HR and marketing: how to build joint work on the employer brand
Who is in charge: marketing, HR, or a separate role
The debate about 'ownership' of the HR brand is meaningless if the question is asked exactly this way. It is more appropriate to ask: who is responsible for what. In mature companies, this dilemma is resolved through a separate role — Head of Employer Brand — who physically sits at the intersection of two functions. According to best practices in employer branding, such a person should be 'part marketer, part HR strategist, part analyst' — that is, to freely speak both the language of conversions and the language of staff turnover.
The practical reporting scheme looks like this: Head of Employer Brand is administratively subordinate to VP Talent or CHRO, but has a formal dotted line to CMO and a permanent seat at the marketing leadership table. This is not a bureaucratic formality — it is precisely this arrangement that grants the right to vote during media plan discussions and simultaneously provides access to internal HR data, without which any communication becomes a beautiful lie.
Two structure variants without a dedicated role
If there is no dedicated position yet, companies usually choose one of two approaches.
| Model | How it works | When it fits |
|---|---|---|
| Leading role of HR/Talent | VP Talent formulates the request, marketing allocates resources for recruitment marketing and career site as a service | Companies where hiring is a priority pain point, and employer brand is perceived as a TA tool |
| Leading role of CMO | A portion of the marketing budget is allocated to employer brand, managed by a joint working group with HR | Companies where the HR brand is integrated into the overall brand architecture and communication strategy |
Both models work. The mistake is not choosing either and leaving the interaction at the level of 'HR asked, marketing did it, if there is time.'
Governance: employer brand council instead of email correspondence
Point-by-point approvals for each project — a path to chronic conflicts and reworks. A working practice — a cross-functional employer brand council that meets monthly and includes HR, TA, marketing, internal communications leaders, and representatives of key business units.
The council does not review creative line by line — that is not its function. It owns the overall OKR, approves quarterly priorities, and resolves disputes before they reach the 'marketing vs. HR' level. You can assemble such a council from scratch in a few steps.
- To secure a sponsor at the C-level (CHRO or CMO) who approves the council's composition and authority.
- To include business representatives — not only HR and marketing, otherwise EVP will remain a beautiful theory without connection to operational reality.
- To formulate 4–6 overall OKR for the year linked to hiring, retention, and external brand perception.
- To set a monthly rhythm of meetings for 45–60 minutes with a fixed agenda: metrics, risks, priorities for the next month.
- To conduct an extended session once a quarter with an EVP review and adjustment of the communication strategy.
Joint development of EVP: who brings the truth, who — the form
EVP written solely by marketing usually sounds beautiful and fails the first interview with a real employee. EVP written only by HR is honest, but is formulated in terms of regulations and does not attract anyone in the labor market. Only joint development works, where the contribution of the parties is fundamentally different.
| What HR brings | What marketing brings |
|---|---|
| Reasons for actual dismissals | Removes generic words and clichés |
| Conflicting areas within teams | Finds precise, memorable formulations |
| Real expectations of candidates on entry | Evaluates how the message is perceived by the market |
| Weak spots of management and processes | Adapts EVP for channels and formats |
In practice, this looks like a series of joint sessions: HR brings in data from exit interviews and engagement surveys, while marketing tests formulations on focus groups of candidates. If EVP fails the test of 'does this actually work the way we operate internally' — it is not released for communication, regardless of how effective it sounds.
Common metrics: why you can't measure them separately
A classic cause of conflict is different KPIs. Marketing reports on reach and CTR, while HR reports on time to fill vacancies. Both metrics are important, but measured separately they do not show whether the HR brand works for the business. The solution is a unified set of shared OKRs that both teams review during the same meetings.
- Time to fill — speed of closing vacancies
- Cost per hire — cost of hiring
- Quality of hire — quality of hired employees
- Candidate experience score — candidate experience rating
- Employee engagement — engagement of current employees
- External employer brand perception — external perception of the employer brand
A telling example of the impact of media activity on brand perception is the Brand Lift study conducted for Alfa-Bank in 2025 year: media advertising with HR-brand elements increased spontaneous brand recognition by 14 percentage points (from 22% to 36%) and the probability of choosing the company as an employer by 6 percentage points (from 69% to 75%). This is a metric that neither HR nor marketing can track alone — only a joint dashboard from both sides.
Budget: how to divide without annual fights over lines
The dispute over the budget almost always arises where there is no pre-agreed model. Two variants are used — the same as in the management structure.
| Budget model | Essence | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Budget under VP Talent | Dedicated lines for recruitment marketing and career site marketing, marketing provides resources and expertise as an internal contractor | Marketing may perceive HR tasks as secondary in priority |
| Budget under CMO | The percentage of the marketing budget is allocated for employer brand, managed by a joint group with HR | HR may feel that they are losing control over message content |
Whatever model is chosen, it is critical to write it down and approve it at the sponsor council level — verbal budget agreements survive only until the first round of cost cuts.
Rhythm of meetings: regularity matters more than one-time projects
The mistake of many companies is to structure collaboration around projects: refreshed the career website, conducted shoot, and scattered until the next launch. Such format does not create a cumulative effect. The working model is monthly syncs between HR and marketing leadership to review current metrics and align priorities, plus quarterly sessions for deeper EVP and strategy adjustment. It is regularity, not one-time launches, that transforms the HR brand from a set of projects into a manageable function.
