4 points and 0 comments so far on reddit
YOU ARE THE REASON
Misplaced Lens Cap
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Sade Olutola

blake kathryn
ojovivo

izzy's playlists!
almost home
RMH

tannertan36

oozey mess

ellievsbear
NASA
No title available
wallacepolsom
"I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas"
No title available
Today's Document

#extradirty
$LAYYYTER

seen from United States

seen from United Kingdom

seen from United States

seen from Singapore
seen from Azerbaijan

seen from Spain

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Ireland
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from T1
seen from France

seen from United States
seen from Italy

seen from Australia

seen from Lithuania

seen from Czechia
seen from United States

seen from Netherlands

seen from United States
@joelcheesman
4 points and 0 comments so far on reddit
Just like the rest of us, chickens need a good balanced diet in order for them to stay healthy and productive. There are many views on what is best treats for chickens and many accounts of grandmothers feeding their chickens nothing but kitchen scraps. However a lot of these birds were allowed to roam freely and therefore would have had access to extra protein in the form of juicy bugs, grubs and minerals from foraging widely.
Ballgame.
And I'm spent. (at Indiana)
First #Easter (at Greenwood, Indiana)
at Lawrence, Indiana
Facebook reaches 5 million monthly advertisers, up from 3 million in March 2016; 75 percent of marketers come from outside the US and 50 percent are creating mobile ads; the most active sectors are retail, e-commerce, entertainment and media.
eHarmony's Foray into Recruitment is Over (Hate to Say I Told You So)
I've been wrong more times than I can count, but sometimes I get it right. Hate to say I told you so.
When news broke back in 2013 that eHarmony, the well-known algorithmic dating service, was launching a product to revolutionize recruiting, I scoffed. Hard.
In a 2013 blog post entitled "3 Reasons eHarmony’s Job Matching Will Suck," I said "Recruiting isn’t dating. Motivation to fill out a 29-point questionnaire works if you’re hoping to find true love. It doesn’t work so well with employment. In order for matching to truly work, but parties - in this case, job seeker and employer - must fill out a lengthy dataset.
"Successful matching doesn’t occur magically, no matter what computer scientists tell you. Only the most desperate job seekers will do it and employers don’t want to compete lengthy forms to access these candidates."
I outlined additional reasons such as 1) no history of success and 2) no core competency in recruitment as reasons eHarmony would fail.
Fast forward to yesterday, and word comes out that the company is essentially shuttering the service, know as Elevated Careers, in hopes of finding a buyer to take over the business.
In a letter sent to potential buyers, as reported by Matt Charney, the company said, "The eHarmony™ Board has decided that the highest and best use of Elevated Careers™ will be with an enterprise with substantial existing strength in B-to-B HR Services marketing, sales and relationship management – and for this reason has decided to divest control of Elevated Careers™ to an entity with the capabilities to better achieve the commercial potential of this HR Tech innovation."
Translation: We don't know what the hell we're doing and want to unload this on to some sucker who thinks they might.
It's important to note even though this venture was first discussed back in 2013, Elevated Careers has only been an official business since 2016, announcing it's launch on April Fool's Day.
Yes, April Fool's Day. How apropos.
So what happened? I still think the things I outlined back in 2013 hold true, but the real reason Elevated Careers failed can be traced back to Fall 2012. On Sept. 12 of that year, Tinder launched, and dating hasn't been the same since. Built for a mobile-first consumer, the app turned meeting people into a game, swiping right or left based on location and visual appeal. The service was and still is (mostly) free today.
The days of filling out long questionnaires and creating lengthy profiles in order to find a mate are numbered. As such, eHarmony's days are ultimately numbered.
Fighting a two-front war with multiple companies and dwindling resources couldn't last. Kudos to them for cutting their losses early, but I believe it was a final chapter written the very day it began.
Methinks anyone else hoping to get into job matching will face a similar fate. It's toxic waste, riddled with names like itzbig, Trovix, Climber, Jobfox ... and now Elevated Careers.
Welcome to the Jungle is a recruitment company with a difference. Rather than finding the ideal engineer for you, they’re a media company looking to make recr
Ratedly “Super Bowl” advertisement. What’s your review?
#Christmas tree down.
at Murat Theatre
(via https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1OrIggwOZw)
So who's a good prospect to buy CareerBuilder? Private equity? Staffing firm? AOL? You're guess is as good as mine at this point.
Ten years ago today, Cole Cheesman was born. Can't wait to see what the next 10 years hold. If the first decade is any indication, it's going to be a pretty memorable ride. Love this dude.
Instead of cold emails, Pluck lets you send candidate prospecting emails that are timely, about content prospects are already talking about online.
Simply Hired Could've Won the Vertical Job Search Battle If They Had Embraced This Single Strategy
The Simply Hired eulogy is making the rounds this week.
In case you missed it, the job search engine that launched around the same time as Indeed is calling it quits. Another news flash: Indeed won.
Industry pundits are blaming everything from declining Google search results to a crappy sales strategy to an outdated affiliate program for the demise. All are valid points.
However, the autopsy fails to look at a more interesting question: How could've Simply Hired outmaneuvered rivals like Indeed to win the war?
It's easy to say they could've kept pace with Indeed, simply copying their strategy. I mean, Indeed just copied Google right? The tougher exercise is asking how Simply Hired might've zagged when everyone else was zigging.
Content is King
Flashback to 2007. The concept of vertical job search was a new one. (Hell, the concept of jobs online was still pretty new, but that's a different post.)
In addition to Simply Hired and Indeed, names like Jobster, Get The Job, Jobalot, Jobrapido and Juju were in a race for marketshare. More jobs meant more traffic, which meant more eyeballs. Content mattered then, just as it does now.
If you saw the trend, you believed the one who held the most, best content would win. This is why the fact 800-pound gorillas like Monster and CareerBuilder didn't squash the vertical search revolution before it even began is puzzling. Craigslist, to their credit, saw the danger and shut-off the engines' spiders early.
And therein lies the seed to how Simply Hired could've outflanked Indeed and won: Pay the content holders for exclusive rights to aggregate their content.
What if Simply Hired had gone to Craigslist in 2007, right after the spigot had been shut off, backed up the Brinks truck, and asked, "How much will it cost to access your job content exclusively?" The same conversation could've taken place with Monster, CareerBuilder, HotJobs and others.
With exclusive rights to highly desirable job content, Simply Hired would've ended up being the market default for job seekers. "If you really want to search all the jobs, you have to go to Simply Hired. The others don't have Craigslist and Monster listings."
They could've locked down said content for 5-10 years, and I think the job boards and newspapers would've happily taken the money. Simply Hired had the money, and the boards apparently didn't see the vertical search engines as a threat at the time anyway.
In that 5-10 year period, Simply Hired would've built a strong moat around the market, and they would've had the time needed to aggregate the employers directly, weening themselves off job board content in the process.
Simply Hired spent money for real estate instead of content. They paid to have a "jobs" link on MySpace and they paid bloggers to promote openings. It was a perfectly good strategy at the time but one that is easily duplicatable.
We close the book on Simply Hired this month. It's an unfortunate end, but a familiar story nonetheless. Of the many job search engines that launched a decade ago, and in the years hence, only one really still matters.
Had Simply Hired embraced a different strategy 10 years ago, as outlined above, I believe it'd be another shutdown story we'd be telling now instead of theirs.