Bored at work? Addicted to computer games? Fed up of jumping guiltily every time your boss walks into the room and having to hastily shut down your game window so you don't get caught out? Me too. If Big Fish Games had never been invented, I would be much more productive. I hear there are some people who truly love their work and would never find it tedious, but suspect these are a) dull as dishwater, b) exceptionally overpaid or c) lying. Or all three. Although I would have thought that b) precludes a), but what do I know about the world of work? Not too much, as it happens, although I try to get at least some of it done in between hidden object games, Prison Break marathons and street dance (yes, really ... although an accurate description would involve adding the word "pitiful" somewhere, as opposed to dance). Anyway, all is not lost, fellow lazies - for some marvellous chaps at CantYouSeeImBusy.com have solved our problem with a cunning plan. They have created games, inspired by old style arcade games that many of us grew up with such as Breakout and Tetris. Fine, I hear you say - but what's so interesting about that? Well, you may like this, workshy ones - all the games are disguised as Excel and Word documents so your boss will never find out! These games follow the general gist of the classics they copy, just played against what look like genuine office applications. Tidy. In Leadership, you have to direct a spaceship between two lines of a graph and Breakdown (based on the wonderful Atari Breakout) sees the player having to hit lines of text to make them disappear, rather than the original bricks. According to the Dutch developers' website, "all the games at CantYouSeeImBusy.com are designed in a way that nobody can see that you’re gaming. In fact, your boss and colleagues will think that you’re working harder than ever before." Hmmm. I can see two major flaws there. Firstly, that the games sound less than inspiring, and secondly, most bosses would be suspicious if a previously lackadaisical employee suddenly stopped surfing OnlineGames.net and started gazing intently at pie charts. Especially when their job role doesn't even involve pie charts. And the conscientious part of me feels that it's a bit, well, irresponsible to encourage people to play computer games when they are being paid to work, even if it is all intended as a bit of fun and they would do it anyway. Maybe I am just an old stick in the mud. Well, we can't all be perfect.
In defiance of being made to feel like a naughty schoolgirl, I prefer to opt for the good old-fashioned work avoidance techniques - day dreaming, copious note taking/ internet research (hey, why do you think I like to blog?!), toilet trips, cigarette breaks, offering to do the coffee run etc - personally. And if that doesn't work, then never fear. Just swap desks so you face your boss, look engrossed, quizzical, thoughtful and serious at appropriate/ equal intervals, and keep your Big Fish pop-up window open. After all, if it's good enough for me...
For the hidden games, see www.CantYouSeeImBusy.com
For hidden object games, see www.bigfishgames.com
Saturday, 20 March 2010
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
Can you Recogniz(r) the danger?
Last month, Swedish android developers The Amazing Tribe (or TAT, to those in the know), displayed a controversial new mobile application at the Mobile World Congress. If you haven't heard all about Recognizr by now, then you must either be over 70 or have been taking part in David Mitchell's "interesting" BBC2 show The Bubble. Long story short, Recognizr - not a typo - is an "augmented reality application" (TAT), which you chuck on your mobile phone. Just use the camera to take a picture of anyone you see who looks familiar/ interesting/ attractive etc, and lo and behold, Recognizr allows you to find them on Facebook or Twitter and read all about them. TAT claim that this application will improve the social networking experience of those people to whom social networking is an essential part of their life (saddos, teenagers, and stalkers spring to mind). Talking of the latter, The Sun was quick to publish an article branding the Recognizr application as a "stalker's dream", in their typical tabloid scaremongering style. Their trademark layout saw an article emblazoned with heavily bolded words to ram home the point that BURGLARS, BLACKMAILERS and PERVERTS would take no time at all to turn the application to heinous use. Well, I say. According to The Sun's talent-free Richard Moriarty, security "experts" say that burglars will be able to take pictures of people on a night out and then find out their addresses in order to rob them, anyone "fooling around" on a night out would be vulnerable to blackmail (what "fooling about" entails is anyone's guess, but based on the average standard of The Sun's readership, probably sleeping with your fiancee's sister, in which case you deserve to be blackmailed) and women would be stalked by perverts. Nothing new there then.
The Astonishing Tribe are quick to point out that any fears for safety are completely unfounded. They say that the application can only be fully utilised if both parties have signed up for it, that privacy levels (similar to those on Facebook) can be set up, and that this will avoid security violations. It sounds like Recognizr is intended to be used like Facebook - to allow friends to keep in touch and share photographs and updates. If what TAT say is true, then yes, any pervert can take my pic in a crowded bar, but unless I have activated my usage of Recognizr, then their scary and filthy attempts to hunt me down will be fruitless. And let's face it, any would-be stalker or rapist is perfectly capable of taking a secret snap and then following me home the good old-fashioned way.
More to the point, why is this application so threatening to people? I'll tell you for why - because they have openly posted personal details such as addresses, emails, contact numbers and photographs of themselves on the internet. Facebook, as far as I'm aware, works by allowing people to choose privacy settings, and in this way only accepted contacts can view any personal information. Anyone can take a picture of anyone else in the street and try to track them down via Recognizr, but surely would only be successful if the photographee a) also used the application, b) had their picture on Facebook and c) also listed their name and address on their Facebook page. If someone you don't know takes a shine to your Facebook photo (which is always much better than the reality anyway) and asks to be your "friend", then you can always say no if you think they might be a dodgy pervert/ stalker/ burglar. It is your responsibility to keep yourself safe on social networks, after all.
