Unemployment is currently at a 4 year high in the US. As one of the 8.8 million Americans looking for jobs, I offer tried-and-true advice for job searching.

First, don’t get discouraged. People have been finding employment for 6,000 years. The key is to keep believing in yourself so that other people will feel that they have a reason to believe in you; other people like: your family, your friends, and your network of potential referrals, in addition to your future company. Also, remember that sometimes, the option is not to find another “job,” but to find a new source of generating income.

Facts:
40% of positions are created. Decision makers meet you and want your skills because they are convinced that hiring you will help them make money.
90% of management positions come through networking. How do you create a network? Use the tools that are available. It is embarrassing, but let people around you know that you are looking for a new job. Use friends, family, church, and social connections, and also the internet.

Networking:
Everybody uses this word and we keep saying that you should build one. What nobody tells you is that you should TARGET your networks. Making good friends with just ANYBODY has a much lower chance of revealing a quality connection. Instead, create a network that focuses on your industry or on the specific companies you want to work for: talk to people that know those companies or join groups specific to your industry.

Questions:
All of that requires answering some fundamental questions that will focus your search:
-Are you employed? If not, what have you liked most about your past positions? If you are employed, why are you seeking a new position?
-What type and level of position are you seeking, and with what compensation?
-How are you valuable to a company that is trying to fill that position? And How can you make yourself more valuable in that position?
-What people do you know that could teach you more or help you get to this position?
-What are you willing to do to make this happen?

Timing:
How Long Will it Take? The answer is “NOT FOREVER.” I mean, nobody has ever searched for a job for forever. It really depends on how hard you work and how much time you are investing. Job seeking firms recommend 20 to 40 minutes a day. I would double that and then qualify it: You should spend 20 to 40 minutes two times a day, once in the early morning when you’re clearest and then again at lunch hour or at business close. So, 80 minutes spread across the day of focused time should be dedicated to your job search. But here is the qualifier:

The rest of your activities, such as researching companies and finding names and addresses to send your letters to, are done with your personal time. Think of it this way, if you had a job, you would spend 40 or more hours doing that job. But on the job, you still are expected to put in time at meetings, fill out forms, file paperwork, etc. The point is, perhaps only about ¼ of your work day is spent “adding to the bottom line.” The other 6 hours are preparing you to really shine when you get down to business. Proportion your job search in a similar way. –Shawn Butler

What You Can Learn about Job Searching from the Publishing Industry

When you are job searching, it’s easy to get caught up in the process and overlook the big picture. So, let’s look at the way YOU will look to your future employer by examining the old adage

Remember, this is your leave behind, so in most cases, may be the last thing a potential employer sees. Make sure it gets them excited about what you can do for them.

With your packaging covered, it’s time to get started. Create your list of contacts and your list of companies you’re interested in. These are organic lists, which means they WILL keep changing! Each contact has a network that they can lead you to, the goal is to get the names of decision makers, their titles and their business addresses. Then you’re going to write them a letter. Not an email. Write them a letter.

The letter should say:
I’m this guy, I know this person that you also know. I am interested in your company because … (“It is the top performer in the industry”, “It fits my values and interests,” stuff like that. Just communicate that you know the company.) You’d be interested to know that in my past, I have done these things and would like to help your company do these things. Please feel free to reach me by phone or email at your convenience. Or, I will call your office on this day.

Really, write that stuff? Yes. Employers get upwards of 125 emails a day. They read about 20%. They also return about 20% of phone calls. The question you are answering for them is this:

In the years of Thomas Edison, the business model of the motion pictures industry was vertically integrated and tightly controlled among a very few. The original inventors of the technology joined together and created a single trust called the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC) in 1908. From this time up until the Paramount Decision of 1948 when government regulatory forces broke up the tight vertical integration between content production and distribution, the industry was dominated by a few giant corporations exercising oligopolistic powers.

