Receive daily articles & headlines each day in your inbox with your free ERE Daily Subscription.

Not logged in. [log in or register]

Facebook and Phone Calls: A Recipe for Recruiting Success

by Apr 10, 2013, 12:25 am ET

Screen Shot 2013-04-02 at 11.22.02 AMAccording to a recent Facebook blog post, “Half of employers (50 percent) are using Facebook in their hiring process. A majority (54 percent) already using the social network anticipates Facebook becoming a more important part of the talent acquisition process in the near future.”

Job candidates are also infusing their job search with Facebook activity. In a recent study conducted jointly by Facebook and Carnegie-Mellon University, results revealed that job seekers with strong ties who shared private messages, commented on each others’ posts, or posted directly on each others’ walls found new jobs at a rate of 33.2 percent over the three months. Those with weak ties found jobs a fifth as often, at only a 6.5 percent rate.

This data suggests two things: The first is that we are hiring people who are spending a lot of time on social media. (Let’s hope they’re not doing it while on the job!) And second, Facebook is a powerful tool for active, hands-on users. Like job seekers, recruiters need to do more than just jump on to the Facebook wagon — they need to learn how to drive it and not to forget to use the phone along with it.

Sure, Facebook is an effective social media candidate screening tool. In fact, 37% of employers surveyed by CareerBuilder are using it to weed out candidates who display poor writing skills, discriminatory comments, or drug use. However, Facebook is also a vital online destination where potential employees can go to connect with your brand, see and share job posts with their contacts, and even respond directly to job ads.

Here’s why Facebook should not be overlooked as part of your recruiting strategy.

Facebook is the largest talent pool in the world. Period. Facebook has 500 million active users, of whom 50% log in on a daily basis. And, according to blogsession.com, if Facebook were a country, it would be the third largest in terms of population.

If you think Facebook’s audience is composed of only younger demographics, think again. There are actually 220 million people over the age of 45 on Facebook. That’s larger than LinkedIn’s entire population of users.

Set up a business page and passively connect. Facebook allows for a less-aggressive form of recruiting in a friendlier environment than LinkedIn. Plus, with Facebook’s new “reply” feature, you’ll soon be able to have an online conversation directly with those who are active on your page.

Facebook brings passive talent and referrals to you. Although they may not be actively looking, Facebook users who find your content interesting will follow and engage with your brand. This is the first step in developing a relationship with candidates who may look to your firm when they’re ready to explore new opportunities.

Furthermore, job boards are evolving to link with Facebook and enhance the job search. Now, social contacts can be securely plugged into third-party sites or apps so users can easily discover mutual connections in the companies where they are applying. Some Facebook programs even allow employees to share their firms’ job openings with their friends.

Facebook is a good value. Unlike LinkedIn, where 39% of users pay for premium accounts, Facebook provides everyone with wide-open access. There are no premium accounts or upgrades required to make connections. And, if you choose to purchase Facebook ads as recruiting tools, the pay-per-click format lets you target your ad to those most likely to find an interest in your message. That means you can create more effective messaging and gain valuable insight about who reads and responds to your ads.

Facebook is the future. Unlike LinkedIn, which has the oldest average user base of all social media sites — at 44.2 years of age — Facebook is where younger people hang out. And doesn’t it make sense to establish a rapport with today’s youth? After all, they are tomorrow’s talent pool.

But, I wonder, as we click, scroll, and query on walls and pages more and more often, are we engaging with job seekers less and less?

With all of the promise and possibilities for candidates and recruiters on Facebook, we must keep the following statistic front-of-mind: 57% of people communicate more online than they do in real life. It’s easier and more efficient for job seekers and recruiters to jump onto Facebook than it is to pick up the phone. But, while we are building up pipelines of Likes and Friends, our interpersonal skills may be deteriorating while our networks become more and more superficial.

Sure, Facebook provides great opportunities for connecting, but these interactions should be considered stepping-stones to face-to-face engagement.

Recruiting is a “people” business. Ultimately, we are in sales. Our job is to promote our companies and our brands. We need more than connections — we need to develop relationships! This requires ongoing dialogue. Certainly, a reply button helps, but a voice builds a bond. Human contact enhances trust. People like doing business with those they know. Recruiters can’t rely on Facebook to forge connections — we must continually hone our personal style and natural charm to conduct insightful interviews, present compelling offers, and yes, deliver rejections, too.