But, adding fuel to the Facebook fire comes the reports about the sentencing yesterday of Peter Chapman, who posed as a teenager on the site in order to kidnap, rape and murder his 17 year old victim. A convicted sex offender, he used Facebook as a means to meet young girls, and managed to befriend, groom and lure Ashleigh Hall to her death. The Merseyside Police have been heavily criticised for losing touch of Chapman for almost 9 months before deciding to issue a nationwide search for him prior to Ashleigh's murder, but the real issue being debated in the case is the safety of Facebook for children and teenagers. Although releasing a statement warning people not to meet up with online contacts as they may have nefarious intentions, they have been lambasted by the police for their refusal to sign up to a "panic button" scheme designed to protect children from paedophiles. Bebo and MSN have adopted the Ceop (Child Exploitation and Online Protection Unit) scheme, which is used to build intelligence reports of likely suspects which become part of police investigations. Any young person who is worried that they are being contacted or groomed by a paedophile can press this button and report the activity directly to Ceop. Last year 267 reports of suspicious activity on Facebook were made, and 43% of these were in regards to suspected grooming. Worryingly, though, 81% of those worried were forced to access other sites in order to contact Ceops, because they had no way to do so via Facebook. 334 arrests were made last year following these reports. It is frightening to think of children or young people being targetted by paedophiles on social networking sites, and especially for those parents whose children, like Ashleigh, are old enough to go out on their own. I can't help thinking, though, just how useful the panic button alone would be. Sure, if you have a child savvy enough to spot a possible danger, or you yourself are suspicious, then yes - it would be effective. But if, say, you have a teenage daughter who meets someone she believes to be a young man, and they exchange joking and flirting emails, and photographs and then he asks to meet - how do you monitor this? She has had no reason to suspect anything, and no report will have been generated. She probably won't even tell her parents that she is off to meet some lad off the internet - after all, they will just go mad and tell her he is an old pervert, and she knows he is her soulmate - so she says she's going to her mate's house. It's sad but true that, as long as there are paedophiles and sexual predators out there, they will use any method they can to access and abuse their victims. The internet is just one way and, unfortunately, makes their job a bit easier.
So, whether you are scared rigid by The Sun's completely unbiased report on the Recognizr app or love the idea, can't imagine life without Facebook, or worry endlessly about who your kids are chatting to on all these new fangled social networking sites, you don't need to be a victim. Personally, I don't use Facebook. I used to, but now I don't, and never will. I just don't like it. For that reason I am not worried at all about this Recognizr thingymijob, or getting myself an online stalker. I don't allow my 12 year old to Facebook - if he wants to chat with his mates, there's a phone for that. Or - and this is a novel idea in our modern world - he can invite them over for tea. It makes me feel secure, and it's one less thing to worry about. For people who do like Facebook (my partner, bless him, is one of these) and see it as a valuable way to keep up with friends and family, then just watch your backs and all will be fine.
Or you could always start a Facebook campaign to ban Facebook, I suppose. Power to the people, not the perverts.
The Astonishing Tribe are quick to point out that any fears for safety are completely unfounded. They say that the application can only be fully utilised if both parties have signed up for it, that privacy levels (similar to those on Facebook) can be set up, and that this will avoid security violations. It sounds like Recognizr is intended to be used like Facebook - to allow friends to keep in touch and share photographs and updates. If what TAT say is true, then yes, any pervert can take my pic in a crowded bar, but unless I have activated my usage of Recognizr, then their scary and filthy attempts to hunt me down will be fruitless. And let's face it, any would-be stalker or rapist is perfectly capable of taking a secret snap and then following me home the good old-fashioned way.
More to the point, why is this application so threatening to people? I'll tell you for why - because they have openly posted personal details such as addresses, emails, contact numbers and photographs of themselves on the internet. Facebook, as far as I'm aware, works by allowing people to choose privacy settings, and in this way only accepted contacts can view any personal information. Anyone can take a picture of anyone else in the street and try to track them down via Recognizr, but surely would only be successful if the photographee a) also used the application, b) had their picture on Facebook and c) also listed their name and address on their Facebook page. If someone you don't know takes a shine to your Facebook photo (which is always much better than the reality anyway) and asks to be your "friend", then you can always say no if you think they might be a dodgy pervert/ stalker/ burglar. It is your responsibility to keep yourself safe on social networks, after all.
But, adding fuel to the Facebook fire comes the reports about the sentencing yesterday of Peter Chapman, who posed as a teenager on the site in order to kidnap, rape and murder his 17 year old victim. A convicted sex offender, he used Facebook as a means to meet young girls, and managed to befriend, groom and lure Ashleigh Hall to her death. The Merseyside Police have been heavily criticised for losing touch of Chapman for almost 9 months before deciding to issue a nationwide search for him prior to Ashleigh's murder, but the real issue being debated in the case is the safety of Facebook for children and teenagers. Although releasing a statement warning people not to meet up with online contacts as they may have nefarious intentions, they have been lambasted by the police for their refusal to sign up to a "panic button" scheme designed to protect children from paedophiles. Bebo and MSN have adopted the Ceop (Child Exploitation and Online Protection Unit) scheme, which is used to build intelligence reports of likely suspects which become part of police investigations. Any young person who is worried that they are being contacted or groomed by a paedophile can press this button and report the activity directly to Ceop. Last year 267 reports of suspicious activity on Facebook were made, and 43% of these were in regards to suspected grooming. Worryingly, though, 81% of those worried were forced to access other sites in order to contact Ceops, because they had no way to do so via Facebook. 334 arrests were made last year following these reports. It is frightening to think of children or young people being targetted by paedophiles on social networking sites, and especially for those parents whose children, like Ashleigh, are old enough to go out on their own. I can't help thinking, though, just how useful the panic button alone would be. Sure, if you have a child savvy enough to spot a possible danger, or you yourself are suspicious, then yes - it would be effective. But if, say, you have a teenage daughter who meets someone she believes to be a young man, and they exchange joking and flirting emails, and photographs and then he asks to meet - how do you monitor this? She has had no reason to suspect anything, and no report will have been generated. She probably won't even tell her parents that she is off to meet some lad off the internet - after all, they will just go mad and tell her he is an old pervert, and she knows he is her soulmate - so she says she's going to her mate's house. It's sad but true that, as long as there are paedophiles and sexual predators out there, they will use any method they can to access and abuse their victims. The internet is just one way and, unfortunately, makes their job a bit easier.
