tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-217902552024-02-27T22:37:45.112-08:00Random ConvergenceDanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-79362972136345193042013-03-23T11:08:00.000-07:002013-03-23T11:08:11.674-07:00Unleash the Hounds (again) - to go fishing!<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Seems like the lawyering is starting again. Advanced Career Technologies (another Denver, CO company) is asking google, <a href="http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2013cv00304/138442/12/0.pdf?1363169005">via an order from Colorado Fed Court</a>, for personally identifying information about people who posted to this blog.</span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">So this place is called Advanced Career Technologies - they're half a mile from where ITS is/was setup. I don't know for sure these are the same group of guys, or if there's just something in the air around that part of denver that makes people want to go into this kind of business. (From a web-search there are a lot of posts that say that ACT, ITS, McKenzie/Scott are all part of the same company, but just so no-one gets the wrong idea: i don't have any first-hand proof of this, myself - so don't hold me to it in a court of law!)</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">It doesn't look like the order covers info about me personally, however it looks like they already have that (since i'm named in the order itself - though incorrectly) and because a set of lawyers from ITS already sent me a nice <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2008/03/napalm.html">love note</a>, i'm quite sure they have my info already. The court order says they are going after 10 people who posted anonymously<span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span>"<i>violated the Lanham Act and the Colorado</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Consumer Protection Act and committed trade libel and commercial disparagement through</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>postings on a weblog"</i></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Not clear what the alleged violations are. The order implies that "good cause" has been showed that there are the above described violations. But it doesn't list what those are. Also, the motion from the plaintiff that was filed doesn't seem to be available online (Here's the <a href="https://www.cod.uscourts.gov/Documents/Judges/Calendars/2013-03-04/all.pdf">docket listing</a> from March 7, but it doesn't show anything for Judge Mix on that March 7.) Looks like the information may be <a href="http://dockets.justia.com/docket/colorado/codce/1:2013cv00304/138442/">available electronically (for a fee)</a> via a program called PACER - <b><i>anyone got a copy?</i></b></span><br />
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Not being a lawyer, i can't parse the precedents, or what is considered "normal practice," but it looks like the Rule 26(f) notation is just about how quickly they can go after this information, not the fact that they need something tangible (other than a hunch) to show good cause. Or is the court saying that the allegations from the plaintiffs are enough given that they are up against "anonymous behavior." <b><i>Any lawyers out there know?</i></b></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The lawyers this time are:</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Thomas D. Leland</span></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_34_1364049954945_144" style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Lathrop & Gage, LLP</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_34_1364049954945_147" style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">950 17th St, Ste 2400</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_34_1364049954945_150" style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Denver, Colorado 80202</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_34_1364049954945_153" style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">720-931-3200</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_34_1364049954945_153" style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_34_1364049954945_153" style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">They've also <a href="http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2013cv00304/138442/9/0.pdf?1360410471">scheduled</a> a "planning conference" for June 4, 2013 in Colorado federal court.</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_34_1364049954945_153" style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_34_1364049954945_153" style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">But all that said, the only way google is going to be able to comply (assuming they do), is to turn over IP addresses, names, MAC addresses for ALL people accessing and let the plaintiff comb over them. So no matter how you slice it, it's a fishing expedition.</span></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_34_1364049954945_153" style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div id="yui_3_7_2_34_1364049954945_153" style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Long story short for those posting comments - you might want to do it a library (and don't use your own computer because they'll be turning over your MAC address...).</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-10154892675923565072009-08-23T11:11:00.000-07:002009-08-23T11:20:04.248-07:00Breaking News...Check out these excellent article by New York Times reporter Michael Luo. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/us/17career.html?ref=us">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/us/17career.html?ref=us</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/us/17careerbar.html?ref=us">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/us/17careerbar.html?ref=us</a> <br />Michael has been working this story for a while (he contacted me for info along the way). It's good stuff, check it out.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-26345648262375071212009-07-27T19:25:00.000-07:002009-07-27T19:39:21.616-07:00Recent ITS Experience?Over the years it's been enlightening to read the comments - both of the tough experiences that some of you have had as well as those who have averted some of those same disasters. I'm hoping to continue to provide better information not just on ITS and it's "ilk" of personal marketeers, but also on other companies and tools that are available for job seekers. (See my <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-frontier.html">last post</a> on this topic...)<br /><br />In pursuit of that goal, I'm interested in getting more information from folks out there who have had recent direct experience with ITS/McKenzie Scott as a user of their services. If anyone out there is will to share their experience with me, please leave me an a one sentence description of your experience your email in the comments (i promise i won't publish the comments, but rather I'll email you directly.) <br /><br />More on all of this to follow soon I hope.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-26111935906538409662009-05-13T11:14:00.000-07:002009-05-18T16:42:14.852-07:00The new frontierWell, it's that time again, <span style="font-weight: bold;">I'm out on the market</span>. And it sure is scary out there.<br /><br />As someone who has kept a pulse on things over the last couple years (for both professional reasons as well as this blog), i was still unprepared for how dead things seem to be.