Split (1)

train · 2.59M rows

text stringlengths 10 37.6k
But “Guerrilla Marketing for Job Hunters 2.0” manages both. Subtitled “1,001 Unconventional Tips, Tricks and Tactics for Landing Your Dream Job,” it’s loaded with original ideas for job seekers stuck in a rut. To land a job in this economy, say the authors — marketer Jay Conrad Levinson and recruiter David Perry, along with contributing author Kevin Donlin — you need to jettison all the vague pabulum you’ve been fed and go insurgent. That means being aggressive, nimble and creative.
So, instead of sending a standard-issue resume the old-fashioned way and waiting for the phone to ring, illustrate it, pack it inside a Starbucks coffee cup, send it second-day delivery and a half-hour after you receive the delivery confirmation, call the person and introduce yourself.
That’s the point of guerrilla marketing — separating yourself from the herd.
It’s something Perry has plenty of firsthand experience with, as head of an executive search and recruiting firm based in Ottawa. Dubbed the “rogue recruiter” by the Wall Street Journal, he’s made a splash — and built a highly successful business — with a take-no-prisoners approach to getting his man that’s led him to incorporate such tactics as posing as a waiter at a company Christmas party to get to an executive he was trying to poach.
To learn the finer points of “guerilla” job hunting, @work spoke with him and Donlin about how the best job seekers make employers come to them, why cover letters aren’t gift wrap and how, in the world of business, sometimes no doesn’t really mean no.
What exactly is guerrilla job hunting?
Perry: It’s where you achieve conventional goals by unconventional means. So a guerrilla marketer achieves their goals by doing exactly what employers pay billions every year to send employees away on conferences to learn — to think differently.
Donlin: You zig while everyone else is zagging. Look at what everyone else is doing — then consider doing the opposite. An easy example is e-mail. Everybody e-mails their resume. Everybody complains there are no jobs. Maybe e-mailing your resume to employers shouldn’t be your only means of contact.
How would you describe the typical way people go about getting jobs?
Perry: You’re supposed to start a job search with absolute clarity: who you are, what you want to do, three skills that you want to sell and who you want to sell them to. Most people don’t do that. They put together a resume. They look in the newspaper. They look on the job boards and they just fire on all cylinders. The problem is, when you’re hunting with buckshot, it creates a lot of damage. You’re not actually going to land anything.
Donlin: The biggest mistake is to go for jobs instead of employers. And to look for advertised jobs, instead of having jobs created or offered to you that are unadvertised. Because as anecdotal and other evidence tells us, anywhere from 75 to 80 percent of jobs are not advertised. And the so-called hidden job market has gone even further underground because of the recession. Jobs are just not being advertised, and if you’re chasing after the advertised job market, you’re just like 100 penguins going after 15 fish when there’s another 85 fish right below the waterline. If you just dive down, you’ll find them.
How do you make employers come to you?
Perry: The easiest way to be found is go to ZoomInfo, which is the largest database of professionals in the world, and make sure your profile — who you are, what your title is, where you’re working — is in their database. Because thousands of recruiters and hiring managers go there every day. If I need a blond-haired, blue-eyed lawyer in Massachusetts with a bachelor’s in civil engineering, I can make that request and it’ll tell me who they are.
The second key is to be on LinkedIn. And you have to establish a network. There’s a very easy way to do it, and that’s to set up your profile and then go to toplinked.com and become a “LinkedIn Lion.” Lions are open networkers. Then send invitations to the top 50 LinkedIn lions — and they’ll all accept; it’s automated — and you’ll have instant access to their network. You can go from zero contacts to 14 million inside of 24 hours.
If you’re ambitious, set up a Facebook profile. The first place a lot of recruiters go after we’ve looked on ZoomInfo is Facebook. If you’re not there, you’re invisible. Guerrillas first and foremost set up their profiles so they can be found, because it’s a heck of a lot easier to let the phone ring than to make it ring on the other side.