Recruiters: You are the bridge between your company and it’s future talent. Differentiate yourself and your company’s brand. Pick up the phone.

 

This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to offer specific legal advice. You should consult your legal counsel regarding any threatened or pending litigation.

  • http://www.neorecruitermom.com Shannon Wagner

    We are a national retail organization, with the recruiting team working out of corporate headquarters, and the field team working out of their homes all over the country. In 2012, we hired 3 people from Facebook, out of about 1000 hires. Our ATS does not track where candidates come from; the referral source field is completed by the applicant.

    We have a Facebook page for recruiting with about 900 followers. We have proactively sourced candidates via searching on Facebook, without receiving responses to our private messages. We also spent a (very) little bit of money on PPC ads in 2012.

    All this leads me to believe that the 3 hires we did get from Facebook in 2012 were generated by field employees posting about our hiring needs on their own pages, or “sharing” our postings from our Careers page.

  • http://www.incredibleconsulting.jp Howard Ichiro Lim

    I disagree, its akin to trying to sell BMW`s to people who make under $10,000 per year. Facebook is for socializing, personally, I feel intruded upon when someone tries to pitch business or sell me something, thats what Linkedin is for – a business community.

    Facebook is a social community.

    People aren`t stupid, they know when their trying to be underhandedly “sold” a bill of goods no matter how sly it is.

    Do your research, pinpoint targeted candidates and connect.

  • Keith Halperin

    Thanks, Gail. IMHO, that boat has sailed, and SUNK.

    I challenge anyone who thinks that using FB or any SN site as an effective and efficient recruiting tool (I consider Linked In as a “Business Networking” and not a “Social Networking” site) to provide:
    1) What percentage of their overall hires were provided exclusively through the SN site? (Looks like Shannon’s company hired 0.3% of hers, and it’s unclear if those were exclusively from the company’s site, but one company isn’t a valid sample size…)
    2) What types of positions were filled this way?
    3) What is the median time to hire of someone hired, from initial SN contact through start date? How does it compare with the the time to hire of their other methods?
    4) What was the cost (dollars, headcount, etc.) in implementing this SN Recruiting program?
    5) Did their company hire new people to do this, did they train their existing people to do it (If so who trained them and who much $/how long was the training) or did the existing people just “have at it”?

    Actually, I do think SNR is good for one group of people, at least for a little longer: slick hucksters with high-level connections ready to sell the latest (or in this case: NOT the latest) recruiting snake oil or “magic bullet” to desperate and not-yet insolvent recruiters and their superiors who fail to recognize that in most cases they are futilely “rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic” of their companies’ ill-conceived, over-blown, grossly-dysfunctional hiring practices…I’m glad we don’t have people like that here on ERE.

    Cheers,

    Keith

  • http://www.brandemix.com Jason Ginsburg

    The latest Jobvite surveys answer some of your questions, Keith.

    Using social media, 43% of employers saw an increase in quality of candidates.
    20% saw a decrease in time to hire.
    31% saw an increase in employe referrals (which is what Shannon’s company may have witnessed).
    73% of employers hired a candidate who was “identified or introduced through a social network.” 26% made a hire through Facebook; 15% made a hire via Twitter.

    In the survey, 66% of employers said they use or plan to use Facebook for recruiting — but since that was a year ago, I think we can assume that the number of companies using Facebook is higher today.
    54% of employers use or plan to use Twitter — but again I’m assuming the 2013 number is higher.

    As for the job-seekers, 1 in 6 credited social media with finding them their current job.

    I would note that the 2012 survey didn’t include Pinterest, Instagram, Google Plus, or Vine, all fast-growing social sites already being used by recruiters (I can cite examples if you wish.)

    None of these numbers leads me to believe that social recruiting is ineffective, a fad that will fade, or a method only used by “slick hucksters.”

    Clearly, our competition is recruiting on social sites. And job-seekers are there. Anyone thinking otherwise is putting themselves at a serious disadvantage.