<br /><br />Unfortunately, like many others out there who are industry journeymen who are targeted by companies like ITS, I find myself in a dead-zone between<span style="font-style: italic;"> traditional recruiters </span>who are focussed on staff-level jobs and <span style="font-style: italic;">executive recruiters</span> who target senior and executive management jobs. And in an economy like this, there are staff level jobs are out there (compensation is falling - or at least not keeping up with cost of living) but the senior management jobs are getting very "selective." That's code for: unless you have an absolutely killer resume, we're not going to waste anyone's time...<br /><br />The point of painting that picture is that there is an even greater demand for the kind of services that ITS markets. And i sense that job seekers are more and more desperate; so ITS is probably able to do a pretty brisk business still. My current job search combined with the feedback i get on this site has me wondering what other legitimate avenues exist for a seasoned job-seeker.<br />Not to be all doom and gloom. One bright spot I've seen is that one site out there does more than just passively present information. I've been impressed with what my experience so far with <a href="http://www.theladders.com/">The Ladders</a>. [Disclosure: i have absolutely NO affiliation with the ladders other than having my resume there and being signed up for their $30 per month service which i intend to keep till I've been at a new job for a couple months...]<br /><br />The Ladders targets specific markets and types of jobs (specific industries and jobs over 100K per year). They offer a lot of other services at reasonable prices and you can pick and choose. I had them do a free resume review (which i knew up front was inviting them to offer to rewrite it for me for a fee...) However i was impressed that the review was extremely detailed and specific to my resume - like 4 screens full. Whoever did it put in at least an hour of dedicated work and knew their stuff (experts may disagree on what is the right way to write a resume but having read enough of them myself i can tell the difference between boiler plate advice and thoughtful opinion.) And on top of all that, i got an actual phone call from the reviewer saying they were about to send it out and to call if i had any questions.<br /><br />Add to the the job listing was pretty well matched for what i am looking for - and while i know there are many others out there competing for the same jobs (it's not like I've found some secret cache of jobs) at least i am able to spend my time on competing for the jobs i want rather than spending my time to even find what I'm looking for.<br /><br />With all that said, I'm finding that my best sources are recruiters that I've worked with before (that is, I've hired people from them) and my professional network. This all leads me back to my original question - is there anything new out there. What I'm seeing is just reformulations of the same old recruiting and job search systems that have been around (and been pretty inefficient from both an employee and employer point of view). And with the decimation of internal HR departments, and the "race-toward-the-bottom" with recruiters, the whole process seems more and more like a crap-shoot with little a candidate can do to "work the system." With all the neat new online services over the last 10 years (<a href="http://www.facebook.com/">Facebook</a>, <a href="http://www.twitter.com/">Twitter</a>, <a href="http://www.ebay.com/">eBay</a>), does anyone see something new coming on the job-finding front?<br /><br />Just wondering?Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-80338046249681918182009-05-13T11:09:00.001-07:002009-05-13T11:14:24.771-07:00Ooops... Accidently rejected some commentsIn an accident i can only blame on lack of coffee, the moderator of this site (me) accidentally rejected some comments. What happened is that i was going through removing duplicates of recently added comments (double clicking submit isn't very cleanly handled by the interface i guess as this happens to 1 in 10 posts...) And i ended up rejecting 6 additional comments. <br />so if you've placed a comment on this site in the last week or two and don't see it published, i apologize for the mishap. (or rather that missing coffee apologizes!) <br />At any rate, if you still wish that lost comment to show up, please resubmit it and i will make sure that i am properly caffeinated before moderating in the future.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-85860309330953619002008-03-02T10:23:00.000-08:002013-03-31T16:15:10.693-07:00Napalm! (Updated 3/31/2013)<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgl3gfW0RQNJRtk6hB4pwmN8bwFL1CAYb2yFXSHqBF3Gnl7aY_F0hBkfv0V0oOYPMEoqeBtF6FwCFeYVS9fmmlzGMqEwvI9yjkAEq9v_jeTPsgJG-2_G4eaic4MO2rIS8jafJlyPw/s1600-h/SCAN0002_scrub2.JPG" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5173326333874751378" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgl3gfW0RQNJRtk6hB4pwmN8bwFL1CAYb2yFXSHqBF3Gnl7aY_F0hBkfv0V0oOYPMEoqeBtF6FwCFeYVS9fmmlzGMqEwvI9yjkAEq9v_jeTPsgJG-2_G4eaic4MO2rIS8jafJlyPw/s400/SCAN0002_scrub2.JPG" style="cursor: pointer; height: 401px; width: 290px;" /></a><br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqraEsMMdO2yYuekuw55xMKLr2GPHe3qOM3qZ8UYXExe5RMNqxz3r56lPZbULLi-JjTsMmtrynK67AgldeRd9JGYTkn3m0XaOwCxIp8WLZJRADAT0kXtqyfZeku3hG8zWnRWPVqw/s1600-h/SCAN0003_scrub2.JPG" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5173326342464685986" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqraEsMMdO2yYuekuw55xMKLr2GPHe3qOM3qZ8UYXExe5RMNqxz3r56lPZbULLi-JjTsMmtrynK67AgldeRd9JGYTkn3m0XaOwCxIp8WLZJRADAT0kXtqyfZeku3hG8zWnRWPVqw/s400/SCAN0003_scrub2.JPG" style="cursor: pointer;" /></a><br />
So this showed up in my mail the other day.<br />
<br />
Click on the image to read the original, or continue below for a line-by-line explanation. But the short version is that this is a letter to try and stop this site from talking about McKenzie Scott/ITS/etc.<br />
<br />
The entire letter is filled with so many things that make me react strongly that i'm not sure where to start. But before i go line by line through it, let me note 2 overall things. The first is that this effort to intimidate someone who is critical of ITS et al seems to be in-line with the way this company does business.<br />
<br />
Rather than provide a quality product, they prey on people's fears not only to get customers to sign up, but also to silence criticism. The second item of note is that they must have gone to some length to find my real name AND home address. To me that's pretty invasive - they could have left a note on my blog, but instead thought it would make more of a point that they could enter the privacy of my home (with a registered letter and then a saturday delivery to my home address...)<br />
<br />
Now, this letter is clearly meant to scare me off and while there hasn't been a suit filled yet, they are clearly threatening it. In the event of a lawsuit, then it seems to me that they would be open to charges of malicious prosecution and frivolous pleadings (i.e. big counter lawsuits for attorneys fees, costs, treble damages, etc.) However, even in this letter they assert that i am in violation of "applicable law." Feels like harassment to me...<br />
<br />
The whole reason i wrote these posts is that through my experience i realized how much this company takes advantage of people in a vulnerable situation and i wanted to help others who were in a similar situation be fully armed with the facts so that they could make the best decision possible. So, if having a knowledgeable and educated target audience is a problem for ITS's business model, that's just too bad.<br />
