What is Employer Brand Strength?
Employer brand is the reputation you have as a place to work, the sum of what candidates, employees, and ex-employees say about working for you, both publicly (Glassdoor, LinkedIn, social media) and privately (conversations, referrals, word of mouth). It is the single most leveraged factor in talent acquisition cost. LinkedIn Talent Solutions research shows employers with strong brands pay 50% less per hire, fill roles 1-2 weeks faster, and attract 50% more qualified applicants compared to employers with weak brands. In competitive talent markets, your employer brand is the difference between hiring the people you want and settling for the people who applied. It is built through eight levers: review site ratings (Glassdoor, Indeed), careers page quality, social media employer content, EVP clarity and differentiation, application rate per job posted, offer acceptance rate, employee advocacy (staff sharing content), and diversity visibility. Each lever can be measured, benchmarked, and improved, employer brand is not abstract, it is a measurable business asset that compounds over years.
The Formula
Employer Brand Score = Weighted average of 8 dimensions (Glassdoor Rating, Careers Page Quality, Social Media Employer Content, EVP Clarity, Application Rate, Offer Acceptance Rate, Employee Advocacy, Diversity Visibility) benchmarked against poor/average/good/excellent thresholds
No single dimension matters in isolation. A 4.5 Glassdoor rating with a broken careers page still under-converts applications. All 8 dimensions reinforce each other.
Worked Example
A 120-person US professional services firm was paying $6,000+ per hire and taking 65 days to fill senior roles, double the industry average. The CEO assumed it was a recruitment process problem and was about to switch agencies. Before doing so, the head of people ran the employer brand benchmark to see if the problem was actually brand, not process.
- Glassdoor Rating: 2.8/5 from 42 reviews, below industry average (3.5), score: poor
- Careers Page Quality: 3/10, stock photos, generic copy, no employee stories, score: poor
- Social Media Employer Content: 1 post per month on LinkedIn, score: poor
- EVP Clarity: 2/10, "competitive salary, great culture, career progression" (every employer's EVP), score: poor
- Application Rate: 12 applications per job posted, below average, score: poor
- Offer Acceptance Rate: 68%, candidates ghosting or negotiating counter-offers elsewhere, score: poor
- Employee Advocacy: 4% of staff shared any employer content in last 12 months, score: poor
- Diversity Visibility: 3/10, all-white-male leadership team on website, score: poor
- Overall: weak employer brand across every dimension
📌 The CEO paused the recruitment agency switch and invested $45,000 over 9 months rebuilding the employer brand: responded to every Glassdoor review (positive and negative), collected 50 new reviews from current staff through an internal campaign (rating rose from 2.8 to 3.9), rebuilt the careers page with employee video stories and a specific EVP ("4-day week, $2,500 learning budget, fully documented career ladder"), launched an employee advocacy program paying staff $50 for every approved LinkedIn post about the company (advocacy rate rose from 4% to 35%), trained managers on interview experience, and featured diverse employees and senior leaders visibly in marketing. Within 12 months, applications per job rose from 12 to 48, offer acceptance rose from 68% to 89%, time to hire dropped from 65 days to 34 days, and cost per hire fell from $6,000 to $2,400, saving approximately $130,000 per year on recruitment costs alone while hiring better candidates. The ROI on employer brand investment was 3x in year one and continues to compound because brand improvements persist long after the spend. Use the Benchmark Your Recruitment tool to quantify your current recruitment metrics.
Why This Matters
50% lower cost per hire
LinkedIn Talent Solutions research across thousands of employers shows companies with strong employer brands reduce cost per hire by 50% compared to weak-brand competitors. For a 100-person company hiring 15 people per year at an average $3,500 per hire, that is $26,000 per year in direct recruitment savings, before counting reduced agency fees, lower advertising spend, and less management time spent on failed hires. Employer brand pays for itself within 12 months for most mid-sized businesses.
Higher quality applicants, not just more of them
Strong employer brands do not just attract more applicants, they attract better ones. LinkedIn data shows companies with top-quartile employer brands receive 2x more applications from passive candidates already in employment (typically the strongest segment) compared to bottom-quartile employers who rely on active job seekers. Quality of hire correlates directly with employer brand strength, and one great hire is worth ten mediocre ones.
Passive candidates are the biggest prize
LinkedIn research shows 70% of the global workforce is passive, employed and not actively looking, but open to the right opportunity. These are the highest-value candidates because they are currently performing in similar roles elsewhere, but they will only consider employers they have heard of positively. Weak employer brands never reach passive candidates at all, limiting hiring to the active job seeker pool (often the smallest and weakest segment). Strong employer brands tap the entire talent market.
Common Mistakes
❌ Ignoring review sites
The most common employer brand mistake is treating Glassdoor, Indeed, and Trustpilot reviews as beneath engagement. Glassdoor research shows 83% of job seekers check company reviews before applying, and unresponded negative reviews signal either arrogance or dysfunction. The fix is simple and free: claim your profile, respond professionally to every review (positive and negative), and run quarterly campaigns encouraging current employees to share honest feedback. A one-star rating improvement typically increases application volume by 20-40%.
❌ Treating the careers page as an afterthought
Most careers pages are a list of open roles with stock photography and generic copy about "being passionate" and "making a difference". Candidates researching your company spend more time on the careers page than any other page, yet most companies invest more in their About page. The fix is to treat the careers page as a high-converting landing page with employee video stories, a specific differentiated EVP, salary bands, real photos of the team, and clear next steps. Great careers pages convert 3-5x more applications than bad ones with the same traffic.
❌ Writing a generic EVP that sounds like every competitor
The phrase "competitive salary, great culture, career progression, inclusive environment" appears on almost every careers page, which makes it meaningless. A strong EVP is specific and differentiated: "4-day working week, fully remote, $3,000 learning budget, transparent salary bands, unlimited holiday with 25-day minimum". Generic EVPs attract generic candidates. Specific EVPs attract the right candidates and filter out the wrong ones, reducing time wasted on poor-fit applications and improving offer acceptance rates.
Industry Benchmarks
| Category | Good | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technology companies | Glassdoor 4.2+, 80+ applications per job, 90%+ offer acceptance, strong employee advocacy on LinkedIn | Glassdoor 3.5-4.0, 30-60 applications per job, 75-85% offer acceptance | Glassdoor below 3.2, under 20 applications per job, below 70% offer acceptance, common at fast-scaling startups with weak HR and no brand investment |
| Professional services (consulting, law, accounting) | Glassdoor 4.0+, clear EVP, diverse leadership visibility, strong alumni network | Glassdoor 3.3-3.8, partners dominate visibility, generic EVP | Glassdoor below 3.0, all-white-male leadership on website, no social media employer content, common among traditional firms ignoring brand |
| Retail and hospitality | Glassdoor 3.8+ (higher bar than average due to historic issues), authentic employee stories, clear career progression paths | Glassdoor 3.0-3.5, typical sector brand | Glassdoor below 2.8, high-profile negative reviews unanswered, toxic reputation, drives 2-3x higher recruitment costs than peers |
Source: LinkedIn Talent Solutions Report
Benchmark data sourced from LinkedIn Talent Solutions Report.