Why the need for an Employer Brand?

Source Article

We are frequently asked why there is a need for an Employer Brand. After all, Apple doesn’t have one!

The question usually comes from marketing or branding professionals – even those that teach the science, art, philosophy or whatever you like to call it of branding.

Their argument: One brand, multiple touchpoints, multiple experiences, multiple stakeholders, one purpose.

My response: Hallelujah. Fantastic. Brilliant. I am in wholehearted agreement.

But it’s a whole lot more complicated than that. Each of these stakeholders enters into a completely different, unique relationship or experience with the brand. So one could argue that there is a corporate brand, there is a product brand, there is an investor brand, there is a supplier or partner brand and there is an employer brand – whether we like it or not. By design or by accident.

For those who don’t understand what an employer brand really is… and it seems like a lot of us don’t, we need to understand what a brand is first.

It’s not a logo. It’s not an visual identity. It’s not a product. It’s a gut feel about a product, a service, an organisation, in fact even more, it’s an identification with what something is and what it stands for.  A connection with an ethos or a raison d’être, if you like.

But dont forget there’s the small but fundamental issue: the brand is not what you say it is, it’s what they say it is.

So we can philosophise about what a brand is until the cows come home but unless we actually include all of the stakeholders inputs into the definition of the brand strategy (the “they” in the above quote), it’s only going to be relevant to the ones that actually do input.

So what does this mean? It means that there are a whole lot more inputs that need to go into the total brand articulation mix than we’ve included in the past.

So what do we do, we talk to management and we talk to customers and get the “what they say it is” and there ends the brand articulation. The customer is the most important after all, and without the customer, nothing exists. Or are there others that need to exist too?

The real issue we face is that the science of branding in practice today stems from the middle ages. The days when there were only 2 stakeholders of significance in the equation: management/owners and customers. The rest didn’t matter. (Interestingly many organisations still see the world in this way)

Times have changed however and recently a few of us realised that there are people in our organisations who provide the link between whatever it is we’re selling and the customer. Particularly if we’re not just selling manufactured products anymore. People who research, people who innovate. People who sell, people who count money. People who manage logistics and people who manage people. And all of these people are important. They need to be the best we can find. They need to be motivated, passionate and engaged with what they do. Otherwise the customer suffers. And if the customer suffers, sales drop. And if sales drop, the supplier suffers and the shareholder suffers. All of a sudden, people are no longer just bums on seats, but the critical differentiator and competitive edge we’ve long been looking for.

And so we realise there are other critical stakeholders who should have a say in the “what they say it is” So the science of branding needs to evolve.

In order to evolve however, we need knowledge, insights and understanding. Knowledge of how to gain insights from audiences other than customers. (even though they may be one and the same) And understanding of what is important to the right people for us, what will make them join us and what will make them stay (beyond money).  Then understand what needs to be in place in an organisation and how this impacts on the “what we stand for”, “who we are looking for”, “what we expect” and “what we offer you in return”.

But the real issue here is that nobody does that! So I ask you: how many brand agencies do you know bring this element into the total corporate brand equation? How many organisations do you know that can actually express this?

This is why Employer Branding exists. Because there’s a void. Most brands haven’t been articulated with employees in mind. In fact, most leaders and their organisations are only just realising the importance of their people.

The Employer Brand is exactly what it says it is: an identification with what an organisation is, what it stands for and what my contribution to it will be. It’s an emotional contract that I enter into with the organisation and by default the corporate brand.

I like to articulate corporate vs employer branding as follows:

“Your corporate brand is your essence,

your central organizing principle.

It is both delivered and experienced through the collective behavioral actions

of all your stakeholders in the pursuit of your purpose…

Your Employer Brand, is the fuel that powers your Corporate Brand.”

In other words, the employer brand articulates or defines people’s role in delivering the corporate brand experience.

Oh, and as for Apple, They do have an employer brand. I would argue that when the company was founded, they had a vision of something that as it turns out would be appealing to great creative people and it has continued in that way – the cult-like zeal with which all of their people operate removes the need for a formalised employer brand programme. It’s just there inherently. They managed to achieve iconic brand status because of the passion of their people – Steve Jobs included.

So why do we need an employer brand? because we’re not all like Apple!

Does this make sense?

Write to me and tell me!