further, the measurement standard you should use must be made on some comparison to real job needs. (Send me an email if you’d like a copy of a performance-based talent scorecard from my book, Hire With Your Head (Wiley, 2007).) This means candidates need to be measured before they’re hired on their ability and motivation to perform the actual work required, including fit with the hiring manager.

If pre- and post-hire quality measures are different (up or down) it means that the assessment process is flawed. So it’s important to use feedback from the post-hire quality assessment to change how candidates are assessed. I suspect that few companies do this; regardless, that’s a major reason and benefit for measuring post-hire quality. Then once pre- and post-hire quality assessment are the same and you have a good system for tracking quality of candidate and quality of hire, you can then move on to the more strategic quest of maximizing quality of hire. This includes improving your recruiting and sourcing skills in tandem, and tracking quality by sourcing channels, recruiters, and even hiring managers.

The whole point of this article is to suggest that quality of hire is a much more important measure than cost per hire in measuring recruiting department performance. While cost is important to track, it shouldn’t come at the expense of quality.

Focusing on the internal budget of the recruiting department is insignificant in comparison to the impact the thousands of people the recruiting department hires has on their company. What’s more exciting is that the tools are now available to actually measure and maximize hires, rather than just talk about it.

Revenue, however, was $215 million, $8 million below what analysts expected. Sales in North America continued their recession-fueled decline, dropping 39 percent from the same quarter a year ago, and down from the $102 million in Q2 of this year. International sales were off 41 percent from the prior year, but off only 4.4 percent from the $89 million posted in Q2. An unfavorable exchange rate took a $7.4 million bite.

Monster eked out the small profit by tightening expenses. Salary costs were off almost $24 million as compared to the same quarter last year. Marketing and promotion was down $10 million, and another $12 million came out of administrative costs.

Monster CEO Sal Iannuzzi said in the press release announcing the results, “We maintained strict financial discipline during the third quarter while preserving our financial strength.”

During the conference call with analysts, held before the market opening this morning, Iannuzzi reiterated his emphasis on controlling expenses, but warned that he expected little improvement in revenue or profit during the current quarter. Sales, he said, would be flat or slightly down. That’s typical of the October to December quarter for all recruitment advertising; employers cut back on hiring during this period to limit year-end expenses and also because of holiday distractions.

Monster’s stock price was off about 4 percent in afternoon trading, selling for just under $16 a share.

Bloomberg News blamed the sales decline for the stock drop, quoting Mark Marcon, a Milwaukee-based analyst for Robert W. Baird & Co., saying, “They are one of the few employment-related companies that reported worse-than-expected revenue.”

CareerBuilder, a privately owned company, reported its North American sales at $135 million, the same revenue the company reported for the previous quarter. CareerBuilder voluntarily reports only its North American revenue, but not international sales or any expenses.

The new sites, identical in design and structure, made their appearance earlier this month. Among them are Atlanta.jobs, Boston.jobs, Mexico.jobs, and India.jobs.

“We just started pushing them out,” says Chad Sowash, VP of business development for DirectEmployers, a non-profit HR consortium, that has recruiting as its focus. Among its services is the Job Central job board, to which members can post jobs without additional fee.

“It’s a new playing field,” Sowash adds. “What this is going to do is allow thousands more, perhaps tens of thousands more” sites where job seekers can look for jobs.

Assuming job seekers ever become aware of the existence of a domain offering only jobs and career information, then those looking for opportunities in a specific geography — Atlanta, for example — need only enter that area and the extension .jobs. Those looking for an occupation-specific opportunity enter the title and the .jobs extension.

Members of the DirectEmployers consortium can request the creation of any site name they think will be of benefit, said Sowash, suggesting an oil company might want to use  refinery.jobs for its openings.

“It won’t belong to any company, but if a company wants us to offer a name, we can. The registrar isn’t selling these domains. They still have them,” Sowash explained. “We can light up every combination someone can think of.”

Tom Embrescia, CEO of Employ Media, the administrator and manager — registrar, in Internet parlance — of the .jobs domain, said the venture with DirectEmployers is a “great way to see what the world wants.”

The domain — technically a sponsored top-level domain — was pitched to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) by Employ Media and its partner the Society for Human Resource Management. The proposal, approved in 2005, argued that a .jobs extension would make it easy for job seekers to find the career site of individual companies and would provide a modicum of protection against scam job postings.

Companies could only get a .jobs address by using the company name and by pledging to adhere to the SHRM code of ethics.

Although about 15,000 companies signed up for the .jobs address, job seekers are largely unaware of its existence. As a consequence, most .jobs addresses get little traffic.

Building sites on the “reserved” occupational and geographic addresses, says Embrescia, is a marketing experiment. “It’s a beta test,” he says, explaining later in the conversation, “We need to build consumer awareness that these (addresses) exist.”

Besides providing the technology to power the job boards, DirectEmployers’ dozens of Fortune 500 and 1000 members will be encouraged to promote them. “Now I’ve got Fortune 1000 companies working,” Embrescia beamed.

Besides members of DirectEmployers, other firms with a .jobs domain address will also be able to post their jobs to the new sites.

For member companies posting jobs to Job Central, the additional placement on geographic and occupational sites will be automatic, Sowash told me. They are also likely to get a premium posting position.

Non-members, who own a .jobs address, might have to post their jobs manually or pay a fee for automation.

Others who want to post to these sites might have to pay a posting fee, or have some other limitation.

“The rules haven’t been hammered out,” says Sowash. There’s also a 40-company advisory group providing input on site names, practices, and feedback on the design and functionality of the job boards, which, Sowash is quick to point out, don’t look like job boards. “These are not going to look like your father’s job board,” he vows.

I asked Sowash whether he and DirectEmployers expected push back or opposition to its exclusive deal with Employ Media. “Yeah,” he acknowledged, “we’ll probably hear from some people who are not too happy.” But he didn’t anticipate resistance from the job boards, most of whom are struggling in the economy and couldn’t take on a project of this magnitude.

Bob Etheridge, a co-founder of JobCircle and a former VP of another job board, GettheJob, says he suspects “job board owners are walking the fence, trying to determine are they friends or are they foes.”

There’s suspicion now that Employ Media is not only a names registrar, but “they are getting in the publisher business.”

