Perfect Marketing People Blog

'Best' Companies to work for

2026-05-22T08:44:58.235+00:00

It is a truth universally acknowledged that we spend around a third of our lives working.

I stole that line from a Times article today which was reviewing the 2026 Sunday Times compilation of the best UK companies to work for. Whilst they do cover different sized businesses, I could not find any regional creative services agencies on any of the lists. No judging here - to be honest, as with most awards, surveys and 'best of' lists, a business has to nominate themselves to start with. Frankly with the market being as poor as it is currently, I'd imagine that most business owners have more pressing concerns.

That said, I do see the value and essentially this kind of list comes under 'employee branding'. Ironically, there are creative agencies who do specialise in exactly this! The bottom line for most businesses (apart from the actual bottom line) is to have happy employees. Happy employees are engaged, committed, loyal, productive and as success feeds success, it's definitely worth employers going the extra mile to ensure their employees are happy. Equally a major stressor for every employer is recruitment - acquiring the right employees and then retaining them and as with acquisition of customers - it is much easier to retain an existing employee than it is to find a new one.

Of course, the definition of happy will vary with individuals and the world has been spinning ever since the pandemic, not least have we coped with a global epidemic but it feels like since then there has been great uncertainty in the world - wars, political unrest, spiking cost of living, increased global warming and of course, the rise and rise of AI. It's not surprising that employees are twitchy and prioritising security when job-seeking. Whether it's a Sunday Times list or another 'list', potential employees will be encouraged by positive reviews of workplaces, particularly where those reviews are by peers. (Note - candidates are equally discouraged by poor Glass door reviews). So there is value in these surveys.

It's extremely tough for employers and business owners out there, particularly independent business owners with whom I talk to regularly. Several have told me about their 3am night terrors and inability to sleep as they wrangle with the challenges currently being faced. But the best businesses are those who continue to provide their employees with a safe environment where they can thrive and be connected to their work colleagues. 90% of my candidates reported that in the year 25/26, they did not receive any kind of work bonus. Additionally, promotions were postponed and salaries were frozen. Targets were missed, revenues and margin were down. This means there is also no money for additional initiatives to motivate staff - training courses, away days and other perks. So what can employers do? As with pretty much everything in life, communication is certainly part of the solution.

Whilst may employees choose to sit tight when the market is poor (safer to sit tight than move to a role which is more uncertain), they are certainly feeling vulnerable at the moment. Employees see lots of conversations behind closed doors (that's even if they are working in the office), they're seeing redundancies, it's very visible that clients are spending less and taking more work on internally. Agencies are definitely finding it tough. Transparency does, of course help. Keeping employees loyal and motivated and on track during tough times. Employers have it tough particularly given the cost of investing in new staff, of trying to do everything 'right' - making sure they have diversity and inclusion policies, ensuring there are progression pathways for individuals, trying to accommodate flexible working patterns for different generations, taking into account the requirements of neurodivergent employees - it's all hard and during difficult times, these things still matter - even in the smallest businesses. And if employers get them right, those staff will stick with them.

Many of my clients are owner managed and in the past years have shifted to Employee Owned status. Whilst on the one hand this sounds great, it generally comes with a large sum of money to be paid back to the bank. Again, in a difficult and uncertain business climate this is extra pressure - for everyone.

Managing expectations of employees is essential and communicating to them will reduce building tensions and the feelings of uncertainty and vulnerability. At some point, the tide will turn and agencies whilst they may not thrive in the same way as the past, I am sure they will adapt to the changes in technology and evolve their services accordingly. When that happens, having a loyal and consistent team in place will literally pay (the) dividends.

By Fiona, 22 May 2026

Interviews - Be Authentic?

2026-04-24T09:37:00.001+00:00

As ever, when it comes to thinking of ideas for my blog, it's quite often prompted by something I've read in the media. This month, my idea source was an article in The Times about whether being your true authentic self in an interview is a good idea. Part and parcel of my role is prepping candidates for interviews and ensuring that they're equipped with all the necessary knowledge they need to impress a future employer and to secure the role. That said, there is only so much a recruiter can do and when it comes down to it, role hiring often comes down to those dreaded words 'the right fit'.
In the creative sector, we perhaps have more leeway when it comes to interviews than in other sectors. For example, I imagine that in Professional or Financial Services it's important to still adhere to a certain dress code, to prepare for interviews mostly conducted by HR Managers with a competency based approach and perhaps also to complete psychometric testing. In our world, whilst HR Managers do exist and we are still required to dress appropriately, the setting is generally less formal than it might be for other sectors.

It's a mad old world out there and the Times article was entitled 'why you should never be your true authentic self in an interview'. Yes it's a headline but on the whole, I agree with them. There was a story where the ex Head of Duolingo used to use the same taxi firm to ferry candidates away from the HQ after an interview. They'd then ask for feedback from the taxi driver as to the behaviour of the interviewee and use that as part of the decision making process - the takeaway - never ever be mean to a taxi driver after an interview!

The advice instead, is to be your best self not your whole self. We're lucky that in our sector recruitment is still mostly human led. I've always counselled to err on the side of caution, yes show some personality but read the room and don't over share. Your future employer is mostly concerned about whether you can do the job (obviously) and whether you will 'fit' both their internal team and with their clients. Whilst we may not like the term 'fit', it is important and it actually works both ways - for you as well as them. So some personality and some authenticity is required - we're not suggesting you give a fake impression of yourself but during the interview process, you do need to pitch yourself to the client and that does mean being your best and shiny self. Whilst more corporate firms will opt for lengthy interview processes and psychometric testing, most owner managed businesses will opt for 'instinct' and following up references.

Many employers will ask you to tell them a bit about yourself during an interview and this is where it's important to find balance. You don't want to come across as bland or beige in your interests but equally, at the other end of the spectrum, talking about your golf handicap, marathon time, obsession with cats might (depending on the interviewer) might lead to negative judgement (a gamble - they might also be obsessed with cats). We're back to reading the room and gauging what the interviewer is giving you. Perhaps you may need to counter any claims of sporting supremacy with a bit of self deprecation or equally you could get into a conversation about best marathon courses for PBs.

I've downloaded it but not yet read it - the article recommended a read of Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic’s Don’t be Yourself — Why Authenticity Is Overrated (and What to Do Instead). I suspect that this will include some useful life lessons. 'Skilled impression management' is highly recommended over the being your best unfiltered self. Food for thought!

By Fiona Christian 24/04/26.

What to do with a glut of Account Directors?

2026-03-20T17:59:00.003+00:00

2026. Just when I thought that perhaps the market would improve, we seem to have more market uncertainty than we did in 2025. In the last couple of weeks there have been several more redundancies across the region, particularly in the agency space and in talking to both clients and candidates there is some despondency.

As one might expect, redundancies do tend to affect the higher costs within a business - typically in an agency this would be Account Director and above. This is where agencies can make quite a significant saving on their balance sheet and as a result, 2025 saw many employees affected at this level by redundancy.

Additionally in 2025, together with the rise in minimum wage and to NI contributions, agencies were pushed when it came to hiring juniors. We saw at least 20% less hiring at the AE level than in the previous two years and with less senior hires, we started to see the midweight level of client servicing - Account Managers and Senior Account Managers becoming more squeezed. Taking on more administrative tasks due to lack of juniors but also stretched on delivery with no-one to escalate work to.

So the current state of play is that we have a lot of out of work Account Directors and above with very few roles to share with them. What is not clear, is how many agencies are functioning without this layer within their structure - typically where planning, strategy and client growth are key responsibilities.

Several agency owners have shared their frustration with me that they are finding junior training, development and retention difficult. My view is that there are several factors affecting this - as with most things, there is seldom just one reason! Juniors are coming into the sector demanding higher than ever before salaries and with high expectations of fast progression and working conditions (flexibility/benefits/hybrid working). As they are costing agencies more and we are seeing Account Managers and Senior Account Managers hard pushed to manage high workloads, we have a situation where agencies are not prioritising (cannot prioritise perhaps?) training so that juniors gain skills quickly to ease the pressure in a client services team. This leads to frustration from the juniors and from the agency owners who have subconsciously got higher expectations of an AE demanding a basic salary of £25k compared to £18k in the old days.

Looking at this objectively and trying to find a solution where I can help some of my out of work senior level candidates, I'm wondering whether there is a new middle ground to be found. In 2025, a few agencies did hire more senior people to do a role which they were technically overqualified to perform. Often, when I suggest this to agencies, they are not always pro as it doesn't always fit with progression in terms of their structure and culture, however, in some of the smaller independents, I am wondering if this is something that could take off.

More senior candidates who are seeing a very dismal jobs market are increasingly happy to earn less in order to stay in this industry. They do not equate earning less to working less hard or being less committed to their role. But they do equate it to taking less responsibility (say working as a SAM as opposed to an AD) and therefore having less day to day stress and potentially a greater work life balance. An agency owner can be confident that they have hired someone who requires minimal management, who can wear all the hats (and is prepared to) and who they can trust to be credible and professional at all times with their clients.

Some clients do argue that they'd be hiring this person until they found something at the right level but in my experience, once an individual has accepted a new normal and a role where they are respected without having to sell a kidney (a favourite expression of mine...), they are much happier in their employment and more loyal.

As we're all now going to be working into our seventies, it's unrealistic that we'll keep on seeking promotions all the way through our lifetime. I think some people will move into a second career or something more 'fulfilling' if they feel that they have outgrown the creative sector - often criticised for being a 'young person's game'. Or perhaps the alternative is that we have a new layer of individuals who are happy to just 'be'. Pay me a good salary and treat me nicely and I'll work hard, be professional and get stuff done with no hassle. I can see a future in this and I hope some of my independent agency owner clients can do too!

I haven't fully considered the ramifications for juniors joining the industry but increasingly I worry that the creative sector is not as attractive as it once was and with fewer roles, earning capacity and average salaries, the current market conditions and adapting to AI etc, things are certainly changing at this end of the career spectrum. Additionally we don't want to lose all the positive things that new, ideas driven, tech minded and motivated juniors do bring to the agency world. There's probably another blog there so I'll save it for the time being!.

In the meantime, if you're a client looking to hire or a candidate looking for a trustworthy and hard working recruitment partner, give me a call 07976 125963.

By Fiona. 20 March 2026.

Regional Salaries

2026-02-08T09:53:00.003+00:00

Every year, I faithfully publish a salary survey which reviews the salaries and market conditions of the creative sector. I look at the various recruitment and market trends - a bit of a 'what's hot and what's not'. Over the last 20 odd years, the salaries have not really varied significantly - I mean, we've always known that this isn't one of the higher paying sectors like say law, accountancy, medicine, finance or dentistry, however what most of us get is satisfaction from working in a creative industry and most of us wouldn't truly have wanted to work in those other sectors!

Where I have seen a significant shift is in salaries at the junior end of the scale. For new graduates coming into the sector, most salaries are £25k - and that's regardless of whether you are in client services, design, events, PR, planning, digital or project management. In the old days, this would be more like £16-18k - and that's even just as far back as 2019. The key driver for this is in the fact that the minimum wage in the UK is now pretty much £25k - so agency bosses have had to step up and pay the going rate - even if many of the old school brigade will still talk about back when they started on £15k....

However, I do think that agencies are taking on less juniors. Or maybe they are just hiring less overall - which is generally true. What with the rises to NI contributions too, the overhead in just hiring one extra member of staff is significant. Plus....clients are spending less and wanting more for their money - everything has become far more stretched than it used to. Some agencies have shifted to models where they simply don't have juniors. Rather they have senior and midweight staff who 'do everything'. This is more frequently seen in client services teams where an AD may well be tasked with writing strategy but also logging costs into systems and writing minutes from meetings.

Interestingly, I have observed that senior salaries have not shifted in line with juniors being paid more. We're seeing quite a definite salary ceiling which has resulted in many Account Directors commenting that they've been pretty much on the same salary for over 10 years. I do think that once the £50k mark is achieved salary wise, the number of roles available for more money and the more elevated job titles - we're seeing far less of them than ever before. Of course, in 2025, we saw a lot of redundancies and these were particularly harsh for senior level agency staff. We do see jobs for between £50k and £60k but really after £60k there is a large drop off.

It's frustrating, not least because I can predict that we will lose people from the sector. Those juniors starting out at £25k may well find that they can progress readily speedily up to the £40k mark but they will then find things stalling - probably just at the point when they are hoping to secure a mortgage or start a family.

In 2025, we saw lots of cuts in the regional network agency offices. It was in these agencies that some of the higher salaries were achievable - i.e. beyond £75k. We now have some very experienced individuals who are finding it impossible to match or even come close to what they were earning.

