If you have ever been on the market for a new job in the IT Security sector you will have undoubtedly come across the typical "bodyshop" recruiters that cant wait to flog you from door to door in their hope for a 30% commission - representing only the needs of the employer and not the high value candidate that they in fact represent.
Given the impact of corporate failures in the US (Enron, MCI-Worldcom) and Australia (HIH, Ansett) in concert with failures in risk management (NAB ForEx) governments and corporations alike have begun to move from a posture of industry self regulation to one of government regulation. Accompanying this trend is the fact that pressure is mounting on corporate senior management by shareholder groups looking for management turnover post any failure in governance, policy or process and to avoid a failure in policy, governance or process that will place the corporation in a poor competitive position with a subsequent valuation downside. This means a more astute and rigorous approach to recruitment and human resources and an increased value and drive for demand of the highly skilled IT Security candidate.
Over the last five years these "bodyshops" have experienced rapid growth in their Recruitment services due to the sheer growth of the industry. The industry is changing and it means that as a high value candidate in the industry you can't afford to have ten IT Security Recruiters flogging you from door to door. This means that the "bodyshops" need to think seriously about their value proposition to the candidate and you, as a high value candidate, need to think long and hard about who in fact deserves the opportunity and has the reputation to represent your skills.
Think about yourself as a product and as a brand. The brand that appears on everyone's doorstep is certainly not considered a luxury and high value brand. Marketing yourself as a luxury brand in the new economy requires a new paradigm of thinking.
But first, let's define what we are talking about and then let's discuss to what extent and in what manner the rules of this game has changed, as so many authorities claim in recent years.
Defining luxury
By definition, a luxury brand is an outstanding brand, justifiably priced highly and destined, at least primarily, to a select group of the social-economic elite. Luxury is not about unattainability though. After all, you cannot profit from consumers that cannot buy your brand. However, luxury is about the consumer outstretching herself a bit to buy something extraordinary but rather expensive for her financial ability.
Before entering a deeper discussion of luxury I think it will be good to acknowledge two basic facts:
1. Luxury is relative. One man's luxury is often another's (usually richer) everyday lifestyle.
2. The standard of luxury is mutable. Today's luxury is often tomorrow's commonly expected standard. Luxury brands are under a constant pressure from non-luxury brands trying to offer a similar value for less, thus eroding the status of luxury.
When it comes to employers "investing" in the recruitment of high calibre candidates compared to hiring a contractor from a "bodyshop", thanks to the current climate even the not-so-wealthy employers now feel deserving and in fact that its simply due diligence for their organisation to invest in a taste of luxury.
Thanks to technology, design and global competition, the standard is rising continually. There is a huge trend of the "boydshops" offering high calibre candidates at the mid-market "popular" salary levels that were once the exclusive domain of the affluent employers who had the resources to invest.
Much has been said lately about the changing nature ofl employing such "luxury" these days. While some of the proclaimed changes are no more than the result of historical myopia, certain developments are worth noting.
1. There are now more layers of luxury than ever before to match new levels of affluence. Generally speaking, buying power in the developed economies as well as in the emerging economies has been on the rise. We have more strata of wealth in corporations and more people in each one of them.
For every high calibre "luxury brand" IT Executive one must remember to position itself vis-à-vis a certain layer of wealth or several ones. It is a widespread view that luxury brands achieve their status by being the dream of many but only affordable for a few. This is indeed how it works for numerous luxury brands. Nevertheless, other luxury brands derive their status from being esoteric, i.e. known to only a selected few. Being discerning and in-the-know often defines an inner circle of sophisticated luxury buyers, thusly differentiated from more coarse others of similar affluence. Community groups like www.itsecuritylink.com, www.linkedin.com and www.xing.com are becoming a common hunting ground for those employers looking for such "luxury brands".
2. Some of the luxury employers are now somewhat less interested in purchasing uniform profiles of candidates of status / identity and instead opt for developing an individual and defining their needs through development. Therefore, luxury has evolved and became more diverse and more creative. The tension between the traditional (more safely genuine luxury candidate) and the innovative has always burgeoned forth luxury. Currently, luxury leans more towards the innovative than the traditional.
3. There are more "out of class" purchases now, both upwards and downwards. This trend is not unrelated to the previous one. The wealthy feel no obligation to always buy expansive (actually, affluents typically look for the best deal on whatever they want to buy, no matter how extravagant). The result is that we often see combinations of luxury and non-luxury. The no so wealthy have also developed an appetite for luxury when and where they can afford it. So they invest in a CIO for $260k and then go to great effort to invest in a Systems Administrator that they know they can develop over time with the help of the new CIO.
The unchanging nature of luxury
Despite all these significant developments, the nature of luxury has remained unchanged in essence. There are sixteen usages that these investors have for luxury brands, a stable set of benefits that motivate us to buy. People buy luxury brands in order to:
1. Feel special and apart from the crowd.
2. Feel superior and privileged.
3. Feel of value and importance.
4. Exercise ability and freedom ("I can afford it", "I can do that").
5. Reward themselves for efforts and achievements.
6. Console one and recuperate from a setback or misfortune.
7. Signal status and command acknowledgement and respect.
8. Demonstrate refinement, connoisseurship and /or high performance.
9. Create a human infrastructure for future favorable experiences and risk management.
10. Participate in a certain industry group and lifestyle.
11. Signal affiliation and belonging.
12. Remind oneself of one's "real" (aspired?) identity.
13. Enflame hope and mobilize motivation and energy in an existing team.
14. Indulge and pamper oneself, take care of ones own interests.
15. Feel like they are being taken care of.
16. Show feelings of gratitude or great admiration.
Luxury brands are specifically designated to serve as means for consumers to fulfill one ore more of these tasks.
