Generally convincing people to do what they don't want to do.
I think this is pretty despicable requirement. Convincing people "to do what they don't want to" generally would involve deception. Even when 'successful' in the short term such sales ultimately are counter productive. Convincing someone that "now is the time to do what they already want to do", would be a far better approach than the "make the sale at all costs" approach.
I bet the "convince people to do what they don't want" line coupled with the movie marathoning emphasis of the job posting would lead to some over the top interviews:
Applicant: So, Jim, what I am saying is that I am ready to get out there and convert some of those SOB's and get them to sign on the line that is dotted! Gimme some leads and I'll close those corkscrewers right now! Let's attack Jim!
Interviewer: Heh, heh. You must have read the old job posting, we changed it after we got some flak from the media. Anyway, your enthusiasm is noted, but there is a process that we follow, references to be check, testing etc. Watch your email, we will be in touch with the next steps.
Applicant: Screw that! Not convinced, eh? You don't think I know this is a test? Listen, I can go out there tonight, and make $15,000. Can you? I could sell cameras off the street corner to the blind! With no audio! Mobotix! In downtown Shenzhen!
Interviewer: Somebody get me security, we got another Glen Garry nut!
"And you can't play in a man's game. You can't close them. [at a near whisper] Then go home home and tell your wife your troubles. [to everyone again] Because only one thing counts in this life! Get them to sign on the line which is dotted! You hear me, you f.... f.....?"
What I find so ironic is that most technology people see these movies as a sign of what goes wrong with sales people yet some sales people see this as something to aspire to.
The only thing that makes sense is that it was partly tongue in cheek. Otherwise, well, good luck to them. I could never do any kind of unethical selling myself. As Steve Jobs once said (I believe with respect to Google and Samsung), "Karma is a bitch".
IMO, the ad isn't the worst part... and I think Mr. Drako has already handled that particular piece of bidness.
What I find the most troubling is the obtuseness of the follow-up condescending twitter references that clearly show this person doubling down, failing to even consider that the content of his hipster ad copy might not be appropriate for this purpose.
I think we all get that the guy was attempting to be humorous - and failed. But recruitment advertising is not only marketing your company to prospective employees... it is also brand messaging for the company itself.
It sounds like he is taking the heat for a rogue employee acting on their own trying to recruit aggressive sales personnel. I doubt that was approved by anybody else in their right mind. Have a feeling he/she doesn't work there anymore.
Shameful confession time: sometimes I watch clips from Glengarry Glenn Ross, Boiler Room, and The Wolf of Wall Street on YouTube. It gets me fired up and people tend to buy more things from me after I watch those clips. I've never intentionally lied, though.
I always tell my employees: never try to convince the customer to do what you want them to do. Try to explain to the customer why they would want what you want if they knew what you know. More effective in the long run and avoids bad feelings when your Jedi mind tricks wear off.
While your attempt at a catchy, quirky or funny job advert was obviously misguided, the hyperbole of modern internet righteousness can be equally so.
Talent acquisition can be difficult, so I think all those objecting to the advert should write their best shot copy for the same advert for your company. No cynicism or irony allowed people - you have to write a serious advert for a real position and see how it turns out. If nothing else, it turns an unfortunate mistake into a something positive, as maybe the type of salesperson your clients and potential clients want you to have will be attracted to the ad.
I appreciate your viewpoint and Austen obviously has forgotten a few lessons that internet communication isn't as formal when it is at least equally so and arguably more so as you have the same reach as mass media.
What it does say within its obvious errors is an employee who believes in what his company is trying to do. Disruptive companies often have "enemy at the gates" style of perceptions to encourage us versus them with employees versus the competition. I think that mindset within reason is OK and maybe necessary to be disruptively successful once it is not taken too far and the Enron types of errors happen.
Marketing to Millenials is an inexact science so I am totally prepared to be wrong but, trying to look at the ad through the eyes on an early twenty something's eyes, I could see how the original ad would get a better response than the second.
