Reginald Noble
Banned
Long post ahead, but this is Higher Learning so it should be!
I've been on a couple of phone interviews and one in-person interview recently. This is for the Ad tech/analytics/digital marketing space which involves but not limited to the following channels: SEM, SEO, Social, Display, E-mail, Affiliate, etc. We work pretty closely with back-end web engineers, application developers etc so I have insight into those roles as well and the demand for it. So I wanted to give my two cents on the current labor market in general but mostly referencing this field and the "gap" today that many employers complain about and what really is amidst here in business/tech. Cliff Notes: I think a huge part of the problem in our economy is employers don't want to invest in their employees anymore. Not even a little bit.
Right now I have a lot of recruiters contacting me. The past 3 months it's been rapid fire non-stop. A lot of positions are available in my field but the quality and fit vary obviously from a resounding HELL NO to "Hmmm Maybe". However, the best quality leads are jobs I've applied to myself using LinkedIN premium. I am currently working for a big firm with a major Fortune 500 client. But I am looking to go to more of a medium size growing company backed by a solid group of investors with a good business premise etc. (I am a big fan of shark tank so I've become somewhat knowledgeable in evaluating smaller firms particular in the tech space) Basically any company started in the last 4-7 years with 50-100 employees in the NYC area is my target.
I think this whole trend (now a buzzword) "Self-starter" is a bit overplayed. The reality is work in a small company yes you need to be proactive but I feel like our culture is over-generalizing workers and assuming just because you work in a big company you don't have to be a self-starter. A lot of my job is project management. My follow-up skills are impeccable and I'd say 99% of the time projects would stall or not move if it wasn't for my communication skills. My job is about 60% technical and 40% intangibles. So it's a decent mix. Some jobs I'm applying to have more of a requirement on communication skills others require more technical aptitude. Some are willing to sacrifice technical aptitude for a better communicator etc. At least ON PAPER.
But come the phone interview, many are looking unrealistically for someone exceptionally skilled in both. Keep in mind this is for mid-senior level roles for experienced professionals with 4-5 years experience. Based on my colleagues who I've worked with to date, none of what they are asking for is available on the market. Basically they want someone with director level wisdom and savviness but want to pay someone at the 5 year level for 10 year quality experience.
Another issue with this disconnect - Is the amount of companies worked at. Basically of all the professionals I know in my space who have only worked at one company for 4 years are behind in every aspect: They are not up to date with the latest analytical tools, industry insights vendors, workflow and campaign management providers and are not well versed in multiple industries which is critical for a marketer long term from a career growth perspective. This industry changes pretty quickly. In the span of 6 months one tool can be defunct and another can pop up in it's place fairly quickly and learning that tool can be vital to providing success to your campaign. Some companies are sticklers in that they want someone with small company experience but knows about the tools used in big companies with big budgets to be able to afford the monthly maintenance cost for the tool.(
) In the beginning of your career you should jump around to gain as much experience (and income) as possible. Compared to my peers who stayed at the same company servicing the same types of clients I have about 10x the knowledge on industry tools, best practices for both strategy and execution. And most importantly I am very well versed in the technical aspects involved with analytics tracking which is vital for tracking paid marketing campaigns success. You can't get exposure to this at every firm, agency or company due to politics and bureaucracy. Yet a (lessening) number of employers won't even consider your resume if you've worked more than 2 jobs in the past 4 years. This runs contrary to the belief that they want a self-starter, because often people who stay in the same job for 4 years tend to be very complacent and reactive, particularly in this space. It is understandable that in the Finance field (I have a lot of friends work in this industry) standards run contrary to this.
There are a lot of jobs open in my field and a huge demand. Companies are desperate for workers but at the same time can be very nitpicky. If I got laid off or fired tomorrow I could probably have another job lined up almost immediately. It may not be the one I want, but my bills can be paid. Yet the person they replace me with will probably be about 1/2 as experienced or talented. So it's very hard to get fired in this industry unless you are a supervisor level or above doing absolutely nothing. But there are incompetent people who can skate by at the wrong firms. And those are the ones I usually avoid as word travels quickly which ones those are (you can also look at glassdoor.com for that)
There have been a few cases where I fit the job description to a T on paper but because I didn't have one of the "Nice to haves" I was passed over despite initial excitement in contacting me. Now maybe someone will come up with an excuse like "someone is talking bad about you" etc. Nope. I have been asked back by 2 of my 3 former employers (one was a smaller firm and went defunct) REPEATEDLY. So it's seems to be a case of you don't know what you have until it's gone. The salary and responsibility at the old places wouldn't be sufficient for me so I haven't entertained the thought of going back. I got into my current place partially on the recommendation of my former supervisor (who works there now with me but on another team) but basically I aced the skills test which is a conversation about what-if scenarios. I've been repeatedly told by recruiters (factoring in they are just trying to sell-in their position and pump up my head) that my name came "highly referred" and I am a "credible" name in the industry.