<br />
With that said, here's a paragraph-by-paragraph commentary.<br />
<br />
P1.<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-style: italic;">"This law firm represents ITS Corporations and its affiliates, a.k,a. McKenzie/Scott Partners, Inc. and America’s Job Network, Inc. ITS provides career transition resources to Fortune 1000 companies and senior level executives throughout the world. As its business practice relies largely on its reputation, ITS strives to maintain positive client relations and provide excellent customer service."</span></blockquote>
No need to comment on this - users comments on this blog speak to how well they do at meeting the reputation that they "strive" for.<br />
<br />
P2.<br />
<blockquote style="font-style: italic;">
"While you are welcome to conclude that ITS is not the right fit for you, your use of an internet blog, http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/, to unfairly disparage ITS is unacceptable and in violation of applicable law."</blockquote>
Nice of them to allow me to draw my own opinions. However, since what i write about is also true, i think that makes what i write "fair" (rather than "unfair.") Disparaging perhaps, but since it's true, i guess that shows that Mr. Honhart and presumably his client agree that the behavior and series of events that i describe are an indictment of McKenzie Scott, ITS and their related companies. In short, any negative impression that someone would get from these events is the fault of the company who perpetrated them, not the person who describes that activity.<br />
<br />
Kinda like a Nixon blaming newspapers for reporting on Watergate rather than realizing that it was his actions that were the root issue.<br />
<br />
And then the contention that i'm in violation of "applicable law" - not sure what law they're referring to since it's all true, which is generally a pretty solid defense. Seems like this is one of those lawyer phrases that gets thrown in to say "in case you're violating the law, then your violating the law..." Nevertheless, it's clearly meant to be threatening.<br />
<br />
P3.<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-style: italic;">"Assuming you are who you say you are, you have never been a client of ITS or any of its affiliates, and ITS has never taken money from you or entered into a contractual relationship with you."</span></blockquote>
Not sure whether to laugh or be offended by the audacity of this paragraph. On this blog i don't "claim" to be anyone. Rather, someone (ITS? the lawyers?) had to do some digging to find me - so, what they should have said is "assuming that you're who <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">we</span> think you are..."<br />
<br />
But they are correct in this aspect - i never signed a contract with McKenzie Scott (which i clearly mention in my posts). If i had, then i'm sure they'd be complained about how i was violating something in the contract i signed. And while it's true that they never took any of my money, it certainly wasn't for lack of trying. (As outlined in my posts), there were many attempts by phone and email on the part of McKenzie Scott to get me to become a client, to pay them money and to sign their contracts. And i would imagine that they have records (like a CRM system, email system, etc.) that make them well aware of this situation.<br />
<br />
So, to say the least, this statement is disengenious.<br />
<br />
P4.<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-style: italic;">"Rather than communicate with ITS about your experience and decision not to work with ITS, you have chosen to post defamatory and inflammatory statements about ITS, and encouraged and assisted others to do the same, revealing private and confidential information, trade secrets, copyrighted information, and actively and aggressively interfering with the business relations ITS enjoys with its clients and potential clients in the process."</span></blockquote>
The opening of this sentence implies something that is at odds with their previous implication - namely that i had an offer from them to "work together..." Looks like they just realized in this paragraph that we did have a relationship.<br />
<br />
The use of the word "defamatory" is pretty accusatory (and legally significant coming from a lawyer?) From the legal stand point, it's hard to see how it can be defamation <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">if it's true</span>. And again, this seems like an admission that the firms behavior is objectionable since they feel like an open depiction of their activities puts them in a bad light.<br />
<br />
To top it off, the links i point to were on the internet - so it's hard to see how the McKenzie Scott and ITS would feel like they were private, confidential, and trade-secrets.<br />
<br />
As for copyright - i'm quite sure that what i did falls under "fair use." (Note: a lot of the links are now broken, so maybe that means that they realize that having these things available on the internet takes a bit of the wind out of their sails...)<br />
<br />
Now, instead of picking apart every word in the last half of this paragraph (i especially like the use of the word "enjoys"), let me just say this. The near unanimous feedback from people i have interacted with on this blog and in other venues is that this whole thing is a scam of the worst sorts. It feeds on people's fears and insecurities. And while i admire the companies literature and soft-sell approach (in the way that many people admire a good con-artist), at the end the day, they are preying on people who are already in a vulnerable situation. This is reprehensible and all anyone has to do is look through comments on this blog to see that this is a universal perspective.<br />
<br />
I wrote these posts precisely because i wanted to arm other people with better information so they could make an informed decision about what to do. So if the conveyance of this information has caused some people to avoid wasting money on McKenzie Scott and ITS, well then i think that's a good thing. And if this causes the company a loss of business, then perhaps they should spend their time and energy on making a better product (or getting out of the market since people can get equivelent services for 1/10th the price) rather than lawyering up.<br />
<br />
P5.<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-style: italic;">"ITS has received reports from some of its satisfied clients, who report that they have attempted to post their own success stories and positive experiences about ITS on your blog, only to have you refuse to post those comments. Instead, you post nothing but negative comments about ITS from almost exclusively anonymous sources and conceal their identities under a cloak of secrecy."</span></blockquote>
I can't directly refute the first sentence, because i have no idea what they may or may not have been told by other people. However, i can report that while there have been a few comments that i have refused for a variety of reasons (see this <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2008/03/question-of-credibility.html">post </a>for more on this topic) - there has NEVER been a comment left talking of a fully positive experience. To me that's pretty incredible - look at all those negatives and no positives.<br />
<br />
For the record, i think the closest to a positive comment - which i did publish - was "I do believe they may offer some great services but my guess is that it is mainly overpriced as a whole." So, the reason why all these comments are negative is a reflection of the company, not my editing! duh!<br />
