On the one hand, the hastily-thrust-upon-us election is something of a gift for blog writers. On the other, it’s going to be a struggle to avoid referencing the event for some time.
If Brenda from Bristol seems less than elated about the forthcoming election, then there are some organisations who might welcome the chance to slide back into relative obscurity, as a result of the focus being elsewhere.
The past month has seen much high profile hand-wringing and apologising from brands which perhaps should know better.
First amongst equals would be Pepsi. It’s challenging to imagine just how much their ad with Kendall Jenner would have cost to film or indeed to imagine how quickly it disappeared without much of a trace. If you haven’t seen it, the film, comprising some exclusively young and photogenic demonstrators attending a heavily policed protest march, appears to be reaching fever pitch. Jenner however, armed only with a can of Pepsi, manages to diffuse the tension by handing a police officer – again, one distinctly easy on the eye – a drink. Cue much celebration.
Less celebratory were the critics who suggested, not unreasonably, that the ad trivialised the ‘Black lives matter’ initiative and the courage of individuals such as Ieshia Evans in confronting the police.
Pepsi, to their credit, were notably quick to apologise for the film and the reaction it prompted.
The own-goal, however, was not unique.
There were other examples, including Nivea’s unfortunate ‘White is purity’ message and Cadbury’s dropping of the word Easter in promoting its seasonal chocolate eggs.
However, the domestic faux pas that ran Ms Jenner close emerged from a surprising source. The Co-op. Again, Easter proved to be their downfall. Their messaging to promote sales suggested that parents treat their daughters for their washing-up endeavours with an Easter egg. This brought a torrent of criticism pointing to the fairly flagrant sexism on show.
Whilst none of the brand owners and their creative partners above have done much which in due course will embellish their CVs, there is an additional unfortunate ramification.
Because we see the reaction to, admittedly, clumsy pieces of communication, does it become easier to say nothing? To produce vanilla branding and messaging? Is it better to say nothing than risk saying something that might potentially be misconstrued? For fear of brand damage, is it easier not to brand build? Does the brand journey become the path of least resistance?
From an employer brand perspective, such a course of action feels unwise given the current talent landscape. A perfect resourcing storm would appear to be brewing.
Just this week, the recruiter Robert Walters reported an 11% increase in the number of jobs coming available in 2017’s first quarter compared with a year ago, with financial services leading the way. This despite a plethora of doom and gloom around a Brexit-inspired banking exodus.
Reed seems to agree with Robert Walters, pointing to a 10% vacancy increase in Q1. Their take on the market also suggests that 28% of UK employers have seen a reduction in applications from EU workers since the Brexit announcement. This too is entirely consistent with the latest ONS figures which suggest, at 4.7%, UK unemployment has not been lower in the last 42 years.
More jobs, fewer candidates.
Counterintuitively, however, this does not seem to be reflected in candidate behaviours. The REC points out that demand for staff is at an 18 month peak. Much of this is down to candidates’, or would-be candidates’, concern about Brexit, about the election, about general uncertainty.
In the words of Kevin Green, the body’s CEO, ‘Economic uncertainty about future prospects is having a detrimental effect on employees’ willingness to risk a career move, which is driving down candidate availability’.
Candidates, then, have more choice but are choosing to stay put.
And this represents a massive challenge for UK employers. Research I conducted a month or so ago, with Sam Monteath, suggested that the biggest threat facing today’s employer brands was high profile competitor activity. And the one thing that their employer brand would benefit most from this year? To stand out more amongst the competition.
A perfect storm indeed.
With high profile brands being shot down and pilloried for making bold (if, in these cases, ill-judged) statements, less would appear to be more. However, this simply isn’t possible for those professionals with responsibility for their organisation’s employer brand. Not only do they need to engage with a broader audience set than ever before – as my last blog touched on – but they face significant brand competition from high profile talent rivals.
(Taking us back to the election, the analogy between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn is clear. With a sizeable lead, Ms May need say little of note or volume other than project continuity and stability. Mr Corbyn, faced with massive competition, needs to come up with headline-grabbing messages and real impact. His challenge is ensuring the headlines are positive and avoiding any Pepsi moments).
All this is taking place at a time when candidates are becoming increasingly cautious and increasingly disinclined to consider themselves candidates right now.
Reaching out to such candidates, who appear to be bedding down in the face of a potential economic storm, takes both insight and knowledge as well as a strong and clear message.
However much employer brands are tempted to fly under the radar – particularly when they witness what high profile messaging can mean for the likes of Pepsi and the Co-op – today’s talent landscape, of not only fewer candidates but more candidate caution, means this simply isn’t an option.
Getting to the heart of your employee mindset 