Have you been reading the recent NAPS and According to Danny promo emails about Jen Lambert’s upcoming Recruiter Revival webinar?
Both have been using their eMarketing force to invite those in our profession to join Jen for her upcoming webinar, which frankly looks very interesting, but in the process seem to be openly endorsing Ms Lambert’s contemptuous mocking of Barb Bruno.
In Ms Lambert’s personal message to those of us who might consider attending her session, Ms Lambert enthusiastically writes:
“Have you been to a training recently and noticed, well, all the *B.S.* when it comes to selling from the desk and building a sustainable flow of revenue?” (should you want to see the complete text of her message, see the links below)
Clearly her emphasis on *B.S.* can only be an unambiguous jab at Barb Bruno’s No BS Newsletter. Is this the type of contemptuous innuendo we want from a new voice of “leadership” for our profession?
I think not.
And to see NAPS and Cahill’s ATD endorse this negativity and mocking innuendo of Barb’s work by distributing this message to their eMarketing networks, unedited, suggests to me at least tacit approval of this cheap shot at Bruno.
Lambert, Cahill, and most surprisingly, even NAPS may believe that Bruno’s newsletter and training is just *B.S.* and they are welcome to that opinion. But to so openly disrespect an award winning leader and volunteer from our profession who has given freely to the profession to move it forward to continually higher levels of ability and professional success as Barb has done for the whole of her career, seems imprudent and disrespectful.
I was shocked, and those of you who know me well know I haven’t always been the most tactful in my past. In fact, that I am even writing this censure is most amusing and highly ironic.
Barb Bruno needs no defense. She will likely turn the other cheek and continue to do what she has done for years, inspire and motivate those in our profession with what she has done and through what she trains. Do I agree with everything she trains? No. Can I say I have read or benefited from each of her Barb Bruno’s No BS Newsletter’s? No. But do I show my disagreement with what she trains or shares freely with open contempt just to “Ring the bell” to draw attention to myself? No. No need to. I highly respect her contribution to our profession, and think she has given more to it than any single other trainer/leader in our profession today. She has, and should continue to be, honored for that.
But I cannot say I have not made a similar rookie mistake as an overly enthusiastic new trainer for our profession. I have. It was a tough lesson to learn from. And as I recall, it was Danny and some NAPS leadership at that correctly reigned me in, and showed me that taking the high road was always the right way to market yourself. Have they decided to throw that advice out the window by allowing Ms Lambert to market herself so with such a cheap shot at Bruno?
Let’s hope not!
You would like to think in professional circles we don’t need to join the curb dwelling smack down culture that is so pervasive in our society today.
So should you join Ms Lambert for her session? I have met Jennifer, she seems like an intelligent, engaging, capable, successful and insightful practitioner of our craft. She is currently the Cahill ATD new trainer du jour, so clearly she must have some interesting thoughts to share, as Danny doesn’t let just anyone train his recruiters. So, yes, I am compelled by her message of enthusiasm and new thinking that makes up the second half of her personal message to her readers, which is compelling enough.
But I just don’t think her negative and contemptuous marketing are necessary. She can think what she wants. But the circle of those who are privileged enough to train our profession is small. There is not a lot of room to hide if she is going to go around and sell negatively against her training peers at every turn. And she doesn’t have to, as her message seems interesting without the distracting opening slurs with which she begins her marketing message. Not necessary to get our attention Jen. Ring our bells with your good training and useful techniques, don’t ring them with your negative opinions of a training leader and icon.
As for Cahill’s ATD & NAPS sending this announcement out without editing of Jennifer’s announcement, in the end that may be the most shameful mistake of all here. Cahill should know better. I can tell you from personal experience from a slight I made that was far more accidental and more ambiguous, that he does not respond well when this type of message was innocently leveled at him. How he could tacitly approve of this kind of message about another trainer who opened so many doors for him simply by the trails she blazed years ahead of him, I can’t say? Seems uncharacteristic.
And as for NAPS failing to edit Jen’s announcement. Maybe they thought it was funny. Maybe they just didn’t read it. Is this how they want “New” Trainers referring to their past Harold B Nelson award winners? I think we should expect more professionalism from our national professional association. I think they would agree with me, and hope this was just an oversight on their part. One I hope they won’t repeat.
Let’s stick to the high road, and stick together as a profession. We have enough outside forces working against us. No need to work against one another at this time of recovery. Most practitioners are interested in what many training voices have to say, not just one or two. It may not be quite as Bell ringing, or attention getting, to take the high road in our marketing, but is this negative type of marketing what professionals do? I think not.
Don’t you agree?
NAPS Lambert webinar announcement email 100106
ATD Lambert webinar announcement email 100107
Jeff,
I too was intrigued by the message, but surprised by the tone and sarcasm. It seemed cheap and unnecessary. If another trainer has a good idea then it should stand on its own merit. Barb has been extremely helpful to my business, as has your training. Like any training, however, you have to take the concepts and adapt them to what you do.
