I belong to a job seeking group made up of marketing/communications professionals. In spite of the potential competition that could arise from the similar backgrounds (and goals), the group succeeds. There's a good exchange of information and best practices.
We introduce ourselves at the start of each meeting, and I always give an update on my search -- the number of interviews I've had, in particular. I've been fortunate to have what I'd consider to be a decent amount of interviews, although - obviously - I'd certainly trade interviews for offers.
I credit the interviews, first, to my search mechanism. I've outlined the use of RSS feeds as a way to greatly improve your online efficiency. Through those tactics, I'll see approximately 7000 jobs a week, although - admittedly - not all of them are even loose fits (one of the drawbacks of searching this way is that you need to be quite broad in your search terms. Also, searching for "communications" generates an awful lot of job titles, as many have the words "communications" in the job description). Even still, it's far easier to cycle through these jobs in an RSS reader than it would be to do searches on each site each week.
Through that effort, Ill probably identify anywhere from 20-50 jobs each week that I can apply to -- internally, I group them into 'tiers' -- Tier 1 are the jobs that are perfect for me, with companies I think I'd love to work for; Tier 2 are a little less appealing - maybe I don't have exactly the qualifications, or it's a sizeable step up (and I'm wary); and Tier 3 positions are jobs I don't feel extremely comfortable with -- for any number of reasons.
I don't turn down interviews -- even from Tier 3 positions -- for two reasons: 1) I'm always open to being surprised; and 2) interviews are always good practice.
What *is* concerning is that the majority of the interviews I get are from the Tier 2 and Tier 3 positions ... admittedly, the Tier 1 jobs are already few and far between; but I'm always astonished when those positions don't result in interviews. Although
I don't think I'm necessarily revealing anything super-secretive about landing interviews -- for me, it all starts with the search, which I do each day. I have a standard resume (which I'll occasionally update to the job's specifics) and I always attach a cover letter, which I customize far more often. But, in the end, it's the search that fuels the interviews. If I'm landing 2 interviews a week, and I'm sending out 50 applications, then it's logical that someone sending out 5 resumes a week, will be waiting about 10 weeks to get those same 2 interviews. The search drives the effort.
3 comments:
Sounds like you're employing the same sales strategy my last job used. The 10% rule.
For every 100 cold calls/cold emails you should expect roughly 10 companies interested. Of those 10, at least 1 company would want to do business with you.
Obviously the cover letter is important. I've been told that larger companies use certain scanners to search resumes for key words, and those resumes' cover letters are examined more closely so more of the effort should go into selling yourself in the cover letter I would think.
Well - I'm probably out the outskirts there - I'm getting less than 10% response for interviews (even phone & face-to-face, my interviews rate is about 3-5% (and, obviously, my offer rate is less than that)).
I'm torn about the cover letter -- in some cases, the online applications don't even ask for (or permit) a cover letter. I feel FAR more confidently that my cover letter is being read when I submit the resume/letter to an email address, as compared to submitting via an online application.
i think any rules that normally apply kinda go out the window when there is a "bust" economy like there is now.
I know that last year, disgusted with my job, i started a 2 month job search that resulted in 0 interviews.
That had never happened to me before. But in the current state of things, from what i hear its status quo.
Post a Comment