Those quoted here and others who talked with me either for background or anonymously all supported DirectEmployers for its aggressiveness and initiative.

DirectEmployers approached Employ Media with a proposal almost a year ago, but Embrescia said he wasn’t ready then. Conversation resumed about the time Embrescia publicly floated the idea of selling off the reserved names.

“They had a good plan and when we were ready we talked with them,” Employ Media’s Embrescia said. Their facility with the technology, flexibility, and non-profit status, and their enthusiasm were convincing factors.

Still, a top executive with a leading job board who asked not to be named, said he initially was upset over the lack of openness in the process of developing the joint venture. Now, though, he doubts the new sites will do anything more than simply add to the already cluttered job board environment.

Coming at it from a different perspective, Gerry Crispin, CareerXroads co-founder and a leading recruitment consultant, complained that the latest turn means an end to “the embedded, implied promise” that all the jobs on a .jobs site would be legitimate and are those of the company whose name appeared before the extension.

“It no longer has the same aspirational goals,” laments Crispin, a member of the original SHRM advisory group that supported the .jobs creation. “It’s still milk, but there’s no guarantee it’s pasteurized.”

Watch it here!

Let’s start with retention. Take the percentage of surveyed employers (26%) who now say they are “significantly more concerned” about retention of key employees than they were before the economic crisis hit and the percentage (39%) who are “slightly more concerned” — add them together, and you find that almost two-thirds are more concerned about top-talent retention than before.

On to salaries, benefits, hours, layoffs, and hours.

Salaries: Now, 54% of the companies that have made salary freezes are planning to restore them over the next six months, according to the Watson Wyatt survey of 201 large U.S. employers. That’s a big-time improvement. In August, 33 percent said they were going to unfreeze salaries. In June, 17 percent said they would.

Meanwhile, almost half of companies plan to reverse hiring freezes in the next six months.

Benefits: According to the survey, “of those reversing reductions to 401(k) matches, 70% will restore the match to its previous level.” Many of those reversals are planned for some time over the next year. On the other hand, the benefits news for employees is bad when it comes to healthcare. Watson Wyatt says that of the companies that have increased employees’ contributions to healthcare premiums, two out of three say those increases are here to stay.

Layoffs: More than one in five companies think they’re going to do layoffs during the rest of 2009 and 2010. At least that’s better than in April, when almost 50 percent said they were planning layoffs.

Worker hours: More than 80 percent of employers that instituted a reduced workweek expect to reinstate full weeks in the next 12 months. Most of those plan to bring back the hours over the next six months.

An indignant Twitter post by one of those whose account with The Guardian jobs site was compromised says she received an email from the newspaper advising her of the illegal access and suggesting she subscribe to an identity protection service.

“got the guardian hack email – they suggest I buy identity fraud protection services. Hang on, who let people steal my information?” reads the tweet by Joelle Nebbe-Mornod, a technology consultant and former CTO now in the U.K.

The site itself gives no hint of the hack, until you scroll almost to the bottom of the home page where, under a heading of Workplace News, there is a short item headlined: Guardian jobs site – Security Breach. It links to a page of more detailed information.

There, The Guardian reports that the site is now secure and adds, “It is clear that only a minority of Guardian Jobs users are at risk. Some of the data which appears to have been stolen is up to two years old. We have emailed the approximately half a million users whose data may have been compromised. This is out of the total of 10,328,290 unique users the site has per calendar year. The USA jobs site has not been affected.”

In an FAQ, The Guardian recommends users whose accounts were compromised obtain fraud protection at their own expense.

“The Guardian, in common with our users is also a victim of this crime and we deeply regret that this breach has occurred. We believe our technology and security measures were more than compliant but regrettably the threat from criminal hackers is continually evolving. Whilst our investigation is continuing we suggest that each individual should decide whether to follow the guidance recommended by the police and meet any associated costs.”

The Guardian’s British site is powered by Madgex Job Board Software. The U.S. job site is run by Indeed.com.

The Guardian says that no personal accounts were accessed, but other, potentially sensitive, information was. “Job application data, material such as covering letters, and CVs. We have no reason to believe that any financial or bank data was compromised in this incident.”

Police are investigating the access. No technical details have been released, however some technical publications have offered possible methods.

This is the second major security breach of a British job board this year. Monster’s UK site was hacked in January and some 4.5 million records were stolen.

But Sidewiki’s potential for deconstructing a brand is enormous. Unlike all the networking sites, Twitter posts, and job board forums where the disaffected go to vent their anger, Sidewiki makes it possible to post these comments directly to your site.

Just imagine the mischief a disgruntled job seeker or employee can wreak by posting their story directly to your site. Side by side with your video of happy employees talking about the fun and interesting work they do is a post — or multiple posts — from current and former workers denouncing your message as bogus.

If Sidewiki were to catch on and gain even a percentage of the users that Twitter has, the impact is easy enough to see.

Says Mark Hornung, senior vice president, strategy, at Bernard Hodes, “What that means for corporate employment sites is that they need to be monitored much more aggressively.”

But what you do about negative posts is much more difficult. As Sullivan observed in his article, “The new owners (of your brand) are a complicated mix of individuals who use a variety of communication channels to influence your brand without your knowledge, consent, or guidance.”

It should be needless to say that Sidewiki also offers significant benefits. Users can post helpful suggestions for others consulting, say, a how-to page of a site. Or offer additional places to look for information. Employers can even benefit from positive comments and helpful feedback.

So even though this article addresses the negative side of Sidewiki, there are plenty of pluses and lots of potential value for users in the application.

Before we go further, let’s talk about what Sidewiki is. It is a type of message posting system that attaches to web addresses and can be seen by users accessing the address who also have the Sidewiki app installed on their browser.

There’s nothing really new about Sidewiki. Similar tools — Purple Bunny, iComment for instance — have been around for years. None of them have gained broad enough acceptance to have a significant impact.

Google, however, has a big advantage over the other commenting tools. It’s packaging Sidewiki with its popular Google Toolbar that has been installed by millions of users. The Internet Explorer version alone from CNET has almost 4 million downloads.

“It’s difficult, if not impossible, to predict if Sidewiki will get traction or how large it will grow,” says Hornung, who leads Hodes’ employer branding practice.

