Subliminal

Greg Wyatt • January 13, 2024

Hi dear,

I hope this email finds you well.

Oops, sorry, I forgot this wasn't cold outreach.

I'm both a big fan of film and a big fan of filmmaking, and I'm always fascinated by revisiting older films with a modern view.

Have you ever noticed that special effects that were once ground-breaking date very quickly?

I loved the goopy spaghetti mess of The Thing.

How morphing was developed for The Abyss and later used famously in Terminator 2.

Or the underwater FX in Avatar 2 which makes every other underwater FX look rubbish - even newer big-budget films like The Little Mermaid.

But when you look back over time, they no longer have the same impact, either because they are now one of many, even though they were the first, or look increasingly fake.

A bit like what we see with AI as it develops.

Uncanny valley.

My favourite FX of all time is because of the notion of it.

CGI so good you don't notice it.

Such as the city in Gangs of New York, which appeared to be a genuine 19th-century metropolis.

The thing is if you don't notice it, it won't date so much.

There's a reason the BBC is so good at costume dramas - they have an incredible collection of costumes that are reused time and time again, whether it's Pride and Prejudice or Doctor Who.

So good that they don't pop suspension of disbelief in the same way dated FX does.

When you don't notice the details, the proposition can be more compelling.

I'd argue it's the same in sales.

Few people like being sold to, especially if you don't need it or it's done garishly.

While what was once an innovative gambit quickly grows stale:

“Yes, it's a sales call. Can you give me 30 seconds or do you want to hang up on me?”

Rely on innovative gambits, and you’ll always be looking for the latest gambit to stand out - before everyone catches up.

What even is sales anyway? A confident pitch with the hope of a bite? A consulted solution specific to needs the prospect hadn’t been aware of? A push, a pull?

Instead of soon-to-be-everywhere tactics, what if you had a stock of classic reusable costumes that never date because their singular purpose is timeless?

Sure, if you want sales at scale, shiny with automation might be best.

Go all Marvel with factory-produced blockbusters, and for a time you might rule the world.

But if you want the one and not the many, a volume-centric approach can work against you.

Such as when trying to fill a difficult vacancy, where you’ve carefully identified the needs and wants of an ideal candidate.

Perhaps they love costume dramas, but maybe it’s something else that meets their ikigai , and all you need do is give it to them.

When I speak to employers who've struggled to fill vacancies, the same two things typically happen:

  1. Their adverts are invariably job descriptions that don't show off their vacancy

  2. They have all the knowledge they need trapped in their head of why a great candidate should be interested in exploring employment with them

My adverts don't have the imaginative one-liners you see at the top of many of the best adverts.

Instead, I try to provide the most relevant, meaningful information that might separate this vacancy from the competition, without the need to click ‘read more’, while giving the reason to want to learn more.

Often it's in the language of the employer, even if that language can be hard to wheedle out at times.

Always it's meant to be the start of a conversation that has the same voice throughout, with nothing glaring to raise false objections.

The crux of the message in those adverts is the same one I use in cold outreach, on the phone, or whatever the medium.

In any employment or recruitment marketing, it's common to see an attempt at FX to stand out.

Whether it's humour and metaphor that has nothing to do with the content.

WE'RE A MAD FAMILY HERE!

Or increasingly dynamic, progressive, nay market-leading and award-winning adjectives.

Maybe a haiku. A uniquely formed message. Which we hope stands out.

But while those contents, adverts and messaging might stand out for now, and encourage a read, how do they stay relevant enough to gain interest from the most relevant of readers?

Personalisation is the de rigeur strategy for starting conversations in recruitment.

And will be trivialised by AI when the tech is good enough.

I've no doubt when employed well people will respond.

But if AI is available economically for all, and all employ trivialised personalisation, how exactly is that going to stand out?

Or will it create many feelings of an icky uncanny valley, when everyone knows more about you than you?

If you want to know how I sell, this is worth a read.

It's because I wasn't actively selling that he felt my message spoke to him so effectively.

Instead, I wanted to establish if he might be a good candidate, by giving him enough reason to have and continue a conversation focused on him, his situation, his needs and his concerns.

Had he not been suitable, he probably wouldn't have been interested - a good outcome.

How could I know if I should sell to him, without understanding first if he should be interested?

And yet the result of this not selling is that he still became that employer's next hire.

My curiosity drives the conversation while trying to evoke curiosity to learn more.

I don’t think that will ever get old.

Look, I'm not telling you not to sell.

And I'm not saying that sales isn't an admirable endeavour.

But there are many ways to sell, and sometimes the way that goes unnoticed can be the most effective of all.

What if we gave our ideal candidates what they need, without necessarily being aware of it, to help them make the right decision?

The subliminal can be the sublime.

Thanks for reading.

Greg

P.S. How to Sell without Selling is of course inspired by Bruce Lee.

P.P.S. I broke Bard when I asked it to confirm my haiku was a haiku, even if it lacks a seasonal reference and kireji.