The eternal principles of managing yourself as a luxury high value brand in this industry is not complicated.
There are ten eternal principles for developing and managing yourself as a luxury brand: REMEMBER
1. A luxury brand is first and foremost a product and/or service of superior quality (a quality gap from competitors is recommended but not mandatory).
2. The products and services are not designed and planned according to consumer tastes and expectations, even though they appeal and cater to sometimes-hidden deep-routed desires. A luxury brand sets its own standards and does not adhere to fashions. There is an air of leadership to it; it is exceptional, unique, original, artistic-creative, surprising, and novel (but never peculiar in a ridiculous or potentially repelling manner). It challenges its consumers (not too harshly) for their discerning taste, sophistication, refinement and dare.
3. A luxury brand's most important value lies beyond the core product function or practicality.
4. Luxury brands have something extravagant / excessive / redundant and overly generous about them. Something that is clearly not necessary: the use of unjustifiably expensive investment, an individual that demonstrates performance that is far beyond all needs and requirements, an exaggerated level of service, …
5. A luxury brand always expresses zealousness for quality, highly held values or even an ideology, a distinctive culture, together with sense of hedonism, passion for the industry, and a free spirit. It does that in all the facets of its being including products / services, management practices, marketing communications, ...
6. A luxury brand will always be linked with the circle of those who "run the world" at that certain period of time –and with the success symbols of the time. Industry association is critical.
7. Behind a luxury brand there are often industry legends of genius, processes, exceptional performance etc'. Stories like these that create an air of mystery. A luxury brand treats itself very seriously.
8. A luxury brand is never managed in a democratic way, but rather with authority or even with dictatorship, by an inspired leader who demonstrates, inside and out, a strong passion for himself/herself as a product and pedantry for every small detail.
9. A luxury brand must be rare or difficult to reach in some way. The awareness to the brand and the desire for it sometimes wide-ranged (while the numbers of buyers has to be limited) and other times restricted to a few that are in-the-know. Even the buyers themselves, must not be inclined / capable to purchase the luxury brand too often. It is important to remember that the dream feeds the desire. We can never dream about the accessible - keep inmind the "bodyshoppers" chasing their 30% commission and dumping your CV on every man's desk across the country.
10. Luxury brand consumers expect to be distinguished from all others, and to be protected from them (the No-Mix principle). At the same time, they expect a special intimacy between them and the company and its managers, as well as flexibility regarding rules that are afflicted on others.
This article is about the time proven principles for creating luxury brands in order to attract affluents. It has been written for you, a high value candidate of the IT Security sector who is on the move to a new job and needs to understand how to sell his:her skills at the highest possible price, to the best bidder.
My advice is to find a head hunter who can represent you and your value as the luxury product - selectively - to the "target luxury consumers" on your target list. These recruiters are hard to find, and when found, are selective in who they in fact represent. But, attracting wealthy employers is potentially very profitable. After all, they have more money to spend, that can turn into your income. However, succeeding in this task involves a deep understanding of their psychological need, of their typical HR requirements and spending habits, of the role of thought leaders in their world and in their relationships as well as of their purchasing behavior and spending patterns. Some of these are truly counter-intuitive and surprising.
Gian Luigi Longinotti Buitoni once said, "The dream is not to own a crown. It is to be a king.” I wish you every success.
Leesa Fogarty
- leesa's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Thu, 02/07/2008 - 09:57
February 7th., 2008 What Skilled Labour Shortage?
There is much being said about a perceived shortage of skilled labour in the IT&T sectors with some countries, such as Australia, claiming it could/will limit growth and hamper some major projects.
My comment is that much of the problems are not a labour shortage per se but changes in recruiting and staff development attitudes that prevent utilisation of people that would fit the bill.
That is, the problem to a large extent is self inflicted due to a number of related issues:
• The first point of contact and resume evaluation is usually with a person in the HR department who has little or no experience in management let alone staff development. The approach is often one of preparing a Job Description (JD) and then a series of “tick boxes” against which the resume is evaluated. If the person is not an exact fit then it is rejected. No thought is given to the CAPABILITY of the applicant as distinct from direct experience – perhaps because the HR recruiting team do not have the capability to determine this.
• Disenfranchisement of line managers from the recruiting process. The line managers are held responsible for the performance of the areas under their control but very often are not part of the selection process for their staff until the initial “culls” are made, as described above which could prevent excellent, capable people of being considered. The fault is not all HR department, line management must be held accountable for allowing this to occur.
• There is much too much emphasis on “exact fits” between JD and applicant which has negative effects - it does not allow for people to grow into a position and it could prevent a person who has great development potential getting a job at the expense of one who is a good fit but has no further development capability.
• And a final point – age discrimination is very real and as inappropriate in technology as most other professions. Experience is very much respected and sought after in most countries of our world but not in Australia. How many old 30 year olds have you met, how many young 60 years olds have you met? They do exist.
Australians, amongst a number of other nationalities, because of training, education and attitude are recognised for flexibility and breadth of capability as well as depth of capability. This has been the reason behind the very large number of Australian being employed in remote locations for many years. Current attitudes in recruitment preclude this and, if reflected in changes to training schemes whereby specialisation is emphasised over flexibility and creativity, permanent damage to the technology industries will probably occur.