“Practically speaking the growth of Sidewiki will be dampened by several factors,” he adds, citing the relative lack of anonymity to the postings, the need to download and install the toolbar, and the likelihood that corporate IT will fence off downloads of Google Toolbar.

Still, there are plenty of ways around the issues and with Google simplifying the installation of its toolbar, even novices can manage the feat.

“Sidewiki may become interesting only to those who have it, mostly the tech ‘in crowd’ who bother to download and use it,” says Hornung. “Employers should be concerned about it today, especially if they are in a technical field.

“The techie crowd will (by definition) be the early adopters and a negative buzz from Sidewiki —- especially if it appears that the employer is unaware of what is going on (kind of like goofing off in high school while the teacher was writing on the board) —- could be trouble.”

Already comments have begun to appear here and there on websites. Monster, for instance, has two comments posted on its main page. One is a pitch for another job board and the other is a political polemic that has almost nothing to do with Monster.

Google has thrown site owners a bene in that they get to post their own message, which will always appear at the top of the wiki, even as other posts slide down when more relevant posts rise up the list. In spot checking several job boards and corporate career sites, I didn’t find any employer posts. Hornung did, providing the Raytheon screenshot accompanying this article.

Curiously, though, he doesn’t recommend that employers make a peremptory post.

“I would take a ‘wait and see’ approach,” he counsels. “If there is no activity, why provoke it?…

“As some observers have pointed out, Sidewiki really creates a ‘bifurcated’ Web experience: those with and those without Sidewiki will see Web sites differently. To those who are unaware of, or don’t care about Sidewiki, why create a commotion when there isn’t any?”

He says his clients are just now beginning to get their arms around the notion that an old tool may be getting some new life breathed into it. “I think the hardest part is to grasp the concept that people may comment on your Web site whether you want them to or not. Some view it as online vandalism,” Hornung says.

While many corporate communications departments already subscribe to monitoring programs or otherwise track what Internet users say or write about the company, Hornung recommends that the HR department install Sidewiki to monitor the corporate career site. ” Sidewiki can go on individual pages such as benefits descriptions or diversity programs, and it is unlikely that (marketing or communications department monitors) will drill down too deeply on an HR site when they’re trying to keep up with the hobgoblins elsewhere.

“I believe HR must be more proactive in monitoring and policing it,” he says, especially since some posts may involve employment law issues that aren’t readily spotted by others. Hodes, among others, provides a brand monitoring service for employers and has added Sidewiki posts to its scrutiny.

And when a negative comment is spotted? “If you feel you have to respond, respect the opinion. Don’t be defensive,” warns Hornung, who likens online discourse to a conversation. “If something is really just venting, you can ignore it.

“The essential lesson is you have to be thick skinned. You have to accept it.”

For a minute, assume the role of a senior executive who has just been handed a business scorecard containing performance numbers in five critical business areas. After looking at the numbers below, would the data make you cringe?

• 70% of users are dissatisfied with the process.
• 50% of customers regret their buying decision.
• 46% turnover among new buyers.
• 46% failure rate of process output selections.
• A mere 19% are unequivocal successes (less than 1:5).

It’s Time to Face the Numbers and Facts…

Almost any senior executive would be alarmed upon learning that users were dissatisfied, failure rates approached 50%, and a significant percentage of your customers regretted their decisions.

Obviously, if the numbers listed above came from an important profit-impact function (supply chain, finance, customer satisfaction), everyone would be screaming for a complete rethinking of the entire process.

Unfortunately, the above metrics represent failure in the recruiting and retention elements of the talent management function. I have encountered no other business function that more completely avoids defining and measuring process failure than talent management.

Selection decisions are often about as accurate as a coin flip.

–The Recruiting Roundtable

Talent Management Failure Metrics Are In*

Here are more details on the five numbers provided above.

This data can be taken together as a clear indicator that we might have numerous failures in talent management:

• 70% dissatisfied — 70% of the external customers (applicants) and 28% of the internal customers (hiring managers) indicate they are dissatisfied with the hiring process (Source: Staffing.org).
• 50% customer regret — 50% of the processes users (both managers and new hires) later regret their “buying” decision (Source: The Recruiting Roundtable). In addition, 25% of new hires later regret taking their new job within one year (Source: Challenger, Gray)
• 46% turnover — 46% of new hires leave their jobs within the first year (Source: eBullpen, LLC) and 50% of current employees are actively seeking or are planning to seek a new job (Source: Deloitte).
• 46% failure rate — 46% of U.S. new hires must be classified as failures within their first 18 months (fired, pressured to quit, required disciplinary action, etc.) (Source: Leadership IQ). In addition, 58% of the highest-priority hires, new executives hired from the outside, fail in their new position within 18 months (Source: Michael Watkins).
• Only a 19% success rate — only one out of five of the process output can be classified as unequivocal successes (Source: Leadership IQ).

Some additional data points to consider include:

• 66% regret hiring decisions — Nearly two-thirds of hiring managers come to regret their interview-based hiring decisions (Source: DDI)
• 50% new executive turnover — nearly half of new executive hires quit or are fired within the first 18 months at a new employer (Source: Corporate Leadership Council).
• Newly promoted executives don’t do much better (40% of newly promoted managers and executives fail within 18 months of starting a new job (Source: Manchester, Inc).
• Less than 50% are qualified — a majority of managers surveyed (59%) believe that less than half of all candidates they interviewed were qualified (Source: eBullpen, LLC).
• 65% lie on resumes — the key data source that we rely on to source and narrow down applicants contains untrue information more than half the time (Source: The Risk Advisory Group )
• Resume-sorting failures — Of all the “perfect resumes” sent out by mystery shopper candidates, only 12% were actually scheduled for interviews (Source: Hodes’ Healthcare).
• Bottom performers produce less — hiring and retaining below or even average performers have real opportunity costs because top performers can increase productivity, revenue, and profit by between 40% and 67% over average performers (Source: McKinsey & Co.).

* Note: I have purposely chosen publicly available sources that cite these research results. To find the material, you may use a simple Google search, but please don’t contact me for detailed references.

The samples in each case varied, but what if they were an indication of how poorly your organization’s talent-management function was performing?

Only 30% of organizations measure quality of hire, and only a handful specifically define and measure recruiting process failure. It’s time to adopt a business process management approach; start to measure successes and failures in the same way that other business processes already do.