Is it true you can advertise your services on Facebook?
Perry: For about 25 bucks, you can run an ad campaign targeted at a specific company. For example, you could look for an accounting job inside KMPG in New York. So only people at a managerial level in KPMG in New York would see your ad. And you only pay when people actually click on the ad. It’s literally microtargeting.
To do it, just go to the bottom of your profile and click on advertising.
How can you improve your resume?
Donlin: We’ve found two elements produce drastically better results: graphics/logos and quotes. The graphics and the logos can be logos from a company’s Web site, or pictures of awards you’ve won or products you’ve worked with — a graphic representation of your experience. They can go in the left-hand column. And they work because people would rather look at pictures than read.
What we understand as marketers that most job search experts don’t is that people buy based on emotion and then use logic to justify it afterwards. This is why beer commercials feature the Swedish bikini team. It’s all about getting your attention. It’s the same with resumes. We had a client who was an engineer who’d worked on the Dodge Viper, and at the top of his resume was a candy-apple red Dodge Viper. That got attention, and if you can do that you’re halfway there.
Below those graphics in the left-hand column, we include two or three quotes. These are testimonials, and can come from clients or managers. It’s Marketing 101.
Donlin: The average cover letter reads like an IRS tax form. Actually it’s less exciting. With that in mind, the best advice is to study any good sales letter. What you’re doing is trying to sell an employer on hiring you, and you can’t bore anyone into hiring you.
Two principles: One, turn all the “I,” “me,” “my” into “you,” “you,” “you.” Rewrite any sentence that starts with “I am looking for a position” and recast it as “You will benefit from my 10 years of experience.” If you look at any good sales letter, all the language is “you, you, you.” It’s Sales Copy 101.
Two, you can simply boil your whole resume, your whole candidacy, down to one sentence. Put it in a P.S., because a P.S. always gets read. You can find one in any good sales letter, but in almost no cover letter.
For example, you can say, “P.S. Call me today to learn how I saved $89,433 by changing vendors 30 days ago.” Include a quote or your most provocative statement in your P.S., and your letter will improve dramatically.
You say no doesn’t always mean no from a potential employer. How so?
Perry: For the last 30 years there’s been turnover, attrition every year at about 20 percent a year, and there will be for the next 20 years. What that means is that any company with 100 people is going to turn over 20. The math’s real simple.
So if somebody says “no,” it just means “not today.” It means your timing isn’t right. So how do you get around that? You do your homework and find out what the company’s needs are and what your accomplishments are that can satisfy their needs. If you put that in a cover letter and you put together a one-page guerrilla resume which visually shows the employer what’s in it for them, it won’t generate a “no.” It’ll generate a phone call that says, “Geez, I wish I could hire you, but we don’t have any openings.” Which leads to an interview.
One of the first things we tell clients is, “You’ve probably kept track of all the companies that have rejected you in the last month. Do a guerrilla resume and do a cover letter and send it to those 10 companies.” I’d say at least 50 percent of the time, they’ll get an interview.
Trump Court Pick Brett Kavanaugh Could Have A Big Impact On Mueller Probe Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh opposes limiting the power of the presidency. That opinion could have profound consequences for the special counsel investigation.
President Trump looks on as Judge Brett Kavanaugh speaks after being nominated to the Supreme Court last month.
Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh shares one important view with President Trump: Both are deeply suspicious of any attempt to limit the president's power over executive branch officials.
That view could have important consequences for special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into the Russian interference in the 2016 election, which includes allegations of collusion and possible obstruction of justice.
Among the most important — and in many legal corners, revered — Supreme Court decisions of modern times is the 1974 Nixon tapes case, U.S. v. Nixon. Kavanaugh has at times questioned the correctness of the decision, while at other times praised it.
Is Trump About To Be Able To Say 'You're Fired' To A Lot More People?
