WalletPop gives what I consider to be some good advice on the best way to produce your resume. Specifically, they suggest:
Resumes should be printed on heavy, quality paper with a crest watermark, and sent in envelopes with the same letter crest to distinguish your resume from anyone else's, he said. A follow-up letter should also be sent on the same stock.
A few thoughts on this from me:
1. I don't know if I agree that you need to send both an electronic version of your resume as well as a paper copy, but when paper is called for (mail, in person, etc.) I'd certainly agree 100% with what they are saying.
2. Personally, I get nice resume paper from an office supply store, get envelopes to match, and print them out on my laser printer at home. They look EXCELLENT -- very crisp, clean, and professional -- just the type of image I want to project.
3. Be sure the watermark doesn't interfere with some key information when you print out your resume. Sure, it's light, but it can still get in the way if it's in the wrong location. If there's any question whether or not it's a problem, I throw out the copy and print off a new one.
4. They didn't mention the color of paper. I prefer white. Light brown (tan) and light gray can work too, but I recommend going with the standard, classic, and ever-popular white. If the color of your resume is the only thing that will make you stand out, you've got problems bigger than what a tan piece of paper can solve.
Anything I missed?
It really doesn't matter anymore, since (as you said) most resumes are electronic now. My wife works in HR, she finds the colored paper, and/or really nice paper is actually annoying. People have gotten used to looking at resumes on the computer or printing them our themselves on plain white copy paper. Not that I would send in plain white copy paper resume if I was snail-mailing it, but the crest watermark advice is just a waste of money - just buy some paper that is a little heavier than copy.
Posted by: Darin H | August 28, 2009 at 08:41 AM
You did miss one thing: having something on the resume worth reading. That counts, too.
Posted by: Matt Johnson | August 28, 2009 at 11:07 AM
I agree completely! I just hired four new staff members. We put ads online to advertise. I only got one resume in the mail. You better know that I read it completely.
I think people depend on email but don't realize that in the electronic age, usps could actually distingush them from the competition.
Unfortunately the person that mailed the application wasn't qualified for the job, but I did think it was an excellent way to get her resume read!
It should be on nice coordinated paper. The crest is a way the paper company shows quality. I think it's nice but certainly not required. As long as it's on nice paper, no typos and the envelope matches, it will say that the applicant has some attention to detail.
Posted by: Cyn94601 | August 28, 2009 at 01:17 PM
This is a great reminder about the little details that are often overlooked.
Even if you e-mail your resume, you need to have a paper copy for the interview. So, no matter what, you have to have paper copies handy. I actually prefer the watermark as well, but I agree, it's not going to make or break your resume. Nice paper, clean font, no typos and consistency are the most important things.
Posted by: Jennifer | August 31, 2009 at 08:14 AM
General rule: any company that cares whether or not my resume paper has a watermark is not a company I want to work for.
Posted by: Bad_Brad | September 01, 2009 at 12:59 PM
All good advice. I have one small add on. Spell checking, do a human proof read; preferably by someone other than the writer. I would go so far as to suggest a slow out loud reading. The eye/brain can overlook mis spellings like "there/their and than/then"
Posted by: Bill | November 05, 2009 at 10:52 AM