Plan B, of course, is to ignore this warning and to continue to assume that existing processes are either error-free or on par with the Six Sigma standards of production, quality control, and customer service.

My Goal Is to Get You to Pay Attention

You can conjure up arguments about the validity of the research done by outside consulting firms, but that’s not the point. The key learning is to take a moment and ask yourself these key questions:

1. Have you clearly defined what “hiring failure” is? What failure rate is acceptable?
2. Can a process be properly designed so that so many that are involved in it do not have remorse or regrets about their decisions?
3. Is it ever acceptable to have a process where the dissatisfaction rates exceed 25%?
4. Has the time finally come where you bite the bullet and calculate the quality of hire, failure rates, and the ROI of your function?
5. Is it time to move beyond simply calculating output metrics (i.e., 22% are dissatisfied) and in addition to begin to use metrics to identify why your failures occur?

After viewing these research numbers, I hope you’ll agree it is time to rethink most talent management processes and metrics.

Do not concern yourself with the accuracy of any particular external study; their primary value is simply to stimulate you to do your own research within your own firm to find out if these problems and failures identified by others are currently occurring.

Action Steps to Consider

There are a handful of firms (DaVita quickly comes to mind) that have adopted a business process approach to their recruiting function where they clearly define and target failure.

If you’re interested in adopting this approach, here are some action steps to consider.

• Clearly define failure — include top candidates you failed to identify or attract; top candidates who dropped out early; the quality of candidates you didn’t hire; offer turndowns; good hires but bad initial placements; poor-performing new hires; legal costs; delayed time to initial productivity; dissatisfied or disillusioned candidates; frustrated hiring managers; and early turnover among new hires.
• Adopt a business process management approach — work with experts in supply chain, CRM, Six Sigma, etc., to learn about business process improvement tools and approaches.
• Shift to data-based decision-making — shift away from the approach where you assume that things are working; instead, rely on hard data to meet decisions and to continually improve every key process.
• Mystery shoppers — use mystery shoppers to identify process problems.
• Change your assessment approach — a significant portion of recruiting process errors occur because of an over-reliance on subjective tools like interviewing. A superior approach is to increase the use of validated skill assessment tools and to ask candidates to solve real problems.
• Conduct failure analysis — whenever you have a major process failure, use a failure analysis/root-cause identification approach to move beyond symptoms and to identify the real underlying causes of the failure.
• Assume failure — even when the process is made more objective, there will still be significant number of failures. Accept that fact and develop a process that allows you to identify those failures early and to minimize your losses.
• Calculate the cost of each error — work with the CFO’s office to calculate the costs and the business impacts of all major errors.
• Assume that all sub- processes are suspect — assume that bad hiring decisions are a result of poor design features in a multitude of sub-processes including job descriptions, resume sorting, interviews, reference checking, hiring manager monitoring, and onboarding.

Final Thoughts

Throughout my career, whenever I have had the opportunity, I ask recruiting and talent management leaders a simple, straightforward question:

If you hired 100 people, what percentage would turn out to be failures?

Not surprisingly, 99% of the time all I get in return is a blank look. In direct contrast, if I ask the same question on failure rates to those who lead other business functions like supply chain, production, sales, customer service center, etc., I get an immediate numerical response coupled with the costs associated with each increased percentage point of errors. It is my hope that the data referenced in this article will cause you to increase your focus on identifying failures and failure rates in each of your major sub-processes.

• On Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. ET over on our sister site FordyceLetter.com, Shally Steckerl returns for part 2 of his Client Sourcing episode of Fordyce TV. In this live show, Shally will share more of the ways he gets insider details, including key names and job titles, contact details, internal promotions/moves, and other intel to better prepare himself for the cold call. If you are on the search and placement side of the business, you won’t want to miss this.
• Sign up for this week’s free webinar on Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. ET, 2009 Corporate Staffing & Recruiting Part II led by Dan Kilgore and Jeremy Eskenazi from Riviera Associates. Join this interactive webinar which will will discuss trend update, and what it means going forward for corporate recruiting, new trends and data that has evolved recently showing that possibly the turn-around has begun, and specific steps/tactics to take to maximize results in this current climate.
• Friday is your last chance to take advantage of the $500 early bird registration discount for ERE Expo 2010 Spring taking place in San Diego from March 15-17. The agenda is coming together and the speaker list continues to grow, so make sure to check out all of the details and reserve your spot at www.ereexpo.com.
• ERE Expo will also host the sixth annual Recruiting Excellence Awards ceremony on March 15, and we are now accepting applications in nine categories. This is your chance to share how your recruiting success is helping your business — and in many cases furthering the recruiting profession.
• We just secured dates in San Diego next March for SourceCon, which will be taking place March 14-15. Stay tuned for more details about the only conference solely dedicated to the sourcing industry, but make sure to clear your calendar! Email me if you want to get more information at scott@ere.net.
• In more immediate event news, spaces are going fast for the next #socialrecruiting summit, taking place in New York City in less than a month on November 16. More than half the tickets are sold already for this follow up to the first summit which sold out back in June. Take a look at the growing attendee list and if you are already registered, make sure to make your voice heard by helping shape the unconference portion of the event here.

Have a great week, and feel free to leave any questions you have in the comments section below.

Dice.com, the IT job board, introduced a new search result report that allows recruiters to toggle between the results that meet their criteria and other candidates who also match the criteria, but who haven’t been active on the site for a year.

Tom Silver, senior VP North America of parent company Dice Holdings, said the thought of offering additional results came about because more than half the searches on Dice are for candidates who have been active in the last 90 days. In their quest for fresh job seekers, recruiters were missing candidates with equally good skills.

“So,” says Silver, “We wanted to make it easier to see older candidates. We’re just trying to prompt recruiters to look at the entire database.”

Recruiters now get the results they asked for, as well as a tab that allows them to see candidates who first submitted a resume more than a year ago and haven’t been back since. The passive candidate results have all been filtered by Dice to make sure the email addresses are still current.

Why pick a year instead of six months? For the same reason eggs are sold by the dozen and reunions are celebrated in 5- and 10-year increments. “When you talk to people you hear they want to go a year back,” Silver explains. “It’s a natural calendar thing.”

