Although the program has been underway since October, the meeting later this month is described as an informational session. The invitation that was emailed last week says the intent is to answer questions that have come up.
In an email Q & A, Direct Employers Executive Director Bill Warren says the Jan. 28th meeting will show some of the sites, describe the analytics that are built into the job board platform, and answer questions.
Bill Warren
Warren asked me not to disclose the names of the 29 invitees, but it includes many easily recognizable names of recruitment leaders, as well as several job board CEOs, a few industry writers, and others, including ERE’s CEO David Manaster.
Since industry launches and new product introductions are commonly handled by webinars and previews in advance of launch, I first asked Warren what he’ll be showing and doing at the in-person event.
ERE: What’s the purpose of the meeting? What will you be showing?
Bill Warren: The purpose of the meeting is to answer any and all questions a group of industry experts might have about the .jobs build-out. We are not so vain that we think anyone really cares about what we are doing. However, we have had many phone calls with questions about what we are doing and how we are building out the domains. We will be showing not only how the domains are being built out, but also the analytics platform and how we are integrating with social media. Two long-time, well-respected industry experts suggested that we do this.
ERE: Since your .jobs buildout is well under way and ads have been appearing on the sites for months, why do this now?
Current Boston .jobs job board
Warren: The .jobs build-out is far from being well under way. It was suggested that we invite a group of industry experts to Indianapolis to demonstrate the .jobs platform after we had a working model to show them. We should have a working model with a significant number of domains built out by January 28th. The ads have been on the sites about 30 days. Why do this now? Again, it was suggested that we do it after we had a significant number of domains up and running.
Initial version of Boston .jobs job board.
In a follow-up asking for clarification Warren wrote back, “When I said, ‘The .jobs build-out is far from being well under way’, I meant we had only built-out 200 geo-specific domains thus far. The .jobs platform is still in ‘Beta’ and ads were put on the ‘Beta’ URLs in November for testing purposes.”
ERE: The personal expense to the invitees to attend includes hotel and airfare. What’s the value to them to attend this meeting? Why is it necessary to do this in person?
Warren: Each invitee would of course have to make their own decision as to whether or not their attendance is worthwhile. I’m sure some will not attend because they do not consider it worthwhile and I certainly respect their decision. Because of all the questions we have received, we wanted to offer these individuals the opportunity to see the same presentation, to ask questions, and to hear questions from others. It could have probably been done as a webinar; however, I thought a webinar would be too impersonal for the level of this group.
ERE: What are you expecting in the way of outcomes?
Warren: Nothing more than industry experts having an opportunity to see a demonstration, ask questions, hear questions asked by their peers and, most importantly, get answers to any questions they might have. Again, the meeting is in response to the suggestion of two individuals who have a long-term investment in this industry and for whom I have tremendous respect.
ERE: How will whatever feedback you get affect your rollout and plans?
Warren: We are always interested in being good stewards of the .jobs platform and would carefully consider any and all recommendations we receive. These individuals are experts with a tremendous understanding of, and respect for, our industry. We value their feedback and will try to work with them in any way possible in the future.
ERE: How was the list of invitees decided?
Warren: It was based solely on the recommendations of the two individuals who suggested we have the meeting. If anyone was left off the list that should have been included, I’m sure it was nothing more than an oversight.
