2. In fact, Dave Lefkow posts Need Talent? putting a human face on the previous bland communiques coming out of Jobster, Jason Goldberg mute. Matt Martone adds to the outreach on his post Let’s quit CEO bashing and get these people back to work.

3. The Recruiting Animal posts a reply to Jason Corsello in his post also titled: Why CEOs Shouldn’t Blog.

4. Jason Wagner, always good for a thoughtful analysis treats us here: How to Break a New Year’s Resolution in 44 hours or less (or yet another post on JobsterGate 2006).

5. Jim Durbin posts an insightful comment on the whole debacle: Jobster and the Blogosphere. Jim is very astute, I think.

2. Also Weddle: Don’t Leap to Conclusions Over Jobster’s Fate on ERE’s Inside Recruiting for an alternate view.

3. For a real “insider’s perspective” check out this comment on a Jobster employee’s blog.

4. And finally, Jason Goldberg posts Jobster 2007 - sounding more “corporate” on his blog than is his habit - announcing layoffs and plans for the business.

Not sure that Web 2.0 is well suited with CEOs who are cut from the mold of DOT Bomb wunderkinds. I haven’t seen the business maturity (at least in communications style and content) that indicate Jason Goldberg is a “CEO 2.0″

I limited information on which to judge Jason (not being a customer, employee or investor) but as a potential customer I found the sales experience unhelpful and the product overpriced. As an occasional observer of Jason’s blog, I have expressed diametrically opposing views in my article “Will Recruiters Become Extinct?”

Not sure that Jason’s position in the “Clinton White House” was a lofty one filled with responsibility or the opportunity to receive mentorship from Slick Willy. If it were, there would more than likely be an impressive title included in the reference to his time there.

Keep up the great work, I love reading your input.

Cheers!

Carl, thanks for the heads up

Thank you both for your comments - adding value to this thread - and for your contributions to this topic elsewhere around the bubble.

I find it interesting to see how the tone and direction of the comments on - John Cook’s post Facing threats, Jobster targets profitability in 2007, the trigger of this blogstorm - has expanded to talk about Jason Goldberg’s CEO blogging, transparency and what appears to be poor judgment all round at Jobster. Also, IMHO, Jason Goldberg’s lackluster performance in reply to the brouhaha validates some of those comments and does not adequately address any of them. One would have thought his time at Bill Clinton’s White House would have better prepared Jason Goldberg for handling such a controversy, rumors. It seems not.

Because they spent a lot of money for the real estate that they occupy in our brains. Since some of our customers and some of their customers have similar needs, and IMHO they will be in the ATS space before too long, its my job to pile on- my stakeholders would expect no less! If these are rumors, and no RIF occurs, I’ll be surprised and so will most everyone else, and all of our zings will be back on our own laps.

I’m sure the Jobster crew will weigh in on their blogs- but probably not this one. If your not down with the POF (price of fame) …..well…. I’m not just going to stand here while you badmouth the American way

I’ve yet to see a true stakeholder contribute to this topic du jour! Until then … this blogger (and competitor) will begin preparing for the New Year and Jobster’s prosperity!

Happy New Year!

Re: layoffs- the list of large firms that survive for decades without any RIF action is slim. Workforces can and will get out of line with market situations.

Jobster is an anachronism. Locked in amber, it’s a perfect specimen of .dot com thinking, execution, and perhaps, fate.

How many of those hires were driven by vital business need, and made with the utmost care? Probably half. The other half were to drive headcount, so Jobster could be an organization that could justify it’s own checking account balance.

Layoffs as a result of image burnishing are sad, but those employees were living by the sword anyway.

Why?

Because dot.com style, massive amounts of money were thrown at a ‘business opportunity’ that existed on a hypothetical plane. (hypothesis: Jobster sounds like Friendster, which got a lot of buzz, so maybe we can do with employment what Friendster did with social arrangements) Jobster is the experiment.

The hypothesis did not bear out and has not apparently supported a new theory of the self-fulfilling business prophesy, but it has reinforced the fairly well understood .dot com theory that a business probably needs an organic reason to exist in order to thrive.

Jobster went .dot com on every level; news releases, retooling of the model, massive spending on intra-industry branding (ERE San Diego 2006 was basically a Jobster exhibition inter alia) Every employee brought aboard and now scared and / or dead folks walking had a chance to look at the business model and culture before jumping on. The signs were there.

The .dot com theory holds that some business can actually survive and find a niche, and come back smaller and wiser over time to a good money maker. Few do, but it’s at least a possibility.

If Jason Goldberg came out and said “we clearly had .dot com fever but the spell has broken, and here is what we are going to do” it would be better than saying “things are great but we have to make adjustments”. If things were great, the workforce would closely match the market.

I hope Lefkow survives or lands on his feet - I like his blog and he is a class act in person.