Jump the shark. A Recruitment AiDE, pt 13

By Greg Wyatt • January 29, 2026
May 2023 You’ve heard the phrase, I take it – “jump the shark”? It’s the moment when one surprising or absurd experience can indicate a rapid descent into rubbishness and obscurity. When it’s time to get off the bus. Typically in media. Jumping the Shark comes from an episode of Happy Days in which the Fonz does a water ski jump over a shark. 👈 Aaaaay. 👉 A sign creators have run out of ideas, or can’t be bothered to come up with fresh ones. In movies, sequelitis is a good example of this – an unnecessary sequel done to make some cash, in the hope the audience doesn’t care about its quality. Sometimes they become dead horses to flog, such as the missteps that are any Terminator film after 2. It’s an issue that can lead to consumers abandoning what they were doing, with such a precipitous drop in engagement that the thing itself is then cancelled. Partly because of breaking trust in what was expected to happen next. And because it’s a sign that the disbelief that was temporarily suspended has come crashing down. If you don’t believe that your current poor experience will lead to further, better experiences, why would you bother? Once you’ve had your fingers burnt, how hard is it to find that trust in similar experiences? It doesn’t have to be a single vein of experience for all to be affected. Watch one dodgy superhero movie and how does it whet your appetite for the next? You didn’t see The Eternals? Lucky you. Or how about that time we had really bad service at Café Rouge, a sign of new management that didn’t care, and we never went again? Just me? Did they sauter par-dessus le requin? Here’s the rub – it matters less that these experiences have jumped the shark. It matters more what the experience means for expectation. So it is in candidate experience. It’s not just the experience you provide that tempers expectations – it’s the cumulated experience of other processes that creates an assumption of what might be expected of yours. If you’re starting from a low trust point, what will it take for your process to ‘jump the shark’ and lose, not just an engaged audience, but those brilliant candidates that might only have considered talking to you if their experience hadn’t been off-putting? Not fair, is it, that the experience provided by other poor recruitment processes might affect what people expect of yours? Their experiences aren’t in your control, the experience you provide is. Of my 700 or so calls with exec job seekers, since The Pandemic: Lockdown Pt 1, many described the candidate experience touchpoints that led to them deciding not to proceed with an application. These were calls that were purely about job search strategy, and not people I could place. However, one benefit for me is that they are the Gemba , and I get to hear their direct experiences outside of my recruitment processes. Experiences such as - ‘£Competitive salary’ in an advert or DM, which they know full well means a lowball offer every time, because it happened to them once or twice, or perhaps it was just a LinkedIn post they read. Maybe it isn’t your problem at all, maybe your £competitive is upper 1% - how does their experience inform their assumptions? Or when adverts lend ambiguity to generic words, what meaning do they find, no matter how far from the truth? How the arrogance of a one-sided interview process affects their interest. The apparent narcissism in many outreaches in recruitment (unamazing, isn’t it, that bad outreach can close doors, rather than open them). Those ATS ‘duplicate your CV’ data entry beasts? Fool me once… Instances that are the catalysts for them withdrawing. I’d find myself telling them to look past these experiences, because a poor process can hide a good job. It’s a common theme in my jobseeker posts, such as a recent one offering a counterpoint to the virality that is “COVER LETTERS DON’T M4TT£R agree?” Experiences that may not be meant by the employer, or even thought of as necessarily bad, yet are drivers for decisions and behaviour. I can only appeal to these job seekers through my posts and calls. What about those other jobseekers who I’m not aware of, who’ve only experienced nonsense advice? What about those people who aren’t jobseekers? What about those people who think they love their roles? What about all those great candidates who won’t put up with bad experiences? The more sceptical they are, and the further they are from the need for a new role, the less bullshit they’ll put up with. What happens when an otherwise acceptable process presents something unpalatable? Might this jumping the shark mean they go no further? Every time the experience you provide doesn’t put their needs front and centre or if it’s correlated to their bad experiences…. these can prevent otherwise willing candidates from progressing with your process, whether that’s an advert they don’t apply to, a job they don’t start, or everything in between. Decisions that may stem from false assumptions of what a bad experience will mean. Instead, look to these ‘bad experience’ touchpoints as opportunities to do better: instead of £competitive, either state a salary or a legitimate reason why you can’t disclose salary (e.g. “see below” if limited by a job board field and “we negotiate a fair salary based on the contribution of the successful candidate, and don’t want to limit compensation by a band”) instead of a 1-way interrogation… an interview instead of radio silence when there’s no news - an update to say there’s no update, and ‘How are things with you by the way?’ instead of Apply Now via our Applicant Torture Sadistificator, ‘drop me a line if you have any questions’ or ‘don’t worry if you don’t have an updated CV - we’ll sort that later’. Opportunity from adversity. And why you can look at bad experiences other processes provide as a chance to do better. With the benefit that, if you eliminate poor experience, you'll lose fewer candidates unnecessarily, including those ideal ones you never knew about. Bad experiences are the yin to good experience’s yang and both are key parts of the E that is Experience in the AIDE framework. The good is for next time. Thanks for reading.  Regards, Greg

