50 Tweets of Employment Branding

On April 20, 2015, in HRExaminer, John Sumser, by John Sumser

illustration of social media birds twitter like on hrexaminer.com article about employment branding tweets April 20, 2015 by John Sumser

Q1. Do big companies have a cost advantage in talent acquisition.

A1. Of course. Name recognition is a discount on the cost of acquiring and attracting talent

A1. If Big company X has ads for 70 marketing managers and you have 1, they have a 70x advantage in that job.

A1. Big company stability, benefits and mobility are really attractive and easier to sell at home.

A1. Little, unknown companies can seem to be much riskier as an employer

A1. But, most people work for little companies you’ve never heard of.

A1. Big recognizable use their cost advantage to stay on top of current technologies giving them a further advantage

A1. Compared to big companies, the actual cost of recruiting is much higher than traditional cost per hire measures

A1. Brand name recognition = higher response rates. Lower response rates = higher branding costs

A1. Perceived stability = better close rates on offers

A1. Big companies can specialize (internships, management training, grad student programs, niche specific recruiters). This yields lower initial turnover.

A1. Little companies must rely on the expertise of the founder and a small team. This leads to higher initial attrition for fit reasons.

A1. Hiring for something you don’t understand is mistake intensive. Hiring for something you think you understand but don’t is worse.

A1. Summary. Big companies have significant advantages that boil down to lower costs.

A1. Summary: Big companies have better known brand which reduces cost of talent acquisition

A1. Summary: Big companies have higher concentrations of expertise which reduces hiring failure rate because recruiters are more likely to know what they’re doing.

A1. Summary: Big cos can tailor their recruiting approaches by niche.

A1. It costs less (per transaction) to get better talent quality if you are a big co.

Q2. Can a small company build a competitive employment brand?

A2. Absolutely. But you have to carefully understand the costs and resources involved in doing so. It’s a mistake to compete with the scale of larger competitors.

A2. You can compete for the precise people you are trying to hire. You can not compete across the spectrum. But you can’t ever forget the big co advantage.

A2. The big co advantage is bulk, stability and expertise. Small cos have to b nimble and willing to spend for parity. Otherwise, lower quality talent.

A2. Step 1 is understanding exactly how big your brand has to be. The principle here is to be no bigger than you absolutely have to be.

A2. Brand size = $$$

A2. One way of thinking about how big your brand has to be is to multiply the number of people you need to hire by 100 (max).

A2. So if you need 10 people, you have to reach 100.

A2. Overcoming a market disadvantage means avoiding costs that the other company has to pay.

A2. Say you have to hire 500 people this year. That means 50,000 need to know your employment brand. No more than that, probably less.

A2. A really important question is “which 50,000″ people. It’s certainly not any 50,000 people

A2. Most marketers think reaching the largest possible number of people is best way to do marketing. A relic of broadcast era.

A2. Each additional person you connect with is an additional cost. Connecting with too many is as bad as connecting with too few.

A2. The trick to building an effective employment brand is know who you want in the audience & limit your communications to that group.

A2. Big brands can afford to be sloppy and talk to everyone about everything. Little cos have to practice precision targeting.

Q3. What is an employment brand?

A3. Employment brand is a subset of the overall brand. Includes perceptions of the company culture and its desirability as a place to work.

A3. An employment brand varies from department to department and from job to job within a company.

A3. An employment brand is a coordinated set of messages that deliver the sense of what it’s like to work at the organization.

A3. Just as culture varies from place to place, an organization’s employment brand is different in each location.

A3. Employee perspectives, as seen around the web (Glassdoor) are elements of the brand.

A3. Employment brands contain both positives and negatives.

A3. You can’t manage the Employment Brand with a policy about posting. You manage it by making the work environment effective.

A3. Employment Brand – sum of company’s reputation in universe of people who have, do and might work there (+ families and networks)

A3. When brand info is crowd sourced, having either only positives or only negatives reduces the credibility of the information.

A3. An employment brand is more like a choral work (many different voices) than it is like a piano concerto.

A3. In choral works, voices contradict and complement each other. This is called harmonizing. Music without harmony is uninteresting.

A3. Brand is a conversation with a market. Employment brands are no different. Market is the people you need to reach to fill the jobs.

A3. How much branding you need to do is a question of how badly you are outnumbered and clearly knowing who your competition is.

A3. Big cos don’t have to worry about how much employment branding. Smaller competitors need to know this with precision.

Read previous post:
HRExaminer Radio: Episode #92: Rob Garcia

Join host John Sumser as he talks with Rob Garcia, a Silicon Valley product executive, co-founder, and Chief Product Officer...