« Chicago B-School Innovation Presentation | Main | London Calling »
June 08, 2006
Interesting Questions
When last I wrote I promised an update on the Chicago event--and on the questions it generated. Interestingly, the best questions didn't come from the event, they came in response to the announcement. Jeremy Langhans wrote:
ok i'll try to be nice, since this is my first comment on davidkippen
...but, wow, um........hci (even though i been an expert advisor for 2 years) + tmp (even though, yes, i've used monster over the years) ... hrm, you really think those are the best sponsors of "innovation" & "brand" series?
not to mention; i agree w/ I doubt a single one has his or her comp plan tied to a great employment brand! ...BUT you really think paying ALLOT truely = better brand ....??
ok, 'nuff said. feel free to reply.
As you might expect, I have some opinions on this. (I'm quoting him in full because unless you have time to follow and read blog responses, you probably won't uncover this.)
His first question boils down to "HCI + TMP; what gives?" Fair question. To be clear, it's the Great Place to Work Institute (GPTWI) and TMP presenting. HCI is providing logistical and marketing support, both of which remove two of the most significant barriers to TMP Worldwide and GPTWI getting together for a road show but they're not part of the presentation. So far, it's working very well.
With respect to whether we're really the best sponsors for a brand series, it won't surprise you that I think the answer is yes--otherwise, why would I do it? But why listen to me? TMP has developed great brand positions for some of the best brands out there...the list goes on and on.
And just to be clear, while TMP and Monster.com share the same parent company, we're in a different space. TMP Worldwide is in recruitment advertising and communications, and brand/branding is at the heart of both any good advertising and successful internal comms and retention efforts.
His second observation is a great insight. I'm sure he's right--nobody's comp plan is tied to brand management--and that's a shame, because getting on a list (like Fortune's Top 100) is only part of the story. You can build the world's best place to work, but unless folks know about it, it don't mean a thing.
But I think the second part of his question is asked backwards. He writes, "do [I] think paying a lot truly equals a better brand?" The real question is (or should be) "can you measure the impact of an employment brand?"
The answer is a simple yes, but the metrics you need to gather will vary by company and by talent challenge. In brief, it is possible to demonstrate a real ROI for branding if it's done correctly and measured correctly. But don't take my word--or TMP's word--for it. Probably the most readily-available example of this ROI is Libby Sartain's work with Southwest back in the late 90s in which she and Hewitt demonstrated (through both correlation and causation) that the work she'd done to align the internal and external brand positions had a measurable, operational impact in everything from retention to customer satisfaction, ride load (tails in seats) and even profitability.
Posted by davidkippen at June 8, 2006 02:14 PM
Comments
Having or being a "brand" is the new way of saying being perceived as an "employer of choice."
Does compensation affect the marketplace's perception of a company as a place to work? Of course. A company can be viewed as an employer of choice for any one (or more) of a number of factors. Maybe they have the best salaries in the area or industry. Maybe their benefit package or perks make them stand out from their peer companies. Maybe they are known for having bright employees working on cool projects. Or career advancement for college students.
A company can identify what they want to stand for or offer and then make sure their company policies, habits and talk all reinforce it.
Beth C.
Posted by: Beth C. at June 10, 2006 04:38 PM
agreed.
Posted by: Jeremy Langhans at June 11, 2006 03:58 AM