Post by hereticus on May 5, 2006 18:27:36 GMT 1
At 10'ish last night Cheated Advisor came on line with the comment "heard today 200 new advisors on the way"
A little later he then added the comment "at 200 its a average of 4 new members at every fsm meeting will it be 4 in 4 out"
Then a couple of hours later our old friend NoNails added "Definite instructions gone out to recruit and train 200 new advisors ASAP"
So what is this all about ? Can these comments be substantiated in any way ? Does this information have any authority behind it ? Or is it just another rumour, or another distortion of the facts, put out there to incite advisors to unite against Hillarys ? Like a lot of points raised through this forum this could easily get out of hand and cause a lot of ill feeling when, quite probably, there is no substance behind the rumour.
Lets look at some facts ! Hillarys currently have about 860 advisors. Three years ago they had about 920 advisors, Sales turnover is up more than 20% over those three years. So how have they managed this conjuring trick ? First thing is that they no longer have to support three brand names so diaries have become better utilised. Secondly, diary booking has improved efficiency - (overall I believe this is true. I would still prefer to book my own diary and so would many of us but, for a lot of agents who were not so well organised, it was a big help, and new agents have never known any different). Thirdly, I believe a much larger proportion of advisors are now full time rather than part time, so sales per advisor must have increased on average. What does this prove - well, only that they do not panic to increase the advisor network if they can make better use of what they have.
And why only 200 new advisors rumoured ? Hillarys lose an average of seven advisors every week. A large number of new advisors don't last six months. Turnover of advisors is approximately 30% every year and - before everyone jumps in to say what a bad show that is - that figure is below average for commission based direct sales jobs. So, they need to recruit 300+ new advisors every year just to stand still. Makes the 200 figure sound quite pathetic really.
Recruitment is continual, and we have all been affected when a new advisor has come into our patch when it wasn't necessary. This particular point is a 'real' issue, was addressed at the seminars, and is a subject of ongoing discussion, but should now be happening less and less. Most recruitment is simply to replace advisors who leave, and some recruitment is in geographical hot-spots where the existing network is not coping i.e lead-to diary times too long, for too long.
We do not need to worry that new advisors are continually being recruited to maintain normal strength, or to service increasing turnover in areas which are undermanned. For someone to state that 200 new advisors are being recuited - well, so what ? However, if Hillarys were intending to increase their advisor network by 200 (ie from 850 to 1050) in addition to normal recruitment then, yes, perhaps we would have something to worry about and would be justified in seeking lots of reassurances about our own job security and sales turnover potential.
So, is this what's happening ? Personally I doubt it, because John Risman has already told us in his video presentation at the last round of team meetings that this year will probably see zero growth.
In fairness Cheated Advisor's initial comment did actually read as if he was simply sharing a rumour, But No Nails then came on and made a bold categorical statement which implied some authority behind the rumour.
So, Mr NoNails, I issue you with a direct challenge ! If you have definite inside information then share it with us. Where did your information come from, and exactly what was said ? Quite simply, put up or shut up !
A little later he then added the comment "at 200 its a average of 4 new members at every fsm meeting will it be 4 in 4 out"
Then a couple of hours later our old friend NoNails added "Definite instructions gone out to recruit and train 200 new advisors ASAP"
So what is this all about ? Can these comments be substantiated in any way ? Does this information have any authority behind it ? Or is it just another rumour, or another distortion of the facts, put out there to incite advisors to unite against Hillarys ? Like a lot of points raised through this forum this could easily get out of hand and cause a lot of ill feeling when, quite probably, there is no substance behind the rumour.
Lets look at some facts ! Hillarys currently have about 860 advisors. Three years ago they had about 920 advisors, Sales turnover is up more than 20% over those three years. So how have they managed this conjuring trick ? First thing is that they no longer have to support three brand names so diaries have become better utilised. Secondly, diary booking has improved efficiency - (overall I believe this is true. I would still prefer to book my own diary and so would many of us but, for a lot of agents who were not so well organised, it was a big help, and new agents have never known any different). Thirdly, I believe a much larger proportion of advisors are now full time rather than part time, so sales per advisor must have increased on average. What does this prove - well, only that they do not panic to increase the advisor network if they can make better use of what they have.
And why only 200 new advisors rumoured ? Hillarys lose an average of seven advisors every week. A large number of new advisors don't last six months. Turnover of advisors is approximately 30% every year and - before everyone jumps in to say what a bad show that is - that figure is below average for commission based direct sales jobs. So, they need to recruit 300+ new advisors every year just to stand still. Makes the 200 figure sound quite pathetic really.
Recruitment is continual, and we have all been affected when a new advisor has come into our patch when it wasn't necessary. This particular point is a 'real' issue, was addressed at the seminars, and is a subject of ongoing discussion, but should now be happening less and less. Most recruitment is simply to replace advisors who leave, and some recruitment is in geographical hot-spots where the existing network is not coping i.e lead-to diary times too long, for too long.
We do not need to worry that new advisors are continually being recruited to maintain normal strength, or to service increasing turnover in areas which are undermanned. For someone to state that 200 new advisors are being recuited - well, so what ? However, if Hillarys were intending to increase their advisor network by 200 (ie from 850 to 1050) in addition to normal recruitment then, yes, perhaps we would have something to worry about and would be justified in seeking lots of reassurances about our own job security and sales turnover potential.
So, is this what's happening ? Personally I doubt it, because John Risman has already told us in his video presentation at the last round of team meetings that this year will probably see zero growth.
In fairness Cheated Advisor's initial comment did actually read as if he was simply sharing a rumour, But No Nails then came on and made a bold categorical statement which implied some authority behind the rumour.
So, Mr NoNails, I issue you with a direct challenge ! If you have definite inside information then share it with us. Where did your information come from, and exactly what was said ? Quite simply, put up or shut up !