  • http://www.incredibleconsulting.jp Howard Ichiro Lim

    @Jason,
    I`ve been recruiting for over 10 years in Asia and the US.
    Linkedin has made outreach easier to candidates, and in some cases, companies have obviated the need for recruitment agencies by hiring their own internal recruiting staff and contacting candidates directly. This is mainly for Technology only.

    Here in Asia, only 10% of people used Linkedin. People in Asia do use Facebook frequently, but, they absolutely abhor companies that try to brand and slyly pitch their company and hiring initiatives through a Social Community like FB. FB is a Social Community. Do you go to a golf course to try and sell products or services? No, you go there to relax and play golf. Same concept with FB, most people use it to connect with friends, update on family status, etc. You don`t go to FB for business.

    Anyone who`s a headhunter can attest that the best hires are through candidates who are “not looking” to make a move. The best candidates don`t have time to look at job postings, who`s hiring, etc. Senior Directors rely on headhunters to understand their business, know where their business is going in the next 6-12 months, and, align a hiring strategy that will help them grow and improve their operations. We actively consult. We pinpoint people that will be best suited for our clients business and environment. Even if a client is not hiring, we bring potential rainmakers to them and create value by showing how this person can increase our client`s bottom line.

    To make a long story short, I`m sure a headhunter with more than 5+ years of experience would see the value of Social Media as part of the process to a successful “hunt” but IMHO, the only one that has brought significant ROI (my time in hunting for clients) is Linkedin.

    I`ve heard similar cases from B-2-B service companies, software, companies, etc. FB maybe okay for B-2-C, but any business where trusted advisor relationships and consulting is involved, i doubt the efficacy of FB, Twitter and the like.

  • http://www.grncorp.com Jeff Carmean

    Good post Gail. I appreciate the statistical data from both you and Jason. I am a bit of an “old school” recruiter and still believe that personal connection whether via phone videoconference or face to face is critical in the recruiting world. But I agree with Jason in that to ignore the sheer number of people using “social media” whether for personal or professional reasons is to ignore a vast population of people swimming in a very large talent pool. Whether they are people who can give us business, people we can place or people we can network with doesn’t matter. We’re in the people business and the bigger our networks the more we can build upon the axiom that “people buy from those they know, they like and they trust.”

  • Keith Halperin

    @ Jason: Thank you for the numbers, I’d be interested in the details, as they say, the devil’s in the details:
    43% of employers saw an increase in quality of candidates. COMPARED TO WHAT?
    20% saw a decrease in time to hire. COMPARED TO WHAT?
    31% saw an increase in employe referrals (which is what Shannon’s company may have witnessed). CORRELATION ISN’T CAUSATION- IT MAY HAVE HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT CAUSED IT. MAYBE THE INCREASE IN ERs LED TO MORE USE OF SN, AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
    73% of employers hired a candidate who was “identified or introduced through a social network.” 26% made a hire through Facebook; 15% made a hire via Twitter. “A HIRE”: OUT OF HOW MANY HIRES? ONLY THROUGH A SOCIAL NETWORK?

    In the survey, 66% of employers said they use or plan to use Facebook for recruiting — but since that was a year ago, I think we can assume that the number of companies using Facebook is higher today.
    54% of employers use or plan to use Twitter — but again I’m assuming the 2013 number is higher. USE THEM HOW, AND USE THEM “HOW MUCH”? ALSO, THE FACT THAT LOTS OF PEOPLE DO SOMETHING DOESN’T MEAN IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO…..

    Back to regular capitalization:
    Until I see some “meaningful” and *unbiased numbers and conclusions in a from an organization (either academic research or something like CareerXRoads) without “a dog in the fight” that shows “Yes: SN is in fact a very effective way of getting large numbers of quality butts in chairs faster and cheaper than other **methods, and hers’ how and under what circumstances it works best” I will be VERY skeptical. mainly because so many slick hucksters are trying to make money off the concept…

    Cheers,

    Keith “No Snake Oil for Me Today” Halperin

    * Does Jobvite have a vested interest in SN as far is its own products/sevices are concerned?

    **Such as directly sourcing and contacting desirable potential candidates.

  • http://www.brandemix.com Jason Ginsburg

    43% of employers saw an increase in quality of candidates. COMPARED TO WHAT?
    -Compared to their non-use of social media.

