Recruiting for marketing is hard!

re: Recruiting for marketing is hard!

Christopher — Mon, 27 Feb 2006 09:44:29 GMT

As a seasoned marketer, it's not new that the very term "marketing" confuses people and, all the more, the various titles. Most people equate it with outbound promotional activities and some with forms of sales "support".

Here's an easier way to clarify it:

Marketing is what matches business products/services to particular customers, appealingly, competitively and profitably. Sales are the actual transactions with individual customers.

"Out of the box" is passe' and no longer out of the box.

Deep innovation is how to get up in the morning and go do mostly pretty much the same stuff all day until you go back to bed at night, but keep it fresh and worthwhile.

re: Recruiting for marketing is hard!

RM — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:53:25 GMT

Viral market via e-mail.

Paint the picture of what you desire.

Send the e-mail to the person you have established contact with as a follow-up to the "Who comes to mind." approach with your blessing for them to send it to their referral.

Put about 10-15 of those strategically placed notes out there and your candidates will then find you.

Very good for the purple squirrels.

Marketing types will appreciate your using marketing technique to identify them.

re: Recruiting for marketing is hard!

HeatherLeigh — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:14:42 GMT

Julius, you lost me here: "I think top companies should not look out for talents or qualified professionals, but for the right PERSON which could cope professionally but most of all emotionally with the tasks."

Skills and emotional maturity aren't mutually exclusive qualities. We look for both. If you can prove to me that those qualities exist in greater quantity in the open source space than the market at large and that people that engage in non-commercial software development would actually consider working here and that the only place to find them is in the the open source community, then I'll accept your analogy. I think there are abvious reasons why that doesn't really make sense. That's not to say that we wouldn't recruit people in this space...we would and do, but generally focus efforts where we will have the most likely favorable outcome. I know it sounds crazy but our shareholders count on us to actually get people on board.

And when does Bill get credit for the wonderful things he has done for AIDS research, etc.? Bill does that outside of Microsoft with his own personal money. The fact that you consider this a PR ploy is really regrettable and sounds like sour grapes. Why?

Maybe you have an axe to grind that has nothing to do with recruiting. Just what it looks like to me. I always have to question why someone comes in with both barrles blazing. The message sort of gets lost along the way.

re: Recruiting for marketing is hard!

Julius — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 07:46:17 GMT

Hi everyone,

I am a newbie in this interesting blog, and by the way heater you're doing a great job so far!

I am an MBA student in australia and i already graduated in Marketing in Italy, my country of origin.

The points raised in the precedent posts are valuable and I thought I could give my contribution.

The criteria outlined in making a selection even though coming from years of experience and from the top world companies lack of the human component.

Let me clarify my point of view. I think top companies should not look out for talents or qualified professionals, but for the right PERSON which could cope professionally but most of all emotionally with the tasks.

It seems to me you're going out there and looking to find the best deal in a second hand car auction.

It looks like you're looking for machines programmed to perform and not for human beings.

I think that the selection criteria discussed in precedent posts could bring along in a company only people that will make the company look cold and utilitaristic.

I think this is also the reason why companies such as Microsoft must spend billions in recovering their corporate image with PR campaigns or CSR, or Bill Gates showing up at live 8.

Who speaks is not a no-global/no profit kind of person, as it would only be a contraddiction with what I study.

but Why don't Microsoft try to learn from the opensource community where there is no need for extremely inteligent, skillful, experienced people such as Heather to recruit genii as they voluntary participate in projects, making internet explorer a thing of the past.

With all due respect and appreciation for your strive for excellence there's always a lack of consistency between what your company says and what your company does.... try to look for some people that reduce this gap instead of looking for programmable idiots!

Brand, brand, brand...

Heather's — Wed, 21 Jul 2004 01:34:00 GMT

re: Recruiting for marketing is hard!

Heather — Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:41:00 GMT

Chris-I think that is good advice. Our roles here at MS corporate (including the business groups) are actually requiring more specific skills as time goes on (in my experience). The field based roles have been more about execution. The interesting thing here is that the "strategic" corporate roles also require execution excellence. So strategy and execution are not mutually exclusive skill sets. I definitely feel that in order to develop a strategy, you have to know how it is going to play our from an execution standpoint. many people at Microsoft will move from field-based roles to corporate roles to combine the strategy/execution skills into one role.

For us, the challenging part about execution is more around how to do it well and with whom you will partner. A lot of those decision here are made in Redmond for US based marketing. Individual subs are responsible for more strategy and execution within their regions. Redmond provides the product marketing framework for them so that the messaging is consistent worldwide. I once heard a VP tell grop of people that in order to move up at Microsoft, he would recommend people go out and work in a sub office because you get your hands on everything there. I thought that was good advice.

In my pre-MS experience, I did see field based roles being more around implementation (which in my opinion, is different than execution...at least in the sense that I used the word above). Strategies were handed down by corporate and marketers rolled out as they were instructed.