<br />
P6.<br />
<blockquote style="font-style: italic;">
"As it is, your agenda-driven conduct appears to have more in common with one of ITS’ competitors than that of an individual who chose to not use a certain service. It is our opinion that competitors are now using this forum with your help to unfairly attack our firm and interfere with our operations. There is ample evidence that credible organizations that run search engines and blogs do not support sites that are not fair and balanced. They include Google, whose software you use, and Yahoo."</blockquote>
Aside from the ad homenem attacks and (wrong) assumptions as to my motives, I assume this is another set of threats. I would imagine that variants of frivolous pleading counter-suits would be an appropriate response to any attempt to influence google and yahoo in a retalitory manner.<br />
<br />
p7.<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-style: italic;">"We are investigating whether you are in violation of the Federal Communications Decency Act. The CDA does not protect a website operator, like yourself, who is an "information content provider," defined as a person who is responsible, even in part, for the creation or development of the content of a website."</span></blockquote>
Laughing out loud on this.<br />
<br />
First of all, i sure hope you hire a law firm that actually knows about this act rather than a real-estate law firm. Because if you did, they'd tell you that this act actually protects those publishing material (as long as it's not porn). Again, the way this is written is very misleading to make it seem like a threat. This law is actually about making sure that companies like "google" or "yahoo" won't be held responsible for what those who use their services do. On the question of whether the actual author is responsible - it's neutral and leaves all existing laws intact. So again, the truth is a pretty good defense.<br />
<br />
And note: endangered species and greenhouse admissions are also on the list of things that CA doesn't protect. So maybe the lawyers should investigate those question as well...<br />
<br />
And for Mr. Honhart's benefit, here's some information on that act that might help his get his head straight while you're "investigating" if it's applicable to this situation: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act">wikipedia </a>or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act">wikipedia</a>. And just in case, <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt">here's the full text of the actual law</a>.<br />
<br />
p.8<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;"></span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-style: italic;">"On behalf of ITS, please consider this a request, to immediately remove from http://randomnconvergence.blogspot,com/ all references to ITS and any of its affiliates and cease and desist from further posting this material on your blog or any other website. We also request that you provide us with the real names and addresses – physical and/or Internet – of the individuals who have posted on your website so that we may similarly advise them to cease and desist."</span></blockquote>
<br />
Yeah right. On behalf of all the poor folks that you bilked out of money, consider this a request to refund any and all funds to all your previous clients and desist from preying on anyone else ever again. Also, stop harrassing me with empty threats from your lawyers. In short: pound sand.<br />
<br />
As a final note, here are the lawyers in question: Fisher, Sweetbaum, Levin & Sands -<span style="text-decoration: underline;"> </span><a href="http://www.fslpc.com/">http://www.fslpc.com/</a><br />
<br />
Interesting that ITS would hire a bunch of real estate lawyers. <a href="http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&do=nw&rmm=1&un=m&cl=EN&qq=m4ZeC4eEaUh9FRgxf%252bvPup1Y7CHl9d7VaMiATZ7SD9EBhYAlRr6UZNtVa8zTZT7cP9E%252bCjJahplmo%252f4BOPw%252bpn%252fAufK%252bEHc%252bL%252fgtN5%252fapwBW8%252b1fhCCTqDfixjjoeK29GZxKVOShEZJ4eFAY1ft8aV5MdGLhv4T2lVFrNN50DaLP3ENrQHKajSwLlXKPIg%252fADPtFcbiEMgwrB0FDPaeJ0v7n7HerpelL22hyUrQ2yADgDCS0juZVXQ%253d%253d&ct=NA&rsres=1&1y=US&1ffi=&1l=&1g=&1pl=&1v=&1n=&1pn=&1a=7979+E+Tufts+Av&1c=Denver&1s=CO&1z=80237&panelbtn=1&2y=US&2ffi=&2l=P3PUZwpJbBvfKhHcg8%252bMYA%253d%253d&2g=s2I2yekE%252fR%252f4Ukv5f2W2qg%253d%253d&2pl=&2v=ADDRESS&2n=&2pn=&2a=1125+17th+St&2c=Denver&2s=CO&2z=80202-2025">Here's a map</a> from the offices of ITS (or at least where ITS has as their mailing address) to their lawyers. Seems like a long way to go to get lawyers who aren't quite in the line of business that your looking for.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.fslpc.com/sap/31.php">And here's the lawyer who sent letter</a><br />
<br />
Again, this kind of thing doesn't really seem to be his expertise. I'm guessing ITS got a good deal on him.<br />
<br />
Also interesting that all of the old links for the ITS companies don't work anymore... Anyone who has current links for anything that's broken, feel free to leave them in the comments and i'll update the posts. (Update: looks like www.itspersonalmarketing.com is the right site for them now...)<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Update:</span></span> One of the comments left on this page generated an update to <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2008/03/question-of-credibility.html">this post</a>.<br />
<span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Update:</span></span> If you've been a customer of ITS/McKenzie Scott, see <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2009/07/recent-its-experience.html">this post</a>.<br />
<strong><em><span style="font-size: 21px;">Update:</span></em></strong> See <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2013/03/unleash-hounds-again-to-go-fishing.html">latest legal actions</a>.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-74702864514392270622008-03-01T07:20:00.000-08:002008-03-25T19:50:20.821-07:00A question of credibility (Updated 3/25/08)Over time many readers have left comments on this blog and for the most part i'm inclined to publish any comments that are germane to the posts here. With that said, there are a variety of reasons that i sometimes don't post comments - there are people who leave the same comment multiple times or leave inappropriate comments. In addition, i sometimes read a comment and come to the conclusion that the author is not genuinely who they say they are or are in some other way trying to interfere with what i hope is genuine feedback from other readers. These post are a very small percentage, but my fear is that if i start letting these kind of comments through, they will proliferate and readers will get an unrealistic view of things.<br />As an example, many months ago someone left a comment saying something like "hey dan, i remember trying to tell you about how great McKenzie Scott was - what happened? why didn't you follow up." Whether this was really Brian (or whatever his name really was) or some jokster or someone else trying to stir up trouble, i'll never know. But, i certainly felt that the commenter was neither genuine providing any help to readers of this blog.<br />Another time there was a comment that said something like "you guys are all jerks. ITS is great." Hmmm... wonder who left that?<br />I'm happy to say that the vast majority of readers who leave comments are civil and seem to be genuinely interested in the topics on this blog. For the others, the trolls out there, go find something else to do.<br />(more to come on this topic...)