    20% saw a decrease in time to hire. COMPARED TO WHAT?
    -Compared to their non-use of social media.

    31% saw an increase in employe referrals (which is what Shannon’s company may have witnessed). CORRELATION ISN’T CAUSATION- IT MAY HAVE HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT CAUSED IT. MAYBE THE INCREASE IN ERs LED TO MORE USE OF SN, AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
    -I suppose. It’s impossible to prove a negative, but I wish you luck.

    73% of employers hired a candidate who was “identified or introduced through a social network.” 26% made a hire through Facebook; 15% made a hire via Twitter. “A HIRE”: OUT OF HOW MANY HIRES? ONLY THROUGH A SOCIAL NETWORK?
    -Yes, only through a social network. They were identified or introduced through a social network. One assumes candidates didn’t actually apply through, say, YouTube, because YouTube is a video hosting service. But the social site was the candidate’s first step in the hiring process. I’m not sure why the amount of hires matters; 73% of employers have used social media to hire someone — isn’t that impressive by itself?

    In the survey, 66% of employers said they use or plan to use Facebook for recruiting — but since that was a year ago, I think we can assume that the number of companies using Facebook is higher today.
    54% of employers use or plan to use Twitter — but again I’m assuming the 2013 number is higher. USE THEM HOW, AND USE THEM “HOW MUCH”? ALSO, THE FACT THAT LOTS OF PEOPLE DO SOMETHING DOESN’T MEAN IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO…..
    -You’re right. It simply means that your competition is doing it.

    These numbers are “meaningful” to many people. As for “unbiased,” UPS has reported that it made a number of hires through not only social media but also QR codes and text messaging in both 2010 and 2011. I wouldn’t call them a “slick huckster” with anything to gain from such an announcement.

    What confuses me, Keith, is that you seem to be under the impression that there has been no study of social media recruiting, when Jobvite conducts separate annual studies of both employers and employees on just this topic. Forrester has also looked into the matter. As has CareerXroads, which you say is trustworthy.

    You’ve spoken at length about bias. I’m beginning to think I’ve found it.

  • http://www.consultnetworx.com Gail Tolstoi-Miller

    Great comments all around! The successes (or failures) of corporate social recruiting initiatives vary as widely as the industries they serve. Professionally, I’ve had some suprising success cutivating relationships that started on Facebook but like many of you, I’ve had much more recruiting success on LinkedIn. Still, I find the Facebook surveys and statistics interesting and can relate to this new recruiting reality. I’m not sure we can ignore the growing trend of connecting with talent in a more social way. Static job listing are slowly becoming a thing of the past and I wouldn’t be suprised to see them replaced by active, engaging online talent communities where hiring managers, recruiters and executives can build relationships with future candidates. But old school networking can never be abandoned. The secret, I believe, is finding the right balance — utilizing both to optomize results.

  • Keith Halperin

    Thanks, Jason. We’re headed in the right direction:

    43% of employers saw an increase in quality of candidates. COMPARED TO WHAT?
    -Compared to their non-use of social media. COMPARED TO NOT USING SM, I.E., DOING NOTHING AT ALL, OR COMPARED TO USING OTHER WAYS?

    20% saw a decrease in time to hire. COMPARED TO WHAT?
    -Compared to their non-use of social media. COMPARED TO NOT USING SM, I.E., DOING NOTHING AT ALL, OR COMPARED TO USING OTHER WAYS?

    31% saw an increase in employee referrals (which is what Shannon’s company may have witnessed). CORRELATION ISN’T CAUSATION- IT MAY HAVE HAPPENED AT THE SAME TIME, BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT CAUSED IT. MAYBE THE INCREASE IN ERs LED TO MORE USE OF SN, AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND
    -I suppose. It’s impossible to prove a negative, but I wish you luck.
    I DON’T NEED TO PROVE A NEGATIVE- IT’S THE PRESENTER’S ROLE TO PROVE THAT A CAUSES B, AND NOT JUST THAT A HAPPENS TO BE THERE AT THE SAME TIME AS B.