Dice’s new feature is a curious twist on the usual recruiter pursuit of the passive candidate, a subject that’s come in for some ethical give and take in this economy.

Job boards typically don’t see a lot of searches for candidates a year or more old.  Job board sourcing is almost by definition a search for candidates who can fill a req now, so limiting results to 60 or 90 days is fairly typical. Job board denizens are, by definition, active job seekers. Thus aged resumes are inventory that is just not all that valuable, one reason the big boards encourage candidates to regularly update their profiles and resumes.

By offering up vintage candidates who now may have another year or more of experience and maybe even stronger skills, Dice is encouraging recruiters to look at job boards a little differently — as a rich repository of passive candidates, which may be why there is no current plan to offer up fresh resumes to recruiters searching for older ones.

It’s actually quite a clever approach:  Give recruiters exactly what they want, but tease them with easy access to vintage candidates they wouldn’t otherwise see. A value-add that may raise the value of aging inventory, and benefit once-active candidates.

What do recruiters who have tried it say about the new feature? It’s “yummy,” Silver told me. Seriously.

Tracked

This new site is not so much tool as resource. It got a positive review by Michael Arrington at TechCrunch the other day. He described the newly out of stealth site as “LinkedIn meets Yahoo Finance, on lots of steroids.”

At its center, Tracked.com is a financial information site, so it gives you all the usual data elements you would expect. It’s what comes next that makes Tracked more valuable. Besides the public companies, Tracked has bits and pieces on many private companies, too. The more public the private company, the more data available.

The LinkedIn analogy comes from the executives and key personnel that are part of a company profile. Tracked’s depth on them, however, doesn’t match what LinkedIn or ZoomInfo offer — not yet, anyway.  But as it layers on a network and a commenting capability, its content sources reach beyond what you are likely to find searching the public databases.

And keep in mind, Tracked.com is free.

To get the full value out of Tracked, you need to register and establish an account. Then you get to create tracking lists of companies, people, industries, and the like. This is an important difference from Yahoo Finance, which, while useful for top news, doesn’t offer near the depth of Tracked.com.

Tracked.com isn’t likely to replace your usual research sites any time soon. But its founder Mike Yavonditte has broad experience in the interactive world. In 2007 he sold ad service Quigo.com to AOL and a year later began work on Tracked.com. His progress and plans for the financial service so impressed Union Square Ventures, the New York City VC firm, that it kicked in heartily to the $11.5 million Tracked has so far raised.

Rethinking how we source is not easy. But the unrefined tools such as search engines, job boards, advertisements, and even referrals are slowly giving way to far more powerful social networks of candidates. These networks can be shaped for specific types of candidates and for specific skills and competencies. They can be the only source of candidates you have so that your focus can be on your brand and building awareness of your organization and the kinds of work you offer.

Does this sound a little pie-in-the-sky? Maybe given today’s level of understand and technology, it is a stretch to give up all other forms of sourcing, but I predict these networks will replace 90% of other sourcing techniques with in decade.

What Is a Social Network?

For those of us in recruiting, a social network may be better thought of as a pool of potential candidates or as a community of talent. This is not the same as a static database of candidates. It is an ever-changing, expanding network of people who have chosen to associate with one another virtually. I often make an analogy to a network being like a series of circles rippling out from a center. Those people at the center of the circles are your most valuable and most likely candidates. Each successive ring of candidates gets further from you, is less known, and therefore less valuable. LinkedIn denotes this by giving priority to those people you know and who know you and then giving lower priority to people who you know through others.

Why Create Your Own Social Network?

Most of us rely on the established networks for sourcing candidates. These include LinkedIn, Facebook, MySpace, and many others depending on your geography and specialty. These will always have some place in recruiting, but by creating your own network you can have much more impact and get better results.

The purpose of creating a social network is to bring the best people into your innermost circle. By building a relationship through frequent communication via whatever means make sense (telephone, email, Twitter, SMS, or IM), you get to know more about each other. Potential candidates can make decisions about whether they like you, the organization you represent, and the positions that are available. You get to screen candidates and select people who closely match your needs.

Creating the infrastructure for a social network can be demanding, but free ones such as Ning are available and provide some level of customization. Others are built from scratch or by using open source tools and modules. ERE.net’s community of users (you and me) is a good example of a social network of practitioners. We have common interests and any of us can find other recruiters who we might like to recruit or help to find a new position. This is an example of an open network, but it could just as easily be available only to people who answer some questions or pass through a filter of some sort qualifying them for membership.

With your own network, you can build in tests, require certain information, or in many ways decide if someone is the right person for your organization. By doing this you eliminate hundreds of unqualified people and reduce the time your recruiters spend screening out the unwanted.

A social network, or talent community, is always growing and changing. People can become a member of a talent community in several ways, but each requires them to learn more about the organization and provides the recruiter with more information about them. For example, if someone comes to the recruiting website and indicates an interest in a particular job, software can quickly assess a variety of things including aptitude for the job, interest, and skill level. People who answer questions in a certain way or who achieve certain scores can be referred to the most suitable positions, turned away completely, or forwarded directly to a recruiter for immediate followup. No one is asked to just “dump” their unevaluated resume into a hopper and wait for a follow up call — which usually never comes.

What Do Candidates Think?

Given these economic times, candidates are stressed and unhappy, as I have written in past articles. They are keen to find organizations that are responsive, friendly, and where they can showcase their own unique qualities. A social network allows this, and the candidates I speak with respond very positively to the immediate knowledge of how well they meet requirements. They are pleased to be invited to be part of a community they have an interest in and they are also glad to know right away that they are not a good fit and won’t be considered. No news is not good news to a candidate who is trying hard to refine his or her knowledge of different organizations and different positions, and who wants to maximize her time.

I am surprised that the hype about social networks revolves almost entirely around the public networks rather than on building your own. If you are in the planning stages for next year, set aside some of your budget to explore creating your own branded social network. You might be surprised at how well it works and at how it creates a far more efficient and candidate friendly environment than you probably have today.

The company reported earning 5 cents a share or $3 million versus the average 2 cents a share analysts had estimated it would report for the quarter ended Sept. 31.  Though revenue was down a third to $26.7 million from last year’s $39.6 million, expenses were cut by 28 percent. The $3 million profit was just under half the $6.4 million Dice earned for the same quarter in 2008.