So if this is the case - Why am I encountering firms that seem good on paper as well as in-person/over the phone but disqualify me based on arbitrary criteria? Well my theory is the following based on my research/deeper digging, hope this can help other career movers/job seekers:
First let's get by some typical reasons you might think of:
1) It's not because I'm Black. On LinkedIN they can see your profile pic. I don't want companies contacting me that haven't viewed my profile and saw I am Black.
2) I haven't been "black balled"/no one has talked bad about me. Again I've been asked back by former employers and remain in touch with numerous former colleagues (who've experienced similar dynamics in the marketplace)
3) These are not fly by night scams or bad companies. I've done my research.
4) I'm not over/underqualified and my salary expectations are right on the mark for average. Have already screened for that.
5) Any other simple reason you can think of, it probably doesn't apply here.
My theories are:
1) Companies today don't know what they want/need: A lot of companies in the interview are surprisingly not that digitally savvy. They know enough to be dangerous but still have a simplistic and a bit archaic (probably about 4-5 years behind) way of thinking of analytics, KPIs and campaign success metrics. Therefore they can't appreciate a professional who is ahead of the curve and sees where the industry is really going. I can relate to developers who see one language or standard becoming defunct and want to be a proponent of a new standard, language or procedure but can't due to politics or bureaucracy and old ways of thinking. Surprisingly these are small nimble firms that can still think this way because they are comprised of former execs at bigger ones with the expertise to manage a venture. I think because of this they are browsing the market and refining job applications based on real candidate interviews and feedback (essentially using you as a guinea pig - potentially wasting your time) because they have no idea what is current and really needed by the firm. Not knowing what you need is a big weakness and I can't work for a firm that doesn't inherently know what value I am bringing to them. This is because in this day and age what I do on the daily basis generates immense profits for the firm. I don't want to work for a firm not smart enough to understand this from the jump. Some places may just be fishing for details to refine their search and determine if they ultimately need someone for the role or not. Don't put too much time and energy into these places when you find out such is the case.
2) As mentioned in Point #1 but something I want to expound on is a lot of start-ups or mid-sized firms growing are comprised of departures from bigger firms. Nothing wrong with this inherently but it depends on what lot you get. Sometimes you get a good lot, sometimes you draw the short stick. The consequence here is that you get whatever preference or bias of these execs and they need to align with yours. Some of them may not have as a diverse background as younger professionals and be more close minded. Generally these are Gen Xers you're dealing with so a common theme of an issue they bring up in an interview can be the question of "Are you comfortable with change". I think a big part of the problem is a lot of Gen X professionals have a severe lack of ability to train and nurture talent. They are wary of hiring millennials that require even a little bit of guidance. The reality here is that Boomers are too structured but they are better at training people than Gen Xers. Gen Xers are better at spotting talent in millennials but they don't understand how to nurture that talent. There is a line between being hands off and being a non-existent manager from a mentoring perspective. Personally I don't need weekly check-ins and can function just fine without it. But it depends on the role. For someone in a role where it will be a bit of a step up there is a ramp up period. Even some lateral moves require a ramp up period if the organization structure is different. Some things just take time to get used to. The era of shadowing (along with apprenticeships) seems to be entirely gone, which is fine but something has to take it's place. Otherwise how can young professionals learn how to problem solve and grow? They can't. My current report at my current role hasn't been trained well. His previous managers were Gen Xers and did a terrible job of training. I am an older Millennial that had to learn the hard way so now it will be up to my generation to teach the younger millennials because the Gen Xers didn't want to do it. I think I recall reading somewhere that Gen Xers are good problem solvers but aren't good at providing feedback to subordinates. Sounds about right in my experience.
Hopefully you found some useful information or insight here, this may be old news to some members longer in the tooth though. Let me know if I missed anything here or if you found this helpful. Would be cool to understand what everyone else is seeing especially from Finance and IT guys since those are the other two in-demand high paying fields.