<br /><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >Update:</span> </span></span>Looks like they're sending in the lawyers. That's one way to deal with an image problem (cheaper than providing a good product i suppose...) <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2008/03/napalm.html">See this post</a> for the latest.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" ><span style="font-weight: bold;">Update 2: </span></span>Here's another comment that i didn't publish (at least as a comment) - from Anonymous. The main reason is that it really doesn't contribute to the article that it was attached to (it was one layman's interpretation of the law). But in addition to all that, it was (as i understand it) pretty off base - something i thought worthy of comment.<br /><br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">Having been a journalist for years, I can tell you that the best defense against defamation charges is, indeed, truth, EXCEPT when the intent is to cause harm (malice).<br /><br />If you are NOT posting EVERY positive comment about this firm that you have received, you are, indeed, liable. That will prove an unbalanced story which will substantiate their claim.<br /><br />Plus, any connections you have to any of their competitors will be daylighted during a suit as well, in which case you stand to lose a lot.<br /><br />Note to self: will be interesting to see if this gets posted...<br /></blockquote>Breaking it down...<br /><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">Having been a journalist for years, I can tell you that the best defense against defamation charges is<br /></span></blockquote>The first obvious comment: you're a journalist, not a lawyer. And while journalists are no doubt worried about libel, i'm sure they consult a lawyer for the finer points. So, i could listen to what you say, or what multiple lawyers (and every law book & article that I've ever read) say... <span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">...the best defense against defamation charges is, indeed, truth, EXCEPT when the intent is to cause harm (malice)<br /></blockquote>Not so. Even with malice intended, the truth is (virtually) an absolute defense in the United States. (So maybe there's an issue if this gets into a British court.) In the event that fails, I'd expect that the "public interest" defense applies to everything written here with regard to these companies. The closest i could get any legal authority to conjecture is that there might be some arcane state law that under some bizarre set of circumstances where something was perhaps technically true it was used in a way that was grossly and deliberately misleading might allow a libel case to proceed. But even so, i can't find any case examples (any LAWYERS out there got better info for those of us who are curious?)<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">"If you are NOT posting EVERY positive comment about this firm that you have received, you are, indeed, liable."</blockquote>Oh yeah sure. I'd love to see case law on this! Being generous, I'll assume that the author's employers were simply litigaphobic (that should be a word) and gave some sort of bizarre guidance to their staff. Besides the obvious use of legal sources who call BS on this, these kind of statements also fail the basic smell-test - if this were true, you could be sued simply for not publishing a comment on a blog. Or more obviously, a newspaper could be sued for not publishing every single letter-to-the-editor.<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">That will prove an unbalanced story which will substantiate their claim.</blockquote>Ah yes - the First Amendment's guarantee of a free press is all about making sure that the press writes every story with "balance" on every topic they address. The fact that this is written by a self proclaimed journalist is even scarier. I'd feel a lot better about the state of journalism if it's practitioners were less focused on reporting everything as a balance between two equal points of view ("some people think shit is bad to eat, but others disagree - today will look at both sides") and more focused on reporting the truth! ("shit tastes like... SHIT!")<br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">"Plus, any connections you have to any of their competitors will be daylighted during a suit as well, in which case you stand to lose a lot."</blockquote>Not that this is relevant at all, but i certainly have no connection with any of these scam artists. On the other hand, if there are good recruiters, placement firms, resume writers, etc. out there, i am happy to help them out!<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><blockquote>Note to self: will be interesting to see if this gets posted... </blockquote></span><br />Well, perhaps not posted in the way you expected, so i hope I didn't disappoint you...Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-86473328400593482292008-02-02T06:05:00.000-08:002008-02-02T10:42:23.169-08:00Google-ocityEvery now and then i look at the statistics and traffic patterns on this site. The last 6 months have seen a drastic upswing in the number of hits and the source of that seems to be links from a few forums and sites that have driven this sites "google-score" way up. Over 50% of "in links" are from google. At the same time, a large percentage the"out links" are also to google as visitors continue their investigation process.<br />So i figured i'd add a google search bar to the site (save people a click or two). As i went to do this i discovered a whole bunch of tools that google has to add automatic content (including ads) to sites - so i'm trying them out (but lest anyone think i'm going to get rich, based on traffic it looks like i'll be lucky to get $1 per month!) I'm curious to see how good google is at pushing "relevent ads" to people viewing these pages - so if you happen to notice, make a note in the comments as to how they're doing...Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-91663373878825713712007-11-07T16:34:00.000-08:002008-03-03T10:33:21.762-08:00Time to Lawyer up? (Updated 3/2/08)Rumor has it that the ITS companies are out to snuff out unfavorable comments on the web... Guess it's cheaper to hire a lawyer than actually deliver a quality product.<br /><br />So for the heck of it, i went to one of the sites and started poking around - same site basically as it's been for a while. Same sort of material as 2 years ago. Then i hit a page with some of the "<a href="http://www.itspersonalmarketing.com/salary.pages/ext-shareholders.html">shareholders</a>." Not sure what the heck a shareholder means in this context, but i decided to cross check the names (which use only the last initial to protect the innocent i'm sure) against those names mentioned in the comments on this blog. And can you believe it, i found that that's a lot of the same folks who've been mentioned as being managing directors, etc. For those keeping score, they're <a href="http://www.itspersonalmarketing.com/images-c/120x_rounded/210/shareHolders/04_Norris_P.jpg">Norris P</a>, <a href="http://www.itspersonalmarketing.com/images-c/120x_rounded/210/shareHolders/06_Paul_B.jpg">Paul B</a>, <a href="http://www.itspersonalmarketing.com/images-c/120x_rounded/210/shareHolders/07_Lynette_D.jpg">Lynette D</a>, <a href="http://www.itspersonalmarketing.com/images-c/120x_rounded/210/shareHolders/16_Tom_K.jpg">Tom K</a>, <a href="http://www.itspersonalmarketing.com/images-c/120x_rounded/210/shareHolders/28_Tom_S.jpg">Tom S</a>, <a href="http://www.itspersonalmarketing.com/images-c/120x_rounded/210/shareHolders/29_Sue_S.jpg">Sue S</a>, <a href="http://www.itspersonalmarketing.com/images-c/120x_rounded/210/shareHolders/36_Carol_R.jpg">Carol R</a>, and <a href="http://www.itspersonalmarketing.com/images-c/120x_rounded/210/shareHolders/46_Gordon_R.jpg">Gordon R</a>. So now i'm thinking (speculating of course), those are the guys who've been around the longest - they probably run the show. So which one looks like the "heavy"? I'm thinking it's Sue or Paul.