Back in the day I did a bit of a minor in marketing at university - which as you can imagine, is worth about as much as it sounds it is worth. Not that my major is worth much more in my opinion. However, one of the core things when marketing a product though, is to know your customer. Know the segment, know their triggers, and work out how to target and influence them to buy whatever you are selling.

This was punctuated by a story of a marketing firm owner who came in as a guest speaker, as he told about a marketing campaign that they created for a tinned food company pushing into regional Papua New Guinea. They ran adverts that showed them opening up a can of beans, getting a spoon and saying "you eat it". He was exaggerating slightly perhaps, but his point was that because the market was so immature and had never seen anything like it before, they had to start from the absolute basics.

The other day @revisesociology wrote a post about CVs being written and checked by AI and whether they are now a thing of the past. Perhaps they are in some respects, but it should be remembered about who might be reading the CVs and making decisions on how to go forward. AIs checking can generally recognize if it is AI generated - so they go into the bin. But even if a human is doing the reading, they aren't as silly as some people believe.

But more importantly than what an AI can put on a CV, is what an AI can't put on it. And that comes down to credible references that are willing to support the applicant by putting their reputation on the line. For instance, I sent my CV to someone the other day and they read it, but that isn't what got me a meeting. Instead, it was the reference I gave in the email of a mutual friend who recommended we get together for a conversation. Once there was a connection, then the CV has value, because they will then look deeper into it - not because it looks fancy, but because of the recommendation of someone they trust.

Open applications rarely work.

And as @revisesociology noted, there has been an explosion of applications. This is not only because of increasing unemployment and decreasing job openings. It is also because likely all around the world, unemployment payments are dependent on sending out a number of applications in a time period - even if there is no chance at getting those jobs, and there are automated application services that can batch send open applications. My wife who is in recruiting gets hundreds of applications from people who are so not qualified for the role advertised, that it is laughable. However, it isn't a laughing matter, because she still has to sort through them for the few who are potentially suitable, and then analyse them as to whether they are worth going forward with in an interview.

But this is all really a sidenote on this article, because what I am more interested in perhaps is that there is a sense of entitlement with all of this. Firstly, we live in a world that has elevated "personal branding" to the fore, and in a world where people expect to be treated as individuals. Yet, the very tools people use to brand themselves and expect to get judged on, are not creating anything personal at all. The judgement being made isn't on the person, it is a generic template with a few identification details thrown in over the top.

And while it isn't only young people who are doing this, I think that the entitlement level in the young is incredibly high coming from people who expect to get treated as individuals who have a long list of needs, but don't actually have the experience to back it up, nor the presence of mind to understand who they are talking to. Older people are called "out of touch" with their views on everything, but if that is the audience who one is trying to influence, an approach that is not tailored for them is likely going to have very little impact, or be outright rejected as out of touch.

Know your Audience.

And here we are, back at the start. And maybe one of the reasons that so many people don't "know their audience" is because we have been conditioned not to think about our audience at all, and rather just think about ourselves. Social media is an accurate reflection of this, where instead of getting familiar with people and building lasting relationships over the space of time, content creators put out whatever they want to put out and an algorithm matches them with people who might be searching for that kind of content.

This is effective for the platforms to generate ad revenue, but it heavily undermines interpersonal skills required for real-world connections and healthy relationships. Not only this, it also means that the "branding" needn't be based on reality at all, and instead becomes a desired caricature of a person, who may not represent the real-life version. As evidenced by the amount of influencer depression and suicide, perhaps this isn't such a healthy avenue to take. And it definitely isn't the right approach if looking to build real-life opportunity, whether it be professional for employment, or personal like a romantic relationship.

More and more now, I hear of employers who are not interested in the technical skills, if the person doesn't fit into the team, and they go to lengths to ensure team dynamics for collaboration and effective working environments. Good on paper rarely translates to good in a team environment - no matter how polished the CV might be.

Similarly in personal relationships, the amount of people who are good on the apps but terrible in real life, is pretty shocking. This dates back a bit also, because it has been an ongoing decline, because people have been chasing what they want, with no regard for the other person at all. It is transactional, but few are looking for a win-win. The apps help them brand themselves for what they want, but rarely does that align for what they need either. So, lots of people are winning for themselves now, but losing in the long run.

As I see it, the continued and growing reliance on tools to provide our branded personality is a big part of the reason that society itself is failing, because it doesn't bring in reality. It is like the countries where there are "self-reported" penis sizes have larger penis metrics than the countries where medical professionals have taken the measurements.

Once naked, averages don't matter.

But, just imagine a world of honest AI content generation, where the "influencer" doesn't get to brand themselves, but it is all done by an AI that tracks the content creators daily life and then builds according to reality. What would that Instagram look like, or TikTok? How many are "living their best life" and how many are actually insecure, depressed, struggling to make it through another day?

Who would the real influencers be?

The digital branding of our lives has meant that we have created a running CV for all to see. However, no matter how real it seems, it isn't reality until the live interview happens, the meeting where people decide if this person in front off them is someone who is worthy to be given a chance, someone who is valuable for what they now, but perhaps more importantly, how they behave. Behaviour is important for groups, not individuals. But because we have individualised our world and made it as if the marketing is the product, we have disconnected ourselves from the what is important to our audience - which is society as a whole.

Who you know.

Some people might call it cronyism when it is about who you know, over what you know. But if what you know is not a knowable reality based on the digital branding noise - then who you know is the connection fallback for anyone who needs to make an informed decision on how to progress forward.

If you want to be treated as an individual.
Stop using a robot to represent you.

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]