I've been on a couple of phone interviews and one in-person interview recently. This is for the Ad tech/analytics/digital marketing space which involves but not limited to the following channels: SEM, SEO, Social, Display, E-mail, Affiliate, etc. We work pretty closely with back-end web engineers, application developers etc so I have insight into those roles as well and the demand for it. So I wanted to give my two cents on the current labor market in general but mostly referencing this field and the "gap" today that many employers complain about and what really is amidst here in business/tech. Cliff Notes: I think a huge part of the problem in our economy is employers don't want to invest in their employees anymore. Not even a little bit.
Right now I have a lot of recruiters contacting me. The past 3 months it's been rapid fire non-stop. A lot of positions are available in my field but the quality and fit vary obviously from a resounding HELL NO to "Hmmm Maybe". However, the best quality leads are jobs I've applied to myself using LinkedIN premium. I am currently working for a big firm with a major Fortune 500 client. But I am looking to go to more of a medium size growing company backed by a solid group of investors with a good business premise etc. (I am a big fan of shark tank so I've become somewhat knowledgeable in evaluating smaller firms particular in the tech space) Basically any company started in the last 4-7 years with 50-100 employees in the NYC area is my target.
I think this whole trend (now a buzzword) "Self-starter" is a bit overplayed. The reality is work in a small company yes you need to be proactive but I feel like our culture is over-generalizing workers and assuming just because you work in a big company you don't have to be a self-starter. A lot of my job is project management. My follow-up skills are impeccable and I'd say 99% of the time projects would stall or not move if it wasn't for my communication skills. My job is about 60% technical and 40% intangibles. So it's a decent mix. Some jobs I'm applying to have more of a requirement on communication skills others require more technical aptitude. Some are willing to sacrifice technical aptitude for a better communicator etc. At least ON PAPER.
But come the phone interview, many are looking unrealistically for someone exceptionally skilled in both. Keep in mind this is for mid-senior level roles for experienced professionals with 4-5 years experience. Based on my colleagues who I've worked with to date, none of what they are asking for is available on the market. Basically they want someone with director level wisdom and savviness but want to pay someone at the 5 year level for 10 year quality experience.
Another issue with this disconnect - Is the amount of companies worked at. Basically of all the professionals I know in my space who have only worked at one company for 4 years are behind in every aspect: They are not up to date with the latest analytical tools, industry insights vendors, workflow and campaign management providers and are not well versed in multiple industries which is critical for a marketer long term from a career growth perspective. This industry changes pretty quickly. In the span of 6 months one tool can be defunct and another can pop up in it's place fairly quickly and learning that tool can be vital to providing success to your campaign. Some companies are sticklers in that they want someone with small company experience but knows about the tools used in big companies with big budgets to be able to afford the monthly maintenance cost for the tool.(
) In the beginning of your career you should jump around to gain as much experience (and income) as possible. Compared to my peers who stayed at the same company servicing the same types of clients I have about 10x the knowledge on industry tools, best practices for both strategy and execution. And most importantly I am very well versed in the technical aspects involved with analytics tracking which is vital for tracking paid marketing campaigns success. You can't get exposure to this at every firm, agency or company due to politics and bureaucracy. Yet a (lessening) number of employers won't even consider your resume if you've worked more than 2 jobs in the past 4 years. This runs contrary to the belief that they want a self-starter, because often people who stay in the same job for 4 years tend to be very complacent and reactive, particularly in this space. It is understandable that in the Finance field (I have a lot of friends work in this industry) standards run contrary to this.There are a lot of jobs open in my field and a huge demand. Companies are desperate for workers but at the same time can be very nitpicky. If I got laid off or fired tomorrow I could probably have another job lined up almost immediately. It may not be the one I want, but my bills can be paid. Yet the person they replace me with will probably be about 1/2 as experienced or talented. So it's very hard to get fired in this industry unless you are a supervisor level or above doing absolutely nothing. But there are incompetent people who can skate by at the wrong firms. And those are the ones I usually avoid as word travels quickly which ones those are (you can also look at glassdoor.com for that)
There have been a few cases where I fit the job description to a T on paper but because I didn't have one of the "Nice to haves" I was passed over despite initial excitement in contacting me. Now maybe someone will come up with an excuse like "someone is talking bad about you" etc. Nope. I have been asked back by 2 of my 3 former employers (one was a smaller firm and went defunct) REPEATEDLY. So it's seems to be a case of you don't know what you have until it's gone. The salary and responsibility at the old places wouldn't be sufficient for me so I haven't entertained the thought of going back. I got into my current place partially on the recommendation of my former supervisor (who works there now with me but on another team) but basically I aced the skills test which is a conversation about what-if scenarios. I've been repeatedly told by recruiters (factoring in they are just trying to sell-in their position and pump up my head) that my name came "highly referred" and I am a "credible" name in the industry.
