.png)
Marketing did not get the seat by asking for it. It built a discipline that made leaving it out expensive.
Spend enough time around talent acquisition and you will hear some version of the marketing complaint.
Marketing gets the budget. Marketing gets the technology, the agencies, the research, the creative resource. Marketing gets to talk about brand as though it were a capital asset while TA gets asked why the requisition is still open. Marketing has a seat at the growth conversation and a title that ends in "Officer." TA has a dashboard and a service level agreement.
Most of that is accurate. It is also the least useful way to look at it, because it treats the situation as an injustice to be appealed rather than an outcome to be studied. The productive question is not why does marketing have this. It is what did marketing do to get it, and is any of it available to us.
The answer to the second part is yes, mostly. The answer to the first part is uncomfortable, because marketing did not win its seat by being appreciated. It won by building a discipline that made excluding it expensive.
Marketing did not start with the seat
Marketing's status was not always assumed. For a long time it was treated largely as advertising and persuasion: useful, creative, and downstream from the decisions that mattered most.
One of the canonical turning points came at Procter & Gamble in 1931. Neil McElroy, then working on Camay soap, wrote a memo arguing that individual brands needed named owners who were accountable for performance, not merely for producing advertising. The proposal helped establish the brand-management model that later spread far beyond P&G.
The useful part of that story is not the soap. McElroy did not ask leadership to respect marketing more. He proposed clearer ownership, better information, and accountability for an outcome the business cared about.
The seat followed the discipline.
Then it learned to count
The second thing marketing did, over decades and with a lot of stumbling, was learn to connect its activity to money in ways the rest of the business could audit.
Segmentation, so that "the market" became specific groups with different behaviors rather than an undifferentiated mass. Funnel conversion, so that performance could be diagnosed at each stage rather than judged at the end. Customer acquisition cost and lifetime value, which together turned marketing spend into a return calculation. Attribution, which is imperfect and endlessly argued about and still more rigor than most functions attempt. Forecasting, which meant marketing could be wrong in public and therefore trusted in advance. Market research as an ongoing input rather than an occasional project.
None of this is perfect. Attribution in particular is a running argument the field has not settled. But it does not have to be perfect. It has to be good enough that a CFO can interrogate it, which is a much lower bar than truth and a much higher bar than vibes.
That is the whole trick. Marketing became legible to finance. Legible functions get planned with. Illegible ones get budgeted for.
TA borrowed the vocabulary but not the discipline
Here is where it gets awkward for employer branding specifically, because employer branding has spent fifteen years borrowing from marketing and mostly taking the wrong things.
We took personas, and frequently built them from internal assumptions and a couple of interviews rather than research. We took the funnel, and used it as a diagram in decks rather than as a conversion model anybody actually calculates. We took campaigns, and ran them without control groups, holdouts, or any way of knowing whether they worked. We took content, and produced a great deal of it without a positioning argument underneath. We took the word brand itself, which in marketing means a defensible position in a competitive market, and used it to mean a look, a tone, and a set of adjectives.
The nouns came over. The verbs did not. Positioning, differentiation, honest assessment of the alternatives a buyer is weighing, conversion economics, testing, measurement, the willingness to kill something that is not working. Those are the parts that made marketing credible, and they are the parts employer branding most often skips, usually because they are slow and expose you to being wrong.
This is not a moral failing. It is what happens when a function adopts another function's outputs without adopting its accountability structures. But it does explain why "employer brand is just marketing for talent" has never quite unlocked the doors people expected it to.
Subscribe for more ideas and insights
Event thinking versus system thinking
Watch how TA work is typically shaped over time and the pattern is unmistakable.
There is a career site redesign, which takes eight months and then finishes. There is an EVP project, which produces a framework, a launch, an internal comms push, and then quiet. There is a hiring campaign for a specific push, which runs and ends. There is a careers social calendar that is very active in Q1 and dormant by Q3. There is an event, and then nothing until the next event.
Marketing does not work this way and has not for a long time. Marketing runs a persistent system with always-on components, continuous measurement, and campaigns layered on top of that baseline rather than substituting for it. When a marketing campaign ends, the underlying machinery keeps running.
Event thinking is why employer brand work so often has to be re-justified from scratch every couple of years, and why so many EVPs are rediscovered in a shared drive by whoever inherited the role. Systems accumulate value. Events depreciate the moment they end.
Candidates are a market, and TA should be the best in the building at seeing that
The strange part of all this is that TA has better raw material for market thinking than almost any other function, and consistently underuses it.
Candidates have alternatives, and they are actively comparing. They respond differently by segment, sometimes dramatically. They carry switching costs, both financial and psychological, and those costs shape behavior more than compensation does. They perceive risk, and risk perception drives more decisions than attraction does. They require evidence before they will believe a claim, and they discount unevidenced claims automatically. And at the end of all of it they make a choice, on a date, between named options.
That is a market. It has all the properties of a market. TA sits closer to it than anyone else in the company, hears its objections firsthand, and watches it choose in real time.
And yet the analysis that comes out of most TA functions is a volume report. Understanding what a specific role actually offers a specific person, and why they would pick it over the alternatives on their list, is market analysis of exactly the kind marketing gets rewarded for. It is available to TA today and it costs nothing but rigor.
What to steal next
If you are going to take something else from marketing, do not take another tactic. TA has enough tactics. Take the disciplines that produced the seat.
Positioning, meaning a defensible answer to why the right person should choose you over their real alternatives, not an adjective list. Research discipline, meaning evidence gathered systematically rather than anecdotes gathered conveniently. Conversion analysis, meaning you know where in the process you lose people and what it costs you. Forecasting, meaning you predict and then check, which is how a function earns the right to be believed in advance. Experimentation, meaning you test messages before spending money distributing them, and you accept the results when they contradict you.
Every one of those is unglamorous and none of them require permission.
The seat has to keep earning its keep
It is easy for TA to look at marketing's access, budget, and C-suite titles as though they were permanent privileges. They are not. Marketing leaders are routinely challenged on growth, spend, attribution, forecast accuracy, and whether the function is producing anything the business can see.
That is the encouraging part. The seat is not protected by tradition. It is protected by consequence.
If excluding a function from a growth conversation produces visibly worse decisions, that function gets invited. If its contribution becomes hard to see, the invitation becomes less secure.
Which means TA does not need marketing to surrender anything. It needs to build the same kind of indispensability around the talent market.
Earn it
The argument TA usually makes is that it deserves the same respect marketing gets. That argument has been made continuously for twenty years and has moved almost nothing, because respect is not allocated on the basis of deserving.
The better argument is the one McElroy made: here is a problem the business has, here is who should own it, here is what they would be accountable for, and here is what improves when they do. He did not ask to be taken seriously. He proposed a structure that made his work consequential, and consequence produced everything else.
TA does not need marketing to move over. It needs to become a function the company would be foolish to leave out of the room, and then, with some patience, to keep showing up in it.
The seat was never simply given. It was built by making the function difficult to exclude. That is the lesson TA should take from marketing, and the same construction is still available.
