Note: Before I get into this I should probably state that I am a white male, and am therefore possibly not qualified to analyze much of anything about companies offering services in support of diversity. Sure, I think that I have a basic grasp of the issues, but I am also sure that there's a big difference between understanding what it means to be diverse and actually living a life in which one wears the label of diversity (or as we say in the US today, "minority") every day of one's life. And with that I'll leap into the fray.

So, Diversity.com provides job posting/branding packages. As I look over the site I find that the job postings they provide are much better than the one I discussed on the blog earlier. There's no SHOUTING involved, and multiple exclamations are nowhere to be seen!!! Good so far...

What I do not understand is how this has anything to do with branding. Take a look at this job posting (this was the "hot" job on the first page when I visited the site). Do you feel that this is a good representation of a company that has had its job posting branded? Here's why I don't think so...

1) There's no formatting. Everything is in one block of text with occasional line breaks. The feeling I get is somewhat unprofessional - kind of like the way my own blog feels. I'm casual intentionally here, but I'm thinking that the official copy presented by a company on behalf of a client should be scrubbed for appearance and readability.

2) The final "Benefits" section is blank. I'm pretty sure that there are actually benefits to working at this company, but no one proof-read the copy to fix this.

3) There are two apparently random spinning stars next to the job title. Why two? Why spinning? My experience says that two stars means fair or poor rating, and I see nothing on the page to change my initial impression. Why would I want to apply for a two-star job?

4) There are random issues, such as the presentation of departments which are then identified by name and then followed by initials (e.g.,SFVAMC, UCSF) which are then not used again in the post. Conversely, the abbreviations NIH, DOD, CPA, OMB, and NASA are used but never explained (and yes, I know what they mean, and so would most job seekers, but it seems a strange dichotomy.)

So my question is this: why is Diversity.com saying it is a branding company if the product they provide isn't providing a solid brand identity for their clients?

Here's my guess: Diversity.com offers companies the chance to brand themselves as being interested in hiring a diverse staff. The branding is merely by association - as someone who donates to the Red Cross might be branded as humanitarian, someone who advertises on Diversity.com would be seen as aware of diversity issues or willing to hire minorities.

As you can tell, I'm not sold on it. If I am going to offer a service to any of my clients I want my clients to be shown in the best light possible. If my own clients put out bad messaging after having worked with me it sends a doubly bad message; not only are my services not particularly good, but my clients aren't aware enough to know that they aren't good.

Diversity.com is no more a branding firm than a newspaper classified section. Companies that advertise in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), the Washington Post (WP), or the New York Times (NYT) are branded as being the types of companies that advertise in those newspapers - interested in reaching the audience that the respective papers reach. You don't see any of these papers saying that they're classified/branding companies - because they aren't. Any branding benefit is a secondary product, not a primary one. They provide a service that they hope is strong enough to convey a positive association upon the advertisers that use the service.

I must admit that I have seen client companies abuse this by implying that their product has been covered in the news ("As seen in the Wall Street Journal!") when in fact they paid to have their product associated with the paper. I still don't think this makes the Journal a branding firm. It does, however, make the offending companies look pretty foolish to informed consumers.

I hereby challenge Diversity.com to live up to its branding claims. If you want to claim that you can enhance a brand then you've got to find a way to prevent your clients from putting out shoddy product through your pipe. If you're taking the garbage-in garbage-out philosophy then you're not a branding firm at all - you're a delivery mechanism. I'm rooting for you to really get this right. There is likely room for a firm that can help their clients appeal to the market you are targeting. Why not offer services to help companies become more appealing to minorities (beyond the profile you're suggesting)? Why not offer incentives to your clients for reaching diversity goals? Why not make sure that companies that advertise through you have messages that resonate with the target audience, look clean, are meaningful, and don't have typos?

If anyone over at Diversity.com is listening I'd be happy to discuss this further...

Tate Linden
Principal Consultant
Stokefire Consulting Group