True fact; I have never got a job based on a resume.
When I was very young, jobs always came to me word of mouth. My first job was at Ken Young's fruit market. One day he just asked me if I wanted to help out around the shop. A friend asked me if I wanted to work where he was working once. And that led to another job eventually.
But at 18 I left home for the adventure of the west coast. I was a high school drop out and all my references were from 5000km away. So what I started doing was perhaps unconventional, but it seemed to work.
It never made sense to me to apply to a job advertised in the newspaper and then compete against a whole bunch of other jobseekers. Especially when, like most unemployed people, I knew I was more then likely inexperienced and under-qualified compared to my competition. Under such circumstances it always applying with my resume seemed like setting myself up to fail, rather then succeed.
I advertised in the classified want ads of the local newspaper(s) as a somebody looking for a job. Simply put it read: "LABOURER for hire" And people would call and I'd have different jobs. Sometimes for half a day, cash. Sometimes for weeks or months at a time on a payroll. And as I build up experience my advertisements became more specific as to the type of work I was looking for. As opposed to most people who apply for work they hope they are qualified for.
But why I'm posting this here in this community is not to talk about how to get a job. Or to tell you my life story. Neither are political issues. I want to talk to you about marketing.
Getting a job is all about marketing. Jobseekers are marketing themselves. Sending out a resume and filling out the application is the traditional way of getting a job. Frankly it sucks for all the reasons stated above and more.
Unconventional marketing works. Not only because it's fresh, but because it has less competition. I mean how much value does 4 years of college put on a resume now that everyone did the same. Better off to have a working knowledge of mechanics and some kinesiology and get into robotics. Better to have fluency in a second language then a degree in that language. Better to have a trade.
My inspiration for today's post was because I was listening to Terry O'Reilly's new show on CBC radio called " Under The Influence " Today's premier episode was about exciting new marketing happening in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations. I really encourage you all to read this link, or listen to the podcast.
So here's the thing that's rather political. Marketing has long been one of the things that USA has been excellent at. They have successfully sold the world on the idea that USA is the greatest country in the world. There is always some truth in advertising. USA is indeed the richest country in the world. But there are some stretches of the truth as well. USA is not the freest country in the world when Occupy protesters are arrested for protesting. But for the world perception, it is the place that most of the world's population wants to emigrate to, legally or otherwise.
We know know that the majority of the new wealth is in the "emerging" markets of the BRIC nations, not in Europe or North America. Europe and North America have practically stagnated. The majority of manufacturing moved overseas, and with it the jobs and now they are emerging to have the majority of the consumers too.
So with good reason have companies like Proctor and Gamble decided to concentrate their focus on BRIC nations. And just like they have been pioneers of online advertising, their advertising won't be in traditional media.
How can Proctor&Gamble (or anyone for that matter) hope to break into the huge BRIC market (which is 4x bigger then both Europe and NorthAmerica together) when (for the most part) patents and copywrite protections are absolutely worthless? (...especially in China) Well, one thing for sure, it won't be done through many traditional means.