    73% of employers hired a candidate who was “identified or introduced through a social network.” 26% made a hire through Facebook; 15% made a hire via Twitter. “A HIRE”: OUT OF HOW MANY HIRES? ONLY THROUGH A SOCIAL NETWORK?
    -Yes, only through a social network. They were identified or introduced through a social network. One assumes candidates didn’t actually apply through, say, YouTube, because YouTube is a video hosting service. But the social site was the candidate’s first step in the hiring process. I’m not sure why the amount of hires matters; 73% of employers have used social media to hire someone — isn’t that impressive by itself?
    ACCORDING TO CAREEERXROADS POSTED HERE
    http://www.ere.net/2013/03/22/source-of-hire-report-referrals-career-sites-job-boards-dominate/

    “Social media, a source that CareerXroads just started tracking in 2011, dropped from 3.5% to 2.9%. While social media wasn’t necessarily a strong source of hire in their reports, employers believed that social media helped drive and influence other sources of hire (in fact, 7 out of the 11, according to the report).

    Direct sourcing also dropped significantly from 9.1% to 6.8% in 2012. However, the survey did indicate that more than 58% of employers had internal sourcing teams (and 11% used outside or contract sourcing teams).
    How Social Media Actually Stacks Up

    Source of Hire
    2Social media has continued to grow in its usage, and we are now getting an idea about what networks seem to work best for getting results.

    As you can see in the chart on the left, the most effective social media site that impacts hiring is clearly LinkedIn. By a long margin, LinkedIn job posts and using the LinkedIn Recruiter product seems to have the best results out of any of those. But even LinkedIn’s lesser-used features like groups or company pages still beat the effectiveness of Facebook and Twitter.

    Two other categories that did fairly well were customized landing pages and SEO/SEM campaigns on search engines. While these don’t get talked about as much, you can see that employers rate both very highly in comparison to everything outside of LinkedIn.
    THIS IS HOW I INTERPRET THE INFORMATION:
    SNR (INCLUDING LI, WHICH I HAVE ELSEWHERE DEFINED MORE AS BUSINESS NETWORKING, OR A JOB/RESUME BOARD-VARIANT, IF YOU PREFER) CONTRIBUTE TO A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF OVERALL HIRES AMONG THE RESPONDING COMPANIES. ALSO AS GERRY SAID:
    “But even LinkedIn’s lesser-used features like groups or company pages still beat the effectiveness of Facebook and Twitter.”
    SO, IF YOU TAKE OUT LI, YOU’RE LEFT BASICALLY WITH FB AND TWITTER, WHICH THE RESPONDENTS DON’T THINK WORK VERY WELL IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER TECHNIQUES.

    73% of employers have used social media to hire someone — isn’t that impressive by itself? NOT TO ME- 100% OF HIRING EMPLOYERS HAVE USED SOMETHING TO HIRE PEOPLE, AND THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT WORKS VERY WELL OR HIRES VERY MANY PEOPLE.(SEE ABOVE)

    In the survey, 66% of employers said they use or plan to use Facebook for recruiting — but since that was a year ago, I think we can assume that the number of companies using Facebook is higher today.
    54% of employers use or plan to use Twitter — but again I’m assuming the 2013 number is higher. USE THEM HOW, AND USE THEM “HOW MUCH”? ALSO, THE FACT THAT LOTS OF PEOPLE DO SOMETHING DOESN’T MEAN IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO…..
    -You’re right. It simply means that your competition is doing it.
    EXACTLY, AND THE FACT THAT YOUR COMPETITORS ARE JUMPING ON AN UNPROVEN BANDWAGON MIGHT BE A VERY GOOD REASON NOT TO DO IT, PARTICULARLY IF THE COMPETITORS ARE RICH EOCS (EMPLOYERS OF CHOICE) AND YOU’RE NOT.