So, whether you are scared rigid by The Sun's completely unbiased report on the Recognizr app or love the idea, can't imagine life without Facebook, or worry endlessly about who your kids are chatting to on all these new fangled social networking sites, you don't need to be a victim. Personally, I don't use Facebook. I used to, but now I don't, and never will. I just don't like it. For that reason I am not worried at all about this Recognizr thingymijob, or getting myself an online stalker. I don't allow my 12 year old to Facebook - if he wants to chat with his mates, there's a phone for that. Or - and this is a novel idea in our modern world - he can invite them over for tea. It makes me feel secure, and it's one less thing to worry about. For people who do like Facebook (my partner, bless him, is one of these) and see it as a valuable way to keep up with friends and family, then just watch your backs and all will be fine.
Or you could always start a Facebook campaign to ban Facebook, I suppose. Power to the people, not the perverts.
Friday, 26 February 2010
Walk like a man, talk like a man... smoke and drink like a man?
Cigars. What does the word bring to mind? Gentlemen's clubs, leather Chesterfield chairs, huge boxes of havanas being opened and inhaled, celebration, sophistication, signs of wealth... and Fidel Castro. So, essentially, only found in a male domain, along with beards, dodgy underpants and single malt. Aha, but you see, that's where you're wrong. Habanas Cuban Cigars, in a joint venture with our own tobacco giant British Imperial Tobacco, have come up with a new cigar - especially for women. The Julieta, as it is called, is smaller and milder than traditional cigars, and the manufacturers hope that it will widen the circle of cigar-smoking chicks, which already include famous faces such as Jodie Foster, Whoopi Goldberg, Madonna and Sharon Stone. Well, it's an interesting concept, and one way to fight back in the face of the smoking bans which have severely knocked profits for the tobacco industry in recent years. Personally, I'm not sure how popular cigars are going to be for the ladies, but then I used to smoke roll-ups back in my teenage days, so perhaps style and sophistication aren't exactly my strong point... I am prepared to concede that, if women do like a smoke - particularly of the cigar-y persuasion - then the Julieta will probably beat a Hamlet any day of the week. It is, however, worrying to see tobacco products being aimed specifically at women, when UK female smoking death figures are still rising.
And it seems that tobacco is not the only vice being marketed towards women nowadays. The pub chain Green King has launched a "Public Housewives" recruitment drive, as they are desperate to get more women involved with the licensing industry. Parallel to this, they are working on plans to offer larger wine glasses, glossy magazines, free toiletries and flowers on the tables in their pubs - to get more women to socialise with each other whilst enjoying a drink and a meal. Not just any women, sorry - only SWAGS need apply. Sassy, Wise And Grown-up ladies in the 35 yr plus bracket. That's almost me! Well, I'm certainly sassy, and 35 this year, but as for the rest.. Hey, two outta four ain't bad. I can even become a "fan" on Green King's Facebook Fan page, or apply for a job with them via Twitter. The pub industry is quickly latching on to the social networking trend in women, and to their advantage. It's all a bit of a cause for concern, though, in view of the constant reports coming through of increased risk of certain cancers in women who drink... although I'm all for larger measures of sauvignon and a copy of Heat! whilst I guzzle.
Perhaps it's just a cunning ploy by male marketers to like going to the pub for the sole purpose of making mens' lives easier... if the missus fancies a jar, then they're home and dry for the evening. On a practical side, pushing up sales of pints of Stella and pork scratchings as well as those of a cheeky merlot. And on the old cigar front, well, if a woman likes to light one up, she can hardly complain about her better half's smoking habit, can she? The couple who indulge together, stay together... Luckily for us, girls, Coca Cola are launching a multi-million pound marketing campaign to get us to "Love it Light", rather than smoke and drink ourselves into an early grave.
Timed to coincide with the start of London Fashion week next month, Diet Coke will be launching its strike offensive against Pepsi, who are also going to be heavily promoting their own sugar-free ranges this spring. Coke are really going all out this time, partnering with Asos.com to offer the chance to win an outfit every 30 minutes, as well as money-off vouchers... plus letting us girlies collect Coke Zone points with each purchase that can be swapped for copies of mags like Grazia, Closer and More! All good so far. And there is even a new TV ad campaign starring three girl puppets who are going to tempt us into "loving it light". So it's 'da boch chi' to the cycling songstress Duffy, and hello puppets. Er... surely something's wrong with this picture? I can't be the only one who is still devastated at the sudden disappearance of the Diet Coke Break Man! Is he still resident in the US ads do you think - or have Coca Cola decided to go all politically correct on us and deprive us of hard, muscular and semi-clad sexgods? I'm all for equality, and cessation of sexism and gender stereotype in the media - but this is going a step too far, by golly.
Obviously, re-engineering or creating products for women is big business, as is female-targetted marketing for existing ones. It shows the huge shift in attitude both towards and from women, as well as the socio-economic impact of more professional and working women, and our disposable income is now being fought over by big name brands. I wonder what will be next to try and win us over to the dark (male) side... Pink Pot Noodles? Diamante spanners? Who knows. I'm not that interested to be honest. I'm off to YouTube to do a quick search under "diet coke break man please". Sweet.