<br /><br />Anyone else heard anything about these guys trying to stifle bad publicity?<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Update: </span></span>Looks like the rumors are true... <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2008/03/napalm.html">See this post</a> for the muzzle letter i got (and my response)Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-23124673591438736272007-10-25T06:02:00.001-07:002008-12-09T00:42:28.365-08:00ITS Agreement<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhukBbtsVlvDTJ-3aU3L3-TBTekwcjEk371NslWjL37_b9A8_2r_O3gGfnl6rLgaWvwCnC5htXQNLJ6CqWFxH5cBZIRbpgbIK9fUPb0GHnUjrinNlrW5aEuxP7Xpp_PFLfdAXcOzQ/s1600-h/ITS01_smudge.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhukBbtsVlvDTJ-3aU3L3-TBTekwcjEk371NslWjL37_b9A8_2r_O3gGfnl6rLgaWvwCnC5htXQNLJ6CqWFxH5cBZIRbpgbIK9fUPb0GHnUjrinNlrW5aEuxP7Xpp_PFLfdAXcOzQ/s320/ITS01_smudge.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5130266107350119010" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKlDRyRGQ1PzyOON6GiWAQ1Tz9O__dFMzDxBT-x9zYFqPo-Pwf3mw1EEM7YqIltOTKCQkimm_gezTkc6hf-zvh8tWVqIutxHKhhdl1ZYaBcgI3SHQ591K2L_g3MZakVNrd9EPs7g/s1600-h/ITS02_smudge.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKlDRyRGQ1PzyOON6GiWAQ1Tz9O__dFMzDxBT-x9zYFqPo-Pwf3mw1EEM7YqIltOTKCQkimm_gezTkc6hf-zvh8tWVqIutxHKhhdl1ZYaBcgI3SHQ591K2L_g3MZakVNrd9EPs7g/s320/ITS02_smudge.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5125273457657157058" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPlczHOCkMNnIL-t6Gk9scnWtkTtO8uGARxfXCBwVmg7YH-eTjOpN-MdglxQRxWV7xW8T9UZzf6LRR6azDYk6NrUkY-rplyKmSu4pojIYYw71JFkyU19eTPuII1viax2bcj5OgtA/s1600-h/ITS03_smudge.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPlczHOCkMNnIL-t6Gk9scnWtkTtO8uGARxfXCBwVmg7YH-eTjOpN-MdglxQRxWV7xW8T9UZzf6LRR6azDYk6NrUkY-rplyKmSu4pojIYYw71JFkyU19eTPuII1viax2bcj5OgtA/s320/ITS03_smudge.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5125273483426960850" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP-_K0ZbgWYjMnWRGutE4NY4V6vV6uqluod5fvLTHs5w1ax4iAgfVW-hlfWpFUbnqJev8KCyXeelGn1LvLmryuHdd_MabKD9dNNYg7E4GrSatsa2lwd1BbnnZ7bjBSbCrH01xA_w/s1600-h/ITS04_smudge.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP-_K0ZbgWYjMnWRGutE4NY4V6vV6uqluod5fvLTHs5w1ax4iAgfVW-hlfWpFUbnqJev8KCyXeelGn1LvLmryuHdd_MabKD9dNNYg7E4GrSatsa2lwd1BbnnZ7bjBSbCrH01xA_w/s320/ITS04_smudge.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5130267215451681394" border="0" /></a><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVSDClH4Zm07GtsjqkfoheFRYIm90-j_MORkM5sDUdTZcwseqrjmXjiKSLu2pt_aLd8jZAEpk3fKhUCBlot6SzXc_98legPwURI7ueqmn2_U1CZJ2uGzWquw17UO9SU-nzhH27yg/s1600-h/ITS05_smudge.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVSDClH4Zm07GtsjqkfoheFRYIm90-j_MORkM5sDUdTZcwseqrjmXjiKSLu2pt_aLd8jZAEpk3fKhUCBlot6SzXc_98legPwURI7ueqmn2_U1CZJ2uGzWquw17UO9SU-nzhH27yg/s320/ITS05_smudge.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5125273513491731954" border="0" /></a><br />As luck would have it, i was able to get my hands on the current agreement (good thing since the old link i had is broken.)<br /><br /><br />It looks pretty much the same except point 13 is new (summary: "don't complain if you don't get a job.") And of course the last page is the money shot (summary: "doesn't matter what we've promised you up till now, this is what the deal is.")Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-13601646631838782992007-07-19T08:39:00.001-07:002013-03-31T16:08:05.893-07:00Help tell the story of McKenzie Scott, usajobmarket, ITSOver the past year, there's been a lot of traffic to the posts on McKenzie-Scott (or their other apparent pseudonyms). The comments on the post represents a tiny fraction of a percent of the traffic that has visited the posts.<br />
Traffic seems to come from two key sources:<br />
- google (of course)<br />
- indeed.com (there's some posts there that reference these pages)<br />
<br />
From scanning these sources, it's obvious that the McKenzie Scott business model is still alive and kicking and finding many willing customers. (IMO) that's a shame - as time has passed and i've thought more about my experience, my disgust with their practices has hardened. The feedback by all those reading the posts has always been "thank god i read this - i was about to sign up." I can't help but thinking about all the folks who didn't have the information before jumping in.<br />
<br />
So with that said, i'd like to do my part to provide info to those looking to find out more. Some of the links (like to the agreement) in the original posts are dead. If there's anyone out there who has copies or links that i can put up, please let me know (or add to the comments). Of if anyone has additional stories that would be useful to share, i'll be happy to post them.<br />
<br />
BTW - in case anyone cares, i landed just fine. I got a job in a small IT group without the help of any headhunter or agency.<br />
<br />
<b><i>UPDATE (3/31/2013):</i></b> See <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2013/03/unleash-hounds-again-to-go-fishing.html">latest legal actions</a>.<br />
<br />
UPDATE: Here's a website of someone who went farther in the process - <u>http://www.bewareits.org/</u><br />
<br />
UPDATE: Looks like the site no longer existsDanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.com127tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-1143409371427720912006-03-26T12:41:00.000-08:002013-08-14T18:10:41.501-07:00The Rest of the McKenzie Scott Saga (Updated 3/31/2013)<strong><em><span style="font-size: 130%;">Update 6:</span></em></strong> See <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2013/03/unleash-hounds-again-to-go-fishing.html">latest legal actions</a>.<br />
<br />
It's been a while since I posted - things have been busy... The incident I describe below happened about a month ago...<br />
<br />
So after playing a little email tag, Brian and I finally hooked up again on the phone to talk about the next steps. Again, I have to say how impressed I've been with their sales job - Brian came across as available and helpful, but not over eager or pushy (yet).<br />
<br />
We talked more about how to market my skills (or should I say skilz?) and the timelines involved. Brian layed out a very aggressive and ambitious approach about how we could proceed. At the end of the call, he agreed to point me a copy of their work agreement that outlined the financial details of how work would proceed (<tt><tt><a href="http://mckenziescott.com/agreementHL" target="_blank">HERE'S THE LINK AT THE TIME</a> [ed: this link is broken, if someone sends me a new link i'll update it. in the meantime, this post has a scanned copy of the <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2007/10/its-agreement.html">agreement</a>]) </tt></tt><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: 100%;">Up to this point, there still had been no discussion as to price...<br /><br />As I read through this agreement I was struck by three things. The first was something I expected - the entry price was 8K and stretched up to 25K. Realistically you would have to spend at least 12K. That's a lot of money to pay up-front, but if the stuff really works, it's obviously worth it. Of course they have all these statements about "guarantees" but if you read the details of the guarantees, they don't really provide that much protection for the client (see below).