Revenue at the DCS unit which includes the company’s flagship Dice.com and also ClearanceJobs.com, declined from $27.2 million to $19.5 million. The company also took a $900,000 hit from an unfavorable exchange rate during part of the year, particularly in its eFinancial Careers operations, which have a strong overseas presence.

Despite the tough economy, company executives predicted Dice will do better for the year than analysts expect.

Officials predict revenue of $25 million for the current quarter and $108.3 million for the year. A Thomson Reuters survey of analysts expects the company’s 12 month revenue to be closer to $106 million.

In announcing the financial results, company Chairman, President, and CEO Scot Melland said, “The tone of our customer conversations improved during the third quarter as some customers and prospects became more optimistic about the business climate. This mild improvement is not consistent across geographies or customer segments, but it is encouraging.”

Norwest Venture Partners, a $3 million participant in an earlier round of financing, put in $1.8 million. The balance of $2.8 million came from new investor Storm Ventures.

Originally based in Dallas and now in Silicon Valley, RiseSmart cleverly developed a technology approach to classic outplacement, focusing on providing job leads, resume editing, and networking suggestions. Its Job Search Concierge uses offshore researchers to scour online sources for job leads matching candidate interests. Instead of searching, candidates spend their time contacting companies and networking.

The Job Search Concierge is a consumer-focused service which individuals in the $100k salary category can subscribe to for $43.95 a month. The service has been likened to The Ladders, with the searching and filtering done by others rather than the job seeker.

As a human-mediated job search service, RiseSmart doesn’t have a lot of competition. JobSerf, coincidentally also founded in Texas, searches and also applies for jobs on behalf of candidates. It charges either $49 or $98 a week, depending on the number of hours candidates want.

RiseSmart, however, packages Job Search Concierge with phone consultation, resume writing, a bio/profile for posting to social and business networking sites, and some career coaching to provide a low cost outplacement service it calls Transition Concierge.

Unlike classic outplacement services that provide a mix of  counseling, coaching, and personal career consultation, RiseSmart’s focus is on getting the outplaced worker a new job as quickly as possible.

Since the start of the recession, its target market has been companies with layoffs and staff reductions. RiseSmart says its client list now includes some of the Fortune 500.

The company got its first seed money of $1.5 million after its launch in 2007 from a group of recruitment industry heavyweights including Craig Stamm, former CFO at CareerBuilder.com and Headhunter.net, Mark Hamdan, founder and CEO of HRsmart, and Louis Ramery, senior vice president of relationship marketing at Sears Holdings Corporation.

Its first A round in June 2008 brought it $3 million from Norwest Venture Partners (NVP).

NVP’s Venkat Mohan, who joined the RiseSmart board last year, said in a press release announcing the new round of investment, “RiseSmart has grown rapidly … The company has gone the extra mile to provide an excellent customer experience to both corporate clients and transitioning workers — and that has paid off in word of mouth and new business referrals.”

Troxell says this comfort stems from the “frightening” belief among senior management that turnover will stay low.

AutoSearch Mobile, like its full-featured — and more expensive — PC and Mac version, makes it a snap for on-the-go recruiters to search much of the public (and some of the private) web without having to know all that complicated Boolean stuff.

That sound you just heard was the collective gasp of every sourcer in the world sucking the oxygen from the atmosphere. So that we may all resume breathing, let me hasten to say every recruiter ought to know how to write a Boolean search string.

But when you’re on the train commuting to work, or on the L circumnavigating the Loop or in a carpool on the 101 freeway, it’s way easier to use a pulldown menu and a few keywords to look for candidates for that new req. Behind the scene AutoSearch Mobile converts your keywords into Boolean, then searches the web for public resumes and a handful of key business networking sites for matches.

The results can be scrolled, the first few lines of the resume showing. Find something interesting and you can expand it to read more. You can email yourself the search results right from the app.

Lori Fenstermaker, principal of AutoSearch, told me the mobile search is slicker to see than to describe. “People are usually quite surprised,” she said, when they actually try it. “It’s really easy to use.”

Like the full version, AutoSearch Mobile will find matching candidates who have posted public resumes. It also searches LinkedIn, Twitter, Jobster, and ZoomInfo. Unless you have a connection, you’ll need to do a little sleuthing to track down a candidate from those sources, but then that’s why it’s called sourcing, and not compiling.

Fenstermaker sort of stumbled into the software business. The Grand Rapids, Michigan, resident was operating a boutique talent acquisition firm when she took a class in online sourcing.

“Pretty soon I found myself spending more time writing complex Internet search strings than I was calling candidates,” Fenstermaker admits in a post on the AutoSearch website. She turned to her husband who owned a software development company and AutoSearch was born.

It proved so popular with her search clients that they began asking to license it. Now AutoSearch is a separate company and, says Fenstermaker, it occupies most of her time.

AutoSearch for the PC or Mac has plenty of competition. There’s eGrabber and TalentDrive among others.

However, mobile search utilities are still relatively rare. Most of the leading job boards have iPhone applications to help job seekers search listings. But the only direct competition for AutoSearch Mobile I’ve found is Search On the Go, which is $9.99 in the iPhone store. It’s interface isn’t quite as simple, but it does save and display search strings, a feature that AutoSearch Mobile lacks. Both apps access only a single, generic search engine: Yahoo for AutoSearch Mobile, Google for Search on the Go.

I guess the White House has gotten over the Olympics debacle. Okay, I can’t claim the credit, but the good news is that several measures are being seriously considered to provide a tax credit for creating jobs.

One program, devised by the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, and a similar one from the Economic Policy Institute, would give employers tax credits for two years for increasing the number of jobs they have, above some baseline, or adding significant new hours. The amount of credits is small — from one to two times the amount of payroll taxes on each new hire, but it’s still progress. Far better than paying for bridges and roads and healthcare programs that at best indirectly create some temporary jobs.

The idea isn’t anything new. In 1977 to 1978 the federal government created the New Jobs Tax Credit — a wage subsidy equal to $7,000 for each additional worker hired. The program is estimated to have added about 2.1 million new jobs, at a cost of about $20,000 per job (in 2008 dollars). Compare that with the estimated $92,000 per job created under the current stimulus package and one has to wonder why this wasn’t started earlier.