I can't truly predict how this will go. At the moment, I'm simply hoping that 2026 is a busier year for all of us and that businesses become less uncertain about hiring. However, there are global economic, political and social factors all at play here, plus the additional joy of AI and seeing how that will affect hiring strategies. Agencies in the creative sector will continue to evolve and transform - it will be interesting to see if salaries evolve and transform too!

By Fiona, 9th February 2026

Keep an eye on your socials

2026-01-15T10:24:00.002+00:00

Social Media. There is something for everyone. Depending on your generation you'll be on Facebook, Tik Tok, Instagram or Twitter/X (actually are people still on Twitter?). Over the last 20 years we've also seen the rise and rise of LinkedIn. As a recruiter I find it a necessary evil - useful in parts but I don't use it to promote my personal brand, I use it to highlight roles and to network with people.

Anyway. My process when a client briefs me on a new role is obviously all about sending CVs and then generating a shortlist for the client. I would say that nowadays, 8/10 clients will automatically have a little look on LinkedIn and other social channels to see what's out there in the ether.

One of my clients hiring for an Content Writer highlighted a number of typos in the LinkedIn page for a candidate. A key criteria for that role was 'attention to detail' so it was an immediate fail. Another client, hiring for an Account Manager found the posts that a candidate was posting were consistently narcissistic with some very negative views about the creative sector. So that was a no too. Clients have also rejected candidates based on their choice of photograph (skimpy clothing, cocktail in hand), too much promotion of their side hustle, overbearing political views and over-sharing of personal life stories.

Clearly LinkedIn is a professional social channel. Prospective employers will judge people from what they see on it. Yes, they may then look at your Insta feed but they're far less likely to judge you as that's not a professional platform (from an agency recruitment perspective). LinkedIn is different and as a candidate, particularly if you are job hunting, you need to ensure that it's up to date, factually correct, no typos and to ensure that your posts are relevant to you in a professional capacity. I see daily a lot of blurred lines where personal posting overrides the professional and to an extent I can understand this and yes, it's very subjective - what one employer doesn't like, another may have a different opinion. However, by and large, I'd suggest that your LinkedIn profile is kept professional and to save the 'funnies' for your personal channels. Obviously if you don't want anyone to look at your channels then it's important to get your privacy settings right but if too much information is out there in the ether then it could come back to bite you.

By Fiona. 15 January 2026.

Looking forward to 2026

2025-12-30T12:31:00.002+00:00

Well, what a year. I wouldn't normally do any work at all between Christmas and New Year. For me as a Recruiter, it's the one time when no-one wants to hear from me so I fully switch off and recharge the batteries. However, this year I've been laid low with a bug since Christmas day and whilst I am spending time with family - they're all out and about having fun and I'm....not.

So, I thought I'd just do a brief summary of the year and get myself psyched up for 2026. Starting to feel a bit better and thought I should do something useful!

I've been in recruitment for the creative sector for over 20 years now. 2025 was, without doubt, the most challenging year yet. It wasn't down to any one particular thing, I think there were many competing factors which ended up creating a bit of a storm in our sector.

In 2025, we saw more redundancies than in the last 4 years put together. Competition for new roles has been tough for candidates and individuals have found themselves out of work for over 6 months on average. Senior level candidates found it much harder to find something new and several have left the industry, frustrated by what does increasingly look like ageism from employers. We've seen the smaller independent agencies struggling to acquire new business and the networks slim down in numbers considerably. All clients have reported that their clients are demanding more, for less and so there have been many 'distressed agencies' during 2025 and I think we're all hoping that 2026 shows a bit less uncertainty and clients have more confidence to increase their spend again.

There have been some exceptions. Interestingly several of our B2B agencies do report that they have had a good year. Even those with North American clients where the impact of Trump's tariffs caused quite a bit of consternation. I come originally from a b2b marketing background so I do like to champion the sector and ensure that the younger candidates don't feel that it is a poor relation to the 'sexy' consumer brands. I often say that the brands that appear to be the most beguiling turn out to be the trickiest customers!

We have seen salaries increase for juniors in the sector but no corresponding increase for senior level people. This is likely to cause issues down the line as individuals see their salaries flat lining when they get to AD level.

The elephant in the room has been AI. 2025 has been a year when several regional agencies have sought ways to embrace it and to adapt. It's not going away and this is the first year where clients have been specifically asking me for people who have skills and knowledge of making AI work for them - (these people are evolving! There are no true specialists yet!). AI isn't the beginning of the end for our sector, I think whilst there will always be a need for real people in our world so hopefully we will find a way of using it to enhance the client experience and results rather than replacing people.

I do an annual salary survey which comes with a 'state of the nation' review. I'll be putting the finishing touches to this in January for publication in February. If you've been interested in this little snapshot of 2025, let me know and I can ensure you receive a copy of the full review.

Wishing all my candidates and clients health and happiness for 2026 and I will be back at my desk on January 5th.

Happy New Year!

Fiona. 30 December 2025.

Going AWOLduring the interview process.

2025-11-20T15:05:00.001+00:00

2025 has been a very peculiar year in recruitment terms. Whilst we in the UK are not technically in recession, the year has been difficult with a lot of uncertainty and from my perspective, more redundancies in the creative sector than 2008 (an actual recession). There have been fewer opportunities for candidates which does mean more competition for roles so prospective employers have had more choice, however, employers have also been extremely specific about role requirements - unwilling to hire unless people tick every single box on the wish list.

The MO of a recruiter during difficult economic conditions is very different to a booming market. It's important that we continue to talk to as many candidates as possible and to give realistic and pragmatic advice to those who are looking for a new role - often, increasingly anxious the longer they are out of work. And with our client relationships, it's trying to find the balance between keeping them aware of the talent we are working with, whilst not sending CVs in the same week that they have put employees under consultation.

I was working with a candidate this month who had a background in digital marketing. A good track record with a couple of well respected agencies. However, they'd been made redundant in June and had not worked since. There was a small red flag for me here because if any discipline has been 'safe' in 2025, I would say digital and performance marketing would have been it. However, the candidate was articulate, personable and someone who I felt would be very 'placeable' in spite of the market.

I secured an interview literally within 15 minutes of talking to the candidate. A good agency, nice culture, nice clients, nice team. The right salary and the right progression for the individual. The first chat was on Teams and the feedback was immediate - can we see the candidate in person for a second interview. The candidate agreed a date and time. Then they fell silent for a few days so I kept calling them to confirm and re-check that the interview time and date worked for them. In recruitment, you do have a sixth sense sometimes. You realise that a candidate may not being 100% honest or they may be stalling for various reasons. The day before the interview, the candidate confirmed that they were fine for the interview so I had some reassurance. However, literally 30 minutes before the interview was due to take place, the candidate texted to say they had a flat tyre and could we reschedule. They even sent a picture of the flat tyre. I might be sounding a bit unsympathetic here but I'd already had a few twinges of twitchiness. Fortunately the client was flexible and happy to reschedule. After all, the candidate genuinely did tick all of their boxes.

The second interview took place as rescheduled and the feedback was very positive. Could the candidate come back for a final stage interview in a couple of days. Cue, 4 days of silence from the candidate. As a recruiter, this is very tricky. You want to keep things 'warm' for the candidate - after all, there may be a very good reason for their silence. But, in this world of constant communication, it's very easy to send a quick message to someone to advise if a crisis or catastrophe has occurred. Silence is the worst thing of all. I can't justify silence to a client - what does it say about a potential employee's management of client relations?

The client emailed the candidate directly and then another day later the candidate got in touch with me saying 'oh, I just noticed an email...'. The client by this point had checked out the candidate social accounts and had seen a full weekend of posting on both Instagram and TikTok. So they'd hardly been without WIFI. Multiple red flags all around!

The candidate finally responded to the final interview request and this was confirmed for a Monday morning. On the Sunday - the day before, the candidate emailed me to say 'I've been offered a job today' - on a Sunday? So...they wouldn't be going to the interview.

It's funny. After over 20 years in recruitment, I am still surprised by people. At every stage of the recruitment process, I do not put candidates under any pressure to go for interviews. After all, I want those candidates to be interviewing for jobs they really want. In the current climate, most candidates are quite pragmatic to have as many conversations as possible and to keep an open mind as to what might be a suitable role.

The bottom line is that the candidate probably had a couple of other things on the go. That's fine and to be expected. What isn't acceptable is the silence at each step of the interview process. If a role isn't of interest then say so. If you have other interviews ongoing - be honest about them - it's what we'd expect! I am in this for the long haul. If I don't place a candidate now, then I may place them in their next role. The same is true for clients - if they feel they have had a good service from me, they will brief me again, next time around.

This one isn't really a rant. I understand that we are all only human. And that candidates may be holding on to find out if they have an offer from the job they really want....BUT, it's important to remember what is professional behaviour. People in our industry have long memories and once a future employer has had a couple of those red flags, they will lose all interest in that individual.

Be honest, at least with your recruiter. The recruiter will give you advice as to how to approach it, whether honesty is the best policy, how best to look after number one without pissing people off. I certainly don't hold a gun to a candidate's head that they have to accept a role, I would never guilt trip a person into an offer acceptance.....but I do need to know how keen you are on a role or whether it's your 'back up' option. You never know when you might cross paths with people again and when you might need them. You don't want them to remember that you were the one who blew hot and cold and then went AWOL.

Ultimately, communication and honesty are key. For all parties involved By the end of the process the client acknowledged that the individual would not be right for the role We have since found someone else who wanted the job and who went the extra yard. Horses for courses right!

Salary Transparency...

2025-10-28T12:44:00.003+00:00

I'm trying to remember what I've been watching on TV recently but I have repeatedly seen variations of an Advert from the online jobs platform Indeed. Multiple variations of the advert show what is what I would say looks like an extremely awkward (and unrealistic) interview situation where the hiring manager won't disclose the salary and the candidate doesn't want to name his price. It's supposed to highlight the 'absurdity' of salaries not being absolutely transparent - even at interview stage - and I guess also that if you try to find a job on Indeed.com, you'll absolutely have salaries shown on every single job advert.

I wrote not so long ago about how many job seekers get frustrated when a job advert states a 'competitive salary'. I understand this and always state a salary band which represents what the employer will pay. Often it's within a range - this is common in all industries and is dependent on experience. I will add here that I fell out not so long ago with an employer who had an issue with me highlighting the salary range of a role they were looking to fill. The employer was concerned that existing employees would discover that in fact, their employer was looking to hire new people at the same experience level on more money. I don't actually state who the employer is on my adverts (obviously!) but it does highlight that within some businesses, there is still inequality of people operating at the same level on entirely different salaries. All I can say to this is that they need to get that sorted. It's untrue that employees don't discuss salary - they do. So I do believe that every job advertised publicly should give the job seeker an idea of the remuneration - it's one of the main carrots that will encourage a response to the advert.

Anyway, a typical digression from me!

When I initially talk to a candidate about salary and expectation, we talk from a perspective of what they are looking for. Whether this is realistic. If I had a pound for every candidate who told me they were underpaid in their existing role, I'd be living my best life in the Bahamas! Whilst employees look for a new role for all kinds of reasons, finding a higher salary is usually number one or two in their reasoning. We then talk about the opportunities that I am working on that might match what they are looking for - and this will include role, location, hybrid, other benefits etc. Only then would we determine if the role was a potential for them and from that point I would talk to my client and share the candidate details. At this point, I share with the client, the salary expectation of the candidate.

Initial feedback might be that the expectation is too high or too low - in which case the candidate is not shortlisted for interview (and there are usually other reasons too! In the current climate, a client would only go over their budget it there were compelling reasons from the potential employee). But equally, many clients will think laterally and as long as the candidate has the right skills for the role, the client will invite that candidate for an interview.

My point here, is that no candidate should arrive at an interview - live or remote, without knowing what the salary band for the role is. And no client should be interviewing a candidate for whom they have no knowledge of that candidate's salary expectation. So the advert fails for me at this point.

I would obviously say that in using a respected recruiter like myself, that such a situation would never happen and that's why it is always worth talking to a recruiter (me). But it's also unrealistic because clients/employers don't interview for fun. Their time is valuable, they will only interview people who really tick all their boxes - and a huge box is salary expectation.

