| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: lack of professionalism at media companies |
Topic: lack of professionalism at media companies
| Author | Message |
| tvilase | Posted – 10/22/2007 8:27:35 PM | show profile Is it just me, or is there a growing lack of professionalism in media companies (or all companies in general)? Maybe I'm just venting here, but I'm beginning to find it very frustrating. Don't get me wrong, I'm used to working in very casual environements and don't have a problem with that. Right now, I'm just noticing it on my job search. I can go on 2nd, even 3rd interviews. I send all the thank you notes. I make an effort to be as professional as possible. But often, companies do not return the favor. The say they'll be in touch by the end of the week with a decision and I never hear from them again, even after a very polite just checking in/have you made a decision email. Even on the freelancing end, again, I understand it's less formal, but more and more I find people agree to a booking and then go back on their word. Is it possible I'm doing something wrong on my end? Really, I'd love to know! Or is this something I simply need to learn to accept and move on. |
| questoo1 | Posted – 10/22/2007 8:50:46 PM | show profile I graduated college in 1986 and it was no different then. So perhaps there is a lack of proffesionalism in the media industry, but its certainly not something that growing, its been in place a long time. That being said, I think that things are no different in any other industry. |
| ManhattanMatt | Posted – 10/22/2007 9:12:13 PM | show profile It's not lack of professionalism ... ...it's a lack of STAFF. Over the past 20 years, our staffs have been pared down to a quarter or less of what they once were. I remember when senior producers and above had their own personal secretaries. Once you got to the VP level, you could have a small personal staff handling the phones, mail, and other administrative tasks in your office alone. Email, voice mail, and personal computers on every desk eliminated the need for most of those secretaries, and good old fashioned GREED and downsizing to maximize profit took care of cutting into the meat and even the BONE of most media organizations. Today, not only do we not have an extra pair of hands taking care of the administrative protocol (like "getting back" to you in a timely manner), we're also shouldering the workload of colleagues whose jobs have been eliminated (but whose work still needs to be done). Unless companies somehow get less greedy, you're just going to have to accept this and move on. |
| dribbledrive1 | Posted – 10/22/2007 10:04:23 PM | show profile I have friends in other industries looking for jobs who tell me the exact same thing. |
| writesonwater | Posted – 10/22/2007 10:42:31 PM | show profile Yeah, nothing you can do. I attribute it (cynically perhaps) to a buyer's market. Matt makes a point too .. |
| writesonwater | Posted – 10/23/2007 2:56:03 AM | show profile I just got a very, very nice "Sorry, we picked someone else - it was a tough choice because we had so many candidates and can we keep your resume on file?" letter and I was shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you. It felt quaint and old-fashioned -- I'm accustomed to more modern disregard. As a courtesy, reflexively, I sent a polite note back that I'd be pleased if they kept my resume on file and to please let me know if I can ever be of assistance yadayadayada. It strikes me that the followups, while kind and perhaps uncommonly courteous were just so much hot air and unnecessary. I could be wrong. |
| mkelly | Posted – 10/23/2007 9:08:40 AM | show profile ManhattanMatt is correct. |
| Suet | Posted – 10/23/2007 10:53:41 AM | show profile I imagine ManhattanMatt is right in some cases but not in others. I imagine there are many people who could spend a bit less time on "how was your weekend" type conversations, stock trading, calls to their significant other, shopping, etc., during the day and a bit more time conveying information to job candidates. (Not to mention hello and good night to people who work for them.) I've found that the expression "I'm swamped" is frequently mesmerizing but not always accurate. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 10/23/2007 11:03:12 AM | show profile I remember when i graduated from college in the early '90s, experiencing the exact same thing after interviewing. For the job hunter, especially the unemployed/desperate job hunter, it's incredibly frustrating, because a large chunk of your life can hang on the outcome of an interview. For the interviewer, however, contacting rejected interviewees is just another chore to complete in a long list of chores. Not excusing rudeness -- just that the priority of this task can seem quite different depending which side of the equation you're on. |
| JustWakeMeWhenItsOver | Posted – 10/23/2007 11:08:52 AM | show profile Sorry, "lack of staff" isn't the reason. That might explain why a recent graduate or wannabe wouldn't get a response (and frankly, many don't necessarily deserve one). And I can maybe -- MAYBE -- understand if even seasoned veterans, even individuals who've been in prior contact with the organization, don't always get an initial response lately for jobs they're more than qualified for (given the state of the industry, and the sheer # of job-seeking individuals right now). But if an organization contacts YOU about a position... or if you apply, then get called in for second and third interviews over several months... not only you do a deserve a reply, there is absolutely NO EXCUSE if you do not get one. **How many people could they possibly bring in for a first interview, let alone a first or second? Even if the number is in the hundreds (which: no excuse for that), there's now been expression of interest by BOTH sides -- and more importantly, both sides have now invested time in the relationship. So... **If they had an hour to spend interviewing/vetting you -- and enough interest in you/hours of available time to bring you in and start the clock ticking on the hiring process -- they have the 30 seconds sum total it would take to send a one-line email blast to ALL interviewed candidates, thanking them for their interest. So they don't want to admit the budget's frozen, or they were just gathering resumes for the future, or they have no clue when they'll make a decision. Fine. Then just say, "We're moving in a different direction at the moment, but thanks for your interest" or "hope you're still interested, we'll be in contact one way or the other soon." Not hard to be blunt -- or open-ended, as the case may be -- in ten words or fewer. They don't because they don't have to. Because people like us make excuses for them, like "lack of staffing", and accept it. You wouldn't accept this kind of flakiness from a job applicant, and we shouldn't accept it from potential employers either. |
| wineaux | Posted – 10/23/2007 11:19:03 AM | show profile I've experienced a mixed bag during my job hunt. Some of the companies were great and let me know they found someone better suited, or had decided not to hire a new employee, and thanked me for my time. Or, sent the letter, as you mentioned. One guy that interviewed me for a marketing company told me that he makes it a point to let every prospective employee know about his decision, and had told me I'd hear from him in early October. No call, no email, nothing. And during the interviewing process he sent me at least half a dozen emails, even directions to the office, which I never would have asked for, in the age of Mapquest. I really think an email to a prospective employee is the least these companies could do. It takes seconds. Others put me through two, sometimes three or four interviews and then just stopped contact. One that I had several weeks ago called me this a.m. and said they want to meet and discuss salary and expectations. I had assumed they found someone else. After a couple of weeks, I just think the opporutnity is gone, but this market is proving my opinion as wrong. There are about three companies who are still sort of out in the stratisphere, where I have no idea if I will ever hear from them. Interviews went well, salary expectations were accepted, my skills matched the needs, but they all said that they weren't making a hiring decision until Nov. At least my freelancing work has kept me busy. Albeit, housebound and cabin-fevered, but at least busy. |
| JustWakeMeWhenItsOver | Posted – 10/23/2007 11:22:58 AM | show profile ...and no, I know there's nothing people can actually DO about it... EXCEPT I make a point of emailing those employers once a month until I actually DO get some sort of response. These are just one or two line emails telling them what I'm up to, and asking politely what's new within the organization -- I mean, as far as I know, the process is still ongoing, right? It's not a crime to want a job with an organization that's already decided (after a credential check and at least one meeting) you're qualified to work for them, and at least potentially a good fit (as evidenced by the fact they called you back in for another interview). Yeah, it could be the budget, it could be internal politics -- who knows what it could be. But that's not your problem, it's theirs. DON'T BE RUDE! the goal is not to let them know how pissed off you are, or vent your frustration. The goal is to get a resolution of some sort. (Yes, this approach gets results. Nearly always, you will eventually get a response -- always a polite one -- filling you in on the process. And sometimes, you will get the job you want. The key is: never let them off the hook! If enough people did this, over time they'd realize how much quicker it would be to send a blast email update.) The "take the hint, silence means it's over bit" is crappy way to end a romantic relationship -- but the fact that you should never, ever contact the dumper in that scenario does NOT carry over to the business world. Passive gets you nothing in this profession. Not only is polite (stress on POLITE) persistence not a crime, it's just about the ONLY way to get hired these days... |
| noname1234 | Posted – 10/23/2007 11:41:21 AM | show profile My suspicion is that when an interviewer doesn't get back, it's no so much a thought-through strategy, but just simply forgetting -- once they make a hire, all their attention turns to preparing for their new staffer. Or sometimes the interviewer's own boss starts getting vague about new job -- perhaps there are unresolved budget issues -- and the interviewer no longer really knows the status of things. Again, not an excuse -- it's just reality. As an applicant, all you can do is follow up repeatedly and try to get some kind of definitive answer. And if you're not happy with what you've seen about the way the company operates, just resolve never to work there. And try to have as thick as skin as possible during the whole process. |
| foodlit | Posted – 10/23/2007 3:12:36 PM | show profile It's like this everywhere, not just media companies. Best advice I can give is to just keep checking in periodically for updates, because there's just not enough time in the day and things do fall through the cracks....I'm not making excuses, it's just what I've seen. The focus is on the candidates who are still moving through the process, or who are being recruited for new searches. Often what happens too, is that hiring managers are slow in giving feedback on candidates that are out, or don't give it at all, so the hr person waits before letting you know you are out, because she's not 100% sure that you are, if that makes sense. So, that's why I suggest keeping in touch...though, the reality is that in most cases if they are interested in you, they will get in touch. |
| ManhattanMatt | Posted – 10/23/2007 3:30:49 PM | show profile Suet ... VERY unfair ... "imagine ManhattanMatt is right in some cases but not in others. I imagine there are many people who could spend a bit less time on "how was your weekend" type conversations, stock trading, calls to their significant other, shopping, etc., during the day and a bit more time conveying information to job candidates. (Not to mention hello and good night to people who work for them.)" Yeah. As IF. Keep in mind most of us within media organizations who are conducting the interviews and making hiring decisions do NOT work in human resources. Interviewing and hiring people are not OUR primary job functions. Typically, you're interviewing with a managing editor/senior or executive producer/news director/PR VP who's MAIN job is to actually RUN a magazine/newspaper/news broadcast/agency. |
| foodlit | Posted – 10/23/2007 3:55:35 PM | show profile Manhattan Matt is 100% correct. I meant to mention that in my earlier post. For the jobseeker, interviewing is top priority, but for hiring managers it is and it isn't...they need the job filled yesterday, but they are often too busy to interview, and to give detailed feedback on each interview...etc. Within an HR department, you often have recruiters handling up to 40 or more searches at once, which is an insane workload, and there is often not enough admin support, so recruiters have to spend their time on what tops their priority list...getting interviews scheduled and jobs filled...and that is why they will sometimes not get back to every candidate in a timely manner to let them know they are out...it's not that they don't want to, it's that there are a zillion things on their plates already, and as I mentioned, they often don't know that a candidate is definitely out of the running, because the hiring manager has been too busy to deal with giving feedback...so that is why I suggest proactively reaching out to remind them for an update. |
| seeattleme | Posted – 10/23/2007 5:11:07 PM | show profile OH PUH-LEASE! A good friend is in HR at a top magazine co in NYC. He spends half his day sending me gossipy and flirtatious emails! Editors have assistants whose JOB it is to do exactly this! Not get their coffee. Not walk dogs. Not pick up dry cleaning. Not schedule Lunch At Michael's. I've worked on staff and freelance for about 25 magazines over the years. When people don't get back to you, it's rudeness. Every thing I have ever submitted to magazines including Time, Newsweek, The New Yorker, and Harpers has gotten a polite, if standard response EVERYTIME. Every time. Send something to one of the women's ragazines, or the other big fashion magazines--where the editors are always out on the town, and you never get a single response. I have a hard time believing that these magazines which respond are NOT Inundated with letters and queries and resumes daily. It IS a matter of professionalism. I don't know if it's gotten WORSE sice the 80s and 90s, it seems the same to me, but it does seem inherent to certain magazines. |
| noname1234 | Posted – 10/23/2007 5:16:35 PM | show profile granitegirl, if you feel that way about women's mags for the last 20 - 30 years, probably your best is simply to avoid doing business with them -- same for others who feel the same way. As for the assistant who's busy fetching dry cleaning etc. -- hey, I work at a women's mag -- where do I sign up for an assistant like that?? |
| onmyown | Posted – 10/23/2007 6:09:01 PM | show profile Granite, you're wrong as usual Sorry, but things have changed in the last 20 years. I am an EIC and I do not have an assistant. Most of my fellow top editors no longer have assistants. Many magazines no longer have someone to distribute mail or make copies or respond to unsolicited queries or resumes. Perhaps the top-tier publications you mention that send such nice polite replies still have assistants, but the vast majority of us out there do not. As Manhattan Matt said. |
| JustWakeMeWhenItsOver | Posted – 10/23/2007 6:33:29 PM | show profile Are you kidding me? I've spent almost a decade in New York publishing/journalism, and nobody I've worked under -- and we're talking Page Six boldfaces, Imus regulars, NMA recipients -- has ever left an applicant hanging. Ever. I'm sorry, sending a one-line blast email to an Excel list of active (or rejected) applicants takes 30 seconds or less. And if your HR people won't do it (???) just tell some editorial underling to do it -- I mean, you are a manager? you DO have at least one underling of some kind, right? That takes even less time. Just how many positions are being filled without any HR assistance that this level of time commitment is such a burden? Come to think of it, if you spent an hour interviewing an individual -- and unless you're interviewing as a full-time job, we can't be talking more than a handful of names -- why can't you spare 10 seconds to cut-and-paste an *individual* message (especially if it will spare you weeks of pesky, confused, TIME-CONSUMING phone calls and followups from them)? Now, I'm sure you have a stressful, important media job, but think about this for a second: how much time have you spent today posting to this mb thread? I don't know if you're in the midst of a hiring process at the moment, but in the time it took you to read my response, you could have sent out a monthly update to active applicants, or final status email to rejected ones. Is it your favorite task? No. And as you say, not your primary one. But as a manager, it absolutely IS YOUR JOB. Period. It's part of what you're paid to do. So do it. |
