EVP for different target audiences of candidates
A single core and different accents — not ten different EVPs
There is also the reverse error — when a company tries to come up with a separate EVP for each position and ends up with ten unrelated promises that blur the employer brand and confuse even recruiters. MTS solved this task differently: they researched eight target audiences — from mass specialties and back-office roles to digital specialists and temporary staff — and discovered that more than 80% of employees name the same strong company sides. On this basis, they built a single EVP core, leaving differences only in accents and formulations for a specific group.
This is a key principle: segmentation does not create new promises, it prioritizes existing company strengths. If the core is truly universal and supported by employee experience, different accents do not create contradictions — they simply speak the language of a specific audience.
Where to start: how to identify critical audiences
Trying to segment EVP right away for all positions is a sure way to drown in a project for six months without results. It's more practical to move in steps.
- Take data on hiring from the past year: where vacancies take the longest to fill, where offer rejection rates are higher, where turnover in the first three months exceeds the norm.
- Identify 2-3 segments that are critical either by hiring volume or by market scarcity — no more than that. PwC segments candidates by career stages (early careers, experienced careers, flexible/contractor careers), but did not start with all three at once.
- Test the hypothesis through data from exit interviews and surveys of current employees in this segment: do the reasons why people come and stay match what you communicate externally?
- Only after that scale the approach to the next segments — one at a time, with intervals of several months.
Keep realistic timeframes in mind: full transformation of employer brand perception takes about three years, but the first noticeable results for a specific segment are visible within a year — if the segmentation was accurate, not formal.
What really needs to be changed in the messages
The difference between segments is not in tone, but in the content of the promise. A young specialist won't be convinced by "stability and a clear schedule" — to them, this sounds like a lack of growth. A line employee won't be attracted by "autonomy and complex tasks" — for them, predictability of shifts and support from their direct supervisor are more important.
| Segment | What grabs attention | What irritates or doesn't work |
|---|---|---|
| Young specialists | Training, mentoring, fast career start, visible growth within 1-2 years | Promises of "stability" sound like stagnation |
| Experienced experts | Complex tasks, autonomy, recognition of expertise, influence on decisions | Generic phrases about a "friendly team" without specificity regarding tasks |
| Line staff | Stability, clear schedule, support from management, fair compensation | Abstract talks about a "dream career" without specificity regarding shifts |
Audiences that are usually forgotten
The classification "junior — middle — senior — manager" is convenient, but does not cover everyone who really needs to be hired. NHS does not limit itself to job level — there are separate landing pages for doctors, paramedics and midwives, because each role has its own set of meaningful values: for some it is compassion and working with people, for others — career trajectory within the system.
There are segments that almost never appear in standard EVP materials, although these are often the ones that take the longest to fill:
- Remote employees — they are not concerned with office culture, but with process transparency, speed of feedback and whether they will become a "second class" compared to the office team.
- Temporary and seasonal staff — it's critically important to understand the prospect: is there a chance to transition to the staff, and how predictable the payment for the worked period is.
- Specialists of rare professions — here EVP should answer not "why us", but "why is this particular task interesting", because the market for them is narrow and there are few offers, and the competition for attention is not salary-based.
- Parents and employees with a flexible schedule — for them the deciding factor is not benefits on paper, but real practice: how many colleagues in the company really work on a reduced schedule and how the management relates to this.
Ignoring these groups means losing candidates not because of the lack of an offer, but due to the lack of relevant messaging at the initial contact stage.
How to identify real motivations, not guess them
The most common reason why segmented EVP does not resonate with the audience — the messages were invented in the HR department, not clarified with the candidates and employees themselves. Two working tools that do not require a large budget:
- Focus groups with current employees of the segment. Don't ask directly "what do you like about the company" — this question gives socially acceptable answers. Ask what they tell their friends when those ask "how is your new job", and what made them doubt in the first weeks.
- Exit interviews (stay interviews) with employees who have worked 3-6 months — not those being laid off, but active. They still remember the gap between the promise at the interview and the first impression of reality, but have already decided to stay and can explain what tipped the scales.
Insights from such conversations are translated into messages without increasing the marketing budget: there is no need to create a separate advertising campaign for each segment — it is enough to rewrite the headlines on existing job landing pages and reorder the priority of facts in the role description.
Channels, disconnect from reality, and metrics
Where and how to talk to each segment
Young specialists tend to make decisions through social networks and student reviews, so the tone here can be lively and less formal. Experienced experts trust professional communities and recommendations from former colleagues — the tone should be objective, with specific details on tasks, not motivational. Line staff respond to local channels — announcements at sales points, word-of-mouth among current employees, simple and short messages without corporate jargon.
How not to upset the promise with reality
The contradiction arises when different segments receive mutually exclusive promises — for example, young people are promised "fast growth," while experienced experts are told in parallel that "all positions are filled with stable teams." To avoid this, every message for a segment must be checked against one rule: it should be a specific case of the general EVP core, not a separate legend. If the emphasis cannot be confirmed by real employee cases from that segment — it should not be highlighted in communication.
Metrics that show segmentation is working
- Reduced offer rejection rates specifically in the target segment, not overall across the company.
- Increased response rate from the target segment to relevant job postings after launching adapted content.
- Alignment between reasons for joining (from new employee surveys) and the EVP highlights being communicated.
- Reduced turnover in the first 3-6 months for the segment for which the EVP was adjusted.
If, after a year has passed since the segmentation, the indicators for a specific audience have not changed — the problem is not with the idea of adaptation itself, but rather that the focus was chosen "from the top of the head", not based on the results of conversations with real candidates and employees of that segment.