And it seems that tobacco is not the only vice being marketed towards women nowadays. The pub chain Green King has launched a "Public Housewives" recruitment drive, as they are desperate to get more women involved with the licensing industry. Parallel to this, they are working on plans to offer larger wine glasses, glossy magazines, free toiletries and flowers on the tables in their pubs - to get more women to socialise with each other whilst enjoying a drink and a meal. Not just any women, sorry - only SWAGS need apply. Sassy, Wise And Grown-up ladies in the 35 yr plus bracket. That's almost me! Well, I'm certainly sassy, and 35 this year, but as for the rest.. Hey, two outta four ain't bad. I can even become a "fan" on Green King's Facebook Fan page, or apply for a job with them via Twitter. The pub industry is quickly latching on to the social networking trend in women, and to their advantage. It's all a bit of a cause for concern, though, in view of the constant reports coming through of increased risk of certain cancers in women who drink... although I'm all for larger measures of sauvignon and a copy of Heat! whilst I guzzle.
Perhaps it's just a cunning ploy by male marketers to like going to the pub for the sole purpose of making mens' lives easier... if the missus fancies a jar, then they're home and dry for the evening. On a practical side, pushing up sales of pints of Stella and pork scratchings as well as those of a cheeky merlot. And on the old cigar front, well, if a woman likes to light one up, she can hardly complain about her better half's smoking habit, can she? The couple who indulge together, stay together... Luckily for us, girls, Coca Cola are launching a multi-million pound marketing campaign to get us to "Love it Light", rather than smoke and drink ourselves into an early grave.
Timed to coincide with the start of London Fashion week next month, Diet Coke will be launching its strike offensive against Pepsi, who are also going to be heavily promoting their own sugar-free ranges this spring. Coke are really going all out this time, partnering with Asos.com to offer the chance to win an outfit every 30 minutes, as well as money-off vouchers... plus letting us girlies collect Coke Zone points with each purchase that can be swapped for copies of mags like Grazia, Closer and More! All good so far. And there is even a new TV ad campaign starring three girl puppets who are going to tempt us into "loving it light". So it's 'da boch chi' to the cycling songstress Duffy, and hello puppets. Er... surely something's wrong with this picture? I can't be the only one who is still devastated at the sudden disappearance of the Diet Coke Break Man! Is he still resident in the US ads do you think - or have Coca Cola decided to go all politically correct on us and deprive us of hard, muscular and semi-clad sexgods? I'm all for equality, and cessation of sexism and gender stereotype in the media - but this is going a step too far, by golly.
Obviously, re-engineering or creating products for women is big business, as is female-targetted marketing for existing ones. It shows the huge shift in attitude both towards and from women, as well as the socio-economic impact of more professional and working women, and our disposable income is now being fought over by big name brands. I wonder what will be next to try and win us over to the dark (male) side... Pink Pot Noodles? Diamante spanners? Who knows. I'm not that interested to be honest. I'm off to YouTube to do a quick search under "diet coke break man please". Sweet.
Friday, 19 February 2010
When is a buzzword not a dirty word?
We've all sat in management meetings playing Buzzword Bingo, or tried to have a quiet drink in a bar over-populated by noisy execs braying out their favourite cliches and laughed at them. We all hate hearing the same overused, somehow popular phrases over and over until they become meaningless. But - as much as we hate to admit it - we do all find ourselves, from time to time, giving in to the lure of the magic words and using them ourselves. Not you? I don't believe you. However, fear not. It's time to grasp the nettle, folks - because, in Jobseeker Land, buzzwords are not always dirty words.
Job seeking has changed immensely since the days of buying your local paper and sending off your CV and cover letter by snail mail. Nowadays, applications are made with the click of a mouse, and job websites hold huge databases of CVs that candidates have uploaded for viewing by recruiters. So, your CV's up on Monster (for example), now all you have to do is sit back and wait for the phone to ring, right? Sort of. Recruiters search for CVs using key words specific to the roles they are looking to fill. We use a Boolean search string to sift out any CVs that don't list the requisite skills or words. An example of this is a string we might use to find a Marketing Analyst who needs to have experience in using SAS or SPSS. So the string is: marketing and (sas or spss). The location is specified elsewhere in the search form, for anyone interested. Or, the analyst may have to have Excel as well, so we'd add this into the search (marketing and (sas or spss) and excel). Recruiters have to scan through hundreds of CVs a day, so by filtering out ones that don't contain key words is a must. If they're not in the CV, the CV doesn't reach the recruiter.
The same rule applies to job applications. If you apply for a role that states you must, for example, have skills in SEO, PPC and social networking, then you must make sure they are all mentioned on your CV. Sounds obvious, but I have seen plenty of applications where the boxes on the cover sheet are ticked (e.g. Do you have social networking skills? YES), but there is nothing on the CV to back this up. The candidate genuinely has the skill, but hasn't mentioned it as it may not be a "proper" or "major" part of their job role. If the CV is good, we will call candidates to check on the "missing" skills, but many recruiters don't have the time - or inclination - to chase it up... after all, there are other candidates out there who have made sure their CVs are properly matched to the roles they are applying for. Even if the recruiter is happy that you do have the skills, if the employer can't see them listed on the CV straightaway, then they have to spend their time following it up - or worse, just completely overlook you for shortlisting.