If implemented, the credit is estimated to result in the creation of 1.3 million new jobs per year. This can’t happen soon enough. The unemployment picture is worse than the numbers suggest: over half a million people are estimated to have stopped looking for work altogether. Had they stayed looking, the official rate would be over 10% already. The tax credit would also arrest the attrition of skills that’s occurring with such a large portion of the workforce being unemployed for so long. The loss of value in human capital is orders of magnitude more than the loss of income.

The program is not perfect. Some of the jobs for which credits are claimed would have been created anyway. Other jobs may go away when the credit expires. Ideally the credit should be large enough to offset the payroll cost of creating new jobs. But beggars can’t be choosers, and right now there are a lot of people close to being very real beggars.

The announcement that the North Carolina recruiting blogger and widely quoted speaker sold the site popular with job seekers, as well as HR professionals, was made this morning.

The financial terms were not disclosed. Some other details, however, did leak out.  Jason Davis, CEO of RecruitingBlogs, reassured Ruettimann’s fans that she is obligated “to continue swearing. It was a major reason for all of this.”

“We’re not looking to change Punk Rock HR or move it away from what Laurie has built. It’s fantastic,” Davis said.

Ruettimann, in a video post on her site, said Davis bought the site name and its domain. She continues to post, but is also able to write for others and to continue speaking at conferences and HR events.

She told her fans that Davis, her “friend and my mentor and my adviser,” and she wrote the contract in a “really creative and clever way” to ensure that her unique point of view would continue uncompromised. Some fans expressed fear that now that it’s no longer independent, she’d be watering down her blog and her language.

As if to make the point, Ruettimann wrote about office Halloween parties advising, “I don’t care if you celebrate Halloween at work, but for the love of god, please do not ask your Human Resources team to plan the party.”

It’s admittedly pretty mild advice for Punk Rock HR. But catch the video and read the balloons, one of which says: “But I did get paid, bitches” as the ever- so-wholesome looking Ruettimann says she can’t disclose the amount.

Tepid Holiday Hiring

Elsewhere in the world of recruiting Ryla call center outsourcer says it’s gearing up for the holidays by hiring 1,500 temporary customer services reps at its Atlanta-area headquarters. Hiring is now underway and the jobs will last eight weeks.

The hiring bucks a national trend reported today by Challenger, Grey & Christmas. The outplacement firm says retailers will probably hire a few more workers than last year, but not many. And they’ll be especially choosy, since they can be, with more than 15 million Americans out of work.

Last season, 384,000 temporary and part-time workers were hired during the holiday season, which runs from now through the end of December. That was 47 percent the 721,000 hired in 2007.

“While we expect holiday hiring to improve over last year, the improvement may be slight,” said CEO John Challenger. “Retailers remain reluctant to eat into profits with higher payrolls costs and probably will be slow to add workers. With a deep and talented labor pool, retailers undoubtedly feel like they can afford to be selective.”

Despite many successes, it’s time to admit that a major employer branding principle is no longer true: that corporations can own or control their employer brand image.

The premise was that corporations could proactively put together a plan to win awards as excellent places to work, secure mention in news pieces and editorials, participate in case studies, and be talked about at industry events. Because corporations were coordinating nearly all of the information that made them visible, it was possible to heavily influence how they were perceived.

It was a practice that made firms like Google, Starbucks, GE, IBM, Microsoft, and HP famous as great places to work. However, that was then and this is now.

While it is still possible to heavily influence perception with well-managed efforts, significant growth in social media, peer-to-peer content publishing, and online rating services have shifted a majority of the power away from the corporate employer brand manager to the masses. The shift in power renders all but the most strategic and well-executed efforts virtually ineffective.

To those who actively engage and publish their story, their perception is reality, even if the experiences that led them to their perception are not common. Their points of view are often emotionally charged, personal, and therefore, significantly more trusted as fact by those you need to influence than corporate, generic dribble.

Odds are, the people most influencing your employer brand are people you have never met.

Other People Now Own Your Employer Brand Image

Control provides comfort to senior talent management executives, and for years, they have been comfortable. No matter how much the employee experience differed from the overly positive perspective they sold to candidates and organizational stakeholders, they could get away with pushing out their message.

While many product brand marketers learned long ago that if the experience with the product didn’t match the brand positioning, consumers would revolt, few in HR were paying attention. Many HR leaders may ignore or discount the facts, but the truth is that a fundamental shift has occurred, and like it or not, the years of putting forward a brand identity not tied to reality are over. Some organizations have been successful in silencing organizational critics through threat of legal action, but the majority of attempts backfire, ultimately making the criticisms even more visible.

The New Owners of Employer Brands

The new owners are a complicated mix of individuals who use a variety of communication channels to influence your brand without your knowledge, consent, or guidance. The array of contributors grows more complex daily, and the most prominent groups of brand influencers include:

