Reviews
Part of How to run employer branding reviews without guesswork
Employer branding best providers are judged on evidence, not sales copy
How to score employer branding providers in England, naming Universum, Potentialpark, Ph.Creative, Havas People and SMRS against public evidence.
What to take away
- The best provider is the one whose public evidence survives your rubric. Start with Universum, Potentialpark, Ph.Creative, Havas People and SMRS.
- Decide inclusion criteria firstservice scope, evidence quality, contract terms and a named delivery team.
- Treat the rubric as the deliverable, not the shortlist. A written scoring sheet makes proposals comparable.
- Anchor compliance in published sources, including the ASA and GOV.UK guidance, not provider claims.
- Expect evidence of process, not outcomes. Only your baseline data proves hiring impact.
Set the criteria before you look at providers
Write the rubric before reading proposals. Otherwise you score toward the most persuasive document, not the most suitable supplier.
Employer branding in England usually means careers site content, campaign creative, candidate research, employee value proposition work and recruitment marketing media. Name what you are buying, and what you are not.
Advertising and recruitment practice in England follows the same broad framework as the rest of the UK. Devolved rules and sector regulators differ, so state which jurisdictions the work covers.
Then set the weights. A research-only buyer should weight evidence quality higher than media buying. A careers site rebuild should weight scope fit and handover.
Our guide to employer branding reviews and comparison methods for 2027 sets out the wider review structure this rubric slots into. It also explains how to sequence a supplier review across a financial year.
The scoring rubric to apply to every provider
Score each row from 0 to 5, apply the weight, and record the evidence behind the score. Keep the rubric identical across providers.
Scoring rubric weights
Criterion
- Scope fit
- 20%
- Evidence quality
- 20%
- Compliance process
- 15%
- Measurement
- 15%
- Team continuity
- 10%
- Contract terms
- 10%
- Cost transparency
- 10%
Weight
- Scope fit
- Evidence quality
- Compliance process
- Measurement
- Team continuity
- Contract terms
- Cost transparency
The scoring rubric
| Criterion | What good looks like | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Scope fit | Named deliverables, exclusions and handover points | 20% |
| Evidence quality | Method notes, sample sizes, dated sources | 20% |
| Compliance process | Advertising clearance and recruitment law checks | 15% |
| Measurement | Baseline metrics and agreed reporting cadence | 15% |
| Team continuity | Named staff and named substitutes | 10% |
| Contract terms | Exit, data return and notice periods | 10% |
| Cost transparency | Rate card, pass-through costs, change fees | 10% |
Two rows deserve extra attention. Compliance is not a legal opinion you can outsource. Measurement must be agreed before creative work starts, not after the first campaign report.
The ASA sanctions page explains what can happen to campaigns that break the CAP Code. That is a fair question for any provider running paid recruitment media. On the hiring side, recruiting and hiring guidance on GOV.UK covers legal duties around advertising and selection. Ask providers to describe how they check both.
Named providers to score on public evidence
Apply the rubric to named providers. The facts below are public starting points, not endorsements or test results.
Named providers at a glance
Provider
- Universum
- Talent surveys, rankings
- Potentialpark
- Talent communication research
- Ph.Creative
- Liverpool agency, EVP work
- Havas People
- London recruitment communications
- SMRS
- Manchester agency, public sector
Evidence
- Universum
- Annual subscriptions
- Potentialpark
- Benchmark reports
- Ph.Creative
- Project fees
- Havas People
- Project or retainer
- SMRS
- Project fees
Pricing model
- Universum
- Potentialpark
- Ph.Creative
- Havas People
- SMRS
Named providers to score
| Provider | Public evidence to check | Typical fit and pricing model |
|---|---|---|
| Universum | Runs global talent surveys and publishes World's Most Attractive Employers rankings. | Large employers wanting benchmark data. Annual survey and report subscriptions. |
| Potentialpark | Runs Talent Communication research and publishes employer rankings for careers sites and channels. | Employers comparing digital candidate experience. Benchmark reports or subscriptions. |
| Ph.Creative | Liverpool employer brand agency. Its CEO Bryan Adams wrote The Employer Brand Formula. | UK employers wanting creative campaign and EVP work. Project fees. |
| Havas People | London recruitment communications agency, part of Havas. | Large graduate and volume campaigns. Project or retainer fees. |
| SMRS | Manchester employer brand agency, part of MISSION Group. | Public sector and large employers. Project fees. |
Evidence you can reasonably ask for
Ask for two comparable projects with the brief included, not just the outcome. Redacted briefs are fine. You are testing whether the described method matches what the provider actually did.
Ask how creative concepts were cleared before publication, and who signed them off. A provider that cannot describe its own review step is a brand risk you are taking on.
Ask who owns the research data, the creative files and the careers site build. Ownership disputes surface during a supplier change, when you have least room to negotiate.
If you are comparing specific products rather than services, our employer branding product comparison in England covers the feature-by-feature approach that sits alongside this rubric.
Red flags that should lower a score
Unnamed delivery teams. If the pitch team is not the delivery team, ask for that in writing and price the risk into the contract.
Red flags that lower scores
- Unnamed delivery teams
- Outcome guarantees with no baseline
- Vague compliance language
- Costs that arrive later
- Refusal to share method notes
Outcome guarantees with no baseline. Nobody can promise a hiring uplift without a starting measurement agreed in advance.
Vague compliance language. A claim of fully compliant is not a process description.
Costs that arrive later. Ask about media fees, translation, accessibility remediation and platform licence renewals.
A refusal to share method notes. If the thinking is invisible, you cannot separate good work from lucky work.
Common questions
How many providers should I score?
Three to five is usually enough to expose differences in method. Go beyond that and the rubric stops being applied consistently.
Should the rubric be shared with providers?
Yes. Sending criteria in advance raises the quality of proposals and lets you compare like with like. It also tests whether a provider reads the brief.
Where does professional context fit?
The CIPD knowledge hub is a reasonable starting point for people-profession context on attraction and retention, useful when writing the brief rather than the score.
Do I need a legal review before signing?
For advertising claims and employment terms, yes. Get that review before the rubric is finalised, so the criteria reflect it.