While I don’t know much about Cahill’s stuff, the real surprise was seeing the message emailed by NAPS! Is this another reason to have some pause about what is going on at the national level in our association?
Thanks for your thoughts and standing up for the professional standards we all profess to hold in high regard.
I am a loyal fan of Barb’s and would expect NAPS to be loyal to Barb because she has given more to the organization than anyone I know. Unfortunately, “NAPS” and “loyalty” don’t consistently go hand-in-hand. They will bite the hand that feeds them to pander to another hand with the promise of food. It’s very cheap and small.
Thanks, Jeff, for standing up for what is right.
Jeff. Seems like the B.S. is still flowing. I could suggest a few great topics to write about instead of fueling this fire with your hypocritical article. Are you not throwing the same hand grenade you accuse Jennifer of tossing? Is there a Walmart near your office? Go buy a mirror.
wow, someone needs a nap. I know jennifer, I know danny, I’ve had training from Bruno and nowhere in Jennifer’s message do I read any nuance that she’s slamming Bruno. Pinnacle people don’t need to take cheap shots to get business. This entire discourse is BS, in my opinion.
I have been in the recruiting business nearly 11 years. I acknowledge that 11 years is hardly a lifetime, but it’s not too shabby considering how transient the recruiting world is. Anyway, I find it amusing you dedicated so much time to such an innocent comment, as if Barb Bruno has the corner on the term “BS”. I’ll admit I am not a gigantic fan of Cahill, although I do respect him and have seen him speak in person on a couple occasions. I do not know Ms. Lambert, but I doubt she’s trying to take shots at Barb. Seriously, who cares?! But I will say that I have sat through several webinars of Barb’s and she shovels more cheese than the folks who do it for a living in Wisconsin. I am sure she’s done well for many recruiters, but I think her approach is transparent, which is not a good thing when your approach can be likened to a used car salesman. And you, Mr. Skrentny, have no credibility in my book either. It’s stuff like this that makes life miserable for the good recruiters who are intent on building authentic, meaningful, long-lasting relationships with clients and candidates alike. Drop the drama and get back on the phone! It’s going to be a great 2010!!
Looks like you have way too much time on your hands. To write such a note making such an accusation takes more than a leap of faith. It’s like driving to work one morning, taking a wrong turn, and ending up on Mars.
Have you googled the phrase B.S.?
With the periods included in the search, there are 165,000,000 occurrences of “B.S.” on the web. Which one of the 165 million do you think they meant, or do you think they meant just exactly what every other American thinks of when they hear the phrase “B.S.” I’d say your post is likely B. I won’t use the S. as I don’t want to swear.
Give it a rest, and write a retraction.
Jeff…Shame on you.
As easy as it would have been for me not to share the negative comments above, I am glad to share them so all can see them and make their own decision on this matter.
I find it amusing that some feel I am the villain here for putting a spotlight on this contextual use of this phrase in a message written by Jen and distributed by NAPS and According to Danny in their email promos. I would point that both context and innuendo are important considerations some feel it is easy to ignore. Simply because a phrase can be Googled and found to have 165 million occurrences carelessly ignores context and innuendo which cannot be ignored here.
Some have also suggested this is a “tempest in a teapot” of my own creation. I was too busy to respond to those who first pointed this promo out to me last Monday, but by Tuesday I had heard from 2 people in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana, 3 from Chicago, and one from Iowa, California and Texas. That is 12 practitioners who have million dollars businesses or very successful long term producing desks, who were all offended or shocked by these email promos, thus bringing it to my attention. I have heard from more since then.
It was clear to them that this was a sharp jab at Bruno. My experience is that for everyone who speaks up, there are many others who don’t and feel similarly. Guess we all just have too much time on our hands.
Carol Wenom of NAPS asked why I didn’t just back channel NAPS if I felt the use of this language was such a concern. Fair feedback. Unfortunately, I lacked confidence in how such feedback would be acted upon. She has also suggested I did it for some personal or professional gain that would result. I haven’t seen that yet, but maybe I am missing something. I have seen few get personal or professional gain when they take on the icon’s of leadership in their profession.
It has also been suggested that I am not a friend of NAPS for pointing this out so publicly. In my mind the hard thing to do is sometimes the best thing to do. This has been hard to address, but I, and many others, feel it was necessary. NAPS and those I have meet through it are the reason I have learned my craft as well as I have, Danny has taught me much about my craft that I am very grateful for. I have great appreciation for both for what they have been, are, and will continue to be for our profession.
But if “NAPS is the voice of the profession and Danny Cahill is an icon in the industry,” as Jen notes in her reply to me posted earlier today (see my most recent post to read it entirely…http://skrentnyspeaks.com/?p=434), then they must be held to a higher standard. And that standard cannot include contextual innuendo that takes, what many felt was, a pointed jab at one of our profession’s most important contributors.
