[CV Related] Here's a new one....

[northernladuk]

Worse than that I reckon they would say that they want a person and not a company...in true caught by IR35 mentality

I don't believe so. They want a person from the company but need to make sure that the person can fill the position. Sub clauses often have a comment that the client can refuse if the person isn't techinically capable of the role so they still need to see the skills of the person regardless of the relationship to the client. So there is nothing wrong with looking at the person first.

[Lockhouse]

Company brochure

Denny

Good old Denny.

[d000hg]

When you print it out does it print the source code so only the clever people can understand it?

No it uses that special paper out of Harry Potter

[fckvwls]

WTF is this supposed to mean? The client doesn't want a brochure. He wants to see the skills of the individual hence the need for a CV. When he has picked the right individual then he gets in to negotiation with the company.

Use the search option you are so fond of for a poster called Denny and 'brochure'

[NickFitz]

Use the search option you are so fond of for a poster called Denny and 'brochure'

+1

[Gentile]

Just had a CV passed across my desk and and it came on the letter head of the Contractors LtdCo, now part of me things this is a good idea, shows that its the company you are doing business with, a little bit different (company logo was colorful but not OTT).

Do CV's still need to stand out a little?

If the logo is subtle, constrained to the header, and it's clear that it's the Contractor's own Ltd's, I think that would add to my impression of the way they presented themselves.

However, I hate it when Agencies add their crappy logos to my considered CV format. Most often, they do so without even bothering to tell me so I only discover at the interview that their Picasso painting version of my CV has formed the client's first impression of me. Heaven knows why, but the ones that do this for some reason best known to themselves seem to think they're ingenious graphic artists, plastering low-res watermarks of their logo all over the document and distracting from the content.

Agencies that do this also tend to do equally-unhelpful things such as remove the links to my online portfolio and technical blog, out of some misguided fear that the client might contact me themselves. They even do it when you send your CV in PDF format - they just cut and paste it into a new Word document, knowing full well it wasn't your intent that your CV should be altered.

That's why I do most of my own first contacts these days. And, when forced to go through an agency, I always carry a paper copy or two of my CV to give to the client at the interview so they can compare the two.

I had this experience last week, when I discovered the CV they were working from looked something like this:

When I gave them my own CV they brightened up a bit, and commented on how badly laid out and full of grammatical errors the version from the agency had been. I ended up blowing that particular organisation out anyway since I was as unimpressed by them as they seemed to be by the agency. I chose one of the other two companies that I'd contacted through LinkedIn myself instead.

I don't know how things are for you guys down South, but up here that seems to be the way things are going: JobServe and agencies are next to useless right now. Direct contacts instigated through LinkedIn appears to be the new way to go about marketing yourself.