It goes without saying that you should only write on your CV things that you CAN do - there's no gain in using buzzwords for effect rather than an enhancement. However, don't overlook some of the things that you do that you may assume everyone does... and so don't bother listing. Excel is one, as is some of the other MS packages - Projects and Vision for example. Don't hide your light under a bushel - if you've got it, flaunt it! So then, what are going to be the buzzwords for 2010? Logicalis have listed Web 2.0, cloud computing, social media, virtual desktop, security, Microsoft and Twitter as some of their top technical buzzwords for 2009, and these are set to grow in popularity in 2010. Inflecto say that SEO, custom CMS, mobile web development and frameworks (e.g. .net MVC) are being looked for in techie CVs. Technical people tend to use a lot of key words in their CVs anyway - listing programming languages, applications, frameworks, databases etc, so they are already ahead of the game. Brand Republic have reported that social media is overlooked in marketing CVs - of 4500 CVs looked at over the past 2 years, only 6% referenced social media, 9% Twitter and 2% blogging. There is also a shortfall in SEO (4.7%). These skills are some of the most sought after at the moment - so make sure you tell people if you can blog, Tweet or socially network! Jody at Marketing Jive has compiled a list of 100 top marketing buzzwords... I'm not going to list them all, but some may be worth thinking about - mobile, microblogging, lean, ROI, real-time.
Obviously, using buzzwords in your CV can't guarantee you get a phone call, an interview or a job offer - but it does help! The flip side of this is, people being people and all, some of them can get a little carried away and write their CVs almost completely with buzzwords. Watch yourselves... this may attract recruiter phone calls but if there is no substance in the CV to back up your claims of "online evangelism" or "augmented reality", then you won't get far. Everything in moderation, I say.
Anyway, I'm off to polish up my CV. Now, where can I fit "low-hanging fruit" into it?
Job seeking has changed immensely since the days of buying your local paper and sending off your CV and cover letter by snail mail. Nowadays, applications are made with the click of a mouse, and job websites hold huge databases of CVs that candidates have uploaded for viewing by recruiters. So, your CV's up on Monster (for example), now all you have to do is sit back and wait for the phone to ring, right? Sort of. Recruiters search for CVs using key words specific to the roles they are looking to fill. We use a Boolean search string to sift out any CVs that don't list the requisite skills or words. An example of this is a string we might use to find a Marketing Analyst who needs to have experience in using SAS or SPSS. So the string is: marketing and (sas or spss). The location is specified elsewhere in the search form, for anyone interested. Or, the analyst may have to have Excel as well, so we'd add this into the search (marketing and (sas or spss) and excel). Recruiters have to scan through hundreds of CVs a day, so by filtering out ones that don't contain key words is a must. If they're not in the CV, the CV doesn't reach the recruiter.
The same rule applies to job applications. If you apply for a role that states you must, for example, have skills in SEO, PPC and social networking, then you must make sure they are all mentioned on your CV. Sounds obvious, but I have seen plenty of applications where the boxes on the cover sheet are ticked (e.g. Do you have social networking skills? YES), but there is nothing on the CV to back this up. The candidate genuinely has the skill, but hasn't mentioned it as it may not be a "proper" or "major" part of their job role. If the CV is good, we will call candidates to check on the "missing" skills, but many recruiters don't have the time - or inclination - to chase it up... after all, there are other candidates out there who have made sure their CVs are properly matched to the roles they are applying for. Even if the recruiter is happy that you do have the skills, if the employer can't see them listed on the CV straightaway, then they have to spend their time following it up - or worse, just completely overlook you for shortlisting.
It goes without saying that you should only write on your CV things that you CAN do - there's no gain in using buzzwords for effect rather than an enhancement. However, don't overlook some of the things that you do that you may assume everyone does... and so don't bother listing. Excel is one, as is some of the other MS packages - Projects and Vision for example. Don't hide your light under a bushel - if you've got it, flaunt it! So then, what are going to be the buzzwords for 2010? Logicalis have listed Web 2.0, cloud computing, social media, virtual desktop, security, Microsoft and Twitter as some of their top technical buzzwords for 2009, and these are set to grow in popularity in 2010. Inflecto say that SEO, custom CMS, mobile web development and frameworks (e.g. .net MVC) are being looked for in techie CVs. Technical people tend to use a lot of key words in their CVs anyway - listing programming languages, applications, frameworks, databases etc, so they are already ahead of the game. Brand Republic have reported that social media is overlooked in marketing CVs - of 4500 CVs looked at over the past 2 years, only 6% referenced social media, 9% Twitter and 2% blogging. There is also a shortfall in SEO (4.7%). These skills are some of the most sought after at the moment - so make sure you tell people if you can blog, Tweet or socially network! Jody at Marketing Jive has compiled a list of 100 top marketing buzzwords... I'm not going to list them all, but some may be worth thinking about - mobile, microblogging, lean, ROI, real-time.
Obviously, using buzzwords in your CV can't guarantee you get a phone call, an interview or a job offer - but it does help! The flip side of this is, people being people and all, some of them can get a little carried away and write their CVs almost completely with buzzwords. Watch yourselves... this may attract recruiter phone calls but if there is no substance in the CV to back up your claims of "online evangelism" or "augmented reality", then you won't get far. Everything in moderation, I say.
Anyway, I'm off to polish up my CV. Now, where can I fit "low-hanging fruit" into it?
Friday, 12 February 2010
Police recruitment cops out...
And you thought it was tough applying for jobs in your industry! According to BBC News, North Yorkshire Police's recruitment phone lines crashed on Monday, after receiving 20,000 calls during the first day of their recruitment campaign. Following a new number being issued, they have since taken over 200,000 calls from interested parties. And the number of vacancies available? 60. Last month, Lincolnshire Police had to close its recruitment drive after running out of application forms - 1000 were requested in the first 2 hours of a campaign expected to last a week. Their number of available jobs? 60. Seeing a pattern here?