<br /><br />The second thing that struck me was in a section innocuously titled: <span style="font-weight: bold;">How Long We Will Serve You...and the Completeness of This Agreement </span>It said: "<span style="font-style: italic;">This agreement, along with our service guide, set forth our entire agreement. It supersedes any prior written or verbal understandings with any party, including any verbal understandings with any employee or agent of the firm or with third parties.</span>" WTF, did I read that correctly? It basically says that regardless of what Brian has told me, this agreement and the service guide are all I can rely upon in terms of expectations of service and outcomes. In other words, Brian can promise me whatever, but McKenzie Scott doesn't have to do what he says they'll do. (Not being a lawyer, I have no idea if this is a legal way to get out of fraud, but it seems pretty sleazy & questionable to me... And of course that this language is buried in a section that talks about how long McKenzie will keep working on my behalf makes it seem like a bait-and-switch even more.<br /><br />The third piece is in a section titled: <span style="font-weight: bold;">Mutual Confidentiality Regarding</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">This AgreementÂ… and Your Search</span>. It has this preamble: "<span style="font-style: italic;">A certain percentage of the firm as clients are senior executives who are sometimes concerned that we not divulge anything about this agreement or our work for them, that would lead to commentary in the print, </span><span style="font-style: italic;">broadcast or internet media.</span>" It then goes onto say: "<span style="font-style: italic;">For this reason, the firm and all clients mutually agree that this agreement shall be kept confidential, and comments of any kind regarding it, our services and our clients, shall not be initiated or released to the print, broadcast or internet media, either anonymously, through a third party, or on a direct basis.</span>" And then as a kicker, they describe the penalty for violating this restriction: "<span style="font-style: italic;">In the rare event</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">that a breach should lead to public commentary, both parties agree that because of the difficulty of assessing damages… that a penalty will be due which is equal to the base executive service charge in this agreement, as stated on page 6.</span>" That's 8.5K.<br /><br />This also has the effect preventing people from posting complaints about the service provided. Nice. The part of this that seems so duplicitious (ingeniously so) is that they state this as though it's to help protect their famous client rather than to cover their asses. To belabor the point (although it's probably obvious to anyone with even an ounce of skepticism) if they wanted to protect their clients names and reputation, they could do it in a much more narrow way then this restriction.<br /><br />Sooooooo.... having read through the agreement, i was ready to Brian's call the next day. I suppose I could have pointed out all the issues above to him, But i didn't really see the point. What i said was basically that<br />1. they seemed like a company that really understood the market and had the capability to help out a lot in a job search but,<br />2. a deal like this that was structured with all the payments up front creates too much inventive for a good sales job and not enough for follow through. (And this really is my fundamental objection whIch i repeated consistently through the rest of the call...)<br /><br />Well, Brian was pretty prepared for this objection. He quickly responded that even though the payment was up-front, the "money back guarantee" meant that the money would be given back if they didn't deliver. To that i pointed him to the service agreement which outlines the various gaurantees. The money back gaurantee is only valid at a very early point in the process after they have created a bunch of marketing material for you (but before you've had a chance to use it to search for jobs or McKenzie Scott find openings for you.) The point I made was that I'm already admitting that i don't know what the best marketing material/resumes look like - that's why I'm interested in hiring someone. And without being able to test the market with them, I really couldn't make an informed decision.<br /><br />The other guarantees really only say that if you are unsatisfied with your "campaign," they'll assign a new team and redo it. And while on paper this seems like something they'd want to avoid and hence provide some disincentive, it's not nearly the same as cold hard cash. Or to paraphrase Dennis Miller about the K-mart blue-light special - "Two of shit is shit. If they really want to fuck you they'll give you three of them." Or a joke my dad used to tell about a lottery where the first prize was a week of vacation in Philadelphia. Second prize - two weeks vacation in Philadelphia. (I didn't reference these jokes to Brian - i didn't think he'd laugh...)<br /><br />This seemed to knock Brian a little off his game. He continued to repeat the mantra that the need to redo a campaign was a disincentive enough. When this didn't seem to make any headway, he switched to giving me a some inside information. Apparently, he told McKenzie Scott has been working on a new agreement that would provide exactly the kind of arrangement where they were paid only when the candidate was placed. But, he lamented, it's being held up by the legal department and he didn't know when it would be available.<br /><br />The call lasted about 45 minutes. I told Brian that when they got the new agreement that provided a different payment structure, to please call me back as i'd be very interested. He told me he would.<br /><br />That evening I recieved an email from Brian with a bunch of testimonials about what job's they found and how much McKenzie Scott helped them. Of course, the company names were ommitted as well as the last names of the people. All completely unverifiable.<br /><br />That was the last i ever heard from Brian.<br /><br />Draw you own conclusions - obviously you know what i think.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: 130%;"><strong><em>Update:</em></strong> </span>see <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2007/07/help-tell-story-of-mckenzie-scott.html">new posting</a><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: boldfont-size:130%;">Update 2:</span> <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2007/10/its-agreement.html">see new posting with copy of the agreement you sign</a><br /><span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><em>Update 3</em>:</span></span> Guess ITS et al got tired of people finding out about them. So what to do? Send in the lawyers. <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2008/03/napalm.html">Here's their salvo and my response.</a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 130%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Update 4:</span></span> If you've been a customer of ITS/McKenzie Scott, see <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2009/07/recent-its-experience.html">this post</a>.<br />
<strong><em><span style="font-size: 130%;">Update 5:</span></em></strong> <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2009/08/breaking-news.html">See breaking news...</a><br />