So if this is the case - Why am I encountering firms that seem good on paper as well as in-person/over the phone but disqualify me based on arbitrary criteria? Well my theory is the following based on my research/deeper digging, hope this can help other career movers/job seekers:
First let's get by some typical reasons you might think of:
1) It's not because I'm Black. On LinkedIN they can see your profile pic. I don't want companies contacting me that haven't viewed my profile and saw I am Black.
2) I haven't been "black balled"/no one has talked bad about me. Again I've been asked back by former employers and remain in touch with numerous former colleagues (who've experienced similar dynamics in the marketplace)
3) These are not fly by night scams or bad companies. I've done my research.
4) I'm not over/underqualified and my salary expectations are right on the mark for average. Have already screened for that.
5) Any other simple reason you can think of, it probably doesn't apply here.
My theories are:
1) Companies today don't know what they want/need: A lot of companies in the interview are surprisingly not that digitally savvy. They know enough to be dangerous but still have a simplistic and a bit archaic (probably about 4-5 years behind) way of thinking of analytics, KPIs and campaign success metrics. Therefore they can't appreciate a professional who is ahead of the curve and sees where the industry is really going. I can relate to developers who see one language or standard becoming defunct and want to be a proponent of a new standard, language or procedure but can't due to politics or bureaucracy and old ways of thinking. Surprisingly these are small nimble firms that can still think this way because they are comprised of former execs at bigger ones with the expertise to manage a venture. I think because of this they are browsing the market and refining job applications based on real candidate interviews and feedback (essentially using you as a guinea pig - potentially wasting your time) because they have no idea what is current and really needed by the firm. Not knowing what you need is a big weakness and I can't work for a firm that doesn't inherently know what value I am bringing to them. This is because in this day and age what I do on the daily basis generates immense profits for the firm. I don't want to work for a firm not smart enough to understand this from the jump. Some places may just be fishing for details to refine their search and determine if they ultimately need someone for the role or not. Don't put too much time and energy into these places when you find out such is the case.
2) As mentioned in Point #1 but something I want to expound on is a lot of start-ups or mid-sized firms growing are comprised of departures from bigger firms. Nothing wrong with this inherently but it depends on what lot you get. Sometimes you get a good lot, sometimes you draw the short stick. The consequence here is that you get whatever preference or bias of these execs and they need to align with yours. Some of them may not have as a diverse background as younger professionals and be more close minded. Generally these are Gen Xers you're dealing with so a common theme of an issue they bring up in an interview can be the question of "Are you comfortable with change". I think a big part of the problem is a lot of Gen X professionals have a severe lack of ability to train and nurture talent. They are wary of hiring millennials that require even a little bit of guidance. The reality here is that Boomers are too structured but they are better at training people than Gen Xers. Gen Xers are better at spotting talent in millennials but they don't understand how to nurture that talent. There is a line between being hands off and being a non-existent manager from a mentoring perspective. Personally I don't need weekly check-ins and can function just fine without it. But it depends on the role. For someone in a role where it will be a bit of a step up there is a ramp up period. Even some lateral moves require a ramp up period if the organization structure is different. Some things just take time to get used to. The era of shadowing (along with apprenticeships) seems to be entirely gone, which is fine but something has to take it's place. Otherwise how can young professionals learn how to problem solve and grow? They can't. My current report at my current role hasn't been trained well. His previous managers were Gen Xers and did a terrible job of training. I am an older Millennial that had to learn the hard way so now it will be up to my generation to teach the younger millennials because the Gen Xers didn't want to do it. I think I recall reading somewhere that Gen Xers are good problem solvers but aren't good at providing feedback to subordinates. Sounds about right in my experience.
Hopefully you found some useful information or insight here, this may be old news to some members longer in the tooth though. Let me know if I missed anything here or if you found this helpful. Would be cool to understand what everyone else is seeing especially from Finance and IT guys since those are the other two in-demand high paying fields.
Last edited by a moderator: