Jan
16
2008
Top 10 Social Networking Sites
(Source: Nielsen Online, ranked by Unique Audience, December 2007. U.S., Home and Work)
- MySpace (2007) 60,104,000 (2006) 55,256,000
- Facebook (2007) 22,574,000 (2006) 13,110,000
- Classmates Online (2007) 10,748,000 (2006) 11,406,000
- Windows Live Spaces (2007) 8,856,000 (2006) 8,703,000
- AOL Hometown (2007) 6,853,000 (2006) 9,032,000
- Club Penguin (2007) 6,358,000 (2006) 2,688,000
- LinkedIn (2007) 4,804,000 (2006) 2,072,000
- Reunion.com (2007) 4,090,000 (2006) 4,327,000
- AOL Community (2007) 4,069,000 (2006) 5,213,000
- Flixster (2007) 3,097,000 (2006) 744,000
Jan
12
2008
Check this list out – 90+ IM tools, ranging from the most popular to international to multi-network to web-based. I’ll bet there’s some way of doing some sourcing with many of those web-based platforms, and I know there are ways to track down contact info using Skype! 
If you need to select an instant messenger, look no further!
Jan
10
2008
Interesting question posed by Maureen, asking people about what blogs they follow. The first response surprised me:
“None. Nowadays, when information is abundant and easily accessible and filterable, blogs are not necessary other than for fun / venting / community etc. Relevant and high-quality information and knowledge can be rarely (without generalizations) found in blogs.”
My initial reaction is twofold: #1, this person has no clue, and #2, perhaps they are friends with the Recruiting Animal who also says that blogs have added no value to business in general.
But you know, the value is in the eye of the beholder. Some people value blogs from an educational standpoint – there are many out there that have good bits of information that are industry specific; for example many people referenced Seth Godin, whose blog I absolutely love. Others just see them as a waste of time.
What it ultimately boils down to is just that one person’s trash is another person’s treasure.
Jan
08
2008
I was CC’ed on this note today from a colleague (names have been changed to protect the innocent, except for the offender):
“…a couple months back…we had a recruiter who called [ABC's Boston office], posing as someone from [US Publication] who wanted information about the Healthcare team staff in our office (supposedly a request from [Jane Doe]). On Friday, [Janet Doe] got a similar call from a gentleman called Tim Stanton, who said that he was from [biiiig company]. Tim said that he was planning on doing an audit for ABC’s Healthcare team. He dropped Jane’s name saying that he “knew Jane was head of the practice but needed to know the names of people in the Boston office.” Janet didn’t tell him anything but did agree to take his name and number and pass it along to the powers that be in the office. I tried calling Tim back but the number that he gave Janet – 212-619-1421 – rings and rings. No one picks up and there’s no VM. I believe that he’s fishing for our folks. Just thought you should be aware….”
I shook my head as I read through the message. Since my colleague knows I do research (and I suspect this is why I was copied in the first place!), I offered to dig around for some info since I know some people at the biiiig company. I contacted a colleague there and was informed that there was no such recruiter, or any employee for that matter, with the biiiig company by the name of Tim Stanton. I sniffed around and came up with 2 potential culprits for my colleague who was most grateful.
This to me is a sneaky, dishonest, and unethical way of getting the names of people within an organization. Before you puff up and disagree with me, let me give you the reasons I believe this:
- In checking with the biiiig company, no one works there by the name of Tim Stanton. I can verify my source at biiiig company as a valid source, so Mr. Stanton was clearly either misrepresenting the biiiig company by claiming to be an employee, or misrepresenting his own identity by changing his name so as not to be found.
- In having my colleague verify with their company, biiiig company does not even have an auditing relationship with their company, so there was no reason for anyone to be calling from biiiig company to gather any information for an audit.
- The number Tim provided as a return number was never answered and had no answering service for it. Now, I know that LOTS of recruiters use blocked, masked, or untraceable numbers, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, but coupled with the other factors, it raises a red flag as to the intentions of Mr. Stanton.
Come on guys, if you can’t be honest about what you do and what your intentions are when reaching out to people, then perhaps you should question what you do for a living. Lying to ‘do your job right’ seems a bit contradictory to me. It’s stuff like this that gives recruiting a bad rep.
Please feel free to share your thoughts! If I’m off base, I’ll be the first to admit it