Where I do think that a candidate is underpaid in their current role, I always advise them to talk to a prospective client about the salary that they are looking for (as opposed to saying 'I'm on X and I am looking for Y'. Once a candidate mentions that they are currently earning £28k but applying for a £40k role - even if the candidate is currently woefully underpaid and the new employer would pay £40k, they'd offer a lot less. So I do understand at least in the advert that the candidate doesn't want to name their price. But again, it's just unrealistic. I can't believe that the candidate would have made it to interview stage without the salary marker being discussed in advance.

If the role is being handled by a recruiter, this situation wouldn't happen. If a candidate gets to final stage of interviewing and then salary is on the table - there should be no surprises for either the employer or the candidate. As with just about everything it's about managing expectations.

Yes, often at the point of offer, a candidate will see if the client potentially can stretch to a couple more thousand - and whilst many employers won't take offence at this, some will! If an employer has been clear from the start about the salary, this can sour the agreement. Having said that, I would always ask, if it is appropriate to do so.

Finally, back to the advert. I thought the whole interview set-up was unrealistic. Any hiring manager who interviews with that level of disinterest in their potential new employees - a) shouldn't be in that job themselves and b) doesn't deserve to find any good candidates prepared to work for them.

I'm always happy to chat and to discuss what salary averages are for different roles in our sector. Knowledge is power!

Fiona Christian. 28/10/25. 07976 125963.

So many redundancies....some advice.

2025-09-27T15:12:00.000+00:00

I do feel old when I now consider that I have been in recruitment within the marketing/creative/advertising sector for over 20 years. Longer than I was actually working in marketing now! But I do think that mostly I've had it pretty good. Particularly, working for myself which was the best decision I ever made giving me the flexibility to work where I wanted, when I wanted and with whom I wanted. Clearly all the years of experience gained prior to that gave me the confidence and skills to go it alone but we're nearly at 18 years of Perfect Marketing People and I have to say that the market currently is the worst that I have ever known it. Which is bizarre considering that I launched PMP in 2008 when there was an actual recession.

However, whilst the stats may not say it's a recession now, we are currently experiencing some of the toughest economic and political issues that the world has ever faced. Whilst we think of recruiting for our sector in the North of England, it doesn't always feel that the situation in the Middle East or the USA should have a direct impact on us. But it does. Definitely. Increasingly there are creative agencies working with North America which is affected by Trump Tariffs, there are also agencies working with FMCG clients who utilise glass or tin which are often made in Ukraine, and frankly the situation between Israel and Gaza is just another major source of uncertainty in the world and that level of uncertainty does mean that large corporates and smaller corporates are facing big challenges.

These challenges mean for agencies that their clients are spending less and demanding more - for less! Also their clients are not committing to long term spends or projects which means that agencies are finding it hard to plan for resourcing. Several agencies have also commented to me that the search for new business is increasingly hard. Going after big name brands is costly, time consuming and with no guarantees, it is difficult for agencies already operating on minimum resources to justify the cost of pitching for this kind of business. But when existing clients are spending less....natural organic growth is just as difficult. I've had a couple of agencies asking me for Sales Directors who come with a 'little black book of contacts' but in this day and age, that doesn't exist. The procurement process for acquiring new business is so full of red tape that even if you do have several besties who are Marketing Directors for major brands, absolutely nothing is guaranteed.

Additionally, we came out of the Pandemic with many agencies having had their best years ever. Boom time! Lots of hiring and so when things got quiet....agencies were a bit 'flabby' and suddenly cuts were being made. We hardly saw any redundancies between 2000 and 2023 - perhaps a result of the measures put in place by Government to put employees on Furlough. But, I would say that from late 2023 onwards, we saw a slow trickle of redundancies which now, in September 2025 has not really stopped.

Most affected, are senior level people in agencies - although it does vary. Most of the network agencies in the North do occasionally have 'restructures' but that's often about making sure that the right people are in the right roles and clients are resourced efficiently for maximum profitability. However, it seems that significant cuts are being made across all levels. This could also be attributed to several mergers of networks so there is a de-duplication of roles which, of course, leads to redundancies.

It's not all doom and gloom. There are pockets of activity. Most notably across paid search, SEO, content marketing and those integrated agencies who work on shopper and brand activation activity. But recruitment is typically at the more junior to mid-weight level rather than senior. So we are seeing a lot of senior client services and creative individuals being let go and with no real sense of the market improving for them. Increasingly, these individuals are considering leaving the sector completely and finding something new. Agencies are not so keen on having 'over qualified' people doing more junior roles and this is real shame given how much talent is out there.

I'm not sure yet how much AI is truly playing a part in the redundancy trend. Many agencies are adopting a positive AI approach and to harness the power of AI to combine it with traditional marketing techniques and creative application. So we may well see an uptick of agencies who are looking for AI savvy individuals who will be able to help clients maximise the use of AI in their strategies. I can't say that I'm seeing a lot of that just yet!

So, that's a long winded review of where it feels the market is at. I'm talking daily to people who are under consultation of redundancy, particularly those who think that perhaps taking voluntary redundancy is a good option. A few points below are worth considering:

1. The market is extremely slow. There are a very small number of roles currently across the region for an increasingly high proportion of people looking.

2, Voluntary Redundancy can seem like a good idea. Especially if you haven't been happy for a while. Do your sums. How long can you realistically afford to be out of work for. The days of having a good 'pay off' are long gone. You can't guarantee that you'll find something within 3 months. If you've got the option to hang on in there, depending on your financial situation, I probably would sit tight

3. Redundancy. Of course, when it comes down to it, there are many things you can't control. If it happens, it happens. It's worth exploring the 'options' that are considered but in my experience, there seldom is another role that you can take in the business realistically. Make sure you get a reference from at least 2 people in the business that you can share with potential employers. Yes, of course, when future employers ask for it, you can pass on details but it's better if you can say; 'here are two glowing references from my last employer'.

4. Don't panic. I know, easier said than done. We all have financial responsibilities. Establish what your overheads are and how long you have before things become (more) dire.

5. Be pragmatic. Think laterally. Not just about money but also about sector, location, hybrid work options. Yes, consider moving into something totally different but also consider what your salary and work life balance would look like in that parallel world. I've known a lot of people who go into teaching, and frankly the grass is not always greener! But perhaps there are options for you to do something totally different.

6. Remember, at some point the tide will turn. I've been thinking that so many senior people have been let go that at some point, agencies will find themselves short of senior people - frankly clients want to deal with credible and experienced agency leads. We may see more fixed term contracts coming through - this is potentially more likely if the uncertainty continues and agencies can't commit to increasing overhead permanently.

7. Try to enjoy a bit of time out. It won't be forever. I know this is tricky - with mortgages and bills etc, but before long, you will be back doing the 9 to 5. You can't search for jobs 24 hours a day. Try to do something each day which is out of the norm and something you wouldn't normally have time for.

8. When you are searching....Use the dreaded LinkedIn. A necessary evil. Contact anyone from your past life who may be happy to get back in touch, put a good word in for you, chat to their boss. Many employers offer an incentive if you recommend people (as a recruiter I shouldn't share that!!), however, now is not the time to be shy and retiring. Be proud of your Open to Work flag and actively hunt down people who can help you.

9. Talk to as may recruiters as you can. We all have different relationships with different agencies. And whilst there is the occasional overlap, as long as you are clear who your CV has gone to and who it hasn't, then multiple recruiters are a must.

10. Cross your fingers/Pray - whatever your chosen means of positive thinking is! You are employable. This is the worst market we've known in a long time. The tide will turn and as long as you keep communicating with the recruiters, contacts, friends etc....then it's about being in the right place at the right time when things do shift.

Phew. A bit of an epic there. Good luck! And stay in touch. Always happy to chat.

Fiona 07976 125963

Finally, to keep positive, I have talked to a couple of independent agencies who are reporting their best year ever. Both these agencies are B2B focused and doing work globally for manufacturing, engineering and energy sector clients.

Want higher pay? Stay put!

2025-08-14T08:49:00.000+00:00

From time to time, Mr PMP throws me suggestions for blog topics. After 17 years of writing the monthly PMP blog, I can get a bit stumped trying to come up with anything new and quite often, it's a case of writing about how things have changed or evolved over the years. Fortunately, he is a regular reader of The Economist so occasionally I feel that I've got something substantial to talk about rather than the ramblings of a possibly jaded recruiter.

This month, the Economist published an article citing that if you want higher pay, you're best to stay with your current employer. The statistics that they cite is largely based on USA figures but anecdotally I can concur with very similar trends in the UK. For the last few years, particularly in Millennials and GenZ, there has been a real trend that it pays to be 'footloose'. Apparently there are 'Career Gurus' on TikTok who brag and debate on how little time in a role a job hopper can get away with before future employers might start to fret about disloyalty (A year or so is their general consensus).

Now, the US stats are showing that wage growth is higher for those who have stayed with their employer rather than jumped ship. The advice is that it's better to hunker down and impress the boss rather than replying to all those 'Headhunters' on LinkedIn.

As with all aspects of recruitment in the last 18 months, and indeed since the buoyancy of the pandemic, there are many factors affecting our sector. During the pandemic, many creative agencies and businesses over-hired and have spent the subsequent years paring back. In the North West and Yorkshire particularly, I've seen more redundancies in the last 12 months than the previous 5 years. Graduate recruitment is at an all time low as is the hiring of those aged over 55.

Many of my agency clients have told me that they are being asked by their clients for far more, for far less. Retained business is very hard to come by and budgets are not predictable. This means that agencies do not have confidence to hire - i.e. to increase their overheads, if the client work is not going to be sustainable and continued. Additionally, clients will only hire if they are absolutely sure of a potential employee's suitability for a role and they are conscious of any 'red flags'. The primary red flag that I see is job hopping. Agencies now are very suspicious of taking anyone on who may only intend to stay with them for a year. (The Economist article doesn't venture into this territory - this is my extended take on things!).

Another observation that I have made in recent months is a few cases of permanent job offers being made, only for a new employee to be 'let go' within 3-6 months. This is usually extremely rare. No employer goes into the hiring process with an intention of a hire not working out. They particularly don't pay a recruiter unless they are serious about needing the skills of that new employee. There is a lot of global uncertainty - economic, political and social and this is clearly impacting the corporate world.

I have definitely seen many candidates choosing to 'sit tight'. Candidates and job hunters tend to be looking for a role which is 'better' than their existing role. They're not unaware of what's going on in the world and perhaps having escaped a round of redundancies or seen friends in vulnerable positions, they've decided the grass is not always greener. Also - the definition of 'better' - it's not always money - it can mean flexible hours, pension, bonus, culture, days in the office.

The irony is that whilst we are working with a much smaller pool of roles than we would typically be working on, many candidates who are technically 'keeping an eye out' are deciding to stay where they are. Even those who in a previous life were Job hoppers, they've sensed that time has run out and they need to prove themselves.

It's an interesting time to be in recruitment. With the media talking a lot about AI in terms of replacing jobs and playing a role in the recruitment process, the domino effect of world events impacting decision making and humans being...humans, we'll see how the post August/holiday numbers stack up and hopefully see a bit more momentum in the market.

Written by Fiona Christian. August 14th 2025.

If you want to chat, I'm on 07976 125963.

Horrible Bosses

2025-07-29T14:44:00.002+00:00

This week I read an interesting article in the Times. Long term sick leave is apparently a big problem in the UK. Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary has appointed Sir Charlie Mayfield (ex chairman of John Lewis) to come up with a plan to stop workers leaving their jobs because of poor health. Statistics show that there are 2.8 million people inactive due to ill health (up from 2.1 million pre pandemic).

There was no mention in the article of the breakdown of medical issues causing so many sicknotes. I'm not sure if this is ever reported. Instead, the article focused on poor mental health being a big driver for employees seeking a sick note and in particular, the impact of a 'horrible boss' causing poor mental health and from there the employee heading to their GP for a sick-note. The article didn't give indicate what the age range of the absentees was but the way in which it was written implied that Gen Z were largely responsible and these individuals were unable to take criticism in the workplace without immediately reporting it and citing the criticism as affecting their mental health negatively.

Where to start?!

Most big businesses do have proper procedures in place to handle employee absence. Large Corporates will have processes in place and HR teams and advisors who will manage statutory sick pay and keep in touch with absentees - with the goal of the employee returning to their role healthy and well. It's a bit more blurred when it comes to independent businesses without a solid HR structure. Of course, any Owner/Manager will invest in employees and will not want an employee to be absent indefinitely. But perhaps more-so when it is a mental health rather than a physical health issue, the conversations between boss and employee are not always constructive and things can quickly become very heated. The person on sick leave then becomes alienated and often does not return to the business. It's easier to appreciate that someone on sick leave due to a burst appendix or who is receiving treatment for a longer term illness will gain more understanding from an employer - hopefully there is a clear outcome for when someone is 'better' and able to return to work. How one assesses if an employee's 'mental health' problem is cured is not so easy.