    These numbers are “meaningful” to many people. LOTTERY NUMBERS IN FORTUNE COOKIES ARE “MEANINGFUL” TO MANY PEOPLE; DOESN’T MEAN THEY’RE VALID, EITHER.
    As for “unbiased,” UPS has reported that it made a number of hires through not only social media but also QR codes and text messaging in both 2010 and 2011. I wouldn’t call them a “slick huckster” with anything to gain from such an announcement. AGAIN: “A NUMBER OF HIRES”- WHAT NUMBER? MAYBE THOSE METHODS (WHICH WE AREN’T TALKING ABOUT HERE, ANYWAY) ARE INCREDIBLY EFFECTIVE FOR SOME POSITIONS AT UPS. THAT DOESN’T MEAN IT WOULD WORK FOR ALL POSITIONS AT UPS OR EVEN IF IT DID, THAT IT WOULD WORK FOR OTHER COMPANIES, TOO. ALSO, AS FAR AS I KNOW: UPS DOESN’T HAVE LARGE NUMBERS OF CONSULTANTS OUT THERE TRYING TO GET “NERVOUS NELLY” STAFFING FOLKS TO PART WITH LARGE SUMS OF MONEY LEARNING ABOUT, IMPLEMENTING, AND MANAGING IT, AS SNR DOES HAVE.

    What confuses me, Keith, is that you seem to be under the impression that there has been no study of social media recruiting, when Jobvite conducts separate annual studies of both employers and employees on just this topic. Forrester has also looked into the matter. As has CareerXroads, which you say is trustworthy. WE HAVE LINKS TO CAREERXROADS ABOVE.
    HERE’S THE LINK TO THE JOBVITE SURVEY: http://recruiting.jobvite.com/company/press-releases/2012/jobvite-social-recruiting-survey-2012/
    BTW, JOBVITE SAYS ON THIS PAGE THAT IT HAS “SOCIAL RECRUITING SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS,” SO THERE GOES ITS NEUTRALITY…

    HERE’S THE LINK TO A FORRESTER SITE:
    http://talentminded.com/forrester-sees-real-social-recruiting-results-on-twitter-case-study/
    IT SAYS:
    Results
    In 2011, Forrester saw some great results from their Twitter careers account – including three direct hires. And while the actual source of hire and how it happened are often unclear, Sutton provided some insight as to what it means to hire via Twitter:

    Sales hire – saw the job posted on the Forrester Careers Twitter feed
    Analyst hire – saw the position Retweeted by another analyst on Twitter
    Marketing hire – saw the position on both their Twitter and Facebook accounts

    THREE ENTIRE HIRES IN A YEAR! SORRY, BUT THAT DOESN’T SEEM LIKE A GLOWING ENDORSEMENT IF YOU ASK ME…

    You’ve spoken at length about bias. I’m beginning to think I’ve found it.
    INDEED YOU HAVE: I’M BIASED, AS ARE ALL OF US- IT’S *INHERENT.
    I’M PARTICULARLY BIASED AGAINST RECRUITING PEDDLERS WHO TRY AND GET OUR BOSSES TO WASTE MONEY ON DUBIOUS NEW THINGS, INSTEAD OF ASKING US WHAT WE NEED TO MAKE OUR JOBS BETTER AND IMPLEMENTING WHAT WE SAY. WE KNOW A LOT MORE HOW TO DO/IMPROVE OUR JOBS THAN THESE PEDDLERS DO.

    @ Gail:
    IMHO, the biggest problem with SNR is that it’s so slow, passive, and reactive- my managers don’t pay me to look for a bunch of potential candidates who may wish to “develop a relationship” in 3-, 6-, or 12 months, they want me to look for real candidates who want to “hook up” RIGHT NOW!

    Cheers,

    Keith

  • http://www.work4labs.com/ Kirsten Smith

    Great article, Gail! The hiring process is certainly a social activity, so it’s only natural to use social networking platforms to leverage and build relationships to find candidates. In fact, referrals are a much sought-after method of hiring, and Facebook provides the perfect opportunity to draw people to a particular company or job through their social connections. This leads directly to your point about passive candidates, which is well-stated. As finding high-quality talent gets more challenging, it will be critical for recruiters to find ways to continuously engage passive candidates and attract them to their employer brand. I think using social tools can actually increase our interactions with those we wouldn’t normally see in person or speak with on a regular basis, although it should not be a complete substitute. Traditional networking, when combined with a social recruiting solution, provides great opportunities for connecting and building a talent community. Our CEO recently wrote an article for AllFacebook discussing how, if anything, connections made between companies and candidates on Facebook are strengthening the bonds between the users & the network (and, by proxy, users and the companies to whose talent communities they belong!) You can read it here: http://bit.ly/XIS0TM

  • Alexia Saoulli

    Really good article Gail! Gave me food for thought. Enjoyed Jason’s comments also.