Transcription
Let's start with question number 1: Is employer branding more important than the actual employee experience?
A) Branding first — attraction.B) Experience first.
C) Alignment wins.Or D) The Joker.I actually find all the answers really compelling, so I'll go with D), the Joker.
All great answers — I would definitely go with C.
Great to see you. Likewise.Do you want to start?Yes, absolutely — I went with C.
Alignment — I believe today, compared to the past, employer branding used to be very campaign-heavy.
But I think today it's extremely important to also show the real moments inside the company across various channels.
Employees are very active on different platforms, and I think that's exactly why it's so important not to just project an image,but to simply show the real moments that happen inside the company.
And that's why I think it's a blend of both.Yes, I also consciously chose the Joker,because I think if you look at the three areas, they each have their own legitimate place.
But of course you also need the experience on the company side — meaning you truly stand behind what you project outwardly,it's already moving in the direction you want to communicate externally — but there should also be a certain reality behind it.
And that's essentially what you said with C.It should actually work exactly that way.
I'm sticking with the Joker, because I feel all three points are somehow valid and they interconnect.
And so I think you can no longer focus too heavily on just employer branding — you need to decentralize the whole thing a bit and say,hey, in the past it was employer branding versus the employee perspective, and today it goes hand in hand.
Absolutely, absolutely.Because I think if you put on a show and certain people have an expectation of the company, but are actually in a very different phase themselves or expect something completely different — then afterward you might end up again with a higher turnover rate, or people leaving the company again — which translates into costs.
I can draw a very clear parallel to the sales perspective there.
If the product doesn't deliver what the marketing campaign promised externally, you'll see cancellations coming in faster, churn rate increases — and you can compare that one to one with how it works here too.
If a company presents itself externally as far better than it actually is internally, you might attract the right candidates at first — but they won't stay long if what they were actually looking for simply doesn't exist in the company's reality.
That's why I'd say that aligns very, very well.
Question number 2: What role will technology play in recruiting in the future?
