In a competitive global job market, organisations often struggle to define what truly sets them apart. Is it salary, or is it something more, like a compelling employer brand? We sat down with Sarah Blanchard, Head of Talent Advisory at Solve by Talent, and Cameron Robinson, Head of Enterprise Solutions, to explore the impact of employer branding on talent attraction and retention.

‍

Employer Brand Over Salary

Q1: Can a strong employer brand lead candidates to accept a lower salary?

Sarah Blanchard: We are seeing four generations in the workforce, each with differing priorities. Some factors remain consistent: compensation, flexibility, culture, and leadership. Salary certainly attracts talent, but it is a short-term lever. Especially with Gen Z, there is a balanced focus. They are values-driven and often weigh benefits, opportunities, and alignment with personal values alongside salary.

Cameron Robinson: A strong employer brand can absolutely influence a candidate’s decision, especially if you are not offering top-of-market pay. If you are transparent about salary upfront, brand reputation can be the differentiator.

Some companies are aspirational. People want those names on their CVs, even if the pay is not ideal. That brand experience can be a stepping stone to higher salaries later. And we need to accept that some employees will stay for a few years, contribute meaningfully, and then move on. That is part of a healthy workforce.

Q2: In a competitive market, how much weight do candidates place on culture, reputation, and values compared to compensation?

SB: Significantly. In a socially connected world, an organisation’s reputation can make or break its growth. Gen Z, raised in a digital age, often consults platforms like Glassdoor when evaluating potential employers. By 2025, they will make up 25% of the workforce, and their research-driven approach will only grow. I often tell clients, you would not book a holiday without checking reviews, so why would a candidate choose an employer without doing the same?

CR: If you are spending over 30 hours a week somewhere, you want it to be enjoyable. Sure, some roles are chosen for high compensation. No one joins Goldman Sachs expecting perfect balance.

The generational difference matters. I am Gen Y; my brother is Gen Z. For many in his age group, even a $5,000 difference can be life-changing. But Maslow’s hierarchy still applies. Basic needs come first, then purpose and fulfilment. Employer brand matters, but it cannot replace financial security.

Retention and Longevity

Q3: How does employer branding impact long-term retention compared to salary-driven hiring?

SB: I recently saw a post reminding me of the first day of remote schooling during COVID. It brought back memories of how demand for certain skills skyrocketed, and salaries followed. But when the dust settled, many organisations could not sustain those salaries, leading to restructures and redundancies.

Now, especially with economic uncertainty, employees’ priorities shift over time. What a new graduate values may look very different 5 years later. A strong Employee Value Proposition (EVP) reflects these evolving needs, from flexibility to learning and leadership pathways.

CR: It is crucial to understand the difference between EVP and employer brand. Your EVP is what you offer employees. Your brand is how you are perceived. You cannot rely solely on programs and benefits. You need to ask, are employees experiencing the value we think we are providing?

A strong brand drives retention. Salary alone will not keep people engaged. That approach has limits. Unless you have unlimited resources, you need a long-term strategy.

When Salary Takes the Lead

Q4: Are there roles or industries where salary always wins, regardless of brand?

SB: Absolutely, especially in contract or project-based roles. In those cases, it is about the skills needed and the project timeline, not long-term fit. These roles are often highly technical, and salary is the key driver.

CR: It is an interesting area—contingent workforce and brand. Even in contract roles, brand can play a role when deciding between two offers. But yes, in sectors where wages hover around the average, even a dollar-an-hour increase can be significant.

SB: In a previous role, we knew we could not offer top pay, but we increased compensation for care workers and subsidised petrol. Those changes had a tangible impact on daily life.

CR: Exactly. Covering travel costs or offering practical benefits still supports your brand. It may not be cash in hand, but it eases financial pressure, and that matters.

SB: Especially in care sectors, where work can be emotionally and physically demanding, feeling valued makes a difference in the quality of care delivered.

CR: If I am working in a call centre doing first-line tech support, and one employer offers $3 more per hour for the same work, brand will not win. I will go where the pay is better, unless the experience is meaningfully different.

Q5: Have you seen salary outweigh employer brand for a candidate?

SB: Yes. I am working with an organisation now where many consultants are rarely in the office. In those cases, it is about the work and the pay, not the culture at HQ. Salary takes priority.

Q6: In today’s economy, is salary becoming a bigger priority?

SB: Salary has always been a top-three priority and will remain so, especially as the cost of living rises. Wage growth has not kept pace. According to the ABS, private sector wages rose just 3.3% recently, while inflation outpaces it.

When salary growth is minimal, people start evaluating roles more holistically—hybrid work, extra leave, wellbeing. At Solve, we offer six additional wellness days a year. That kind of benefit can out weigh a 3% raise.

We also see this through a gender lens. One report showed 70% of women prioritise flexibility over a top-tier salary. 85% would reconsider applying to a company lacking transparency around pay and flexible policies.

CR: A few years ago, people were changing jobs for 10%-30% salary bumps. But as rates rose and budgets tightened, those jumps dried up. Today, companies cannot afford to chase talent with ever-increasing salaries.

Retention now matters more than ever, both for business sustainability and employee wellbeing.

Final Verdict

Q7: If a company could invest in either increasing salaries or strengthening employer brand, where should it start?

SB: You need flexibility to pay more for key roles, but employer brand is a smarter long-term investment. It helps you stay competitive without needing to win every salary war.

CR: Agreed. If you offer mid-market pay and have a strong brand—say 8 out of 10—you will be in a better position than paying top dollar with a weak brand. Employer brand drives sustainability.

Q8: How can companies strike the right balance, attracting top talent without leading on salary alone?

SB: Start with an audit. Every organisation has an EVP—it just might not be formalised. Define your current state, then build on it.

Bring your people into the process. Candidates trust real voices more than polished videos. Empower employees to share authentic content, and support them with training if needed.

CR: Spot on. Define what sets you apart. Survey your teams. Workshop ideas. Refine your EVP. Do not try to be everything to everyone. That is when you lose clarity.

SB: And do not underestimate the effort required. A strong brand needs executive buy-in, project discipline, and alignment across both internal and external messaging.

CR: It is a long-term strategy, but it is worth it. Employer brand is the sustainable way to attract and retain top talent.

‍

Conclusion

While salary remains a key factor, a compelling employer brand provides long-term differentiation. Companies that invest in a clear, authentic brand, backed by a meaningful EVP, will gain a lasting edge in the race for talent without needing to lead on salary alone.

‍