Public sector jobs have become more and more difficult to get into, the most notorious being the police force. It can take years from the initial application to be offered a position. It seems amazing to me that there is such demand for police work, especially in these times when we hear so much about poor police relations, sexual and racial discrimination cases within the force, and the worsening risks of attacks on policemen and women in the rougher areas of society. But it's a good thing that people DO want to keep applying - after all, someone's got to look after the rest of us! And, police work does offer a stable salary, the chance of some overtime, and a great pension. Plus a uniform.
With this immense demand for a place with Britain's finest boys and girls in blue, how ironic then that many forces are implementing recruitment freezes - meaning that applicants who have already passed through the recruitment process successfully are now put on a waiting list for the next available job. West Midlands Police have 240 officer applicants currently in this position, with another 500 waiting to be assessed. In Gloucestershire, almost 100 successful candidates have now been told that their job offers will be put on hold until 2011. And the Met have 2000 applicants hanging around in the system waiting for a job offer and start date. Apparently, recruitment drives have been more successful than anticipated, and less officers left the force last year, leaving fewer vacancies. Greater Manchester Police have announced a complete recruitment freeze from April, as have other forces. Avon and Somerset Police, though, are still advertising available vacancies and it is possible that candidates put on deferral from other forces may apply to them instead.
All down to economics, unsurprisingly. Retention of staff is higher as people haven't been prepared to leave their roles in times of such economic instability. And of course the government are all about cost-cutting wherever they can - all 43 police forces in England and Wales are expected to find combined savings of £545m by 2014. So we need more police, and more people want to join the police, but nobody wants to pay for it. And seriously, who in their right minds would be happy to apply for a job, undertake a rigorous recruitment procedure, be offered the job and accept it and THEN be told that they will have to wait 12-18 months for the position to be available? Because that's what the police force are doing. It's like winning The Apprentice only to be told to sod off back to your crappy old job (or your unfulfilling million pound turnover business if some of the previous candidates are to be believed)and wait a year before Siralan will take you on. Although, personally, I think I'd prefer a 12 month cooling down period to give me time to think of an excuse not to bother turning up in the end.
So, the moral of the tale is this - if you need a job this year, forget the force and look around for acceptable alternatives. Perhaps consider applying for The Apprentice... After all, it's a solid 12 month contract, by which time your police application might even have been looked at.
That, or move to Bristol...
Public sector jobs have become more and more difficult to get into, the most notorious being the police force. It can take years from the initial application to be offered a position. It seems amazing to me that there is such demand for police work, especially in these times when we hear so much about poor police relations, sexual and racial discrimination cases within the force, and the worsening risks of attacks on policemen and women in the rougher areas of society. But it's a good thing that people DO want to keep applying - after all, someone's got to look after the rest of us! And, police work does offer a stable salary, the chance of some overtime, and a great pension. Plus a uniform.
With this immense demand for a place with Britain's finest boys and girls in blue, how ironic then that many forces are implementing recruitment freezes - meaning that applicants who have already passed through the recruitment process successfully are now put on a waiting list for the next available job. West Midlands Police have 240 officer applicants currently in this position, with another 500 waiting to be assessed. In Gloucestershire, almost 100 successful candidates have now been told that their job offers will be put on hold until 2011. And the Met have 2000 applicants hanging around in the system waiting for a job offer and start date. Apparently, recruitment drives have been more successful than anticipated, and less officers left the force last year, leaving fewer vacancies. Greater Manchester Police have announced a complete recruitment freeze from April, as have other forces. Avon and Somerset Police, though, are still advertising available vacancies and it is possible that candidates put on deferral from other forces may apply to them instead.
All down to economics, unsurprisingly. Retention of staff is higher as people haven't been prepared to leave their roles in times of such economic instability. And of course the government are all about cost-cutting wherever they can - all 43 police forces in England and Wales are expected to find combined savings of £545m by 2014. So we need more police, and more people want to join the police, but nobody wants to pay for it. And seriously, who in their right minds would be happy to apply for a job, undertake a rigorous recruitment procedure, be offered the job and accept it and THEN be told that they will have to wait 12-18 months for the position to be available? Because that's what the police force are doing. It's like winning The Apprentice only to be told to sod off back to your crappy old job (or your unfulfilling million pound turnover business if some of the previous candidates are to be believed)and wait a year before Siralan will take you on. Although, personally, I think I'd prefer a 12 month cooling down period to give me time to think of an excuse not to bother turning up in the end.
So, the moral of the tale is this - if you need a job this year, forget the force and look around for acceptable alternatives. Perhaps consider applying for The Apprentice... After all, it's a solid 12 month contract, by which time your police application might even have been looked at.
That, or move to Bristol...
Friday, 29 January 2010
Marketing Society Awards following trends...
The annual Marketing Society Awards (held this year on June 7th), are closing their voting for 2010's "Best Of" one week today.
In an interesting twist, and in addition to previous years, this year the awards are ushering in some new, more inspiring categories. In a move to keep people positive even though we are still in recession (although some pundits would have us convinced we are out of it... house prices rising, Amazon reporting a 70% Christmas profit etc), new categories have been introduced to show how companies have coped in these difficult times. Categories such as marketing communications on a shoestring and e-commerce show a move towards rewarding "cheaper" methods of marketing. Other categories have also been announced, keeping in line with the top trends of 2009 and 2010 - new brand, digitally-led communications and employee engagement.
Interesting stuff, and showing an industry recognised move away from traditional marketing in favour of newer, technology driven methods. It seems that marketing agencies are changing the way they work - or at least adding to it - and opening up opportunities for digital and brand marketeers who can effectively take existing marketing channels and expand on them to reach a new market. All good news for recruiters who work within this arena - like us! - and who are already recruiting digital and online marketing professionals for their clients.
Especially encouraging is the marketing communications on a shoestring category, which will hopefully go a long way towards assuring small and medium sized business - or larger ones suffering budget cuts - that they can still carry out a successful campaign without spending a lot.