The Nixon case arose in 1974 when special prosecutor Leon Jaworski was investigating the Watergate break-in at Democratic headquarters and attempts by the president to cover it up by authorizing hush money to be paid and citing national security as a justification for ordering the FBI stop investigating.
After seven of President Richard Nixon's closest aides were indicted, and Nixon was named an unindicted co-conspirator, the special prosecutor subpoenaed specific tape recordings of Oval Office meetings and phone conversations during which the break-in and cover-up were discussed.
Nixon challenged the subpoena in court. He contended that it unconstitutionally violated the president's confidential conversations and his power to control information in the executive branch.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Nixon, declaring that even a president must comply with a subpoena if there has been a showing that the subpoenaed materials likely contain evidence of a crime.
Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Nixon appointee, announced the opinion for a unanimous court, ordering the president to turn over the tape recordings.
He rejected the notion that because the special prosecutor was a subordinate officer in the executive branch, the courts should stay out of deciding the issue. The special prosecutor is no ordinary subordinate, Burger said, because – much like current prosecutor Mueller — the Watergate prosecutor, by regulation, was given unique authority and tenure concerning his investigation.
Finally, the court concluded that a president's general assertion of confidentiality must yield to the constitutional need for production of relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding.
The case is considered a historic marker of judicial independence and stands for the proposition that no person, not even the president, is above the law.
Kavanaugh seemed to agree with that characterization in a 2016 Catholic University Law Review piece where he listed the Nixon tapes decision, along with others, as "some of the greatest moments in American judicial history" where judges have "have stood up to the other branches and ... enforced the law."
But the transcript of a 1999 bar association roundtable discussion shows Kavanaugh repeatedly suggesting that the Nixon case may have been "wrongly decided — heresy though it is to say so."
He argued that the Supreme Court, by enforcing the subpoena, "took away the power of the president to control information in the executive branch."
And he contended that the president's power as chief law enforcement officer "was diminished dramatically" by the ruling. Finally, he asked whether the decision should be overruled because it involved nothing more than an "intra- branch dispute," not subject to review by the courts. Answering his own question, Kavanaugh said, "Maybe so."
That position was directly rejected by the Supreme Court in the Nixon case.
So what does all this portend for the Mueller investigation?
Although Kavanaugh appeared to praise the Nixon case just two years ago, the 1999 critique is similar to positions he has consistently taken as a judge — deeply skeptical of laws or regulations that limit presidential power to hire, fire and decide matters that Kavanaugh believes are reserved for the president under the Constitution.
Indeed, even though Kavanaugh worked for special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, investigating President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, and even though Starr was appointed under a post-Watergate independent counsel law upheld by the Supreme Court on a 7-1 vote, Kavanaugh has repeatedly said he thinks that decision was flat-out wrong.
When asked in an appearance at the American Enterprise Institute just two years ago whether he could think of a Supreme Court case that deserved to be overturned, Kavanaugh answered, "Yes."
Specifically, he named the case that upheld the independent counsel law. "It's been effectively overruled," he said, in an apparent reference to the fact that Congress did not renew the law. But, he added, "I would put the final nail in."
What about subpoenaing a president — or even firing Mueller?
For Mueller, Kavanaugh's views could be problematic were they to prevail. One remaining unanswered question about a criminal investigation involving a president is whether the chief executive can be subpoenaed to answer questions. Trump's lawyers have suggested a subpoena would be unconstitutional.
So what does Kavanaugh think?
"If you believe the Nixon case was not decided correctly, then you rule against the special counsel," said Georgetown law professor Victoria Nourse. "You rule for the president."
Kavanaugh, of course, has not weighed in publicly on the issue, but Mueller was appointed special counsel in the current investigation under regulations that track the regulations in the Nixon case, regulations that are aimed at protecting Mueller's independence, despite Trump's often-expressed fervent desire to have Mueller fired.