I'm not sure why the article focused so much on horrible bosses. When I'm talking to candidates who are looking for a new role, there are usually a variety of reasons. And whilst occasionally that reason is because of a disagreement with a boss or just not liking or respecting a boss, I think most individuals would acknowledge that being a Manager is a tricky business and often Managers do have to ask employees to do tasks they don't want to do or they will pick up on work that is not completed to the expected high standard. No-one likes to be 'told off' and whilst I'd hope that employers would give feedback constructively and in a professional manner, that's not always the case. But I'd also hope that employees would take a mature approach and acknowledge if the boss has been 'fair'.

As with just about everything in life, this whole topic reflects the importance of strong communication skills. Also, the importance of recognising a problem and heading it off before it gets to the point of a sick-note. It's the responsibility of an employer to ensure that any employee who is struggling in a role has the opportunity to discuss this and to put in place systems that will rectify any issues. Whether that's lessening the work-load, reassigning projects internally or giving more training to the employee. It's also the responsibility of the employee to be honest if things are too much or they are reaching burn-out. If an employee is scared to be honest because an employer is not sympathetic to their situation, they're more likely to either seek a new role completely with a new employer or to seek a sick note.

Again, I don't know the statistics but whilst things have improved with regards to acknowledging mental health in this country, there are still those who will judge people negatively. Employers need to ensure that if they are aware employees have a history of anxiety or depression, they will be potentially more susceptible to problems if they are under too much pressure or do not have sufficient support. In the same way that we are seeing employers change their behaviour towards neurodiverse individuals, managers and business leaders will ensure that the workplace and role responsibilities play to their employee's strengths. A happy employee is one who is looked after, receives feedback regularly and who is rewarded for successful outcomes.

I don't know many people who run to the GP at the first sign of any workplace stress. After all, most of us acknowledge that work can be stressful for a host of reasons (often not anything to do with the job itself but due to family or personal issues). It's how we manage any stress and ensure that it is not permanently ongoing - otherwise we do hit burnout.

We're all going to be working into our Seventies. We get one shot at life, it's important to ensure that we're doing a job that we enjoy, that fulfils us, that pays the bills, that allows us some work-life balance. Most of us would recognise that if the job 'isn't right' on any level, to take a pragmatic approach to see if changes can be made and if not, perhaps to strike out and see if there are alternative roles out there that will create the right balance and allow us to enjoy our life to the full. Our job plays a strong role in determining our self esteem, gives us purpose and the financial reward allows us to enjoy a good quality of life. Sitting at home with an indefinite leave of absence watching daytime TV? I don't think that's a choice many people would make intentionally and if a person has genuine mental health issues, staying at home alone is quite possibly not the right environment to be in.

Perhaps another of my rambling blogs but the bottom line, as ever, is if you're not happy in your role - for whatever reason....give me a call. Objective advice. Always.

Written by Fiona 28/07/2025.

A civilized society functions through a combination of established governance, cultural norms, and a commitment to justice and fairness. It relies on institutions that protect individual rights, promote social cohesion, and provide essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Additionally, a civilized society encourages cooperation, empathy, and a shared understanding of societal values, while also allowing for diverse perspectives and the peaceful resolution of conflicts

Ghosting - candidates and clients...

2025-06-28T09:08:00.001+00:00

I had a CV from a candidate around 6 weeks ago. We had a few initial emails and several diarised calls failed to happen. I do a weekly email round up of the latest opportunities that I am working on (let me know if you'd like to receive it!) so I thought, OK, I'll park it there, there's only so many times you keep on trying. Then last weekend, a message to apologise for the ghosting (honest at least!) and an explanation that they'd thought they were a shoo-in for a role that turned out not to be.

Over the years I've worked in recruitment, I've learned to play the long game. If I can't help someone now, I'll help them in the future, they'll recommend me to colleagues, they'll become a client - if I've done things the right way! So whilst I am very much a recruiter with a personal/relationship building model, my database is my absolute main tool which is why I am still around. There are plenty of recruiters around who don't actually have a database, they just live on LinkedIn. I can't actually avoid LinkedIn, I would be a fool if I did, however, it's a part of my toolbox, and actually quite a small part.

As usual, I digress. That certainly isn't the only 'ghosting' experience that I've had. It's quite funny that when I have lots of applications for roles, it's the candidates who actually match the role requirements who are often the hardest to get hold of! For the best (placeable) candidates, I'll always keep on trying with regular comms.

Also interesting are clients. Now, we're currently working in what I consider to be the worst market conditions I've ever experienced in recruitment. There are roles around but there area lot of challenges. Far fewer roles, far more candidates looking, far more candidates sitting tight and not prepared to take risks, roles being pulled at second stage interview, redundancies being made after 3 weeks of a new role starting - and that's just some of them! Understandably world events are creating a huge amount of uncertainty in the business community and clients will often brief me with an understanding that 'I'm waiting for something to land'. It's a shame that it's often at the last minute when things do fall through. I'm fine with all of that, I know conditions are tough for many agencies.

Occasionally though, a new client comes along with a brief. I commit to helping them, I provide CVs....and then....nothing. I chase, then I chase again. And the challenge here is keeping applicants in the loop. Giving feedback is a non-negotiable in recruitment and even if it's a 'no', I like to know that. In most cases, roles have been pulled, in some cases the HR Manager themselves have been made redundant. It's not feasible to provide daily feedback so I do try to manage expectations whilst keeping the applicants hopeful (often, this delay backfires when candidates feel that this is a red flag for them and the client isn't serious/professional/courteous).

What I do find though, is that as with candidates, I keep on communicating. Not too much, not too little, just keeping in touch. Being in the right place at the right time is a big part of being a recruiter. That, hard work, consistency, persistence and a little bit of luck.

It's very true the old adage. The harder I work, the luckier I get. Even when the market is tough and even fewer of the controllables are controllable!

Stay in touch!

Fiona, 28 June 2025.

What to do when the market is slow!

2025-05-07T14:40:00.001+00:00

It's funny. My USP as a recruiter working in the marketing and advertising sector used to be that I worked in marketing and advertising before coming into recruitment. I used to say that I'd have no interest in say, recruiting for train drivers or accountants (and this is still true!). Genuinely, I think we're fortunate in this sector because generally speaking, the people are great. For the most part it's a friendly, gregarious and interesting sector to work in and I enjoy still staying in touch with those people. Equally, the role of a recruiter is not entirely dissimilar to working in client services and campaign management so I still get to use most of the same skills that I did then. Anyway, it occurs to me now that I've been in recruitment longer than I was in marketing!

So, that's a fairly typical rambling starting point for the monthly blog. My point, that I'm coming to is that in 20 years of recruiting, I do think that the last 12 months have been the most tricky that I have experienced. I'm fortunate that I work for myself so I can be adaptable to change and focus on where the pockets of activity in the market are - back in the day when I was managing a team of recruiters who all had a specialism, this kind of market would be quite unpleasant.

There is no one single reason for the current market stagnation - it feels like a perfect storm made up of multiple factors. There are global events which are impacting agency clients spends and agencies are seeing clients wanting more for less money. New business from new clients is proving hard to come by with procurement red tape becoming overly complex and time consuming for some smaller agencies. Additionally, whilst we do still have some big agencies who are part of networks, I would say that the number of small independent agencies have multiplied and whilst they may have had ambitious growth plans, they have been badly affected by a drop off in client spending. Equally, I think after the recruitment boom of the pandemic, there were some agencies who were perhaps over staffed once things started to quieten down. Certainly there have been more redundancies in the last 12 months than the previous 4 years. I launched PMP in 2008 when there was an actual recession - technically at the moment we are not in a recession but it feels like a harsher market than 2008.

However, it is what it is. One of my life mantras has always been 'control the controllables'. Whilst I can't magically create jobs, when the going gets tough, there are certainly things as a recruiter that I should still be doing and there are things that I recommend candidates do too so that they don't become disheartened, disillusioned and depressed. My recommendations for candidates do depend on the particular situation that a candidate is in. Here's a summary:

Candidates who are out of work. Typically having been made redundant or who have taken Voluntary redundancy.

A growing pool of people reside in this category. Whilst there is often an immediate sense of disaster at the point of redundancy, there is a subsequent positivity that 'this could be a good thing' and 'I wasn't happy anyway'. If you are fortunate, you'll have received your contractually agreed notice period salary and you'll be free to start searching immediately. Yes, occasionally, you might secure something immediately but in a flat market, you should be prepared for it not to be as straightforward as during a boom.

Advice:

Let people know you are looking and that you are available immediately. Don't be embarrassed about an 'Open to work' flag on your LinkedIn profile. Message people you have worked with previously, ask friends and colleagues to keep an eye out for you. Be relentless! If you have contacts who are working in other agencies, they'll likely receive a bonus if they recommend someone to their hiring manager.

Keep an eye on all the job boards and talk to sector specific recruiters.

Understand that job hunting for 24 hours a day will only make you depressed. Give yourself a daily window to be proactive in the hunt but ensure that you are doing something productive each day that you would not normally have time for. I'm not a health guru but getting outside, taking exercise, learning a new skill - keep busy.

Keep your options open. Whether that's geographical, lowering your expectations on certain criteria that you have (particularly on hybrid vs office based), considering contract work or temp to perm options.

Don't spend all day every day tweaking your CV. Create a really good generic CV but tailor it as and when you need to for specific job roles. Ask recruiters for advice if you're not confident that it is good enough.

Lots of people ask me about 'freelance' work. In this climate, we're not seeing a lot of freelance - even on the creative side. In these cases, people are finding that they might be able to secure a day a week but not enough to sustain a living. Keep it in mind but it's probably not the answer to your prayers.

Stay positive. Things will change. There are roles out there, yes things are competitive. When you do secure interviews, really work on the positivity. Perhaps ask friends or a recruiter to do an interview role-play with you. If you have been out of work for over 3 months, it's likely that you are low in confidence and that can come across negatively in interviews.

Candidates who are gainfully employed and actively looking for a new role.

Currently, this class of candidate is generally frustrated because they are overworked and underpaid. Another side effect of a tough 12 months is that agencies haven't been promoting people or giving significant salary increases. Leavers haven't always been replaced which means that existing staff are working harder. Couple this with increasingly demanding clients (under pressure themselves) resulting in quite a few dissatisfied employees across the region.

Advice:

Bide your time. The market is reasonable for individuals under the £35k mark but for more senior hires, the number of opportunities is very limited. Keep an eye on job boards, talk to your trusted and preferred recruitment consultants and make sure you are on their radars.

Don't shoot yourself in the foot. If you are going to move - do ensure that you do due diligence on your new employer. Check that their financials are in order and that it's the right role for you. The grass is not always greener.

Unless you are actively unhappy in your current role and it is negatively affecting your health and wellbeing, sit tight rather than leaving with no job to go to. I am talking to a lot of people at the moment who are indicating that they are so desperate to leave a job, they'll hand their notice in and hope for the best. My reminder here is that when the market is this flat, it's a very big gamble to leave and to hope that 'something' will pop up. Obviously it depends on your financial situation but it isn't guaranteed that you'll find something in 3 months, it could be a lot longer.

Candidates who are in agencies where redundancies have been made. You are 'safe' but it has given you a big wobble in confidence.

I'm seeing quite a lot of this. Agencies who have had quite a few people going through the 'consultation' process and then escape redundancy or who accept a different role in the business. Initially there is a 'phew, I can still pay the mortgage' but then there is undoubtedly some re-structuring, some changes in day to day responsibilities and typically no change in salary or job title. You are essentially 'grateful' but resolve to 'see how it goes'. Having said that, in agencies where the consultation process has not been handled professionally or where communication has been poor, those 'saved' employees do indeed get straight on the phone to a recruiter.

Advice:

Pretty much 'see how it goes'. In a flat market, it's better to be employed than unemployed. However, be vigilant. Often, further redundancies are made a couple of months later so it does no harm to brush up your CV and essentially that the advice I have given for those who are employed and actively looking for a new role. Put out feelers....you're not desperate but you do want to look after number one and ensure that you have job security and can continue your career progression.

Entry Level Graduates seeking the first step on the career ladder.

We've seen a marked reduction in the number of entry level candidates who have some work placement experience and that makes it hard to secure an entry level role in an agency.

