Have you seen Blade Runner?

It’s a great example of all parts of the editorial process.

Seven different versions have been released over three decades.

Test screeners, local release, an international version, a Director’s cut the Director didn’t approve, and a Final Cut where Ridley Scott appears to decide that Deckard is a replicant after all.

Whichever version, it’s a film that has aged pretty badly - one scene in particular that shows a hero before the #MeToo era.

After the initial test screening showed an incomprehensible downbeat film, they edited in a voiceover and a happy ending.

The international version included more violent scenes than shown in the US. Transadaptation for different audiences.

When we talk about editing, often we think of cutting content down to size, and checking for errors.

But it’s also about adding meaning for audiences and reinterpreting a message to be closer to the author’s intent.

Even actors are edited in and out of roles when their face doesn’t fit any more.

In Ridley Scott’s All the Money in the World, on the cusp of release, they reshot all of Kevin Spacey’s scenes with Christopher Plummer instead.

My post on LinkedIn last week was a good example of many types of editing.

A repost of a previous one, I edited for clarity and brevity, then added substantive content based on feedback from the first one. If you’re interested:

"I was headhunted for all my previous jobs, and now I can't even get an interview. Why is that?"

Points 4 & 5 are brand new, as is the comment on the Stockdale Paradox.

The first post only had three points, and additional commentary on how recruiters can make a difference.

It’s started a few good new conversations, so I may tweak it Blade Runner style in future. There’s no such thing as finished.

Even though it was a relatively successful post previously, with a 100k voos, reposting is an opportunity to edit and improve.

Still pretty bloated - I should employ an editor, rather than do it myself.

Any good writer will tell you editing is crucial to good writing, which relates directly to any recruitment content.

Why can’t it apply to recruitment process too?

I’d say that editing is about giving the best meaning to your intended audience while remaining as true as possible to your intent.

Sometimes that means taking things out, sometimes adding the new, and finding an optimal balance.

While editing can also mean revisiting work against a current context.

What would be an optimal interview process?

How might you edit to balance efficiency and rigour?

How about the candidate journey through your application process?

Have you checked out your own ATS as a dummy candidate? How did your experience as a candidate reflect your needs as an employer?

Where might it be bloated or lacking?

How much meaning does your ideal audience take from your job descriptions and adverts?

If you have a process you’ve used previously, why wouldn’t you edit it when using it now?

Does what worked in a pandemic, work during the economic whiplash that followed, or in our current climate?

Why do the same thing in different market conditions, hoping it will work again?

Edit, edit, edit for the needs of the audience you want to serve.

Recruitment has two diametrically opposite audiences - candidates and those in the hiring team.

So when editing content and process - it needs to cater to two audiences.

“How can we improve process and communication for both?” is a healthy question to ask of any part of your recruitment.

Because without candidates, vacancies are harder to fill.

And if you haven’t looked at your own approach first, you can’t complain of a shortage.

Regards,

Greg

P.S. did you know Die Hard is based on the book Nothing Lasts Forever, a classic fairytale set on Christmas Eve? It was a sequel to The Detective, later made into a film with Frank Sinatra.

P.P.S. I plan to edit this as soon I click Send, as that’s when I spot EVERY SINGLE MISTAKE I MISSED.