How To Network For A Job - Jobseeker Basics XIV

By Greg Wyatt • January 26, 2026
The following is Chapter 42 in A Career Breakdown Kit (2026) . In a sense it's a microcosm of how any commercial activity can see a better return - which is to put the needs of the person you are appealing to above your own. It feels counterintuitive, especially when you have a burning need, but you can see the problem of NOT doing this simply by looking at 99% of job adverts: We are. We need. We want. What you'll do for us. What you might get in return. Capped off by the classic "don't call us, we'll call you." If you didn't need a job, how would you respond to that kind of advert? In the same vein, if you want networking to pay off, how will your contact's life improve by your contact? What's in it for them? 42 - How to network for a job Who are the two types of people you remember at networking events? For me two types stand out. One will be the instant pitch networker. This might work if you happen to be in need right now of what they have to offer or if mutual selling is your goal. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this but it’s a selling activity pretending to be networking. If you want to sell, go and overtly sell rather than disguise it with subterfuge. Lest we mark your face and avoid you where possible in future. The second is the one who gets to know you, shows interest and tries to add to your experience. You share ideas, and there’s no push to buy something. They believe that through building the relationship when you have a problem they can solve, you’ll think to go to them. It’s a relationship built on reciprocity. One where if you always build something together there is reason to keep in touch. And where the outcome is what you need if the right elements come together: right person, right time, right message, right place, right offering, right price. Job search networking is no different. The purpose of networking in a job search is to build a network where you are seen as a go-to solution should a suitable problem come up. In this case the problem you solve is a vacancy. Either because your active network is recruiting, or because they advocate for you when someone they know is recruiting. It is always a two-way conversation you both benefit from. Knowledge sharing, sounding board, see how you’re doing - because of what the relationship brings to you both. It is not contacting someone only to ask for a job or a recommendation. A one-way conversation that relies on lucky timing. That second approach can be effective as a type of direct sales rather than networking. If you get it wrong it may even work against you. How would you feel if someone asked to network with you, when it became clear they want you to do something for them? You might get lucky and network with someone who is recruiting now - more likely is that you nurture that relationship over time. If your goal is only to ask for help each networking opportunity will have a low chance of success. While if your goal is to nurture a relationship that may produce a lead, you’ll only have constructive outcomes. This makes it sensible to start by building a network with people that already know you: Former direct colleagues and company colleagues Industry leaders and peers Recruiters you have employed or applied through Don’t forget the friends you aren’t in regular touch with - there is no shame in being out of work and it would be a shame if they didn’t think of you when aware of a suitable opening. These people are a priority because they know you, your capability and your approach and trust has already been built. Whereas networking with people you don't know requires helping them come to know and trust you. Networking with people you know is the most overlooked tactic by the exec job seekers I talk to (followed by personal branding). These are the same people who see the hidden jobs market as where their next role is, yet overlook what’s in front of them. If you are looking for a new role on the quiet - networking is a go-to approach that invites proactive contact to you. Networking with people who know people you know, then people in a similar domain, then people outside of this domain - these are in decreasing order of priority. Let's not forget the other type of networking. Talking to fellow job seekers is a great way to share your pain, take a load off your shoulders, bounce ideas off each other, and hold each other accountable. LinkedIn is the perfect platform to find the right people if you haven't kept in touch directly. Whatever you think of LinkedIn, you shouldn’t overlook its nature as a conduit to conversation. It isn’t the conversation itself. Speaking in real life is where networking shines because while you might build a facsimile of a relationship in text, it's no replacement for a fluid conversation. Whether by phone and video calls, real life meetups, business events, seminars, conferences, expos, or in my case - on dog walks and waiting outside of the school gates. Both these last two have led to friends and business for me though the latter hasn’t been available since 2021. Networking isn’t 'What can I get out of it?' Instead, ‘What’s in it for them?’ The difference is the same as those ransom list job adverts compared to the rare one that speaks to you personally. How can you build on this relationship by keeping in touch? Networking is systematic, periodic and iterative: Map out your real life career network. Revisit anyone you’ve ever worked with and where Find them on LinkedIn Get in touch ‘I was thinking about our time at xxx. Perhaps we could reconnect - would be great to catch up’ If they don’t reply, because life can be busy, diarise a follow up What could be of interest to them? A LinkedIn post might be a reason to catch up When you look up your contact’s profile look at the companies they’ve worked at. They worked there for a reason, which may be because of a common capability to you Research these companies. Are there people in relevant roles worth introducing yourself to? Maybe the company looks a fit with your aspirations - worth getting in touch with someone who may be a hiring manager or relevant recruiter? Maybe they aren’t recruiting now. Someone to keep in touch with because of mutual interests. Click on Job on their company page, then "I'm interested" - this helps for many reasons, including flagging your interest as a potential employee Keep iterating your network and find new companies as you look at new contacts. This is one way we map the market in recruitment to headhunt candidates - you can mirror this with your networking The more proactive networking you build into your job search, the luckier you might get. While you might need to nurture a sizeable network and there are no guarantees, think about the other virtues of networking - how does that compare to endless unreplied applications? I often hear from job seekers who found their next role through networking. This includes those who got the job because of their network even though hundreds of applicants were vying for it. While this may be unfair on the applicants sometimes you can make unfair work for you. It can be effective at any level.