Apart from keeping you informed on some of the more significant changes to the world of employee benefits, and likewise on our forthcoming events etc, this blog also allows me to ‘think aloud’ on areas around employee benefits that are of interest to me, and hopefully to you as well.

One such area that has been foremost in my mind over the last few months is around the use of ‘brand’ in the world of employee benefits. My thinking goes something like this:

Once both auto-enrolment and compulsory pension contributions for all (or at least most) has embedded in the UK workplace culture, where does that leave employers who have traditionally supported pension savings for UK employees?

Up until now, employers have voluntarily supported employees retirement savings for a range of reasons. One of the principle trade-offs for the costs of doing so was the kudos of ‘being seen’ by employees/ competitors/ media etc to support employees in retirement.

By 2017 all employers will be able to say that they do this, as legally they will have no choice in the matter. So where is the benefit for an employer to do more than the minimum in this world? Equally, how can the employer ensure that support at a higher level than that dictated by legislation is noticed, and appreciated, by the parties listed above?

The more tangible part of the answer is to provide a better product. Higher employer contribution levels, more advice and guidance at outset and throughout the savings term, and detailed retirement solutions at the other end.

But will that be enough to get you noticed? I’m not convinced that it will in every case, and that is where the brand conversation may come in.

If we look outside of the benefits industry, brand is often king.

There is only so much difference between a £20 pair of jeans, and a similar product at £200. Yet the perception of the name on the wearer’s-rear is key to the image.

Similarly, and perhaps a better analogy, is in the area of cars. Virtually all cars are built to a much higher spec than was the case in the past, so it’s reasonably safe to assume that they will all get you from A to B without failure, and in comfort.

Yet the price of similar level cars, say a family saloon, can vary by many thousands of pounds. What is even stranger is that often the same manufacturer will supply major components for two different ranges of cars, although the actual cars using these components could again cost significantly different sums of money.

The reason is of course the perceived value of brand. BMWs and Volvos cost more than Fords and Citroens, and as a public we accept that, and still aspire to the former.

Which brings me back to pensions, and benefits in the round. It doesent necessarily follow that throwing money, and time, at the pension scheme post auto-enrolment will ensure that the workforce and competitors value your product more than NEST or a competitor scheme.

I suspect that increasingly employers and the benefits industry will be looking at branding as a way of reinforcing the benefits message. In my view, and pretty much as I have preached for years, its better for an employer to wrap all benefits (not just the pension) together within a branded ‘package’, rather than deal with each item in isolation. The finished result is often more than the sum of it’s parts, and therefore more likely to be appreciated by all.

The very largest employers have been doing this for years anyway, but they have had the luxury of resource and funds to do so. Increasingly though, I suspect medium sized employers, and the employee benefits industry, to be looking at this with more serious intent than in the past.

There are many ways of achieving a branded product, and some of the tools are well known to all already (for instance Benefit platforms, Communications, Total Reward Statements etc). As ever, it will not be one size fits all, and different industry sectors, and individual employers, will follow differing routes to meet their objectives.

However employers get there, I suspect the real winners will be those that can embed their benefits brand with employees. The end user, the employee, needs to equate:

My employer’s benefits package = Quality.

Essentially, this is the very essence of branding, and I think we will see much more of this over the coming years.

I will keep you posted as I see developments.

Best regards

Steve