Typically, strategic roles in the industry are valued more than execution roles, but that has really changed here. A major focus for the marketing discipline at Microsoft is what we call "elegant execution". I personally want all candidates I talk to to be skilled in and willing to participate in both strategy and implementation, regardless of their level. It's kind of like the question: "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there, does it make a sound?" The question for marketing is: "if someone creates a strategy without elegant execution, do your customers really care?"

re: Recruiting for marketing is hard!

Chris Riley — Sun, 18 Jul 2004 05:33:00 GMT

One of the strangest things about this conversation is that Microsoft is a very unusual organisation (duh!).

I have been head of marketing for a country and/or region of the world in IT companies (NOT Microsoft!) for nearly 10 years. Yes, recruiting marketing people can be a challenge, but as long as the differences in roles are understood, it is not too hard.

From personal experience, I can say that marketing in a country can be very different from the HQ perspective of marketing.

Specifically(and I hate to say this), marketing is becoming completely de-skilled. IT companies are among the worst here, because they have implemented global marketing systems (with their IT systems) that give the people at HQ the illusion that they can impose "command and control" management across the world. Give someone a lever and telling them if they pull it the same thing will happen everywhere can be very seductive.

This started out in the name of "brand consistency" and then became driven by "efficiency" needs (AKA, slashing headcount everywhere except HQ).

What is left outside HQ is a need for people who can execute very efficiently, and not think too much. Anyone who has too much strategic aptitude/motivation will go nuts in these non-HQ marketing roles. UNLESS, of course, you are a BRANDING enthusiast (for which read "marcomms" in IT-land).

Meanwhile, back at HQ, the game has shifted to implementing the ideas of the big boss (du-jour). Just make them feel omnipotent, and you'll do well. As a result, few marketing minds are being developed around these large organisations. People are gaining experience in doing good execution in very "stove-piped" roles, where straying outside your area is generally not rewarded. Few people progress, and there are very few opportunities anyway, because of the efficiency/downsizing.

My advice to people early in their marketing careers - join smaller businesses that will give you a much broader exposure to the vast range of marketing roles, and greater strategic responsibility. Being good at execution is vital, but if you never learn to think strategically, you won't be much use in more senior roles.

What do people look for when recruiting for markeing roles outside HQ? these days:
- prior industry experience that seems relevant
- self-discipline and good time management
- "sales awareness" / understanding of how revenue is generated, who does it, and what they need from marketing
- good personality fit with the rest of the team
- nerves of steel (especially where high-visibility activities have binary success/failure criteria)
- people who want to be part of something successful, rather than people who 'big-note' themselves or want to "grand-stand".

Hope this helps, and sorry if it is a bit of a rant. Times they are a changing!

Chris

re: Recruiting for marketing is hard!

Steph — Sun, 11 Jul 2004 19:48:00 GMT

I can only imagine...

As a former "marketer" in a Microsoft DISTRICT office, I can attest to the truth of these words. Marketing, even within Microsoft, is so multi-dimensional as to make it virtually impossible to know what is expected by title only.

In the Microsoft district offices, I found the term "marketer" to apply to:

database analysis
executive engagement
competitive analysis
sales analysis
sales support
event planning
promotional inventory management
non-profit fund management
accounting support
sales support
account coordination
traffic management
training

My titles were Field Marketing Manager and Relationship Marketing Manager.

The more traditional positions - product manager, brand manager, segment manager - are found within the centralized regions - NY, DC and Redmond.

re: Recruiting for marketing is hard!

Steve — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 20:38:00 GMT

The fact that Heather is even thinking about these issues brings me great hope. Successful marketing people have careers that are multi-dimensional. Their capability is developed from experiences and campaigns that cross many types of products (consumer and technical).

There is one trait that separates the great marketer from the not so great, and that is the ability to see and interpret the common thread that ties a product to an end user/consumer. The ability to call a thing by its proper name is the beginning of a process that leads to the commercial viability of a product.

In Heathers case the candidate she will present to her client needs a title that is easily understood. Her research and study of that candidate combined with the candidate’s ability to market themselves to her should yield a good match.

re: Recruiting for marketing is hard!

Heather — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 18:03:00 GMT

PC- I disagree-at least from the recruiter's perspective. I hear from other markeitng recruiters at other companies that this is a challenge for them as well...you just can't get a good idea of what a person does based on their title.

I'm not aware of a 1-yr rule. I'm sure it's at the recruiter's discretion, but I think what you most likely heard is about people who have interviewed (perhaps someone mentioned that if you interviewed and have not been offered the job, you should wait a year before reapplying....does that sound like what you heard?). I would say that's a good rule-of-thumb if your interviews did not go well. Hoever, if someone interviewed and it went well but they were not offered the job because it was offered to an internal, or that particular role wasn;t a fit, but otherwise, they interviewed very well; I would encourage that person to pursue other opportunities at MS right away.

All of our contract opportunities are run via agencies so I'm not sure that the same kind of thing would apply to them. I think they are pretty much free to submit people for whatever jobs they want. I'll post more on contract opportunities later.