Advice:

The best advice I can offer is to contact agencies directly and to see if you can secure some work experience or an internship. Agency MDs do still like proactive juniors and particularly in the bigger agencies, they do still have apprentice and graduate schemes - albeit hiring in reduced numbers but still hiring. If you are still linked to your university, contact the careers service to see if they have any partner marketing or creative agencies who they can put you in touch with. Most internships do lead to an extension or a perm offer so approaching agencies directly can really pay off. I'm always happy to chat to juniors so do get in touch and if I can offer additional support, I will.

The market won't stay like this for ever. It's cyclical and we just need to hang on in there and wait for things to shift. There are definitely pockets of busy-ness. Sub £35k hires in client servicing are prevalent and content, paid social and search roles remain reasonably buoyant. I'm spending my time talking to clients and talking to candidates. Recruitment has always been about being in the right place at the right time and I'm conscious that when things start to gain more momentum, I'll be ready!

Written by Fiona. 7th May 2025.

Tel - 07976 125963

The truth about job applications online...

2025-04-10T08:26:00.003+00:00

I was musing what I should cover for my April Blog. There were a few options (although frankly, everything has been covered before!). I decided to cover two semi related topics. Job adverts online - real or fake and then the number of volume of applications that we see highlighted when applying for a job.

First up. I had an email from a candidate. Every Friday I send out an email to my candidate base to review the latest roles that I am working on (Let me know if you'd like to be on the circulation). This email works well for me and over the last 20 odd years in recruitment, I've not changed the format. It's a simple summary of the top jobs that I'd like to fill. All the roles I work on are advertised on the PMP website (www.perfectmarketingpeople.com) but it's a bit of a reminder to my candidates - a wave to say 'have a quick look and let me know if you're interested'. So, anyway. A candidate emailed me and asked if the jobs were all real, did they actually exist? Wow. So I sent a very nice response saying that yes, they were all real and I'm definitely not a Cowboy Recruiter who'd be advertising jobs that did not exist.

I think in the old days, recruiters often got a bad rap. A bit too salesy, people who'd do or say anything to make a placement. But I believe those days are long gone. The recruiters in our sector are still here because they're building relationships with clients and candidates for the long haul. Whilst quick placements are lovely, they're also relatively rare, particularly when the market is as depressed as it feels it is right now.

I can honestly say that I would never and have never advertised a fake role. Frankly I've got enough real roles to try and fill. Plus, when we advertise a role, we receive a lot of applications/responses and those require time and effort to give feedback etc. That's a lot of time on admin that would be better spent filling the actual roles that I've got to fill.

Whilst the market is very flat at the moment, I think made worse by the recent US tariff announcements - ultimately leading to more uncertainty and skittish clients. There are pockets of activity and clients who are hiring. You can be confident that if you are talking to me about a role, then it's a real role!

The second discussion that I seem to be having a lot is about the high number of applications that online adverts attract. Currently, there are a lot of people out of work and a lot of people who have been made redundant. These people are generally quite stressed, they are spending hours a day on online job boards and I'd say on the whole they're feeling pretty fragile. A new job appears online and within hours, there are hundreds of applicants (OK, perhaps a bit of an exaggeration). Candidate often then think, 'well, I won't bother applying, it will have gone by now'.

From a recruiter's point of view...whilst we may receive a LOT of applications. The truth is that a very very small proportion of those applications will be relevant. I can guarantee that there will be a large proportion of applicants from overseas, typically who do not meet any of the criteria. There will be an equally large proportion of applicants who clearly haven't read the precis of the role and I can instantly say, these people have not worked in the right sector, in the right discipline, in the right region etc. Then there will be a tiny proportion who do fit the criteria or who, even if they don't tick all the boxes, are definitely worth responding to because even if this role isn't quite right, it's likely that I might have something else for them, now or in the future.

I do look at every application that I receive. I'd be a fool not to. There are no machines or AI involved in the process. I also appreciate how depressing it is when you are sitting at home clicking 'apply' because for a lot of people out of work, they will apply for any job no matter how tenuous their skills match the experience required. I acknowledge too how depressing is when you think 'I've applied for over 20 jobs and not heard anything back from any of them'. It's worth thinking about quality and how often, less is more. Only click 'apply' if you genuinely feel that you match what the job advert is looking for. Typically, online adverts will show you who the hiring manager is so if you have any doubts, it is worth calling or emailing them to ask some questions and to see if there is any movement in the criteria - how much wiggle room is there. Often there is some, often there is none.

I advertised a couple of 100% remote roles recently. I was flooded with response. I had strict criteria of requiring pharma sector client experience, gained in a creative agency environment and specifically working on internal comms and behaviour change. From that particular job board, precisely NONE of the applications met those criteria.

So there are perhaps two morals of that story. One, apply for roles that meet your experience, you will be much more likely to secure a response. Two, don't not apply for a role that you do think you meet the criteria for - even if it is showing 400 applicants already for this job.

If you'd like to receive the Friday email, ping me a note at fiona.christian@perfectmarketingpeople.com

Written by Fiona, 10th April 2025.

Use of ChatGPT/AI on applications...

2025-03-24T10:07:00.001+00:00

I've said before that I am a bit of a Luddite...but with the years come technological advances and whilst some can be life changing, some, not so much. I can't fight them all though and I'm certainly an adopter of some. ChatGPT and AI are not really that new but we've had a few instances recently where I've seen ChatGPT being used on application forms and on CVs.

There are not many agencies who use application forms but there are some. And an application form is used as part of the shortlisting process for interview. Clients take it very seriously. They're not looking for yes/no answers, they're looking to see several things, not least, how seriously you're taking your application for that job specifically and how much time and effort you put into crafting your answers to make them relevant.

One of my clients who does use an application form rejected a candidate this month because the application form clearly showed similar ChatGPT responses to the questions to other applications she had had previously. It was all the more disappointing because the role was for a Content Writing position (!) and the candidate on their CV, looked like a good fit.

I know that Students are repeatedly warned during their degrees now that any identified use of AI or ChatGPT will result in a fail on that particular project or piece of work. I imagine if you are a Lecturer and you receive 40 essays on a particular subject, it would be very easy to suss out if work has been plagiarised or copied from the internet. My niece, currently in her final year of a degree tells me that they have to 'declare' on each assignment that it is all their own work and there is 'zero tolerance' for any use of ChatGPT.

Any client (or lecturer!) does not want to see generic copy and pasted text. They want to see original thinking and writing. Genuinely, it's not worth shooting yourself in the foot - put the effort into writing your own answers and it won't backfire.

Similarly with CVs. I understand that it can often be daunting when you have to start your CV from scratch. But it's still a major tool used by hiring managers and employers and is usually the introduction of you to a potential employer. It's important that it's individual, that it stands out - for the right reasons. We're mostly seeing the use of ChatGPT in the writing of a personal profile at the head of a CV. So many of these are so generic that they're worthless. BUT, a well written and crafted profile can make a world of difference to securing an interview vs not. Potential employers will visualise you as lazy, not willing to put in a bit of effort and someone who cuts corners - generally those are not attractive qualities in future employees of any business.

So, it's worth remembering that the process of recruiting and hiring is still a human one. Real people are reading applications, CVs and covering letters. During the writing of this blog I googled 'CVs with ChatGPT' and I'm quite depressed at how many tutorials are out there. Please don't fall into this trap, you'll be caught out!

I'm always happy to offer constructive and objective advice on CVs and application forms. Shout out if you'd like me to take a look at anything.

Written by Fiona Christian, 24 March 2025

Salaries on Job Adverts....

2025-02-07T16:02:00.000+00:00

One of the biggest complaints that I see on LinkedIn is where prospective job hunters find the lack of salaries accompanying job adverts. It is also typically one of the first questions that a candidate will ask me when I am talking to them about a new role. It's usually the number one reason why anyone is seeking a new role - that's why it is so important. Yes, location, hybrid working, other benefits etc - they're also important but in our industry (and I am sure in most sectors this is true), money talks.

As a recruiter, I have responsibilities to my clients and my candidates. Having also been an employer and an employee I can empathise with all parties involved.

From a client perspective. Very few employees are created equally. Whilst the bigger agencies do tend to have salary bandings for different job titles and levels within the agency, this is not always the case in smaller and more independent agencies. Additionally, depending on the role, the skillset of the candidate, the availability of other options etc, there may or may not be 'wiggle room' when it comes to a salary offered. Each year I do a salary survey where I review job titles and the average salaries for those titles for individuals in different disciplines. Over the past 3 years, there has been the onset of what I call 'salary chaos' in several agencies. There has been a shortage of good and qualified candidates with specific skills and agencies have (had to) go over and above their bandings in order to secure talent. The result of this is that in many agencies, there are employees who are technically considered to be at a similar level who are on quite different salaries.

In the old days, employees simply didn't discuss their salary or package with anyone. Times have changed. Whilst it's true that more senior staff still don't discuss their remuneration, the same is not true for Gen Z and Millenials. I can think of several agencies where I have heard of pub get-togethers where particularly amongst client services teams, salaries are the main topic of discussion.

If members of a client services team are openly discussing salaries, it generally means they are all a bit discontented. Agencies need to do their best in providing employees with personal progression plans where they can visibly see the objectives they need to meet in order to secure a pay rise/promotion. In 2024, the most common job hunters were those who hadn't had a rise in 2 years. The situation is exacerbated when incumbents find that new employees are on a significant amount more than them. This has the capacity to create a toxic culture and inevitably CVs will be updated and individuals will start looking for a new role elsewhere. Employers cannot assume that individuals will not discuss their salaries.

Which brings me onto advertising for jobs. I have always advertised roles with an indication of salary. Indeed, many of the online job boards insist on population of the 'salary field'. When conversing with candidates I'll update them on the proposed salary banding that the client is offering and we'll go from there. Very often, I describe salary as 'dependent upon experience'. This is because most clients, particularly where we are in a world of skills shortages, do have flexible boundaries as to what they will hire. So an agency looking for an Account Manager, may well consider a superstar Senior Account Executive who has lots of potential to be fast tracked to the Account Manger job title. That individual would be at the lower end of the salary banding whereas an established Account Manager who is not far from promotion to Senior Account Manager would be a the top of the banding. If I didn't include any indication of salary, the response level to the advert would fall by circa 50%.

Anecdotal reviewing of LinkedIn comments demonstrates that employees are very cynical where a job advert does not include a salary at all. Obviously when the cost of living is so high, we have rising bills and financial commitments, it is no surprise that salary is such a big factor for all of us. In many sectors, particularly most areas of public sector roles, there are fixed salary bandings and it is very transparent to all job applicants what their absolute salary will be and they are aware of the next banding and what they need to do to achieve it. In agency land, we do not work in such a fixed and finite world of salaries and I mostly think that's a good thing. It means employees can progress as speedily as they earn the right to secure the promotion through performance and ability to do the job.

But equality and parity of salaries is important to employees. So many of us define ourselves by our role, it provides purpose and is a key source of self esteem. Employees want to be rewarded fairly and equally alongside their co-workers.

This is a very topical observation from me as this week an employee of an agency became aware of a role being advertised at a salary of 'Up to £X' (at their current agency). The employee in question is not currently being paid that salary and started asking questions in the team which created a very awkward situation for the agency. For the agency, I would recommend full transparency in the requirements for salary rises and promotion criteria but for the employee I would counsel perhaps taking care in how they go about having internal conversations and how to articulate to the right people any dissatisfaction regarding salary.

As always, I maintain that it is easier to hang onto existing staff and to ensure that internal teams are motivated, purposeful and buy into the individual culture of an agency than it is to find new staff. Discrepancies in salaries for individuals at the same level in an agency can cause mayhem when they become public knowledge and divulging individual salaries amongst employees is no longer taboo. Employers do need to be mindful of this and to ensure there are processes and structures in place to ensure every employee knows what they have to achieve to progress.

Fiona Christian, 7 January 2025.

Too many application rejections?

2025-01-08T13:23:00.002+00:00

Sadly, there were quite a few redundancies in Q4 2024 - I think that several agencies making cuts decided to do it before Christmas rather than in January - there is never a good time to share such news with employees.

So, as a result of this, my days are spent talking to quite a few people who are not currently in a role and who are spending a lot of their time applying for jobs. I always recommend to candidates that they should spread their job-hunting wide. Yes, talk to recruiters, check out LinkedIn, Have a look at other job boards, talk to ex-colleagues etc. I know it's January and for many of us, it's a tricky time of the year anyway - dark days and nights, the weather (particularly right now!), a major come down from the high of December, tackling diet and booze - the list goes on. So I feel for people who have the added challenge of being out of work in January.

