> don’t look good on paper but are actually very good
I think (hope?) I fall into this category. She talks about five on-site interviews being the usual limit for a single job search. After twelve years I have only ever had five, and it isn't for lack of trying.
Actually I think my interview performance history is pretty good. I have had about twelve phone/live screens, of which I passed nine, resulting in five on-site interviews.[1] Those on-sites yielded three offers, of which I accepted two. The problem is, the response rate to my resume submissions is horrid. Even when I have an "in" at the company. I heard too many times while switching between programs at my first employer something to the effect of, "We would have never hired you by looking at your resume, but I'm glad we did." I have other, similar statements concerning underestimation of what I am capable of.
Maybe what I need is more of a marketing specialist than an agent, but I have always imagined that to be the primary job of an agent. I really need someone to help me figure out how to present myself better. I would actually pay for that service; I guess, as she says in the post, there are not enough of me to support a business. Is that something that could be combined with a conventional recruiting operation, though?
[1] Two on-sites I declined, one on-site didn't happen because the company decided not to hire for the position[2], and the third on-site never materialized because the company just stopped talking to me.
[2] Or so they said. Maybe they switched me from "pass" to "fail" after telling me I passed.