"We’re fighting bigger, sexier brands on both brand and comp, and losing on both fronts."

If you try to beat big brands at being big, you will lose.

They have the salary premium, the name recognition, the “safe choice” halo, and the recruiting machinery. Mid-market teams do not lose because they are worse at recruiting. They lose because they keep trying to compete on the same battlefield.

The shift is simple, but not easy: stop trying to be impressive to everyone. Start being choosable to the right someone.

Choosable does not mean “attractive.” Attractive is generic. Choosable is specific. Choosable is what happens when the right candidate can explain, in their own words, why they should pick you even when your logo is smaller and your comp band is fixed.

That is not a branding problem. It is a decision problem.

The candidate is deciding between:

• A higher-paid job where they are a cog
• A slightly lower-paid job where they own something real

If you cannot articulate and prove the second path, compensation becomes the only language left. And that is a game you cannot win.

Winning without the premium requires proof-led positioning:

• Clear tradeoffs (what you are, what you are not)
• Role-specific value (what they will own, ship, learn, influence)
• Evidence (projects, standards, manager behaviors, outcomes)
• Consistency (recruiters and hiring managers telling the same story)

When you build that system, you are no longer competing on perks. You are competing on preference.

How Employer Brand Labs helps: Employer Brand Labs focuses on building “choosable beats attractive” employer branding that’s designed to convert attention into a credible yes, especially for mid-market companies competing against bigger names. employerbrandlabs.com+1

Most likely next step: Choosable Employer Brands