Many of my out of work candidates are doubly down at the moment because they feel they are getting a high number of rejections for the roles that they are applying for. For the most part, these rejections are an automated response and with each rejection comes both a knock to one's sense of self but also frustration that their CV has just been automatically thrown out of the basket.

For someone who is out of work, it's very challenging to stay positive. The market is not particularly buoyant at the moment which means that the few roles that are out there are oversubscribed and there is a lot of competition. Clients too are not prepared to hire unless an individual ticks all the boxes and they'd rather wait to find the right person rather than take someone who is not 'perfect'.

When you're not working, there is a theory that you need to be looking for a new role 100% of the time. I don't subscribe to that. You'd go mad fairly quickly. What I recommend to people is that they spend perhaps up to 3 hours a day on the job hunt but to then take the time to do something for yourself that you wouldn't have the time or inclination to do when you are working full time. I know that finding a new role is a priority but it is important to ensure that your job hunting time-frame is productive and to make sure you don't 'doom scroll' jobs that just are not right for you so it's important to give yourself some time boundaries.

One of the most important things to be aware of is to assess whether the jobs you are applying for, particularly online, are relevant. It's tempting to apply for everything that you see but I'd say that 90% of the time, my candidates who are experiencing the high rejection rate would admit that they've probably applied for a fair few roles where they didn't really fit the role requirements. Whether it's an automated rejection or not, if they analysed in detail the 'nos', they'd accept that perhaps, these were not their dream roles either.

When you are working with a recruiter, an advantage is that clearly you are speaking to a real person. If someone has applied to me online, I'm more than happy to talk through why I think a role isn't right for them - I can give the candidate context as to what my client is looking for and the rejection doesn't feel like a rejection, it's more of a ruling something out because it isn't right for either party. That said, I may be able to offer other opportunities that are more suitable and in some circumstances if I find that on talking to the individual, I can see something they would be able to offer the client, I can talk to the client directly so that they know more information than just the CV provides. Sometimes I do successfully place 'wild cards' and in these situations, it's as a direct result of me knowing a client particularly well, having worked with them over several years and knowing when I can bend the rules a little. Equally, the opposite is true, I know when I can't!

Online job applications are all very well but they do make it very easy to hit the 'apply' button. In the old days, you'd write a covering letter which would enable you to pitch yourself to the client (whether it would be read or not is another thing) and I do try to encourage candidates to tailor their CV to specific opportunities which again is going to increase the chance of your CV being noticed.

So as with any kind of marketing that you'd be recommending to your own clients. When it comes to finding a job, it's important to ensure you are getting your targeting right. Applying for relevant roles where you tick the boxes of what the client is looking for...you'll undoubtedly see your rate of success improving. It's also important to talk to Recruiters who will be honest and realistic with you and that you trust them to be working with your best interests at heart. I don't like to be the computer that says no but if I do say that something isn't right for you, it's not. If I think there is a possibility that a client will be interested, I'll be on it. And if I think they won't, I'll tell you why.

Finally, persistence pays off. Keep a rolling number of applications and conversations on the go. I know it's hard when you are not working and it can feel like a very thankless task. However, in recruitment, it's often about the timing. Don't give up. Good luck!

By Fiona Christian. 08/01/2025.

The importance of....work experience...

2024-12-11T13:20:00.001+00:00

The world has really shifted over the last few years - post pandemic. But actually also since Tuition fees came into being and going to university became a very real cost. One of the main factors that I've noticed a shift in is the number of candidates with work experience and specifically taking a year for a work placement.

Pre-Covid, a year of work experience gained either agency side or in-house with some marketing related activity would put you at the very front of the graduate hiring pool. Working in the real world, you've proved that you do really want to follow this career path and future employers will view you as less of a 'risk' and someone to invest in. A placement year also gives you a chance to apply the knowledge you are learning during your degree (assuming it's a marketing or business related one) and a chance to earn some money before heading back to University for your final year.

However, since Covid, it feels like the number of undergraduates opting for a year's placement has dropped off a cliff. I'm not sure if less universities are offering these 'sandwich courses' to the same degree or whether it is the choice of the undergraduate to complete a degree as quickly as possible and to get into the world of employment only when fully graduated. I should do some research into this - it's mostly anecdotal evidence rather than scientific and quantifiable!

To understand the importance of work experience, it's important to see it from the perspective of an employer. The bottom line, is that any work experience will add value to your CV. Particularly if it is in a 'commercial' field. However, one of my most memorable junior placements was a candidate who had a Marketing Degree but who had worked in Tesco from the age of 16 and continued right through university to fund their studies. Working on the checkout, stacking shelves etc - you might wonder how a client would value that but it is the sheer fact that this individual worked hard. They put the hours in. They learned how to communicate with different people, they recognised the connection between hard work and being paid (reward). The candidate had no specific marketing experience but several clients loved this candidate and they are now progressing swiftly to Senior Account Manager in a well known creative agency.

I understand how the pandemic messed with our heads. I have a niece who missed her GCSEs and now is in her third year of university. In her 'cohort', very few people have work experience - of any sort. In my mind, I equate it back to the age of 16 when I first started working in local cafes and hotels, everything from chambermaiding to waitressing and bar work. This option wasn't really available to 16 year olds during the pandemic and I think the result of that is that they missed the boat. Parents understood that they'd need to continue to fund education anyway and so working on academic projects became more of a priority.

I really hope that things do return to normality. I live in a small Yorkshire town and I do regularly see 'Saturday' staff in the local shops. This first foray into the world of work is essential to instil an understanding of finance and spending (and saving) to young people. Academic results are important but it has to be accompanied by some experience in the workforce - somewhere!

Another impact of the Pandemic was the number of candidates opting to take a Masters degree post graduation, due to the lack of jobs available to them. More debt. Yes, more knowledge but there are times when the only way to learn is on the job. Unless you work in quite a specific industry, more qualifications don't automatically mean more job opportunities.

Another gripe of mine is that schools are still woefully behind when it comes to career guidance. I think in my day, we had to do two weeks of work experience. I'm not sure anyone takes this seriously. I did a week in a pharmacy which totally put me off doing a pharmacy degree (so was very useful) but also made me quickly realise how hard the world of retail is. A week isn't a long time but it is enough of a taster to see different industries and careers options. My second week was in a hospital testing laboratory and that too put me off that career path but I met a lot of very different people from different backgrounds. Just to have an idea of what you do or don't want to do in life is a real bonus. It was never written in the stars that I'd end up as a recruiter but in fact, it is an industry that allows me to play to all my strengths and where my weaknesses can go un-detected!

This week I was reading about Graduate Apprenticeships. These are unsurprisingly growing very popular. Sixth formers are recruited, generally by bigger businesses who have an apprentice scheme with a degree as part of the offer. Typically the degree will take longer to complete but you will be learning on the job and most importantly being paid whilst the employer pays all the fees. That to me feels like win win. It's much more prevalent in sectors like engineering and technical sectors but they do exist in the world of marketing too. Schools have a responsibility to make young people aware of all the options that are open to them. For smaller businesses, there are government grants available to pay the tuition fees so the system isn't available only in large corporates.

Imagine being an employer looking to make a junior graduate hire. Your CV might well have strong A levels, a 2.1 degree and even a Gold Duke of Edinburgh's award. There's not a lot to go on is there? Trying to persuade a small creative agency owner that your 2.1 in History is valuable to them and makes you a great hire is difficult. If you want an employer to invest in you, they like to see evidence that means their investment will be rewarded.

Finally, I understand that it's chicken and egg. How to get work experience. Think hard about any contacts that you may have, approach businesses directly. Most of my clients do pay their work experience people and most agencies are happy to have someone in the office for a week or so and to soak up how things work. Being proactive shows initiative and again this is something that employers really want. But the bottom line is that it doesn't really matter if it's Tesco, Starbucks or McCanns - having something on your CV which demonstrates you can work is essential.

I don't often have entry level roles but I am always happy to chat to juniors and to offer advice and suggest possible companies to approach!

Written by Fiona Christian. 10/12/24. 07976 125963.

Is it OK not to love your job?

2024-11-10T16:20:00.000+00:00

Is it OK not to love your job?

Well, as a recruiter, I'd say my MO is to find my candidates a job that they will love. I've always thought that it's important to enjoy our job and therefore career. But I do think now, that loving your job or even thinking, hoping or aspiring to love your job is a generational thing. It is also greatly dependent on the job that you do.

For most people who are in a white collar profession (law, accountancy, consultancy, banking), these people have chosen these professions and have trained over several years with ongoing specific professional qualifications to succeed. It's quite unusual to find someone who just accidentally ends up there. Although ironically I do see a lot of people who do law degrees thinking it's their dream but post graduation they are looking to do something completely different! And in these professions, I wonder if it's accepted that I might not 'love' my job in a sense of day to day joy, but I will earn a very decent salary that will allow me many other things - e.g. a nice house, lots of holidays, work benefits, a pension etc. I might be wrong, I know a couple of Actuaries who are incredibly joyful about what they do - something to do with loving numbers and solving problems.

For those who have found themselves in a vocational career - Pilot, Vet, Doctor, Nurse, Dentist, Teacher, Scientist etc, again these individuals have had a desire to do something quite specific. The same applies that they will have undergone years of training to achieve their dream. I have a Vet friend and a Pilot friend and they both still love what they do - and they are in their fifties. The Vet friend particularly loves their job - even if it does involve Ferret Dentals. These professions are usually reasonably paid and come with work benefits and pensions too. So there is a reason to stick with them, usually to retirement.

But what about our industry? Creative Services, Advertising, Marketing, Digital Marketing, Social Media. Yes, I'm sure people have dreamed of working in this industry - whether they've been inspired to be a great Designer or they thought that Don Draper and Mad Men really was an accurate portrayal of the industry, it looks from the outside to to be a lot more fun than many other industries. We usually talk a lot about 'work hard, play hard' and for many agencies that is still true. We have better flexibility than we ever had in the past but unless you're working for one of the Networks, you're probably not going to have a great list of extra benefits and the sort of pension that those in the public sector sign up to.

Where I said at the start of this that loving your job might be generational is down to quite a lot of anecdotal evidence over the past couple of years. I'm sorry Gen Z but this is another observation that I'm increasingly seen. Gen Z, typically do not want their main salary paying job to be the be all and end all of their life. A high proportion of Gen Z have a side hustle and are the most likely of all the generations to want to start work at 9 and finish at 5 on the dot. They are the least likely generation to take work home with them. I know, lots of generalisations there and I'm genuinely not another person having a 'go'. In fact, I suppose in some ways, I might be quite admiring of this attitude. We all talk about the ideal of work to live not to live to work. Few of us actually achieve it.

But in the past, I think we haven't achieved that goal because we've got so tied up with wanting things. A bigger or better car, a mortgage rather than rental, nicer holidays - we have had big lifestyle goals. I wonder if Gen Z are watching and learning. They're understanding that they might never be able to afford to actually buy a house, they might think that having savings is a unachievable dream, they know that in all likelihood they're going to be working until they are 70. So what to do? Get on the Gravy Train and work hard to try and possibly make it happen - or to accept that those things aren't that important and in fact, they choose to do a day job that probably pays the bills but that the side hustle or outside interests provide the interest, the joy and the love for life. Has Gen Z, in fact, lowered their expectations to the point that they'll do the bare minimum at work - a phenomenon known as Quiet Quitting.

To be fair, it's not only in Gen Z where I am observing change. Increasingly there are Gen Xers who are coping with ageing parents, school-age children and often after 20 odd years in the workplace, they're feeling burned out and knackered. These are the people who've slogged through their twenties and thirties to have it all - they're probably pretty senior in the workplace. These people know that they can't afford to just stop, they've still got mortgages to pay, likely university fees to help out with and they know (particularly in our sector) that unless you've got a great private pension or inheritance, you're likely to working well into your sixties. These people are quite depressed - and I don't use that word lightly. I've several candidates who fit into this bracket who are actively trying to 'downsize' their level in the workplace.

It's not sustainable to cope with the stress of being a senior person in a creative agency or marketing team along with increasing personal and outside work pressures. Too many demands lead to increased stress and within this age-group, people increasingly know someone or a friend of a friend who has become ill or died and it makes us all super aware of our own mortality and to question whether it's all worth it. I predict that 'Downsizing' is going to become even more common in the coming years. Interestingly, I am finding that some agencies are actively recruiting those 'Downsizers' because they are reliable, have proven skills, will not let them down and if something doesn't get done in the office because they do need flexibility for an elderly parent's hospital appointment, they'll catch up later. They are trusted employees. These Downsizers love the industry enough to stay in it doing a role that is less demanding and less stressful but allows them to be a committed and engaged person in the workplace. Admittedly they are taking often hefty drops in salary but in their overall life equation, it's worth it.