As Kavanaugh has made the rounds on Capitol Hill, meeting with senators, he has tiptoed through the minefield of questions on this topic, reportedly telling senators that, in his view, the Mueller appointment was appropriate.
But that does not address questions about whether the president has the constitutional power to reject a subpoena for his testimony on any grounds other than invoking the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, which is available to everybody. The open question is whether Trump may cite his power as president for refusing to give his testimony for the grand jury.
The other open question is whether the president has the power to fire Mueller, regardless of Justice Department regulations that protect him from firing except "for cause."
Kavanaugh's generally expressed legal views in other contexts would suggest that there is no constitutional bar to such a firing.
An opaque record or a clear one?
Kavanaugh's conflicting comments on all of these issues leave a record that is, perhaps deliberately, blurred.
"The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis. Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation— including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators— are time-consuming and distracting. Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the President's focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President."
That, of course, is a policy recommendation, not a view of current law.
University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck draws a direct line from Kavanaugh's 1999 comments on the Nixon tapes case to his repeated and definitive hostility to the decision upholding the now-expired independent counsel law.
"The line is basically that the president really isn't, and shouldn't, be subject to internal checks from his own branch," Vladeck said, adding that if that view were to prevail, "the Constitution really only provides one mechanism for a sitting president to be held accountable, and that's the mechanism of impeachment."
Philip Lacovara, who argued the Nixon tapes case on behalf of the Justice Department, was the moderator of the 1999 panel in which Kavanaugh expressed doubts about the Supreme Court's decision.
"I didn't think that Brett was being merely tendentious or jocular when he made his comments," he said.
Although the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon unanimously, Lacovara added, "Today, of course, the philosophical composition of the court is quite different, and Brett may find more traction for his approach."
Will Batman v Superman Introduce Villains KGBeast and NKVDemon?
As Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice continues shooting in Chicago, a number of possibly obscure character references have been spotted on the set. Last week, we reported that the name Kahina was taped to one of the trailers, which lead to speculation that this may be who Jena Malone is playing. Over the weekend, Filming Chicago noticed two more character names spotted on the set, Knyazev, a.k.a. KGBeast and Gregor, a.k.a. NKVDemon.
Kahina was a member of The Others in the DC Comics, a group that has ties to Aquaman. KGBeast was featured as a villain in the 'Aquaman and The Others' comic series. It's possible that these characters will be introduced in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice before getting bigger roles in David Ayer's Suicide Squad. NKVDemon was actually a student of KGBeast in the comics, and is described as Russia's deadliest assassin, so if KGBeast is actually a part of the story, it would make sense to include his prodigy, NKVDemon.
Of course, the other possibility is that these names are just meant to throw off the fans seeking every bit of information possible about Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, but we probably won't find out for sure until this big screen action-adventure hits theaters on March 25, 2016.
@ComicBookdotcom@LionJohnston knyazev was the name on another trailer. I saw the sign and retweeted a photo someone else took.
@screenrant another new name today: Gregor/Jim. Gregor....NKVDemon? They are really trolling deep if this is fake.
Mr. Arthur B. Drogue is Chairman of the Board, Lead Director of SPAR Group, Inc. He is a member of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Governance Committee. Mr. Drogue was Senior Vice President of Customer Development for the America's at Unilever during 2009 and 2010. Prior to that, he led Unilever's U.S. Customer Development organization through eight years of outstanding growth and earnings success while merging five separate companies into one of the world's preeminent Consumer Packaged Goods companies with over $45 billion in annual sales. His previous professional experience includes senior management positions at Best Foods, Nabisco, Northeastern Organization [NEO] Inc., and General Mills. Mr. Drogue also has held positions on several corporate and industry boards and has received numerous awards for his achievements. He currently serves on the Board of Ruiz Foods and is an Operating Partner at Raptor Consumer Fund.
It needs to be said. American political journalists are acting like cowards.
