topics include Employer Branding
Another debate on LinkedIn recently asked the question ‘What is the difference between internal branding and employer branding?’
20 or more years after the concept of the Employer Brand was launched (although the principles have been in existence much longer) there is still considerable confusion about precisely what it means. One of the first definitions was 'Anything and everything that impacts on existing, potential and past employers'. This certainly captures the true breadth and depth of the subject.
Yes it is about both internal and external perception of an employer amongst existing and potential employees and all of those who might have an influence upon them, but it also involves philosophies, strategies, history, performance, sectors, products and services, competitors for talent and much more besides. All of which make it such an enduring and fascinating area of focus. It also means that it is essential at the beginning of each project to determine precise definitions of EB, EVP, TVP etc. to ensure that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.
The potential scope and complication of a thorough investigation of an employer brand can be quite daunting which is, I believe, why there is often insufficient ground work undertaken in the initial research phase to gather an accurate perspective from both the inside and the outside. This can lead to a definition and articulation of an employers’ proposition which is far from accurate.
Because of the interest in Employer branding in recent years and because it is potentially the remit of a number of functions - HR, Marketing, Communications, to name but a few - there are very often a number of potentially complementary projects in progress within a given organisation at any one time, which not all interested parties will be aware of.
Some may focus on the internal perceptions and communications, others on the external. The key to a successful outcome is forming a strong project team which represents all key functions and interests from the outset and enables the sharing of all valuable information and conclusions to ensure clear and consistent outputs.
topics include EVP
On LinkedIn the other day there was an interesting thread in response to the question ‘Is an EVP the same as a USP?’
One of the perennial problems with the Employer Brand as a concept is that, over the years, it has had additional marketing-related principles bolted on to it which do not always fit precisely.
The EVP is the employment-related version of the Value Proposition, which is a well-established marketing concept. The E can be interpreted as either employee or employer and the two have very different meanings, so it is important to use the acronym with care and in clear and carefully considered context.
Whether the Employer Value Proposition is the same as a Unique Selling Proposition (or perhaps we could coin an acronym and call it an EUSP) is less clear. The conundrum lies in the Uniqueness of the proposition.
Many EVPs are unique only in that they apply to a particular organisation. If you compare the employer value propositions of a number of organisations in a particular sector, even under far closer scrutiny than most employees would ever consider, there is sometimes very little to differentiate between them at all and certainly nothing that would constitute a unique proposition in the true meaning of the phrase. Yet each can still have a strong EVP. On occasion, yes, an employer might have a very distinctive point of difference and this could be referred to as a USP.
The truth of the matter is that, however much it might be convenient to do so, it is not really possible to treat the complex combination of factors that constitute an offer of employment in exactly the same way that one treats the offer of a product or service. More to the point, employees tend not to be looking for any one point of difference, but rather a combination of factors that match their needs and aspirations at the time.
Having looked online at the range of definitions of each of the concepts we’re wrestling with, it would be possible to arrive at the conclusion that an EVP and USP are readily interchangeable. But, I don’t believe they are.
topics include Recruitment Marketing; Awards;
I was invited to the CIPD Recruitment Marketing awards a week or two ago, having been one of the judges in the first cull of entries.
It was a very different type of event from previous Guardian-run affairs, but a creditable first effort for the CIPD/People Management partnership. Was it just me, or did the Connaught Rooms lend it a feeling of 1970's Harrogate?
There was nothing retro about the entries, though, nor the judging process, which I found to be both thorough and well-run. Each entry had a detailed submission together with a collection of the relevant work to be viewed online. This was initially scored online and subsequently debated with fellow judges at a meeting to establish the initial shortlist. Much of the work was very impressive for its execution, some of it for its strategy and in some instances for the research that had gone in to provide the creative teams with some solid facts to go on.
On the night the multi-award winning, multi-media Army campaign ‘Start thinking Soldier' created some controversy The concern is not predominantly with the work itself, but that, given the likely multi-million pound budget involved, it is unfair to compare this work to the more typical recruitment-related marketing outputs which have budgets in the thousands.
This is not a new issue; it has been in evidence since the earliest Daily Express Awards of thirty years ago. There have also been a number of successful solutions over the years. There used, for instance, to be a COI category, where government funded advertising competed with other projects with similar budgets. This may be something to look at in the future, although with the COI budgets being trimmed, it may be less of an issue.
Few can argue with the importance of the Army campaign objective (although some do). It is clearly of considerable significance to ensure the continued strength and quality of our armed forces, particularly when we are currently playing a substantial role in a high-profile conflict.
In fairness this work should be recognised and lauded for what it is regardless of cost. The campaign is undoubtedly impressively produced, well targeted and engaging and it did its job....or so they said.
However, there is now evidence being highlighted on Ri5 that before the campaign began, Army recruiting offices were being inundated with people wanting to sign up, whether spurred by the desire to make a contribution to the defence of the realm or because of the economy. Thus the campaign may not have made such a significant contribution to achieving the annual recruitment target as was suggested.
Nevertheless, there are some impressive statistics - 80,000 online registrations, 1.5 million users - and without tracking back along hundreds of individual recruitment processes, which is clearly unrealistic, it is impossible to identify the precise impact of the campaign. But the same goes for virtually all of the entries.
Another frustration for many was that ‘Start thinking soldier' won so many categories - although this is not an uncommon occurrence in recruitment or any other award ceremony. The runners-up are always going to have their highly frustrated supporters - like the makers of Avatar, for instance, who, tipped to win a shelf-full of Oscar's, watched The Hurt Locker run away with virtually all of them.
The Army work was undoubtedly excellent, but there were a number of entries that were equal in quality of thought, execution and effectiveness (if not in emotion, significance or production values) which could also have won some of those categories and presented a more balanced celebration of the quality and diversity of work that is being generated. But then, that's seldom the way that awards ceremonies work.
In conclusion, here are a number of possible steps which could go some way to having a more level playing field in the future.
• Project costs do not currently feature as a formal part of the entry criteria, perhaps they should. This would help judges to weigh up the relative merits of entries against the resources committed to them.
• There could be a category for big budget stuff. It doesn't necessarily have to be a COI category as in the past. Alternatively each category could be divided into cost bands - although this could lead to a very long awards ceremony.
• There could also be a limit on the number of categories that a particular campaign or piece of work can be entered into.
• It may also be necessary to tighten up on validating statements of effectiveness. All too often good work is entered with thin or incomplete evidence as to its effectiveness. If all of the data isn't yet available, agencies should be encouraged to wait until it is and enter the following year.