I spoke last year to a senior director in a large networked agency. He was on a six figure salary - extremely rare in the regions! He wanted to find a new job, he'd lost his mojo. His current job was safe but he was a bit bored - it was all the same. We talked about lots of different options and I ended up suggesting that the same role anywhere else would ultimately be the same and he'd then have to 'prove himself'' again. Whereas being with his current employer for 20 years meant that he'd accumulated a good pension pot and should redundancy happen, he'd be likely to be treated reasonably well. I advised him that maybe he should get his kicks elsewhere and sit tight. I spoke to him again last week and he is still in the same job, still a bit bored BUT, he has taken up golf and is working on/obsessed now with his handicap and he has a new girlfriend after months of online dating. He's loving his overall life and that's really all any of us can hope for.

Live, Laugh, Love is way too simplistic as a life goal (and I'm really not a fan of the expression). We each individually have to work out what we individually need to make us happy over time. Money is important, pensions are important, contributing to society is important, having friends is important having purpose is important but all of these things are important to different people in differing amounts. We're all the same - trying to work it out as we go along. And that's possibly why those side kicks and outside interests are all the more important. I call it the 'Life Equation' and the balancing of that equation changes over time from our twenties onwards. I don't think anyone has nailed it. The recent news of Chris Hoy's cancer diagnosis and prognosis completely floored me so for now, I'm going to just love being in the here and now.

Written by Fiona Christian, 11th November 2024.

Is 57 too old?

2024-10-14T15:09:00.003+00:00

Last week the media was full of reports highlighting the results of a survey by the online recruitment group TotalJobs. The key takeaway was that the age 57 was cited as the age when HR and recruitment professionals feel is too old to be hired and individuals are not being shortlisted for interviews even if skills and experience match the job specification.

There were some areas of the research that I concurred with and others that I didn't. Or rather, the interpretation of the results and the 'insight' that was developed from it.

From my own 20+ years in recruitment, I've always seen age discrimination at play. The bulk of my clients are advertising, creative, digital and PR & marketing agencies. It's not all Mad Men but it can be similar. It has always been seen as a 'young person's industry' and in the past when individuals have met redundancy in their fifties, I've often wondered how sustainable it is to have such a short shelf life in the industry. Do Lawyers and Accountants have the same issue? In the past week I've read a lot of media commentary about how age discrimination is wrong and how employers are losing out on many years of skills and experience. Absolutely. And whilst young people are enthusiastic, full of energy and ambition, not yet cynical or tired of climbing the ladder, they need older people to learn from and whilst certain 'jobs' can be performed by people of any age, sometimes, having more life experience, having managed different challenging situations, challenging clients etc - that's also essential in a balanced work environment.

TotalJobs stated that 'people have started leaving their date of birth off their CVs. Well, from my view of the world, people stopped including their date of birth on their CVs a long time ago. Even Gen Z don't include their date of birth. It's another truth that pretty much all recruiters will work out a date of birth backwards - looking at when someone finished a degree or just counting the years of experience.

This is where age discrimination is passed onto being the responsibility of an external recruiter. An agency will brief me on a role and they may say, 'we want an Account Director with over 5 years experience'. If I present them with 5 CVs, if any candidates are even nearing their sixties, I'm not going to be able to guarantee an interview. I will hear 'not the right fit', or 'team structure requires a different fit', 'overqualified' or 'won't suit the culture' - which of course is a 'young' culture. To be fair, I'm sure exactly the same would happen with an internal recruitment team.

Looking at when most people are expecting to retire - which is possibly in some cases, never, people in the creative sector almost need to be looking for a second career to take them from their fifties into their late sixties. The creative sector is certainly not well paid enough for everyone to retire early and unless things change, individuals might well not join the sector because they see a short shelf life. We can't all rely on B&Q to take us all on so this whole subject does need to be discussed and brought out into the open. TotalJobs (generously in my view), said that in most cases it was 'unconscious bias' but I'd say it's out and out age discrimination.

The irony is, that older people in the creative sector, don't come across as older at all. They're generally very aware of youth culture and are far more hip than their age might suggest. Generationally, a 57 year old now is a long way off a 57 year old 20 years ago. They're still well aware of all the marketing channels and of different audiences - they haven't just become 'old and decrepit'.

Sadly, when redundancies are made, it's far more often the older and more senior employees who are selected. Often, it's a simple equation to cut numbers and the salaries of these older and more experienced individuals make it (redundancy) a straightforward decision. Finding a new job in your late fifties in the creative sector is hard. And finding a job when you are out of work is harder psychologically anyway - for a month or so, one is engaged and enthused but after a number of rejections, the enthusiasm wanes and it becomes harder to 'sell yourself' to prospective employers.

In the creative sector, many of the older and out of work employees tend to end up doing 'consultancy work' - typically they will not have a lot of consultancy work and so will end up finding alternative routes of employment. Currently that includes warehouse work, delivery driving and TEFL. I don't have the answers, this whole subject requires a cultural shift in how businesses and bosses think but it feels like a sorry way to end a career and I know several candidates who live in fear of redundancy which is a very real threat in what has been a tough year for creative agencies.

So whilst I might not have agreed with everything in the TotalJobs survey, I'm glad that the subject is out there and being discussed. Hopefully we're all going to make it past 57 and it would be nice to do so knowing that we are still able to continue doing the jobs we love and keep topping up that pension pot so that when - eventually - retirement comes we can enjoy it.

Written by Fiona. 14th October 2024.

A 4 day week...

2024-09-27T09:47:00.001+00:00

It's increasingly in the news. With a new UK Government in place, there are discussions about new legislation which may give employees the right to request a shorter working week right from day one of their employment. As I understand it, employees would have the right to work compressed hours so that they didn't have to sacrifice 20% of salary. Under current legislation, employees have the right to ask but employers have the right to say no. In the new proposed legislation, as you might expect, there are exceptions where it is not 'reasonably feasible' for the reduced hours and employers would still have the right to reject a request. But those exceptions will be quite hard to define.

Examples are often given by proponents of a 4 day week of how the increased flexibility is great for productivity and where other countries (the Netherlands is always the first one mentioned) can prove that the compressed hours route is the way forwards. We'd all be happier and have a greater work life balance.

But as we have all learned since the Pandemic. Different things suit different people. It's often about stage of life where young people have very different drivers to working parents. To commute or not to commute? The pressure on businesses who do have to provide a full week of service to their clients - ensuring that there are employees available to work across the days when others are not working. Horses for Courses etc. This applies to flexible working whether we are talking about days in the office or hours and days worked.

I've read quite a bit around this and whilst in theory, the idea of a long weekend is lovely, compressed hours mean quite a stressful 4 days in the office/workplace. In fact, Asda trialled the 4 day week with regional store managers who then voted not to take-up the 4 day week. They felt too much pressure and therefore didn't enjoy their time off. Increasingly the workload would spill into the 'day off' anyway.

So my observation with the new legislation is not really about being pro or against a 4 day week. I think it's very subjective to the business, the sector they operate in, the type of roles that employees do and a whole host of other factors. What I feel more strongly about is the fact that Politicians who increasingly have spent a life in politics, are dictating too much to businesses without any real experience of commercial life. In particular, I used to wonder how Boris and several others with previous careers in Journalism could understand 'the working people' at all. I'm sorry, Boris gets it in the neck because he just likes writing and pontificating and I'm still cross about Brexit. I read this week about Amazon who are asking employees to be back in the office full time from January 2025 (this is initially in the US). The CEO, Andy Jassy, highlighted that it's better to 'invent, collaborate and to be connected to each other'. The media seem to be reporting on these stories as usual with the intention of headline grabbing and click-bait. The issue of being back in the office versus compressed hours are quite different although they obviously come under the joint banner of 'flexible working'.

My view is that we all have different goals, we enter our careers into different sectors where there are different requirements for work conditions - Doctor, Accountant, Journalist, Nurse, Creative, Teacher, Engineer etc. To a large extent, we have chosen to work in this field (certainly for professional/white collar workers) so there is an understanding from the employee of what the working conditions would entail. Surely it is the business's right to lay out their requirements for what it takes to do the job. The current legislation does give the right for the employee to request something different which is surely enough?

In our own sector of Creative Services and Marketing, I worry for the small independent agencies who are not able to provide as much flexibility as say the global networks. When I have candidates who require flexibility, I generally advise that they gravitate to the bigger agencies where they will find more scope for that flexibility - or to head in-house to the large Corporates. The profiles of individuals who choose the small indie agencies do tend to be different - looking for less bureaucracy generally! So as I started with. Horses for Courses.

I'm just a Recruiter. But I do know that Politicians are not always right.

Fiona, Sept 2024.

What's in a Job title?

2024-07-27T12:22:00.002+00:00

What's the most important thing for individuals when searching for a new job? Whilst money is up there as probably the main priority, job title comes a close second - and then we have all the 'rest' - work life balance, culture, benefits etc.

When one is working one's way up the career ladder in any industry, I think progression of job title is a priority. Not just for the individual, but it's also an external signal to colleagues and your peer group as to how successful you are. That does obviously depend on the individual - some people are not bothered!

I've recently been talking to lots of candidates who tell me they are looking only for Project Manager roles and they don't want to be an Account Manager. This provided today's blog theme because I started to think about job titles and how, even in this industry - the creative services industry, job titles are definitely not equivalent.

Project Manager titles vary enormously. Whether you're a Project Manager in an integrated agency or a Digital agency is another thing altogether! The title, Campaign Manager is also interchangeable - particularly in an integrated agency. Things are not helped by the small number of agencies who provide a written job description for roles - although I suppose I could be flattered that my clients recognise that I know them well enough to automatically know what they are looking for!

In an integrated agency, the titles of Account, Project or Campaign Manager are usually pretty inter-changeable. Typically a title of Project or Campaign Manager will imply a high degree of 'delivery' - someone who rolls their sleeves up, takes a brief and manages it through to production. These people will be generally be client facing and also working with the internal studio to brief in work and to then see it through to completion. In most agencies, that's also what an Account Manager does too! Account Manager is the original title for these people - it's only recently that I am seeing more Project and Campaign Managers in integrated agencies.

In the old days, we saw very few people with Marketing degrees, then suddenly we saw lots. More recently there seems to be a bit of a resurgence of graduates coming into the industry with all manner of different degrees. Most agencies will train people on the job and some agencies will put their employees through more formal training - e.g. CIM, ISP, IDM. So there is every opportunity for employees to learn the theory that goes behind the on the job learning and everyone has the opportunity to become more 'strategic' if that's a direction they are interested in going in.

The perception seems to be that an Account Manager is a sales person. And the word 'sales' has always scared people working in client services. If I had a pound for every client services candidate who has said to me 'I'm not a sales person', I'd be a very wealthy person indeed!

What most agencies do ask of all their client servicing teams is that they are 'proactive in developing their clients'. The majority of my agencies do expect their teams to help them grow clients organically and whilst this isn't 'sales' in a traditional sense, it is definitely increasing revenue through great relationships with clients and responding well to briefs and ensuring that all marketing activity meets it's objective - so whilst client services people might baulk at the words sales or business development, most good people are doing this without even trying!

In the bigger digital agencies, the situation is a little different. These agencies are very defined with very established project management and delivery teams. Thus the Account Manager or Account Directors are very front end and they are responsible for client growth and proactive management of a client. They do not generally get their hands dirty on the day to day but they do spend time examining how they can strategically grow a client relationship and drive growth. These guys tend to be on a bonus scheme which is not generally the case with integrated Account Managers.

However, in an integrated creative agency or a design and branding agency, I would argue that Project/Campaign/Account Manager - generally mean the same thing. At a more senior level, the Account Director/Senior Account Director titles do generally imply some strategic involvement - but again this depends on whether the agency has a brand planning or strategy team. In the large networked integrated agencies, we do sometimes see Project Director roles and this is typically where for example, there is a large client with a very high volume of work and a high volume of briefs coming through the studio. A Project Director in a digital agency is a different role - leading a project management team and we do see higher salaries. By the time an individual makes it up to Business Director or Managing Partner then the role is largely about client development, growth, strategy and revenue/margins.

Titles vary from agency to agency. This matters because if you are filtering roles on job title, you might be missing out on some suitable roles. It's best to keep your search filter parameters wide and then to whittle down as you go along. Keep an open mind, it's good to have lots of options!