So obsessed with commercial success they are failing to do one of the most important roles they play. To uphold democracy and report honestly on the situation at hand. Yet, when it comes to a Trump presidency, they are working overtime to make the man who candidly described sexually assaulting women and who has toyed with the naziesque idea of registering Muslims, as normal and subdued as the new president-elect.
That’s apparent because cable news organizations are expected to bring in $2.5 billion from this election cycle.
Trump’s campaign paid off for these news organizations. In return, reports suggest that these outlets gave Trump nearly $2 billion in free advertising. This is because on average he received 325 minutes of airtime each night, compared to Hillary Clinton’s 121 minutes.
The media was infatuated with what he would do next. They insisted on carrying many of his stump speeches live because they never knew what could happen next and they had to be first.
The media created the environment for a monster like Trump to exist, and now, they are trying to sell the American people on their blunder. They sold the American people on bigotry, sexism, and racism, and now they need to make it seem normal.
The media needs to take a stand and report on the facts. There is no need to try and put lipstick on this pig. Report on what is happening, what is being said, and more importantly, hold Trump and his administration accountable for the hate crimes happening all across the country in his name, hate crimes for which he is silent about. He said “stop it” once on 60 Minutes and journalists are acting like he has done all he can.
When hate-filled speech leads to hate crimes we cannot act surprised and pretend that the speeches played no role. Yet this is what we are seeing every day across the mainstream media.
The American people should not stand for this cowardice and must demand the media do their jobs. There is no normalizing this presidency and any media outlets that tries to should be shamed and then forgotten. American democracy is not about selling ad-space, it’s about reporting. Don’t let these outlets forget it.
Robbie Waterhouse is set to be banished from the bookmaking ring once again and could be fined $1.2 milllion after he was yesterday found guilty on all 16 charges relating to the "extravagant odds" inquiry.
NSW Thoroughbred Racing Board stewards found the controversial bagman guilty of conduct prejudicial to the image of racing, two counts of misleading evidence and on each of 13 counts relating to placing wagers that were not legitimate.
The seven-member TRB reissued Waterhouse with a licence in August last year after he'd spent 17 years without a bookmaker's licence because of his part in the infamous Fine Cotton substitution scandal of 1984. "I think the board will be rightfully disappointed," TRB chief executive Merv Hill said yesterday. "When the board made their decision [to grant him a licence], Mr Waterhouse gave certain undertakings. Should his licence be suspended, disqualified or revoked, he will have to reapply to the board should he wish to be relicensed."
Apart from the penalties mentioned by Hill, Waterhouse can be fined up to $75,000 on each individual charge, which could amount to $1.2 million.
"Naturally I'm very disappointed with the decision, and naturally it is inappropriate to say anything at this stage," Waterhouse said yesterday.
The inquiry will resume on Friday after stewards acceded to a request from Waterhouse for an adjournment so he could prepare an address on penalty.
Waterhouse might well have provided ammunition for stewards in the inquiry, which began at Canterbury on February6 when the bookmaker provided punter Peter McCoy with odds of 500-1 about horses that started less than 3-1.
In finding Waterhouse guilty yesterday, TRB chief steward Ray Murrihy read from a five-page document that gave a brief reason for the findings.
Stewards found the "favourable treatment afforded Mr McCoy and the suspicion and criticism engendered by it can and does constitute conduct prejudicial to the image of racing".
"We further find that the adverse effect on the image of racing was exacerbated by the fact that Mr McCoy and Mr Waterhouse had both been previously warned off due to the notorious 'Fine Cotton' affair and the knowledge of the members of the industry and the general public of that fact."
Murrihy said support for that could be found in a submission made by Waterhouse's counsel, Paul Brereton, SC, which was delivered on April4.
Murrihy read from Brereton's lengthy submission into what constitutes an illegitimate bet and it stated: "If it had been done in the context where others trying to bet on the same race on which he was obliged to field couldn't have got those odds, one can see a completely different picture."

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.