It will be very interesting to see who comes out top at the Awards for Excellence ceremony. Last year's winners included Thomson Reuters, McCann Erikson and WCRS, so the competition is high. With these new categories announced though, will it be new companies blagging the awards, or will previous winners have changed strategies to come out on top again, just in a new area?
See www.www.marketing-society.org.uk for more information.
In an interesting twist, and in addition to previous years, this year the awards are ushering in some new, more inspiring categories. In a move to keep people positive even though we are still in recession (although some pundits would have us convinced we are out of it... house prices rising, Amazon reporting a 70% Christmas profit etc), new categories have been introduced to show how companies have coped in these difficult times. Categories such as marketing communications on a shoestring and e-commerce show a move towards rewarding "cheaper" methods of marketing. Other categories have also been announced, keeping in line with the top trends of 2009 and 2010 - new brand, digitally-led communications and employee engagement.
Interesting stuff, and showing an industry recognised move away from traditional marketing in favour of newer, technology driven methods. It seems that marketing agencies are changing the way they work - or at least adding to it - and opening up opportunities for digital and brand marketeers who can effectively take existing marketing channels and expand on them to reach a new market. All good news for recruiters who work within this arena - like us! - and who are already recruiting digital and online marketing professionals for their clients.
Especially encouraging is the marketing communications on a shoestring category, which will hopefully go a long way towards assuring small and medium sized business - or larger ones suffering budget cuts - that they can still carry out a successful campaign without spending a lot.
It will be very interesting to see who comes out top at the Awards for Excellence ceremony. Last year's winners included Thomson Reuters, McCann Erikson and WCRS, so the competition is high. With these new categories announced though, will it be new companies blagging the awards, or will previous winners have changed strategies to come out on top again, just in a new area?
See www.www.marketing-society.org.uk for more information.
Thursday, 21 January 2010
David Cameron wants "brazenly elitist" approach to teacher recruitment...
As much as I like David Cameron, I am somewhat ambivalent to read reports that he intends (if and when, of course, the Tories make it back into power this year) to make entry into teacher training more difficult. Promising funding to the brightest graduates, Dave wants to make teaching a "noble profession" (his words, not mine), and only allow those with a 2:2 honours degree or higher access onto the PGCE (teacher training) course. I say funding, but that is probably too much to hope for. I believe financial incentive is the phrase used. Trainee teachers already receive a small tax free bursary worth between £4,000 and £9,000 depending on the subject, so how much more financial incentive is Cameron intending - or able - to offer to get the "best" graduates on board? Why don't those undertaking a B.Ed degree receive financial support, such as those on NHS degrees do (currently funded places plus bursaries for some courses)? Surely by making teaching specific degrees free, we won't be left with hundreds of newly qualified teachers struggling under huge amounts of student debt possibly choosing to work in the private sector as a way of affording to live. We already have a long list of shortage subjects that attract the highest bursaries for trainee teachers, so surely by restricting the number of eligible wannabe teachers all that will happen is that the list will grow... and grow... and grow...
As a parent with two school age sons - one at primary and one at secondary level - I am all for ways to improve the quality of teaching. I have generally been happy with the teaching my boys have received over the years, although I have had some minor complaints. My worst bugbear is teachers who spell words wrongly, or - even worse - have poor grammar. These people are teaching my children to read and write, so should have to undertake at least a National Literacy test at level 2 (used for adult learners) to make sure they know how to spell and to use apostrophes correctly, even when teaching Key Stage 1 learners! It is a sad fact, and one I see every day when reading through CVs and wincing at the numerous spelling and grammar mistakes, that having a degree no longer means you have a high level of literacy. I have seen CVs from degree-educated professionals who can barely string a coherent sentence together! I am a teaching assistant for an adult literacy class one night a week - and incidentally HAD to take my own level 2 Literacy test before I was allowed to practise (I passed, thanks for asking) - and spend time tutoring them in the use of commas, full stops, apostrophes etc. I certainly don't expect a paid, fully qualified teacher to have the same problems with the English language as my students.
That aside, the quality of experienced and child-oriented teachers is generally high. And therein lies the crux of the matter - experience. Yes, we shouldn't allow the educationally challenged to train and teach our precious children, but surely experience and aptitude should mean more than merely a number on the bottom of your degree certificate? If Cameron really wants to recruit only the creme de la creme into the profession, why not target those holding a 2:1 or above? Or even only a First? Back in the old days, teachers didn't even need formal qualifications. Nobody would dream of suggesting a return back to this practice, but surely Cameron has to consider bringing those with at least some experience of working with children in an educational setting (e.g. teaching assistants) into the profession without the need for a 2:2 degree, or even a degree at all. We were discussing this at my Tuesday morning college class, where we are all studying to work with adults in the Skills 4 Life programme (teaching literacy, numeracy and ESOL courses). As a group of mainly middle-class, intelligent women who give our time for free to help tutor adults, it seems unfair that only a couple of us would be eligible to enter teacher training courses, even though it is something that a high percentage of the class want to do in the future. So any of us considering teaching under-16s have to consider applying to undertake a degree course. But none of us can afford to pay the fees, or the childcare, or to give up our jobs to study full-time.
It seems there are a whole raft of people who would love to teach, yet are excluded under current guidelines, and this is set to be even worse under possible Tory rule. Now, I dispute the idea that I am less intelligent, less able and less "noble" than a 21-year-old graduate whose only teaching experience is theoretic or under a controlled placement as part of a course plus the year's PGCE/ training. Experience, age and having my own children doesn't make me MORE qualified or suited to teaching than everyone else, but surely this must count for something? At secondary level, of course those who excel in their specialist subject are best placed to teach - personally, nothing in this world would make me able to teach science or maths (unless Stephen Hawking offers to be my brain donor).