<strong><em><span style="font-size: 130%;">UPDATE 6 (3/31/2013):</span></em></strong>See <a href="http://randomconvergence.blogspot.com/2013/03/unleash-hounds-again-to-go-fishing.html">latest legal actions</a>.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.com396tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-1139890944728811722006-02-13T20:09:00.000-08:002006-02-13T20:26:10.803-08:00Back to the grindstone...Just got back from vacation. Dropped the kids off with the grandparents and took a 5 day Caribbean cruise. If you've never done a cruise, I highly recommend it. Start small - 3 - 5 days. I think it's more fun to cruise with a group of friends...<br />At any rate, it really is good value for money.<br />Here are my hints for good cruising.<br />1. If you have any ability to get around on your own, don't bother with the "excursions." I've always been disappointed and found that I could do the same if I made my own arrangements with a lot less waiting around and way less standing in line. E.g. on this last cruise you could get a island bus tour (probaby an old beat up van) for $100/person and it took 6 hours. Instead, our group of 4 rented a car for $55 and visited everywhere we wanted in 4 hours (with 2 of those hours being at a bar on the beach...)<br />2. Don't pay for the outside cabins, balconies, etc. Buy the cheapest indoor room - you won't spend much time in there anyways, and when the lack of windows is a big benefit if you want to sleep late (it is vacation after all).<br />3. (this probably varies from line to line - my experience is limited to Royal Caribbean and Carnival so far) the buffet food is the best food on the ship. The dishes are all designed for mass feeding and there are so many choices. The dinner in the main dining room is more hit and miss. And while I've never had a "bad" meal on a cruise, there were some in the main hall that were just "ok." On the other hand, the main dinner is usually a more intimate atmosphere, and some people (like my wife) put a lot of value in that. So we do dinner in the main hall, but go to the buffet for all other meals. (No, not just 3 meals a day, rather 4 - 6 - kinda like hobbits...)Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-1138924297658100592006-02-02T15:41:00.000-08:002006-02-02T15:51:37.666-08:00so i got a call from Brian (the McKensie Scott dude) who's title is Managing Partner today. I have to say - these guys are good! We talked for 30 minutes and it was one of the best soft-sells i've ever heard. And what made it all the more impressive is that i know what's coming, but it still sounds good. His whole pitch was about "here's what you gotta do - whether we help you or you do it on your own." Then he had me watch an online presentation - also very well put together. Finally i filled out a questionaire. Brian is going to review my answers and figure out how they can help - if i want them to help.<br />In short, the whole sell is based on the premise that if you can talk-the-talk, then you can walk-the-walk. And based on what i've seen so far i have no doubt that they are <span style="font-style: italic;">capable </span>of delivering. But the way the business is structured creates the incentive to do a good job selling, but not necessarily a good job delivering.<br />That said, i am curious to see how they continue the pitch - it should be very instructive.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-1138768575052094242006-01-31T20:20:00.000-08:002006-01-31T20:36:15.060-08:00I've posted my resume on a couple of sites (Monster, CareerBuilder, etc.) I'm really amazed at how a whole ecosystem has developed around these operations. It's a very different setup than when I was involved 4 years ago (both as a recruiter and then looking for a new job.)<br />I've got lot's of emails generated from the posts - unfortunately only a few are from people who think I might be candidate for a job. In addition to these expected contacts, I've got contacts from financial institutions looking to see if I have a 401K to roll-over as well as <span style="font-style: italic;">personal marketing consultants</span>. This last species is like an agent. Unlike the recruiters who get paid by the company that hires you, these agents get paid by you for their services to fix up your resume, polish you up, and get you in front of people who will hire you. A lot of them seem to want the money up front too. <br />Today I got an email from one that I'd been expecting - some friends had been contacted too. The company in question is <a href="http://www.mckenziescott.com/">McKenzie Scott</a> and they do have slick marcom. They had previously sent me brochures, pamphlets and even a book on how helpful they can be. <br />Now anyone who knows me will tell you that I'm the suspicious type - I smell a scam cooking a mile away (probably even when it's just someone doing a little old sales spinning - nothing harmful.) So my radar is way up when I've heard that they charge 5 - 25K to campaign for you. <br />Since I've agreed to talk to them tomorrow, I figure I should do some research on them. Thank god for the internet - I ran across <a href="http://www.ripoffreport.com/results.asp?q1=ALL&q4=&amp;q6=&q3=&q2=&q7=&searchtype=0&submit2=Search%21&q5=McKenzie+Scott">this</a>. You gotta love google - just needed to enter <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">"McKenzie Scott" bad</span> as my google search. First hit.<br />So, armed with this information (and of course I have to consider that this information isn't guaranteed either) I'm going to listen with a very skeptical ear to the pitch and ask lots of pointed (polite) questions. In fact, these experience so much match my expectations, that I wouldn't even do the call if things were at all busy at work tomorrow... But, I think it should be an entertaining talk if nothing else - maybe good fodder for blogging.Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21790255.post-1138767396294367562006-01-31T20:03:00.000-08:002006-01-31T20:18:59.286-08:00In the beginning...OK, so I'm starting a blog tonight. Why - who knows. I guess everyone else is doing it & I wanted to see what it's about.<br />I can think of 2 other (good?) reasons. The first is that I'm starting to look for a new job - the one I'm in has been eliminated due to a merger (OmniCare buys NeighborCare - <a href="http://biz.yahoo.com/e/050707/ocr8-k.html">boring SEC filing</a> ) I've known my position was going away for a while (6 months) but have had golden handcuffs on till now, so I've just started looking). The short of it is that the job market seems really weird to me now and it struck me that blogging my experience might be interesting (to whom, I don't know, but just maybe...) And if I can add some tidbits that will help others along they way, then great (I think the search engines hit blogs, right ;-) )<br />The second is that from time to time I come across bits of arcane knowledge. Stuff that I search and search for on the web and am shocked that I can't find an answer. So then I invest time and find the answer. Seems a shame for it to disappear into the ether, so I figure capturing it in a blog for the bots and spiders to find might help some other poor soul out there. (again, I hope they look at blogs...)<br />So, whatever, it seems at least that this all created enough inertia to get me started.<br />Also inspiring was my brother who started blogging his trip to India - I found it interesting at least. <a href="http://joeinindia.blogspot.com/">Check it out!</a><br />So this is the start. We'll see how it goes.<br /><br />Question: Am i the only one who thinks it's ironic that the spell-checker on this site doesn't know the word "blog."Danhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04799228239389200275noreply@blogger.com0