Jen, I thank you for your public reply.
Onward and upward.
“And that standard cannot include contextual innuendo that takes a pointed jab at one of our profession’s most important contributors.”
Jeff, I am asking instead of telling because I’d like to know whether (more explicitly) you are maintaining your original premise and are calling Jen a liar…or not clearly enough accepting her denial that it had nothing to do with your original premise and not apologizing for mischaracterizing her.
I am not judging you with my question either…and I hope you see this as a fair question. It really is an either/or kind of deal with no gray area…
(I apologize in advance if there is a more recent post addressing this already. I did check just now).
Dave,
Fair point…I have revised that sentence to read:
“And that standard cannot include contextual innuendo that takes, what many felt was, a pointed jab at one of our profession’s most important contributors.”
I think that more accurately reflects the sentiment I was hoping to express.
Just saw the Lambert reply that someone forwarded to me. I think she did a good job of explaining the message and her admiration for Barb. While my initial reaction to the first message was similar to Jeff’s, now that she has clarified herself I accept it and applaud her for meeting it head-on. Now let’s get on with running our businesses and making 2010 the best year yet!
I don’t get this. Just because someone creates a “brand” using the term “B.S.” in it doesn’t mean that every reference to B.S. in our industry points to this person. There is a lot of B.S. teaching in our industry and in many other sales training venues. I suppose that’s why Bruno came up with the “No B.S.” brand, but it doesn’t mean that Lambert or me or anyone else can’t make a reference to “B.S.” without fear that someone is offending Bruno. Why is it that we Americans have fallen in love with finding victims in every situation? Everybody in this business needs to “man-up” – ladies included, but I hope that doesn’t offend you.
While I don’t participate in blogs and just heard about this as a result of Jen’s statement email, I felt it worthwhile to wait until toward the end of the phone day to comment on this little tempest.
Firstly, I’ve enjoyed 30 years of success as a desk-running recruiter and still do it every day (literally). As a disclaimer, I’ve also done some training both domestically and internationally, and count Danny Cahill as a good friend and respect him both personally and professionally. I’m also a founder and past president of the Pinnacle Society. I’ve also met Jeff on a number of occasions and always saw him as “one of the good guys”.
Having read Jeff’s statement, Jenn’s response, and the other comments above, I’m sitting here envisioning Jeff thinking to himself “why didn’t I just take an extra 24 hours before writing this thing?” If you had better considered the basis for your initial opinion on Jenn’s marketing email along with who Cahill is (and likewise anyone associated with him) I’m willing to bet you would have kept this nasty genie back in the bottle. You would have followed Carol Wenom’s suggestion of back-channeling your thoughts and accomplished many more positive goals.
Now that you’ve made the statement, you have accomplished very little if anything that’s positive. Danny Cahill is a class act and would never countenance such nonsense about the term “BS”. And he doesn’t need me to stick up for him either (but I will). In disparaging Danny, Jenn and NAPS over the reaction of 12 people and one commonly used term you have risked much and didn’t have to. Responding by casting yourself as Don Quixote jousting against the powers that be is not going to solve your problem now.
What is going to solve your problem is the hardest thing to do–and here I agree with you on needing to do the hard thing. That is admitting you overreacted, made incorrect assumptions and offer to buy Jenn dinner at the next NAPS conference and bring your own peace pipe to smoke. Do a mea culpa, show you’re truly bigger than the profile you miss-described was Jenn, and put out this fire now.
Otherwise, by doing an “I did not have sex with that woman” dance you will lose much more than you gain, if anything. You made a very public mistake and the right thing to do now is to just be true to who you really are.
Jeff,
Since I had a minute this evening between calls and training for my own team I felt compelled to post. As someone who is open to all trainers and all forms of training as the great author once wrote, “you are either moving forward or falling backward,” I feel you are the one here making all the claims and causing all the issues.
Barb is great, all my recruiters start on her program and then progress to a Jennifer or even Danny level. She has a foundation approach which is very duplicable and not too over the top like most trainers what to start with on “newbies.” Danny, Jen and Barb all have had very sound mutual respect for each other and I can’t quite get my brain around what you were thinking on this one. Yes we all know your antics, sarcasm, dislike for those in our business and of-course the “f-bomb” on paid speaking engagements but this was a bit too much for even you, a champion of our industry and someone I have learned from for years now.
I have been very impressed with Jen and so have many others as we all feel she does bring some new energy and creativity to our beloved industry. I do not like to assume as it is the ultimate sin in our business, but should I in this instance I wonder if you are just not hurt/upset by NAPS and afraid to tell us so we might help support you in return? We all know of the politics in these associations, thus why I am not in them any longer except as a supporting member so I think we would lend a hand to help support you much like we would expect you to do the same for Jen and others who are coming through the ranks.
This is the wrong way to go about PR for your brand or to attack back, no true data to back-up what you are saying minus “BS” which I have used in my blogs as well.
Chris