The recent diamond Jubilee of the Queen brought home the capacity brands have of evolving and re-defining themselves. The 1990s saw the monarchy at a particularly low ebb, with fires, divorces and all manner of negative publicity culminating in the Queen’s annus horribilis speech. However, last weekend’s events showed the royal family and their brand in a far more positive light, despite the weather and the BBC. However, if one great British institution’s brand is in rude health, the same cannot currently be said of another.
Kit Kat has managed to score not one but two own goals over the past month – one definitely of its own making, the other more of an assist. The chocolate brand managed to attract a fair amount of criticism for its apparently cynical ambushing of the Jubilee, as it renamed itself Brit Kat and redesigned its packaging around the Union Flag. The criticism Kit Kat attracted was probably not helped by the Swiss roots of parent company Nestle. Kit Kat could then only take partial blame for the publicity created by Torbay Hospital. The hospital, basking in the glory of having won the South Devon Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust title of Acute Healthcare Organisation of the Year, decided to reward its hardworking employees not with a holiday, some cash or time off, but with a Kit Kat. One Kit Kat. And then not even a real Kit Kat, but a voucher for one. Not without reason, there was an outcry from employees and unions alike who saw the gesture as an insult rather than a treat. Not a great week then for brand Kit Kat.
And brand strength is critical for an interesting new development which a growing number of employers are starting to leverage – the process of rigorously targeting internal audiences for recruitment purposes is beginning to grow in popularity, particularly in the States.
Over the last two years, Cisco has developed its internal career program, Talent Connection, on which half of its 65,000 people have created profiles. Cisco estimates it has saved ‘several million dollars’ as a result. At the same time, employees’ satisfaction with career development has risen by an impressive 20 percentage points.
Perhaps just as relevant is research from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School which suggests that external hires were paid 18% more than internal movers, but fared worse in terms of performance reviews in their first two years in the job. Wharton put this down to the issues, often underestimated, of integration – some of the often underwhelming induction processes used to create this integration might also impact here. The body of evidence behind creating a formal internal jobs market was underlined by Shaw – the engineering firm suggesting that time to hire had come down from 60 to 45 days as a result of internal sourcing. Formalising the process, creating an appropriate technological infrastructure and achieving an environment in which internal movement is encouraged (not blocked by managers ring-fencing their talent) has seen consultancy Booz Allen increase its internal hires from 10% to 30% in just two years.
This appears a win-win solution. Internal engagement should benefit as people are made more aware of development opportunities – yet at the same time, it will only be those organisations with great engagement and an attractive employer brand, which can persuade its exemplary people that moving internally can enhance their careers. Organisations currently delivering poor engagement and an insipid employer branding experience are going to find it harder to persuade great people into a frying pan to fire career move.
Brands are not set in stone – the Jubilee weekend made it very clear the extent to which the monarchy’s reputation and sheen have improved exponentially. The same is clearly true of employer brands. And it is only those employer brands which are continually measuring and enhancing their impact and engagement that are able to take advantage of exciting new initiatives such as internal proactive hiring.
Getting to the heart of your employee mindset 
1. Brands in statis are brands in the anti-cahmber in the crematorium. 2. We know of Nestle's parentage, but the 'great unwashed' do not. So as far as they are concerned, it was a great effort on the part of Rowntree. We imagine, because it's part of our landscape, that the things we know are common knowledge. they are not. Even the huffing and puffing of the Sun regarding Nestle's parentage would go unnoticed alongside 'dog attacks toddler'. They, for the most part, don't know. So it's a counter-argument. Soz.
LikeLike