Who is in charge: marketing, HR, or a separate role
The debate about 'ownership' of the HR brand is meaningless if the question is asked exactly this way. It is more appropriate to ask: who is responsible for what. In mature companies, this dilemma is resolved through a separate role — Head of Employer Brand — who physically sits at the intersection of two functions. According to best practices in employer branding, such a person should be 'part marketer, part HR strategist, part analyst' — that is, to freely speak both the language of conversions and the language of staff turnover.
The practical reporting scheme looks like this: Head of Employer Brand is administratively subordinate to VP Talent or CHRO, but has a formal dotted line to CMO and a permanent seat at the marketing leadership table. This is not a bureaucratic formality — it is precisely this arrangement that grants the right to vote during media plan discussions and simultaneously provides access to internal HR data, without which any communication becomes a beautiful lie.
Two structure variants without a dedicated role
If there is no dedicated position yet, companies usually choose one of two approaches.
| Model | How it works | When it fits |
|---|---|---|
| Leading role of HR/Talent | VP Talent formulates the request, marketing allocates resources for recruitment marketing and career site as a service | Companies where hiring is a priority pain point, and employer brand is perceived as a TA tool |
| Leading role of CMO | A portion of the marketing budget is allocated to employer brand, managed by a joint working group with HR | Companies where the HR brand is integrated into the overall brand architecture and communication strategy |
Both models work. The mistake is not choosing either and leaving the interaction at the level of 'HR asked, marketing did it, if there is time.'
Governance: employer brand council instead of email correspondence
Point-by-point approvals for each project — a path to chronic conflicts and reworks. A working practice — a cross-functional employer brand council that meets monthly and includes HR, TA, marketing, internal communications leaders, and representatives of key business units.
The council does not review creative line by line — that is not its function. It owns the overall OKR, approves quarterly priorities, and resolves disputes before they reach the 'marketing vs. HR' level. You can assemble such a council from scratch in a few steps.
- To secure a sponsor at the C-level (CHRO or CMO) who approves the council's composition and authority.
- To include business representatives — not only HR and marketing, otherwise EVP will remain a beautiful theory without connection to operational reality.
- To formulate 4–6 overall OKR for the year linked to hiring, retention, and external brand perception.
- To set a monthly rhythm of meetings for 45–60 minutes with a fixed agenda: metrics, risks, priorities for the next month.
- To conduct an extended session once a quarter with an EVP review and adjustment of the communication strategy.
Joint development of EVP: who brings the truth, who — the form
EVP written solely by marketing usually sounds beautiful and fails the first interview with a real employee. EVP written only by HR is honest, but is formulated in terms of regulations and does not attract anyone in the labor market. Only joint development works, where the contribution of the parties is fundamentally different.
| What HR brings | What marketing brings |
|---|---|
| Reasons for actual dismissals | Removes generic words and clichés |
| Conflicting areas within teams | Finds precise, memorable formulations |
| Real expectations of candidates on entry | Evaluates how the message is perceived by the market |
| Weak spots of management and processes | Adapts EVP for channels and formats |
In practice, this looks like a series of joint sessions: HR brings in data from exit interviews and engagement surveys, while marketing tests formulations on focus groups of candidates. If EVP fails the test of 'does this actually work the way we operate internally' — it is not released for communication, regardless of how effective it sounds.
Common metrics: why you can't measure them separately
A classic cause of conflict is different KPIs. Marketing reports on reach and CTR, while HR reports on time to fill vacancies. Both metrics are important, but measured separately they do not show whether the HR brand works for the business. The solution is a unified set of shared OKRs that both teams review during the same meetings.
- Time to fill — speed of closing vacancies
- Cost per hire — cost of hiring
- Quality of hire — quality of hired employees
- Candidate experience score — candidate experience rating
- Employee engagement — engagement of current employees
- External employer brand perception — external perception of the employer brand
A telling example of the impact of media activity on brand perception is the Brand Lift study conducted for Alfa-Bank in 2025 year: media advertising with HR-brand elements increased spontaneous brand recognition by 14 percentage points (from 22% to 36%) and the probability of choosing the company as an employer by 6 percentage points (from 69% to 75%). This is a metric that neither HR nor marketing can track alone — only a joint dashboard from both sides.
Budget: how to divide without annual fights over lines
The dispute over the budget almost always arises where there is no pre-agreed model. Two variants are used — the same as in the management structure.
| Budget model | Essence | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| Budget under VP Talent | Dedicated lines for recruitment marketing and career site marketing, marketing provides resources and expertise as an internal contractor | Marketing may perceive HR tasks as secondary in priority |
| Budget under CMO | The percentage of the marketing budget is allocated for employer brand, managed by a joint group with HR | HR may feel that they are losing control over message content |
Whatever model is chosen, it is critical to write it down and approve it at the sponsor council level — verbal budget agreements survive only until the first round of cost cuts.
Rhythm of meetings: regularity matters more than one-time projects
The mistake of many companies is to structure collaboration around projects: refreshed the career website, conducted shoot, and scattered until the next launch. Such format does not create a cumulative effect. The working model is monthly syncs between HR and marketing leadership to review current metrics and align priorities, plus quarterly sessions for deeper EVP and strategy adjustment. It is regularity, not one-time launches, that transforms the HR brand from a set of projects into a manageable function.
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