As for sales being a process of convincing people to do stuff they don't want to do, I would firstly take the statement within the overall context of the advert's attempted tone. Equally, I am also pretty sure I could put a cogent argument together where persuading a client of what you believe is the best long term solution for them instead of just giving them what they think they want could be argued as convincing them to buy what they don't want. However, taking a hit on an individual project to give your client a better solution would be the correct thing to do in my humble opinion.
Ergo, what would be perhaps most important is to find the most dynamic person you can and have a positive corporate culture to direct their energy in a positive way. Would you disagree that the industry is in sore need of disruptive ideas to re-energise it? ASIS was dull with a dearth of new ideas and this is translating into flat sales, even with the anti-terror spend. Undertaking a thought experiment by imagining what the industry sales would be if the Middle East suddenly went peaceful is sobering.
Anyway, I am sure this topic has been ventilated enough at this stage.
"I could see how the original ad would get a better response than the second."
Better response in what way? What type of people do you want to attract to your company? People that really embrace those movies and that attitude?
I agree that the first one is far more 'engaging' and that the latter is vanilla, but 'engaging' does not necessarily mean its going to engage the right kind of people.
As for your ad challenge, I'll take it.
If I was writing the ad, I would sell Dean's background and role:
Dean founded Barracuda which is now a publicly traded company with a ~$1 billion dollar valuation; This means the company is backed by a serious and successful entrepreneur
Dean is extensively involved in the day to day operations, which means you can learn from him, his connections, his approach, etc.
Maybe some millennials want to work for Dollarshaveclub or Dollarbeardclub or chubbies or whatever type of fashion / lifestyle business where being snarky and ironic is cool. But Eagle Eye sells to the security industry so you are much better off pitching a successful and stable founder / company for this market.
I agree entirely with what you say in terms of engagement and your ad copy. There are potential pitfalls in over-relying on the myth of the leader but any person who could watch and learn would do well, I suspect.
I work for a company that could be seen as a competitor. I think all involved see that this ad was in bad taste. Let's not pile on excessively though. Just an attempt to use humour that missed the mark badly.
Regarding the movies, especially Glengarry Glen Ross. I love this movie, identify with it AND see myself as a very ethical sales person. For me the exaggerated competition; (First place:Cadillac, Second place: steak knives, Third place: "you're fired") recalls the hyper-accountability that hovers over most sales people every day. We have numbers to deliver and it is very binary whether we succeed or fail. "Extenuating circumstances" = excuses at most companies.
The period of judgement varies but you don't last long if you don't "make your number" in most companies. Everyone likes to slam sales guys as overpaid prima donna's. Many miss the hyper-accountability aspect of the role. I'm not complaining; just pointing out that there's a risk/reward aspect. And yes, as in all "professions" there are some bad apples in sales.
Back to the ad; I don't know Austen. I remind everyone that people lose their jobs over stuff like this. It's almost Christmas. Can we collectively agree that we ALL get that this was a bad move and move on.
"Back to the ad; I don't know Austen. I remind everyone that people lose their jobs over stuff like this. It's almost Christmas. Can we collectively agree that we ALL get that this was a bad move and move on."
It sounds to me like he was being intentionally enigmatic even obtuse, since surely he wasn't interested in tweeting the pedestrian "dean wants me to do my sales projections", even if that was really what he was talking about.
FWIW, predict is a weird word. If I predict today that Trump wins the election in the Fall, you would admit that I have just predicted the future. But post election, when Trump loses, you would say I didn't.
There may be no one more qualified for the position on the planet than this local Texan:
Interviewer: Can you tell me what your qualifications for the job are? Applicant: I'm Bryan Schmode. Does that work? Interviewer: Do you have any references? Applicant: Mitch, Murray and Maunsell Interviewer: Are you looking to "rejoin the workforce" in a part-time or full-time capacity? Applicant: Ok, that's it, you're fired! Now outta my office.