This is an English version of a blog originally posted in Dutch, which can be found here.

Recently, I (belatedly) came across a blog by andsome founder Mark Rice, in which he describes his frustration at the continuous increase of terms and buzz words, all of which are, in his eyes, intended to describe marketing activities in order to recruit personnel. And that agencies try to label themselves differently for difference´s sake.

Firstly, I do not entirely agree with Mark´s assessment that the primary focus of agencies in this market is on recruitment. But other than that, I agree in broad lines.

That by which they call a rose…

In Holland, there is a certain level of consensus on the term and use of ‘arbeidsmarktcommunicatie’. This is difficult to translate, literally or otherwise. Multiple attempts include Recruitment Marketing, Employer Branding, Employer Brand Engagement and even Labo(u)r Market Communications, which is a blatent Dutchism that has somehow survived. An international consensus has yet to be reached.

Which term must we use to describe what it is we do? Recruitment Marketing? Employer Brand Engagement (or, god forbid, Employee Engagement)? Recruitment Advertising? Or even Employer Brand Experience?

Terminological inflation

With such rampant terminological inflation, it is no wonder that there is no clear definition for Employer Branding – which originally seemed destined to be the internationally accepted term for our line of business.

Quite rightly, Mark mentions that there has been general disagreement on the definition of Employer Branding, ever since Simon Barrow first entrusted his thoughts to paper (even if he doesn´t actually mention Simon or his book). Generic attempts have indeed ranged from Recruitment Advertising to Job Marketing and even Engagement (be it internally or externally). In any case, most have focussed on the recruiting factor of the brand.

Employer Branding after all?

Personally, I believe that we are specialists within a niche of the Communications industry. Which is why we use most of the same terminology that is developed by those in the general population of our industry, often with the addition of ´employer´ or ´employee´. If we share so much terminology, would it not make sense to define Employer Branding by looking at the definition of Branding?

True, there are many possibilities for Branding, as well. But like many, I have a preference for the simple definition supplied by David Aaker: “A brand is the identity of a specific product, service or business.” It follows, then, that an Employer Brand is the identity of a (employer value) proposition towards both employees and future employees.

I find the use of the word ‘identity’ the most interesting aspect in this definition. Because I believe that the act of Employer Branding is to align the image of a (employer value) proposition with its identity. To bring perception and experience closer together.

Does it then provide a definitive definition? Which of the terms mentioned earlier should we use otherwise?

Toolbox

Well, none of them. And all of them. Because this is what frustrates me most of all. It is our job to determine which of these tools to we should use to what end, so that we may define and solve the communications problem. But to name the toolbox for a single tool that it houses makes about as much sense as calling your wallet a credit card.

Look at it from the other perspective. When it´s time for your car´s service, would you take it to Carglass?

Let me then conclude with a question to my brethren: what is it you do?

As for me: I´m in HR Communications.

About the author:
Alexander is a Strategic Planner at Co Unlimited, the HR Communications agency. Being bilingual, he sometimes can’t decide whether to write in English or Dutch. So he does both. He is also known as @polderpommie.