The Value Chain for this industry was a closely controlled, proprietary vertically-integrated monopoly. All the components: production, distribution, and exhibition were under the control of the studios themselves. This allowed them to engage in several practices including block and blind booking before these were deemed illegal in regulatory decisions by the federal government.

The introduction of Television had a powerful effect on the Business Model of the Movie Industry. Initially, television broadcasting was seen as a threat to the Movie Industry and its programming was a new competitor for the already declining attention of the film audience. However, by the early 1950s, the film studios recognized that the new technology was benefitting them. Past opinions aside, they did not hesitate to take advantage of a secondary market for their products, selling their extensive libraries for Television exhibition.

The arrival of the Videocassette Recorder (VCR) created another lash of retaliation from the Movie Industry. The technology, both Betamax and Video Home System (VHS), was met by a vehement lawsuit which, although taken all the way to the Supreme Court, proved ineffective. The Betamax Case of 1984 essentially paved the road for the introduction of new distribution technologies that were to come. As with television, the existing industries quickly realized that rather than fighting the technology change, they could have been profitting from it. Again they had found themselves in a legal battle against an alternative, and lucrative, new distribution channel. Direct sales of films to VCR owners quickly gave way to video sales to Rental Stores, creating the two-tiered pricing system that is still utilized with the introduction of DVD technology. With a 40 to 60 percent split of the rental revenues, the Home Entertainment category is now the most profitable segment for the Motion Picture industry.

The internet was met with similar trepidation. As though struck with the same inexplicable amnesia that repeatedly appears in their plotlines, the Film Industry completely ignores their history and continues to view technological advancement as a threat. The big 6: Disney, Sony Pictures, Paramount Viacom, Fox News Corp, NBC Universal and Time Warner, joined together to form the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). In an organization that bears the very same traits that led to government antitrust intervention a century ago, the major Hollywood studios have again united to create closed standards that hinder competition. Together with a similar organization in the music industry, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the MPAA exerts a concerted effort to find and prosecute internet-based piracy and file sharing. In place of embracing these technological advancements and evolving complementary technologies to generate greater profits, like the billion dollar online film business being operated by early-adapter Blockbuster.com, the motion picture industry is again seeking legal insulation against the natural progress of their industry.

I see two possible scenarios for the Motion Picture Industry in the next 5 years. One, it will succeed as it has never before in controlling the distribution and exhibition of its products. This will undoubtedly follow a multi-year court hearing and perhaps several appeals that will be costly not to the media corporations, but to the consumers who are subpoenaed for testimony for or against the practices condemned. Afterwards, movie industry products like HD DVD and Blu-ray will have multiple layers of encryption to prevent copyright infringement. Movie theaters will be equipped with state-of-the-art biometric security to prevent movie-goers from “movie hopping” within the theater. Blockbuster will require a password, DNA sample, and a large cash deposit prior to releasing any media for rental. The internet will be laced with information-eating viruses that seek out unlicensed copyrighted materials on civilian computers, erasing it and signaling the Ministry of Truth to prevent any further crimethink. Meanwhile, independent filmmakers will capitalize on the benefits of unsolicited word-of-mouth product marketing facilitated by a peer-driven audience base of information sharers to create the future blockbuster films with zero dollar marketing budgets.

Or the second scenario, where the lessons of cooperation and compatibility push the Motion Picture Industry to adapt to a digitally enabled consumer society. They evolve their product offerings into a format that takes advantage of the rapid file sharing capabilities of the continually broadening internet. The MPAA will pioneer the technology of degradable digital, where all digital files have a shelf life before evaporating into zeroes and ones. This becomes the new standard format for movie viewing, people watching degradable digital on their cell phones, ipods, laptops, and home theaters. Independent filmmakers and Hollywood studios both make giant amounts of money from the now much larger consumer pie as we watch the multiplex theater go the way of the opera house, becoming a quaint experience where parents take children for a night of nostalgia and pay premium prices. A new market of Film Viewing Houses emerge after the pattern of IMAX theaters, targeting the Audio/Videophiles who are seeking the “Ultimate” in film-viewing experience. Formal Standard Setting becomes secondary to a spirit of innovation so that the “Best” technological advancements can come to the forefront, with the understanding that the whole industry will benefit from an increased interest facilitated by an improved customer experience. Movie-making will follow in the direction that television and internet are now going. The consumer, not the seller, determine the content and usage practices.

