There is an interesting story behind these two guests. The guy was a member of a cultish group called The Lyman Family in Boston. He had an affair with his co-star during the movie and took her back to the group. She didn't like it and left.
A few years later, he and two other members robbed a bank for political reasons. They were caught and he died in prison lifting weights. The girl, Daria Halprin is now a dancing instructor.
He sounds a bit like a low key Bill Cosby, slightly slurring his words. He was taught to build relationships and after 22 years in business still has relationships with with people he met in the first two years.
He has two specialty areas and finds that recruiting helps him live in a happy world. The candidate and company are happy and he never has to talk to the company he recruits people from. (What about the candidates he rejects?)
Believes that if he focuses on a narrow niche he shouldnt have to go to far to find the right guy. He doesn't even want to have to call a hundred people. "Why dig a new hole if you've already got the tree planted and there is fruit on it."
Linkedin is good. Facebook and Myspace are useless because his candidates aren't there. Likes Deskflow as an ATS.
He has a simple mission and tells the same story to everyone he meets: He sells access to people they can't get
He doesn't negotiate fees. Charges the same to everyone and passes up those who won't pay it.
Find four or five things that make a big difference and do them every day.
Don't be afraid to ask tough questions right at the start of a relationship.
You're at a party and someone asks you what you do. You say you're a recruiter. That's a very general definition and it means trouble because if you look just like your competition, no one has any special reason to come to you.
If you want to stand out, you have to stand for something special. It could be your market niche. It could be your price. But it's got to be something.
Recently, I've been reading critiques of marketing successes in the political field.
Martin Kramer shows us how you can use an over-simplified interpretion of the facts to misrepresent them. Here's what he means.
If two percent of your survey sample says they would commit terrorist acts and twenty percent says they strongly agree with those acts, you announce that only a tiny fraction of the people surveyed are extremists.
And we all recently saw a shifty but powerful interpretation of Barack Obama's Jeremiah Wright problem, as well. The press reported that Obama had opened a much needed conversation about race when, in fact, he was merely forced into rationalizing his support for a lunatic mentor.
Hillary ran into problems, however, because in her creative marketing she didn't merely interpret facts, she invented facts about her visit to Bosnia that were very easy to check and, so, was immediately refuted with videos of the actual event .
The lesson: it's easier to lie when you are merely spinning the facts rather than out and out lying about them. And it's easier to lie when the truth about your facts cannot be easily discovered.