Written by Fiona. 27 July 2024

Red Flag Interview Question.

2024-06-20T13:54:00.002+00:00

I was in two minds whether to discuss this topic as it's was quite a recent scenario. However, I do think it's interesting and I've had to challenge my own thinking! I am most definitely not someone who sets out to be divisive or to bait a response but on this subject I've always had a firm opinion and sometimes it does no harm to question oneself!

My client here is a well established integrated agency. Boutique in size and long established. Genuinely lovely people and a very good creative output and they're strong across all channels and on strategy as much as delivery/production.

I have a candidate who was interviewing for a Senior Account Executive position.

The client and the candidate met for a first chat via Teams. It was a good chat and the client asked me if we could set up a second interview - Face to Face and they'd ask the candidate to respond to a brief.

However, the client said that they did have one 'red flag' that had come up during the interview. When asked if they had any questions at the end of the chat, the candidate asked what the office hours were and how long they would have for a lunch break.

Historically, I would always advise to never ask about hours or questions of this nature in a first interview. Potentially at second stage, I would ask a little about work life balance or ask to chat to another member of the client services team to talk about 'a day in the life' and to ascertain if the agency has a good culture when it comes to working hours and conditions. Directly asking 'how long do I get for lunch' is, I think, bound to get a potential employer wondering how much of a grafter you are.

Interviews are a performance. You're up against other people (usually). It's certainly not unreasonable to ask questions but if the first question you ask is about hours and lunch, then it's likely that the employer will have a concern. It would be disingenuous of me to say otherwise.

However, now for the other side of the argument! When I rang the candidate to ask for their feedback on how they thought the chat had gone....the candidate remarked that it had gone well but (exact same phrasing!) they too had a 'red flag moment'. They'd asked about hours and lunch and could see that the client was visibly, not shocked but surprised at this being a question. The candidate then surmised that perhaps they would not want to work for an employer who did not support people taking a lunch break or leaving the office on time.

Heck!

Now, I work with a lot of agencies across the region. I work with networked agencies and independents. In fact, there are more owner managed agencies than networks here in the regions and the ethos is generally 'we all muck in'. Whilst there are some agencies who are 'renowned' for long hours and hard working cultures, this agency is certainly not one of them.

I'm also conscious that as a nation, we don't really do lunch during the working week. In most offices, people will nip out for a sandwich, perhaps do a few messages and then head back to the office. We're not the French who will have a menu du jour including an aperitif.

Most employers are pretty flexible. Particularly post Covid. Most agencies now have core hours so they won't fret if you're not there at 0900 on the dot or if you have to run at 1630 - there is a general consensus that it all works out evenly and if you do need to leave early, that's communicated to the team and it's all fine. Equally, one might log on at home just to send an email - again that's something the French have made illegal! Lots of agencies also have a policy that if you're finding things tough during the working day to take some time out - go for a walk around the block - clear your head.

I don't know many employers now who have a full hour for a lunch break either. Typically it's 45 minutes and again, occasionally if you need to leave early then I'm sure most employers are fine with taking a shorter break so that you can head off on time.

In this example. Context and Communication are everything. The candidate, as it transpires, does have several activities in the evening during the week. They would be commuting by public transport to the office (hence worrying about being there at the dot of 9) but also on those days with an evening engagement, they wondered if they might be able to work through lunch so that they could leave early to ensure that they made the engagement (again, bearing in mind public transport).

During the interview, I think the candidate felt flustered that they could read the reaction of the client and the client themselves didn't want to come across as being a sweat shop. However, from the client's perspective, there was a definite feeling that 'we're an agency, sometimes if a client makes a demand, we have to react'. Of course, again, context is key. Agencies, particularly independent ones operate as a team and as a team, you'd work together to ensure delivery.

And the candidate, felt distraught that the client might think they were a 'slacker'. Or that they weren't 100% committed to their day job or not interested in furthering their career.

The concerns were addressed by me to both parties and the candidate and client are meeting again for a second stage interview with a brief. Both are now on the same page when it comes to that question and the answer. From the client's perspective, if it's the best person for the job, as much flexibility as possible will be given - but the goodwill and flexibility does go both ways.

I did briefly consider how it would work in creative agency if someone could only arrive at 0900 and had to leave at 1730 on the dot every day and they took a full hour to go for lunch. I actually just don't think that would happen. Most people work in the creative sector for the pace and the vibrancy of the culture and that's definitely not a 'clock in, clock out' mentality. But the majority of creative agencies do work very hard to create a good work life balance for everyone and they know that if they don't....people will leave!

I still think that I wouldn't recommend asking this question at first interview. And I'd phrase the subject a little more tactfully. And if there is a specific context - e.g. I need to nip home to walk the dog, then be open about it - it will make it much easier for a potential employer to say if they can accommodate your needs or if it's just not the right place for you. There is somewhere for everyone!

By Fiona. 20 June 2024.

How long to stay in a job?

2024-05-29T09:19:00.004+00:00

The evolution of time in recruitment and the world of employment has brought about many changes. The obvious ones like technology and the ability to work remotely but also there are changes in behaviour of employees that adapt with each generation. Back in the day, a job was often considered to be for life and you'd work until you were 65 and then leave with a nice clock. Things have changed hugely since then but for the last few years, there has been a rough rule of thumb that a minimum of 2 years in a job shows future employers that you have staying power and that if they invest in you, then it's a reasonable investment. Hiring and training costs are not insignificant and there are not many employers who are keen to hire people for a short period of time - particularly in agency land where clients like to have long-standing relationships with their agency teams and that continuity is essential for client growth and development.

The counter side of this argument often makes me suppress a smile because, as with all things, there is a balance. If a candidate has stayed with an employer for too long , a potential employer might consider that person to be without ambition or someone who is not a go-getter. Having said that, if the employee has developed from Account Executive to Account Director in that time, they can entirely justify their decision for staying but most agency employers have a middle ground where they do want to see staying power and progression within previous job roles, but also having worked with different agencies, the employee would have worked with different clients and sectors and therefore will have a more rounded CV.

Employers assess and judge CVs with many criteria in mind but individuals who have not stayed in a role for less than 12 months, particularly if there is a theme of this happening multiple times, they will ask questions and if you're on the job hunt, it's worth bearing this in mind. Is it worth holding fire until you have at least 18 months to 2 years in a role?

Clearly there are several parameters and situations which may affect these decisions. In the old days, I'd generally advise candidates to sit tight unless they are particularly unhappy - at the junior level, this is where you 'earn your stripes'. And if you've jumped ship a couple of times, then potential employers will be concerned. There may be very good reasons for looking for a new role but I would counsel that multiple roles where one has left a position after a relatively short period of time is going to make job hunting a little trickier.

Recently, I had a candidate up for a final interview with a client - it was a Senior Account Executive role and the candidate had some good agency names on their CV. They had, however, stayed in their first role for 12 months and 11 months in the second. For my client, this was a Red Flag. The candidate's first role in particular, had been with a global agency and to my client's mind, this candidate was clearly 'good' as they'd secured that particular role (the global agency is fiercely competitive at the junior level). My client couldn't get their head around why someone would leave this agency after such a short period only then to be looking for another new role 11 months on.

It struck me that I do increasingly see this in my junior candidates. Analysis of my current clutch of Senior Account Executive CVs showed that these individuals are leaving their first role in around 12-14 months. This would have been unheard of in the past. I think it's attributable to many factors. Not least salary. Often, an AE/Junior/Graduate will accept and entry level role and feel grateful that they have made it onto the career ladder. Within 12-18 months they will be feeling confident in their abilities and be seeking more money. Salary is the number one reason for moving role so for employers, if you are not increasing junior salaries regularly, you will lose those people. Another observation is that Gen Z candidates do not seek 'safety' - they are way more curious and more adventurous than Gen X and I would say than Millenials too. The other significant factor is that there are the Cowboy LinkedIn Recruiters who run daily searches to identify these individuals with 12 months experience. They'll be busy proactively targeting the juniors and showing them how much more money they could earn by moving role. This is why I recommend to employers that with junior candidates, they are given regular promotions and a clear career development plan where objectives and KPIs are linked to reviews on salary. If you have strong juniors and you don't look after them, they will be off.

To the juniors, I generally advise them to weigh up the options carefully. Don't shoot yourself in the foot by blindly looking for money - assess what will be different in the new role, does the new employer offer good progression, what are the working conditions, are the clients 'better'? If yes, then fair enough but I'd generally suggest to try and stay in that role for a bit longer, secure the next job title and then you'll be able to command a higher salary in your next role.

I don't see many Senior Account Manager or Account Directors moving with this kind of frequency but for the most part, these individuals are at a different life stage with perhaps growing families and a mortgage to pay. They potentially relish the stability more and do not seek the 'excitement' of a new role.

In the case of my recent Senior Account Executive, they got the job. The client asked for 3 references and spoke to each in detail - from both a work performance and a character point of view. Fortunately for the candidate, each spoke of them glowingly and my client's mind was put at rest. So my final recommendation is to always leave an employer on good terms and if you can, secure a written reference before you leave. If a potential client has any concerns, those references will be the defining point for whether you have an offer or not.

I'm always on hand for objective advice so if you are keen to chat - get in touch. 07976 125963 or fiona.christian@perfectmarketingpeople.com.

Fiona. 29 May 2024.

The Art of Communicating

2024-04-27T15:41:00.002+00:00

The Art of Communication is today’s subject choice. This covers both the importance of communicating and also the optimal channels for communication. As ever, my subject matter is usually related to the day to day activity that I experience and in the past couple of weeks I’ve had a few comms based mishaps so I thought it was an optimal time to talk about it.

So… I had a candidate up at second stage with a client. It went really well, the candidate had met the team informally for drinks and they wanted to make an offer. The candidate then went awol, didn’t reply to phone messages, emails or texts. For 3 days. As a recruiter, it’s very difficult to keep a client ‘in the loop’ when there is no feedback to give. We’re caught between a rock and a hard place because you don’t want the client to think badly of the person they ideally want to hire! If the candidate has ‘gone cold’ then that’s a bit of a red flag - for the recruiter and the client.

However, the candidate then responded by text to say they had a few irons in the fire and they wanted to see how things panned out. Again, I requested a chat so I could keep the client informed with where they stood in the priority order. I understand that the candidate is in a full time job and it’s often tricky to talk during work hours. However, as with most recruiters, we’re used to chatting out of hours and over weekends if necessary. As it stands, I had to relay this information to the client and keep things upbeat so that they stayed positive too.

Again, a few days of radio silence. Now 10 days post second interview. I’d advised the client that we should be interviewing back-up candidates as there were no guarantees but the client seemed to find it odd that the candidate had been so keen, and then had backed off. In the current climate, in client services, candidates at the AE to AM level do have choice, it’s a competitive market out there so I do expect candidates to have multiple interviews, however, it’s optimal if the lines of communication stay open and candidates are honest about where they are up to. Recruiters can then manage expectations accordingly and there are no nasty surprises.

3 days later, the candidate texted to say they had decided to stay put in their existing role. They’d had a chat with their boss who didn’t want to lose them and had offered a pay rise.

Ultimately I’d kept the client abreast of the situation as best I could. With only text messages to go on, I’d been honest with him too - I’d not been able to have a physical conversation in spite of many efforts. Fortunately he was pragmatic, yes disappointed that the candidate had essentially disappeared but I don’t think either of us were very surprised by the decision and we have a couple of interviews booked for this week.

I had quite a long conversation with the client where we reviewed that in the past - every important conversation was done by phone. The personal touch. However (and it’s hard to write this without sounding like a grumpy old lady dissing the younger generations), more often than not now, I’ll receive breezy texts with people withdrawing from interviews, telling me they’re running late etc. I’m not unreasonable - I myself rely on WhatsApp, texts and emails for a huge amount of the communication that I do. I just think it’s important for all of us to recognise when an actual conversation needs to be had. It feels that there is a lack of awareness as to just how important it is! As I’ve said before, this is a small world and people do remember poor communication.

I’ll counter this and say it’s not always candidates who don’t communicate! The most common non communication from a client is post interview if the person isn’t right. Trying to have constructive feedback is often very difficult and often the client has moved onto the next candidate. I’ve one client who always feeds back during the interview which is an interesting way of doing it - but at least the candidates receive genuine feedback and are not fobbed off with ‘not the right fit’.

And Recruiters too. We also have a duty to keep communicating, to be honest, to be truthful and ultimately that’s what building relationships is all about. It’s just important to recognise when a proper chat needs to be had!

Written by Fiona. 27 April 2024.