What You’re Saying and What Your Candidates Are Hearing May Be Two Different Things.

How can a group of companies spend $5 billion each year on advertisements that focus on one message, but be remembered for something totally different?  A recent marketing study has pharmaceutical companies wondering the same thing.  The lessons being learned through this research go beyond pharmaceutical sales, and can be applied to your communication efforts with candidates.

The study was highlighted in Business Week and conducted by a company called Verilogue.  The researchers set out to learn if consumers were able to remember the marketing messages of various drug companies who were advertising on television.

“Does it seem like you hear the phrase 'ask your doctor' every time you turn on the TV?  There's a reason.  Drug companies spend about $5 billion a year in the U.S. on ads imploring people to talk to their physicians if they think a pill they've read about or seen on TV might help them.  Such ads are so pervasive one might assume viewers are heading to the doctor knowing which drugs they want.  But new research based on recordings of conversations in physicians' offices suggests most patients aren't asking for drugs by name.  Or they're only asking about scary side effects, which drugmakers have to include in ads, often in stomach-turning detail.

Market researcher Verilogue recorded 12,500 patient-doctor conversations in 2008 and found only 23 requests for specific drugs.  And according to the new study, … the most expensive ad campaigns did not prompt the greatest number of inquiries.  Eli Lilly spent $179 million on ads promoting its depression drug Cymbalta in 2008, making it the year's most pricey pharma campaign.  But the most frequently cited drug by patients was Boniva, for osteoporosis, which GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Roche co-marketed.  The Boniva campaign, starring actress Sally Field, cost half as much as the Cymbalta blitz.”

It is easy to chuckle at the drug companies for being so naive, but is it possible that you’re doing the same thing in your candidate interviews?  Let’s face it—being a real estate agent can have some very scary side effects, such as working on full commission, going without a steady income, giving up the safety net of company-provided benefits, competing under difficult economic circumstances, etc.  And when a hiring manager attempts to optimistically sell the benefits of working as a real estate agent, these side effects take on a life of their own and may drown out your intended message.

How can you avoid this from happening during your interviews?  The Verilogue study may give some insight here as well:

“Companies can also adopt another proven strategy:  promoting drugs using real patients who also happen to be famous.  It worked for Boniva.  According to researcher IMS Health (RX), prescriptions for the osteoporosis drug were up 11% last year, and sales of the drug grew 25%, to $675.6 million.  Sally Field, who played the Flying Nun on TV, as well as Norma Rae on film, happily tells everyone Boniva halted and reversed her bone loss.  'The term you hear across the board in advertising is authenticity,' says Richard 'Erik' M. Gordon, assistant professor at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business.  'People want to believe a celebrity isn't just doing this because they were paid a pile of money.'

Now most of us can’t hire celebrities to help us during interviews, but we can use third parties to help us communicate the benefits of a career change.  As a hiring manager, think of a person on your team who is similar to the candidate you’re interviewing.  Have that person share their story....and become your Sally Field.  What did Sally do to overcome the fear of making a change?  What unexpected obstacles did Sally face in the first year of her new position?  What are the benefits and side effects that Sally can articulate regarding her experience?

As the article mentions, the key to this dialog is authenticity.  The more a person can connect their experience with a real life example, the more authentic the process will feel.  This minimizes the risks of the forementioned "side effects," and helps the candidate see the benefits with more hope and excitement.

---

Editor's Note:  This article was written by Ben Hess.  Ben is the Founding Partner and Managing Director of Tidemark, Inc. and a regular contributor to WorkPuzzle.  Comments or questions are welcome.  If you're an email subscriber, reply to this WorkPuzzle email.  If you read the blog directly from the web, you can click the "comments" link below.