A strong employer brand depends on more than leadership commitments and polished communication. Employers need evidence connecting what leaders say with what recruitment actually does. A brand alone cannot guarantee better hiring.

That question is timely. The Office for National Statistics reported 691,000 UK vacancies for July to September 2026, down 2.9 per cent on the quarter and 5.1 per cent over the year. A tighter market raises the value of knowing which attraction activity is useful, but the total says nothing about any one employer’s inclusion or applicant quality.

Employer branding is often assessed through polished careers pages, values statements and staff stories. Candidates encounter something more concrete: the vacancy wording, the channels used, accessibility of the process, response times and whether the stated values appear in practice. These are observable points that recruitment and communications teams can review together.

For each campaign, set an objective before publication. Record the approved advert, channels and dates, changes made, and available engagement measures. At the close, compare like with like by role type and seniority. Separate exposure, application starts, submitted applications, shortlist outcomes and appointments. Views and apply button clicks are not completed applications. A campaign comparison is weak if the roles, duration or tracking methods differ.

This is also a governance question. Avoid presenting one successful placement as proof that a process works consistently. Equally, do not blame a channel for a poor outcome before checking the advert, salary, location and application journey.

Discuss these results before the next campaign begins.

A specialist channel may add an audience specific route to an existing campaign. Diversity Jobsite is one option to assess alongside an ATS, careers site and suppliers, using agreed measures and a vacancy level review.

Does your employer brand show up consistently in the recruitment activity candidates actually experience?