Friends,
Did you know that some consider Roman gladiators to be the first influencer marketers?
Such an unbelievable fact that the film Gladiator deleted a scene in which a gladiator endorsed olive oil - because they didn’t think anyone would believe it.
Fact being stranger than fiction.
Gladiators were typically branded with a tattoo to show ownership, and their behaviour and performance would reflect their masters’ status.
The best of the best were considered heroes, while at worst they were considered scum.
While the literal brands might reflect their ownership, the value of those brands was owned by their consumers.
After all, if those gladiators weren’t respected, how could they influence a purchasing decision?
Worse than that, if they were scorned, they might influence a purchasing decision, just not in the way the owner might hope.
And so, like in employer branding, it isn’t enough to project an image, how it is experienced is key.
An image that is readily undone if the experience doesn’t match.
«image description: the guilty image from One Man Brand. Do a Google image search to see how common this photo is»
If you look for any list of what should be included in a brand, you get similar results
Mission, vision and values
Diversity Statement
Careers page
Social media presence
Employee testimonials and insights
In a classic top-down approach, if you work through this list, the temptation will be -
‘How do we want to be seen? What can we say that will make us look like an attractive employer?’
The intent of the brand is to create a narrative that reflects who we want to be.
Like in personal branding - ooh, this photo will make me look authentic!
Is authenticity an artificial construct?
It makes sense in this world of influencer marketing that we say what we want people to hear, and hope we don’t get caught out.
This is called virtue signalling, greenwashing, or any other activity that similarly creates distrust.
The problem is that when you are caught out, the brand means nothing at all.
Take that photo above. If you want to be seen to be diverse, it makes sense to use a stock photo.
How does a reader feel if they see that photo everywhere else?
How then do you feel about the rest of their Diversity Statement?
Shouldn’t it be the case that a brand is defined by the nature of the business, and how it will be experienced by employees and candidates?
In a time when candidate resentment is said to be on the rise, what happens when an employment branding message contradicts the experience of its audience?
For a company that extols, for example, it’s commitment to DEI, what experience does it leave the reader when they see £competitive salary?
The argument being that non-disclosure of salary supports pay inequity, whether or not that’s fair.
But if you’ve ever had a negative diversity experience, otherwise known as discrimination, why wouldn’t you assume the rest of what’s said is simply virtue signalling?
A popular post on LinkedIn that, driven by bothered experience.
For employers that genuinely want to build a brand, you have to start with the process, values, attitudes and behaviour that define your brand. The principles which also define your culture and operating environment.
If you have a diverse team, you can simply take a photo of your team.
The act of building a brand might even make you a better employer.
How you build that brand from the bottom up, with solid foundations, is what we’ll look at next.
Thanks for reading.
Greg
p.s. the title is inspired by the brilliant WW2 series, Band of Brothers.