The architect's dilemma
Structuring your employer brand can be a real challenge, says Helen Rosethorn
I’ve enjoyed being the employer brand expert at two recent round table discussions organised by the REC Great Recruitment Campaign. At both, there was a good cross section of sectors represented, many of which are grappling with similar issues.
Being ‘unknown’ and/or ‘not understood’ as an employer is the overarching one. (Interestingly, there were those who thought they had clearly defined their employer brand, but were still struggling.)
The other big challenge is one of brand architecture. This challenge is often characterised as ‘house of brands versus branded house’.
Let me explain, just in case you are lost in the jargon. Many organisations operate under a single, corporate brand and their service and/or product offerings are an adjunct. This is called the ‘branded house’ approach, and there are lots of examples in professional services (such as KPMG) and technology (such as Cisco).
Other organisations market through service and/or product brands, and the entity they all belong to typically means more to shareholders than it does to customers or clients. This approach is called a ‘house of brands’, and good examples (such as P&G) are often found in FMCG.
Talent first
As the concept of the employer brand has grown in importance, HR practitioners are often left wondering how to manage their own branding landscape. In fact, many have to work out whether their own branding structure should be ‘branded house’, or ‘house of brands’.
I believe the answer lies in the overarching talent strategy of an organisation. I have spoken for many years now about the concept of ‘deal’. So in answering the ‘house of brands’ challenge, the question to be asked is – who ultimately should any employee have the sense of deal with?
Or to put it another way, does the approach to talent mean that an employee can and ideally will ‘travel’ in their time with that organisation across brands, whether those brands are operating unit brands and/or product brands? If so, they’ll need to see beyond a particular unit they may be working within to wider opportunities.
And even an employee’s own career route may not take them into the wider organisation, does their engagement benefit from a sense of purpose from the ‘whole’?
If there is important value to be gained from the umbrella organisation – then the deal surely has to be built through, or strongly linked to, that brand. But let me say that does not mean you are opting for some kind of monolithic, ‘one size fits all’ position – no employer brand approach should be doing that.
As I have already said, classic examples of ‘house of brands’ lie in the FMCG space, such as Unilever. Their employer brand has led with a Unilever-wide ‘deal’. Others have taken what might be seen more as an ‘endorsed’ approach (sometimes called ‘house blend’). Cargill would be a good example of this and, to some extent, Nestlé.
However, what Nestlé really did well was to use ‘smart localisation’ to make the difference – allowing geographies and different parts of the business to create their own sense of identity and highlight their points of difference within a flexible global framework.
Acquired learning
It is important not to mix the two – brand architecture and localisation are different things. But used intelligently together, they can support a ‘blended’ approach.
I think it’s fair to say that of all the challenges put on the table for employer branding this architectural question can be one of the hardest to deal with.
It’s often made even more complex through acquisitions. It will be interesting to watch Microsoft, which has had such a clear handle on their employer brand but now has to accommodate a portfolio of different brands, representing very distinct business offerings around the world.
Let’s hope that whoever works on their organisational branding strategy is thinking it through and being informed by the people dimension.
About the author
