Job search before the turkey calls

Thanksgiving's around the corner. I don't wish to stand between you and your Butterball. So I'll be brief.

I often tell students that public relations is "doing the right thing and getting credit for it." Other times, I say -- with apologies to Leonard Nimoy -- that PR is "a wreath of pretty flowers which smells bad."

But, no matter what I say about PR, Indeed.com says it worse. Much worse.

Try searching for a public relations job on Indeed.com. This is what you'd find in Buffalo, NY:

Of the "public relations opportunities" served up in this message, only the "Sr. Marketing Analyst/ Communications Specialist position could reasonably include PR duties.

(The Public Relations Director job at Superior Group is a paid ad that's been up for weeks, which means Superior Group -- a contract employer -- may have filled it already.)

The others? Who knows? The Infant-Toddler Specialist position? The restaurant manager? Each may call for dealing with a certain constituency -- unhappy parent, unhappy diner, unhappy employee, reeeallly unhappy baby. But that's not public relations. 

[Bizarro Interview Moment: "I have considerable binkie expertise, both right and left handed."]

Whoever writes the code that gurgles up Indeed.com's search results needs to get his or her act together. Public relations isn't running a restaurant. It doesn't involve running a Presbyterian church. If I were job-searching and sent my resume in to the restaurant manager job, they wouldn't hire me -- despite my considerable PR experience. Because the job requires experience managing a restaurant. 

You want real PR job opportunities? PRSA's website and the IABC's career center list real PR jobs. No experience with toddlers required. 

Although you might want to pack a binkie, in case you meet a nap-deprived hiring manager.

Good luck with your search, and Happy Thanksgiving.




Popular posts from this blog

Questioning the New York (Times) Athletic Club

Image
The New York Times dropped the axe on its legendary sports department in early July. Sports reporting we read in the Times henceforth will originate with The Athletic, a younger (and perhaps more agile) sportswriting website purchased by the NYT Corp.  You'll find a good assessment of the move here .  As a Times subscriber, I have automatic access to any sports reporting it produces. I won't call it "free access," however, because my ever-increasing monthly rate for a three-day Times subscription surely will include a tithe to cover the Athletic.  But ditching the Times ' sports desk and dispersing its fine sports journalists and photographers to other NYT jobs? That's a loss. Here's why: Conflict of interest: The Athletic allows its staff to report on sports gambling, while some are paid contractors of the sportsbook companies. Is there a Pete Rose-style conflict here? I'd expect so. The Times allowed no double-dipping within its sports staff. The s
Read more

Readers get the (drive) shaft in motorsports coverage

Image
In mid-August, the U.S.'s premier auto racing sport will compete at a road racing course in Watkins Glen, NY. NASCAR's brutish Cup series cars will race in this rural community Aug. 20.  May 2023, Charlotte Motor Speedway. (c) DKassnoff, 2023. But, don't expect  The New York Times  to cover NASCAR before then. The newspaper's sports section -- now outsourced to The Athletic, its sportsbook subsidiary -- hasn't covered NASCAR since July 2. That's when NASCAR's drivers competed on the rain-soaked streets of Chicago. The Times provided no coverage of their July 30 race in Richmond, VA, or any NASCAR race since early July. The Times  has focused its motorsports coverage on Formula 1 racing. These are the expensive, open-wheeled, high performance racing teams once called Grand Prix. This class of racing is controlled by another media company: John Malone's Liberty Media, which purchased Formula 1 in 2017 and returned it to profitability. Visit the Times '
Read more

Your hand's already in my pocket

Image
I use an ad blocker, and probably you do, too. Every day, even on websites where I pay a monthly subscription fee, I see a pop-up that say: "We Notice You Are Using an Ad Blocker." And they ask me to turn it off. I don't. I'm already paying for that news website's reporting. Their hands are already in my pocket. And, truth is, I don't mind digital ads that are somewhat relevant to my tastes. Show me an ad for a guitar deal or Ford car parts, and I'll probably read it. Screen shot, unnamed Gannett publication, Sept. 2018 But I don't care about Patrick Swayze's secret son. Or what forgotten 1970s actress Loni Anderson looks like today. (I was more of a Howard Hesseman /Dr. Johnny Fever fan, anyway.) When newspapers relied on print ad revenue, I'd glance at those ads -- and sometimes, I'd bite -- because those ads were for local or regional merchants. They wanted to build a relationship with me.  They didn't try
Read more