An employer promise that doesn't hold on day one doesn't exist

The campaign wins, the onboarding loses

The careers page promises room to grow, development and a warm welcome. On day one there's a stack of handbooks, the buddy is off sick and the laptop doesn't work. That isn't a bad day. That's the proof that the employer brand never reached further than the vacancy page.

Almost half of all employees, 49 per cent, say their organisation fails to deliver the employee experience it promised. At the same time, 88 per cent of companies admit themselves that they don't do onboarding well. Those are two figures you can't ignore at the same time, certainly not if you've just funded an employer branding campaign.

The easy assumption is that early turnover is a recruitment problem. Too few candidates, the wrong target group, too little reach. But the figures point in another direction. Around 40 per cent of all turnover happens within the first year, and the most common causes are unmet expectations, weak onboarding and a lack of clarity about the role. Not the salary. Not the competitor who offers more. The gap between what the campaign promised and what day one proves.

That's the fault line that's rarely recognised as a brand problem.

The employer brand doesn't stop at the signature

An employer promise works exactly like any other brand promise: it only works if it shows up in every touchpoint. A brand is consistent when the customer recognises the same attitude on the website, in a phone call and on the invoice. The same applies to the employer brand, but then for the employee who has just started.

A buddy who isn't there directly contradicts the promise of a warm welcome. A laptop that doesn't work on day one disproves the idea that you can get going here straight away. Those moments aren't logistical shortcomings. They are brand expressions, just in the wrong direction.

The reason this is so rarely recognised as a brand problem lies in the organisational structure. HR organises the induction period. Communications makes the careers page. Nobody asks whether those two tell the same story. The fault line sits precisely there, in the handover that nobody owns.

Early turnover is expensive, onboarding isn't

Replacing an employee costs on average 50 to 200 per cent of the annual salary, depending on the level of the role. For a mid-level employee on 60,000 euros that runs up to 120,000 euros, including recruitment costs, lost productivity and the time colleagues spend bringing the successor up to speed.

Set against that, organisations with a strongly structured onboarding programme see 82 per cent higher retention among new employees and 70 per cent higher productivity in the first months. Those aren't soft HR figures. That's the return on the choice to take the employer promise seriously after the hire as well.

The sum is simple. Whoever invests in an employer branding campaign but leaves onboarding to chance and goodwill pays twice. Once for the campaign, and once for the successor of the employee who leaves after eight months.

The fault line sits at three predictable moments

Whoever looks back at early turnover in their organisation finds the fault line in almost always the same places. Day one: the new employee arrives and notices there's no plan. Week one: the promise of guidance turns out to depend on the availability of one colleague who's doing it on top of everything else. The first conversation with the manager: the expectations about the role turn out to differ from what was discussed in the job interview.

Those are three moments at which the careers page gets its first real test. And 86 per cent of new employees decide how long they'll stay within the first six months. On average, organisations have 44 days to influence that long-term retention with a good first experience.

44 days. That's the window in which the employer brand has to make good on its promise, or lose it. Most organisations use that window for administrative handling and a tour of the premises.

How it can be done: Thebe as proof

The opposite example exists too. Thebe was named Best Employer of the Netherlands in 2025, and that isn't a coincidence of a good campaign. Whoever looks at Thebe's careers site sees the same tone, the same promise and the same people they encounter in the organisation itself. The campaign, the Wauw van Thebe, isn't a standalone recruitment expression. It's the visible outside of what already holds true on the inside.

Schwung built that employer brand together with Thebe. Not as a layer on top of the organisation, but as the translation of what employees recognise themselves. That difference is tangible on day one: whoever comes in recognises what they saw from outside. The promise becomes not a fault line, but confirmation. For anyone who wants to see the story behind the campaign: the Wauw van Thebe in the portfolio and the page about Best Employer 2025-2026.

What Thebe shows isn't a better campaign. It's that the employer brand only works once HR and communications tell the same story, and once that story comes from what employees experience themselves. Then day one is no longer a test on which the promise breaks. Then it's the first time the promise is made good.

Design onboarding as a brand moment

Good onboarding isn't an induction programme. It's the first execution of the employer brand for the employee who has just stepped into it. That sounds abstract, but it has concrete consequences for how you design onboarding.

Start with the careers page. Which promises are on it? Room for your own initiative. A team that shows you the ropes. Direct impact on the work. Write those promises down. Lay them next to the checklist for the first working day. Whatever isn't in both is a fault line.

That's the test. Not a satisfaction survey after three months, not an exit interview when it's already too late. The test is a direct comparison between what the campaign promises and what day one delivers.

A few concrete criteria for onboarding that makes good on the employer brand:

Not dependent on one person. A buddy is valuable, but if the onboarding collapses the moment that buddy is off sick, it isn't onboarding but a favour. Structure and documentation carry the experience, not the availability of a willing colleague.

The promise visible on day one. If progression is a promise on the careers page, there should be a conversation on day one about what progression here concretely means. Not in week eight, when the enthusiasm has already faded.

The same tone as the campaign. If the careers page is informal and direct, the onboarding should be too. A formal welcome pack after an informal campaign is a stylistic break that the new employee feels, even if they don't name it.

Measurable at the right moment. Not a big evaluation after three months, but a short check-in after the first week. What did you expect, what did you experience? Those two questions make the fault line visible before it causes damage.

The test HR and communications can do together

The practical step is an exercise you can do in an afternoon. Put HR and communications in one room. Lay the careers page on the table. Walk through the promises on it. For each promise, ask: at which moment in the first two weeks does the new employee experience this?

If the answer is 'we don't know' or 'that depends on the manager', you know where the fault line sits.

Gallup establishes that only 1 in 8 employees rate the onboarding at their organisation as excellent. That figure isn't surprising when you consider how few organisations have ever made that comparison, the careers page next to the checklist for the first working day.

The employer brand doesn't exist on the page. It exists in the experience of the employee who has just stepped into it. Everything before that is marketing. Everything after that is brand.

If you want to know whether your employer brand lives on beyond the campaign, don't start with a new survey. Start with that one comparison: what did you promise, and what did they experience on day one.

More about how Schwung approaches employer branding and recruitment communication: Schwung recruitment communication.