• Bloggers – blogs have been around for quite some time, and while it used to hold true that only 1:100 people active online were contributing original content, a vast array of new online services has significantly reduced that ratio. Today, thousands of independent-minded individuals are posting comments about their day at work, their boss from hell, the idiot that just got hired, the stupidity of HR actions, the lunacy of senior leadership, and all those little liability secrets corporate security would like to keep buried. They communicate without fear and without purpose. Psychological studies have shown that we are nearly three times more likely to consume negative information than positive information (there is a reason the nightly news focuses on the negative), which means that we are significantly more likely to share the bad stories versus the good ones. We are also prone to exaggeration and sensationalizing, but rarely does that fact get considered when folks are reading peer-produced commentary about life at XYZ Corp.
• Social media users – Social media isn’t a regional thing, it isn’t an economic thing, and it isn’t a political thing. It is, however, a technology concept that is enabling a fundamental shift in how people learn and communicate. From sites like Facebook and MySpace in the United States to QZone in China or Hyves in the Netherlands, millions of people are sharing the details of their daily lives with friends, family, coworkers, and virtual strangers. In minutes, users can spread facts, rumors, pictures, or innuendos to thousands and thousands of individuals around the world. Negative videos like “Comcast sucks” that would have in the past been seen by only a handful of close friends are now seen by millions. Social media users can exert phenomenal pressure by using the grapevine to highlight stories many organizations would rather people not hear about.
• People active on Twitter – Twitter deserves special attention among the social media outlets because it is so instantaneous. Just as political events in Iran were instantly Tweeted about, so are the negative experiences of your employees, and even your customers. Individuals being laid off can now provide a “blow-by-blow” account of the badly handled termination process and share their pain instantly with thousands.
• Texters on mobile phones – these individuals utilize this omnipresent 24/7 channel to both receive and send news about your firm, its employees, and your practices.
• Commercial websites – there are numerous “what your employees are saying” sites like Vault, the forums at Indeed, or glassdoor.com, that specialize in sharing messages about what it’s like to work at a firm with individuals considering employment. While most make some attempt to validate that the comment contributors have worked or currently work for the organizations in questions, not all do. Prominent firms like Coca Cola, Best Buy, and Starbucks have been targeted by unfriendly “anti-firm” websites that exist merely to spread a combination of real, half-truths, and untruths about the firms.
• Industry and profession-specific forums – current employees, former employees, investors, and individuals who have merely read about your firm can post questions about what it’s like to work at your firm (or answer them) on numerous and quite active professional association website forums or independent listservers.
• Internet groups – Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn allow individuals with similar interests to form groups that can help to connect individuals who share common interests and likes/dislikes about your firm.
• Internet show hosts – there are numerous Internet voice and video casts (some associated with traditional media outlets and others that are just independent). These shows frequently include interviews with individuals who, without your knowledge or permission, say both good and bad things about what it’s like to work at your firm. Videoblogger and avid social network user Philip DeFranco demonstrated the power of the approach to take on even the most powerful litigation-bound employer, Wal-Mart, in response to fine print in Wal-Mart’s self-funded insurance plan that allows the employer to cease damage awards received by plan participants.
• Social bookmarking service users – individuals who tag a story with a “Digg” or related online bookmark can proactively increase the visibility of any negative story, whether you like it or not.
• Search engine managers – these individuals differ in that they probably don’t have a particular bias toward or against business or any particular firm; however, the design of search algorithms influence what type of messages about your firm that others can readily see.

Individuals who are likely to be the most active in shaping your employer brand on these communications channels include:

• Current employees – hundreds or even thousands of your employees who sometimes innocently and sometimes purposely post Tweets or wall postings provide insight into what it’s like to work at your firm. Even something as innocuous as a LinkedIn profile might lead some to make assumptions about your firm as an employer.
• Former employees – you may have thought they liked you, but what they say after they leave is more likely the reality. From disgruntled alumni to employees recently laid off, the information collective is alive with former employees recounting their experience.
• Vendors – those current and former vendors who have had both a positive and negative business relationship with your firm can now easily spread their perceptions and experiences over the Internet to anyone that will listen.
• Anti-business types – individuals who are looking for opportunities to blame corporations for a variety of economic and environmental problems are quite active on the Internet. Some are actually quite effective in not just spreading Internet messages but also in creating mass letter-writing campaigns and even actual face-to-face meetings or protests.

Peer-Produced Content Is More Credible

If you were to fact-check most blogs, Tweets, or YouTube videos, most would be considered fallacious. Yet survey after survey shows that most individuals in general (and net-generation individuals in particular) believe peer-produced content over traditional news or print media content.

You can bemoan this fact all you want, but statements on your corporate website, in your employment ads, or in press releases will almost always be viewed as less credible than a comment from a blogger who is passing along an innuendo that might have no basis in fact.

Messages from Others Are Extremely Hard to Counter

As Internet users become more prolific, the ability of corporations to monitor and respond to every channel is significantly diminished. If several hundred people outside the organization are producing content, like it or not, there is little your small team can do to match that scale (short of building a brand army of employees inside the organization to push positive commentary).

Responding to negative commentary online isn’t a good idea, as your response makes the original content both more visible and more charged.

Final Thoughts

Given the bleak picture and the almost daily erosion of control over your brand image, you might consider just giving up, but I urge you not to make that mistake.

While you no longer control your employer brand, you can become more aware of your actual brand — especially the negative comments being posted about your firm. Learn to use tools like search engine alerts, blog search sites, and Twitter archive searches. Use search engine optimization techniques to ensure the content you want to be most visible becomes most visible, and work to hide negative comments.

Smart brand managers can use employees who are active on the Internet to increase the number of positive brand messengers. Develop plans to influence key opinion leaders by making more authentic and candid (read: less perfect) stories and examples available to them. I’ll cover the approaches you can use to proactively influence your brand in coming articles.

If you have corporate experience operating an employment branding function, I solicit your additions on this loss of brand control topic. Also, if you have questions you would like answered on corporate employer branding, you are encouraged to post them in response to this article.

• On Tuesday at 2:00 p.m. ET over on our sister site FordyceLetter.com, join TalentDrive’s CEO Sean Bisceglia as he leads this week’s episode of Fordyce TV on the topic of effective strategies to selling to HR. If you are on the search and placement side of the business, you won’t want to miss this interactive, live streaming event.
• Sign up for this week’s free webinar on Wednesday at 2:00 p.m. ET as J.T. O’Donnell from CAREEREALISM talks about how some companies are effectively bridging the generation gap to Gen Y.
• We are now just under a month before hundreds of us descend on New York City for the second #socialrecruiting summit and already close to half the spaces are filled. The goal of #socialrecruiting summit, the follow up to the first summit which sold out this past June, is to have an industry conversation about these tools, talk about tactics and strategies that are already in the field and working, not pie-in-the-sky ideas. Take a look at the growing attendee list and add yourself before it is too late.
• In other event news, the agenda is coming together and the speaker list is growing for ERE Expo 2010 Spring in San Diego from March 15-17. Make sure to register by Friday, October 30 so you don’t miss out on the $500 early bird discount. Once again, we will be awarding the 6th annual Recruiting Excellence Awards in San Diego, and we are now accepting applications in nine categories. Get all of the details and apply at www.ereawards.com.
• For you sourcers out there, you have probably heard the news that we have acquired SourceCon, the only conference dedicated exclusively to sourcing. We are currently working hard to secure dates for the next event, taking place in the spring, so stay tuned for more information. In the meantime, subscribe to The Source Newsletter for information about next year’s event, upcoming challenges and more great content for the sourcing community.

Have a great week, and leave any questions you have in the comments section below.