A single core and different accents — not ten different EVPs
There is also the reverse error — when a company tries to come up with a separate EVP for each position and ends up with ten unrelated promises that blur the employer brand and confuse even recruiters. MTS solved this task differently: they researched eight target audiences — from mass specialties and back-office roles to digital specialists and temporary staff — and discovered that more than 80% of employees name the same strong company sides. On this basis, they built a single EVP core, leaving differences only in accents and formulations for a specific group.
This is a key principle: segmentation does not create new promises, it prioritizes existing company strengths. If the core is truly universal and supported by employee experience, different accents do not create contradictions — they simply speak the language of a specific audience.
Where to start: how to identify critical audiences
Trying to segment EVP right away for all positions is a sure way to drown in a project for six months without results. It's more practical to move in steps.
- Take data on hiring from the past year: where vacancies take the longest to fill, where offer rejection rates are higher, where turnover in the first three months exceeds the norm.
- Identify 2-3 segments that are critical either by hiring volume or by market scarcity — no more than that. PwC segments candidates by career stages (early careers, experienced careers, flexible/contractor careers), but did not start with all three at once.
- Test the hypothesis through data from exit interviews and surveys of current employees in this segment: do the reasons why people come and stay match what you communicate externally?
- Only after that scale the approach to the next segments — one at a time, with intervals of several months.
Keep realistic timeframes in mind: full transformation of employer brand perception takes about three years, but the first noticeable results for a specific segment are visible within a year — if the segmentation was accurate, not formal.
What really needs to be changed in the messages
The difference between segments is not in tone, but in the content of the promise. A young specialist won't be convinced by "stability and a clear schedule" — to them, this sounds like a lack of growth. A line employee won't be attracted by "autonomy and complex tasks" — for them, predictability of shifts and support from their direct supervisor are more important.
| Segment | What grabs attention | What irritates or doesn't work |
|---|---|---|
| Young specialists | Training, mentoring, fast career start, visible growth within 1-2 years | Promises of "stability" sound like stagnation |
| Experienced experts | Complex tasks, autonomy, recognition of expertise, influence on decisions | Generic phrases about a "friendly team" without specificity regarding tasks |
| Line staff | Stability, clear schedule, support from management, fair compensation | Abstract talks about a "dream career" without specificity regarding shifts |
Audiences that are usually forgotten
The classification "junior — middle — senior — manager" is convenient, but does not cover everyone who really needs to be hired. NHS does not limit itself to job level — there are separate landing pages for doctors, paramedics and midwives, because each role has its own set of meaningful values: for some it is compassion and working with people, for others — career trajectory within the system.
There are segments that almost never appear in standard EVP materials, although these are often the ones that take the longest to fill:
- Remote employees — they are not concerned with office culture, but with process transparency, speed of feedback and whether they will become a "second class" compared to the office team.
- Temporary and seasonal staff — it's critically important to understand the prospect: is there a chance to transition to the staff, and how predictable the payment for the worked period is.
- Specialists of rare professions — here EVP should answer not "why us", but "why is this particular task interesting", because the market for them is narrow and there are few offers, and the competition for attention is not salary-based.
- Parents and employees with a flexible schedule — for them the deciding factor is not benefits on paper, but real practice: how many colleagues in the company really work on a reduced schedule and how the management relates to this.
Ignoring these groups means losing candidates not because of the lack of an offer, but due to the lack of relevant messaging at the initial contact stage.
How to identify real motivations, not guess them
The most common reason why segmented EVP does not resonate with the audience — the messages were invented in the HR department, not clarified with the candidates and employees themselves. Two working tools that do not require a large budget:
- Focus groups with current employees of the segment. Don't ask directly "what do you like about the company" — this question gives socially acceptable answers. Ask what they tell their friends when those ask "how is your new job", and what made them doubt in the first weeks.
- Exit interviews (stay interviews) with employees who have worked 3-6 months — not those being laid off, but active. They still remember the gap between the promise at the interview and the first impression of reality, but have already decided to stay and can explain what tipped the scales.
Insights from such conversations are translated into messages without increasing the marketing budget: there is no need to create a separate advertising campaign for each segment — it is enough to rewrite the headlines on existing job landing pages and reorder the priority of facts in the role description.
Channels, disconnect from reality, and metrics
Where and how to talk to each segment
Young specialists tend to make decisions through social networks and student reviews, so the tone here can be lively and less formal. Experienced experts trust professional communities and recommendations from former colleagues — the tone should be objective, with specific details on tasks, not motivational. Line staff respond to local channels — announcements at sales points, word-of-mouth among current employees, simple and short messages without corporate jargon.
How not to upset the promise with reality
The contradiction arises when different segments receive mutually exclusive promises — for example, young people are promised "fast growth," while experienced experts are told in parallel that "all positions are filled with stable teams." To avoid this, every message for a segment must be checked against one rule: it should be a specific case of the general EVP core, not a separate legend. If the emphasis cannot be confirmed by real employee cases from that segment — it should not be highlighted in communication.
Metrics that show segmentation is working
- Reduced offer rejection rates specifically in the target segment, not overall across the company.
- Increased response rate from the target segment to relevant job postings after launching adapted content.
- Alignment between reasons for joining (from new employee surveys) and the EVP highlights being communicated.
- Reduced turnover in the first 3-6 months for the segment for which the EVP was adjusted.
If, after a year has passed since the segmentation, the indicators for a specific audience have not changed — the problem is not with the idea of adaptation itself, but rather that the focus was chosen "from the top of the head", not based on the results of conversations with real candidates and employees of that segment.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
