At the risk of sounding like I belong on Police Academy, there are many, many competing definitions of and approaches to employer branding out there. So it's probably a bit unfair to pick on just one person's. But that's what I'm going to do.

This morning I read an interesting article on employer branding that sounded a few warning klaxons for me. Have a quick look.

Now, there are lots of great points – I agree that employer branding is “the complement (almost the opposite) of regular branding” and I like John Sumser’s description of the brand as a “series of overlapping realities”.

I don’t even have that much of an issue with his proposed solution – the 9-box matrix (though I’m very hazy on how “digital” fits in as a segment, and I naturally shudder at anything that could be termed a “consultant’s dream”).

Clearly and undeniably, tailoring your message to the audiences you want to reach is important.

The danger for me lies in seeing employer brand as “all about messaging and targeting” and viewing an “overarching strategy” as a kind of nice-to-have. It’s like sending out orders to an army without an overall battle plan.

I’ve seen matrices like Sumser’s horribly misused in employer brands, leaving the business involved baffled and even less clear as to what they should be saying than before. Such matrices are also restrictive, in that they force the business to look at the “granular” at the expense of a more far-reaching “brand” message that could help them build a unique position in their marketplace.

To say it another way, a matrix, used on its own, is too descriptive: it looks at the present and ignores the future. The messages within it are also likely to change over time – and what happens then? You replace the messages, yes, but where do these new messages come from? What’s to stop each of the boxes in the matrix drifting further and further apart from each other? To get all dystopian about it, what’s to stop such an approach from destroying the brand it should be strengthening?

I’m exaggerating now, of course. What I’m really saying is: yes, segment your communications – it’s best practice by anyone’s standard. But you need to have a clear overarching message to begin with. One that provides clarity and consistency (and consistency of message will lead to strength of message) – and, most importantly one that will provide a future for the brand.

And you ain’t gonna get that from a grid.

Tell me: why do so many radio ads take so long to get to the point?

I was listening to one this morning that spent a full 16 seconds of its 30 second slot trying to convince me that a) there are loads of nasty surprises in life like, I don't know, spilling custard on your new curtains or accidentally ingesting your fingernails or something like that, and then that b) actually paying your bills online isn't one of those nasty surprises thank goodness, which is why they mentioned all that stuff about nasty surprises in the first place, right?

I know brands all want to be like people these days, but do they have to be like an awkward teenager trying to pluck up the courage to ask his parents for a loan?

 

Okay, I'm just going to come out with it. Developing a good idea is like digging for gold. There. Cliche. Horrible.

But it's quite apt, really. Because a lot of the time, you'll see potentially great creative ideas that are painfully, tantalisingly underdeveloped. And this happens a lot of the time, I suspect, because the creatives (or whoever) involved stop at something that's pretty good, rather than amazing. And damn it's tempting to do that - because you've got something good, it's not too outrageous for the client and you don't have to do any more hard work.

Link with analogy: that's not what you do when digging for gold. When you find a small nugget, you don't stop and coo over its freckle of shininess. You carry on to see what else is in that spot, because who knows what treasure trove you might find.

Which brings me neatly to the video at the top of this post. It's a great idea from Microsoft - use the Kinect to allow people to interact with ads. But it's only hinting at greatness. What if you could ask questions throughout? What if you could point to what you wanted to find out more about, rather than speaking? What if you could interact with the people in the ad by waving?

There's all sorts you could do (and a quick search reveals that people are already exploring this sort of thing). A lot of the ideas will be hard work. But keep digging and you might find something priceless.

 

I do a fair few copywriting workshops and one of my main points is always: trim the fat. Common sense, non? So, looking at this example, I sigh. Is there a single word in that opening sentence that tells us something we don't already know?

What a missed opportunity to get to the heart - even in 50 words or so - of one of the most interesting and demanding security jobs out there. And, with my efficiency hat on (which I picture as being grey and made of old tents, if you must know) it's also a missed opportunity to select out the candidates who aren't going to meet the grade. But then, I didn't need to tell you that, did I?

Recently, I made a remark at our company conference about the word "exciting", and how, in my opinion, you should never use it in marketing. It caused a bit of debate, to say the least. So, the following post is an excerpt from something I wrote on the company blog to explain my (apparently controversial) stance...

 

Imagine someone’s emailed you to ask why they should join or work with our company. You reply simply: “Well, we’re working on some exciting developments”.

At best, their response to that statement will be: “What, exactly?”

At worst, it’ll be: “Yeah, right.”

Because “exciting” is a very vague and subjective word. My old Chemistry teacher, for instance, found cement exciting. He wrote an entire thesis on the various factors that influence the time it takes to set. Most of the class didn’t quite share his opinion. Equally, there are some people in this world – strange, inhuman people – who aren’t as enthralled by the intricacies of English grammar as I am.

So be aware that if you say something’s “exciting”, not everyone will agree.

But there’s no reason why you can’t use a subjective word if you back it up. In that email above, you could say “we’re working on exciting developments such as tablet apps and social media games”. There, you’re offering proof and allowing the reader to make up their own mind, which is far more powerful.

In fact, when you put the evidence in, you may decide you don’t even need the word “exciting”.

As a final point, there’s a useful piece of research highlighted in the book ‘Freakonomics’ by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. In it, they examine the words most frequently used by estate agents in the US to describe properties, and then match these words up with the final sale price of the house. The result? The words that correlated with the highest sale prices weren’t things like “excellent” or “fantastic” or “exciting” – they were objective, physical descriptions such as “granite” and “maple”. They point out:

“[The word] “fantastic”… is a dangerously ambiguous adjective, as is “charming.” Both these words seem to be real-estate agent code for a house that doesn’t have many specific attributes worth describing.”

So, yes, you can use words like “exciting” or “excellent”, but always be aware that they’re open to interpretation. If you don’t provide context or evidence, they can end up meaning the opposite of what you want to say.

Which is interesting. Or not, depending on your point of view.

Just a little something I spotted back in December that I stumbled on again the other day...

What's so creative about this ad? Quite simply, it has the opening hours on it. Yes, there's less white space. Yes, it's just extra information. But it's useful! Reading this ad, I now have all I need to go to the sale and empty my wallet.

Simple but smart. Which is what creativity's all about.

Every client ultimately wants the same thing from their marketing: to be interesting.

So what's the answer? Targeted engagement? A multi-channel advocacy programme? Focus-group-led messaging hierarchy?

Here's a quick and rather more straightforward answer: to be interesting, start with being interested. In your own business. In your people. In the way you work. In the areas you affect. In the world around you. In subjects, areas, topics that interest your audience. Look at everything with your own unique eye, and talk about it with energy.

You'll hear it referred to as "telling stories" quite a lot. But stories can be brain shrinkingly dull if the teller isn't interested in them.

In short: be Stephen Fry, not Steve Davis.

I was listening to an author on Radio 4 last night talking about his series of novels. The interviewer asked him if there were any rules for writing a good thriller. His response stuck with me:

Rules are not prescriptions; they're descriptions.

In other words, rules only describe what's worked before - if you let them guide all your future behaviour you may never find something that works even better.

Music is the most powerful, and also the most fragile, cocoon we can create for ourselves. Surround yourself with a song that conjures up the right blend of emotion, and it can change your mood completely. But use that piece of music too often and it loses its magic.

Or, worse, still, have someone else shatter that illusion for you.

All too often when looking for an accompaniment for our corporate videos, or advertisements, or montages, we look for music that "goes with" the visuals we have in front of us. I'd like to suggest a different approach. Next time, ask yourself instead whether your video is worthy of that piece of music.