| JustWakeMeWhenItsOver | Posted – 10/23/2007 6:40:34 PM | show profile (again: I'm not talking about unsolicited resumes, or inexperienced applicants you've no interest in working with. I'm talking quality people who've made it past the first cut, people you may have met with, maybe met with more than once. People you started some sort of official process/dialogue with. If you began it, it's your job to finish it.) |
| noname1234 | Posted – 10/23/2007 7:10:11 PM | show profile Justwakeme, I haven't read any posts in this thread from anyone saying that not notifying rejected interviewees is a good thing -- and I don't think anyone on this thread even said that they themselves do it. I've been on BOTH sides -- I've been an interviewer who never got a response, and I've interviewed. When I've interviewed, I have a standard form notification that I cut & paste and email to rejected candidates. But I also know that people interviewing are human too -- they're not perfect, they make mistakes, they're inconsiderate sometimes. Like anyone can be. You know, it happens. |
| tvilase | Posted – 10/23/2007 7:12:13 PM | show profile Wow, I never expected so many responses so I guess I've definitely hit a nerve here! And while I've definitely been in positions where I've been so busy I don't have time for everything on my list, it's hard for me to believe that responding to someone after 3 interviews is that huge of a burden. And just to clarify, for one company they told me I was down to the final two and the other company had, not just an HR department, but a special "talent recruitment agent" whose job it was to deal with just these situations. But it's nice to know I am not alone in my experiences and/or feelings. (And I tend to agree, if you have time to be reading this forum, you probably have time to send that email.) |
| wineaux | Posted – 10/23/2007 7:18:10 PM | show profile I agree with those who mentioned responding to everyone who applies for a job is pointless and entirely too time conssuming.. I wouldn't consider it unprofessional to ignore my resume if I sent it and I was not up to their standards. My beef is with those who have seen my resume, put me through at least one face to face interview, and don't send at least a one sentence email telling me they are interested. That, to me, is being a professional. I took the time to show up for the interview, and often spend well over an hour in the office, so I deserve a solid rejection. I don't think anyone is too busy or too high up the ladder to have the manners to acknowledge someone who put time and effort into the interview or interviews. I think this is what the original poster was upset about as well, and rightfully so. |
| JustWakeMeWhenItsOver | Posted – 10/23/2007 7:50:24 PM | show profile "Justwakeme, I haven't read any posts in this thread from anyone saying that not notifying rejected interviewees is a good thing -- and I don't think anyone on this thread even said that they themselves do it." OK. Well, I took this: "Yeah. As IF. Keep in mind most of us within media organizations who are conducting the interviews and making hiring decisions do NOT work in human resources. Interviewing and hiring people are not OUR primary job functions. Typically, you're interviewing with a managing editor/senior or executive producer/news director/PR VP who's MAIN job is to actually RUN a magazine/newspaper/news broadcast/agency." as someone offering an unapologetic (and frankly, logically flimsy) justification of editors or producers using the non-response response with serious applicants -- since that's what this thread is about. And it's coming from someone who apparently does it himself, because they're just so very swamped (ManhattanMatt says "we" and "OUR primary job functions", so I'm assuming he interviews people). You're right, he doesn't say it's a "good" thing (and I never said he he did). But he certainly doesn't give any indication it bothers him in the slightest. True, onmyown never said whether they personally have ignored people they've met face to face, but this: "Sorry, but things have changed in the last 20 years. I am an EIC and I do not have an assistant. Most of my fellow top editors no longer have assistants. Many magazines no longer have someone to distribute mail or make copies or respond to unsolicited queries or resumes. Perhaps the top-tier publications you mention that send such nice polite replies still have assistants, but the vast majority of us out there do not. As Manhattan Matt said." ...was kind of a strange response to half a dozen posts that said nothing about unsolicited queries and resumes, just about post-interview etiquette re serious applicants. But anyway, that's another editor who says "nice polite replies" are too labor-intensive, and that they agree with ManhattanMatt... a poster who thinks ignoring serious applicants is somehow justifiable. I mean, is there some other way to read these posts that I'm missing here? I'm definitely not seeing any guilt. These people have time to follow a *mediabistro discussion thread*, for heaven's sake. I can't believe they're making these "no time for courtesy" arguments with a straight face. (I never get involved in threads like this, but those arguments were just so flimsy, defensive -- and yes, totally unapologetic -- I can't believe anyone really buys into them...) |