Yes, Dave - there must be a process put in place to ensure that the best teachers are picked out and trained to give the next generation the education they deserve, but is this the only way? If the Tories really want to improve the education system, they could give it a damned good overhaul. If teachers didn't have to spend hours filling in paperwork to prove that they are following the ever-changing National Curriculum, or to pander to the whims of the Ofsted inspectors, or dealing with troublesome pupils, they could get down to the real job at hand - actual teaching! If the pointless bureaucracy was removed, if headteachers got the support they needed to deal with problem children and received funding for more specialist teachers then surely this would go a long way towards solving the issues.
If Cameron really wants to make teaching a prestige profession, then the way teachers are treated and supported by government needs to change. Fast-tracking professionals who are looking for a career change is one way that he has mentioned (although, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this already in place?), which is useful, especially for those who have business or industry based people and communication skills. But he shouldn't forget the people who DON'T have the requisite degree to prove their intelligence and diligence - the dedicated and experienced teaching or learning support assistants, or the unpaid mums and dads who volunteer their time in the classroom to help educate our children - the people who are sometimes the backbone of the education system that won't fund enough paid teachers or classroom assistants, or even enough educational materials. Surely these people have a great deal to offer, but without having "proven" ability - although personally I disprove that a degree proves the ability to do anything rather than study a subject at a high level - they will never be given the opportunity to teach as a career.
Although I'm sure Dave will be quite happy for them to carry on teaching our children for free.
As a parent with two school age sons - one at primary and one at secondary level - I am all for ways to improve the quality of teaching. I have generally been happy with the teaching my boys have received over the years, although I have had some minor complaints. My worst bugbear is teachers who spell words wrongly, or - even worse - have poor grammar. These people are teaching my children to read and write, so should have to undertake at least a National Literacy test at level 2 (used for adult learners) to make sure they know how to spell and to use apostrophes correctly, even when teaching Key Stage 1 learners! It is a sad fact, and one I see every day when reading through CVs and wincing at the numerous spelling and grammar mistakes, that having a degree no longer means you have a high level of literacy. I have seen CVs from degree-educated professionals who can barely string a coherent sentence together! I am a teaching assistant for an adult literacy class one night a week - and incidentally HAD to take my own level 2 Literacy test before I was allowed to practise (I passed, thanks for asking) - and spend time tutoring them in the use of commas, full stops, apostrophes etc. I certainly don't expect a paid, fully qualified teacher to have the same problems with the English language as my students.
That aside, the quality of experienced and child-oriented teachers is generally high. And therein lies the crux of the matter - experience. Yes, we shouldn't allow the educationally challenged to train and teach our precious children, but surely experience and aptitude should mean more than merely a number on the bottom of your degree certificate? If Cameron really wants to recruit only the creme de la creme into the profession, why not target those holding a 2:1 or above? Or even only a First? Back in the old days, teachers didn't even need formal qualifications. Nobody would dream of suggesting a return back to this practice, but surely Cameron has to consider bringing those with at least some experience of working with children in an educational setting (e.g. teaching assistants) into the profession without the need for a 2:2 degree, or even a degree at all. We were discussing this at my Tuesday morning college class, where we are all studying to work with adults in the Skills 4 Life programme (teaching literacy, numeracy and ESOL courses). As a group of mainly middle-class, intelligent women who give our time for free to help tutor adults, it seems unfair that only a couple of us would be eligible to enter teacher training courses, even though it is something that a high percentage of the class want to do in the future. So any of us considering teaching under-16s have to consider applying to undertake a degree course. But none of us can afford to pay the fees, or the childcare, or to give up our jobs to study full-time.
It seems there are a whole raft of people who would love to teach, yet are excluded under current guidelines, and this is set to be even worse under possible Tory rule. Now, I dispute the idea that I am less intelligent, less able and less "noble" than a 21-year-old graduate whose only teaching experience is theoretic or under a controlled placement as part of a course plus the year's PGCE/ training. Experience, age and having my own children doesn't make me MORE qualified or suited to teaching than everyone else, but surely this must count for something? At secondary level, of course those who excel in their specialist subject are best placed to teach - personally, nothing in this world would make me able to teach science or maths (unless Stephen Hawking offers to be my brain donor).
Yes, Dave - there must be a process put in place to ensure that the best teachers are picked out and trained to give the next generation the education they deserve, but is this the only way? If the Tories really want to improve the education system, they could give it a damned good overhaul. If teachers didn't have to spend hours filling in paperwork to prove that they are following the ever-changing National Curriculum, or to pander to the whims of the Ofsted inspectors, or dealing with troublesome pupils, they could get down to the real job at hand - actual teaching! If the pointless bureaucracy was removed, if headteachers got the support they needed to deal with problem children and received funding for more specialist teachers then surely this would go a long way towards solving the issues.
If Cameron really wants to make teaching a prestige profession, then the way teachers are treated and supported by government needs to change. Fast-tracking professionals who are looking for a career change is one way that he has mentioned (although, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this already in place?), which is useful, especially for those who have business or industry based people and communication skills. But he shouldn't forget the people who DON'T have the requisite degree to prove their intelligence and diligence - the dedicated and experienced teaching or learning support assistants, or the unpaid mums and dads who volunteer their time in the classroom to help educate our children - the people who are sometimes the backbone of the education system that won't fund enough paid teachers or classroom assistants, or even enough educational materials. Surely these people have a great deal to offer, but without having "proven" ability - although personally I disprove that a degree proves the ability to do anything rather than study a subject at a high level - they will never be given the opportunity to teach as a career.
Although I'm sure Dave will be quite happy for them to carry on teaching our children for free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