These ideas may be a little far-fetched, but they stem from lessons that history has taught in the areas of electric current, telecommunications, and long-distance trav
el. Businesses that will continue to succeed are businesses that focus on the benefits they are providing to customers and which are capable of adapting their own business model to follow the advancement of technology as it realigns itself with that overarching goal. Media and delivery channels will continue to change, but creating a relationship of trust with your customer base will assure financial success and maximize long-term shareholder value. –Shawn Butler

Washington, DC has a new opponent, and it’s not drugs, terrorism, or even Iraq. In three separate venues: the US Dept. of Commerce, a US Senator’s office, and a DC law firm, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs was vilified by name for his confrontational stance on US foreign outsourcing as enumerated in his 2004 book Exporting America.

Dobbs has increased viewer share for both his cable and radio shows by becoming the self-appointed champion of US manufacturing jobs. And he is an unlikely hero. Dobbs stepped into his media career directly from his college years at Harvard and a bank job in LA. Notwithstanding, it is with homespun fervor that he crusades against the decade-long trend of outsourcing US jobs to foreign markets.

Dobbs said this in an interview: “The principal issue I have with outsourcing is that American companies — based in the United States, providing goods and services to the U.S. consumer economy — are killing jobs in this country and sending them overseas to provide the same goods and services back to the U.S. economy.”

Other experts corroborate Dobbs’ anxiety. Christian E. Weller of the Center for American Progress said, “Manufacturing has experienced an unprecedented decline for the past three and a half years … [T]he decline in manufacturing jobs explains the bulk of the overall employment loss during the recent recession and recovery.”

Since 2000 we have lost over 3 million jobs in the manufacturing sector of this country. But is that giving us the whole picture? Washingtonians in key positions that I spoke with this week say “No.” Within the Dept. of Commerce, Erin Sullivan, Senior International Trade Specialist for US Commercial Service, said, “The fallacy of Lou Dobb’s argument is that it is focused on manufacturing.” Sullivan’s program offers aid to US companies expanding into foreign operations, providing contacts and even on-the-ground consulting to American business owners.

“America is moving away from manufacturing into an intellectual property and branding based economy,” said Mark Kresloff, a patent attorney for intellectual property and technology. He sat with us across a long table in the DC office of McKenna Long & Aldridge, where he was joined by Jeffrey Li, a Chinese-American attorney and Qilan Jin, an attorney for the PRC Supreme Court. Li continued his colleague’s analysis of America’s economic development, agreeing “For America, this is a good thing.”

This sentiment was echoed in a meeting room of Senator Saxby Chambliss, R- Ga, where his current chief of staff told us that those in agreement with Lou Dobbs should do nothing, but if people disagree with his ideas, we need to pick up the phone and talk to our representatives. I was puzzled by this comment, but after three references in as many days, I determined to look into Dobbs’ argument.

According to the Dept. of Labor, the US is at a 4.7% Unemployment Rate in Oct. 2007. To Dobbs’ credit, that is up from 4.6% last year, an increase of 38,000 unemployed. However, we are well below the 6% we reported during the same month 4 years ago, and 1.6 percentage points down from the 6.3% high in June 2003. So, if all our jobs are going overseas, why are we seeing a decline in unemployment?

Other sources, including our interviewees in Washington, propose that these US workers are not losing their jobs for good, but are instead being reallocated into jobs that are more fitting with the new US economy. Am I saying that we are moving away from being a nation of factories and manufacturing? Yes. It appears so. And I welcome the progress that has led us from the industrial age into the information age. The new export of the US is our knowledge, ideas and leadership. It is time to give other countries’ economies the chances we’ve had. –Shawn Butler

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJxKKQPzfTY&rel=1]