Usually, when I’ve thought about the concept of communication in the past, I’ve interpreted it as an exchange of words, emotions, ideas, and nonverbal cues between two people, or even a group of people for the purpose of either building relationships, relaying information or overcoming conflict. This can take place in many different types of contexts. For example, a person could have a basic conversation with a family member to overcome a disagreement by apologizing for something they did wrong. Similarly, a person could attempt to build a relationship with their friends by posting a status update about their life on Facebook. However, as I learned from the reading this week, strategic communication in an organization sometimes requires different tactics than interpersonal communication because it involves a few more complex elements (Cornelissen, 2017, p. 4-5).
While strategic communication does involve words, emotions, and so forth–as I’ve just described–it also needs to consider other factors. Some of the factors that strategic communication practitioners should consider include the needs of various stakeholders (investors, customers, employees, etc.), the company’s identity (how they view and portray themselves), the organization’s reputation (how the public views them), and the various ways in which a message can be organized and distributed (Van Riel, 1997; Cornelissen, 2017, p. 4-10). These factors are important to consider because they influence an organization’s potential for future growth and progress (Cornelissen, 2017, p. 4-16). For example, if Apple Inc. wanted to sell 2 million units of their next iPhone model, they would need to consider factors like how much people would pay for it, how much the branding on the new product matches that of their previous products, and where they can advertise to attract the most customers.
Another complex element of strategic communication is found in the strategies that a company employs to get a message out to its audiences. This can be seen in terms of how a company balances its public relations and marketing departments (Kotler and Mindak, 1978). Our reading talks about five different ways that companies can view the balance between public relations and marketing. They include marketing and public relations as serving separate functions, marketing and public relations as equal but overlapping functions, marketing as the dominant function, public relations as the dominant function, and marketing serving the same function as public relations (Kotler and Mindak, 1978, p. 17-19; Cornelissen, 2017, p. 17-35).
I believe a company’s balance between marketing and public relations is complex because it often evolves from factors such as how the company sees itself, how others view it, and how much it is growing (Van Riel, 1997; Kotler and Mindak, 1978, p. 17-19). For example, an entrepreneur who is starting a new business might not value public relations as much, because he/she might be more concerned with finding and retaining customers. In contrast, if a fortune 500 company CEO was involved in a financial scandal, that company would be more concerned with building its reputation again through public relations.
References:
Cornelissen, J. P. (2017). Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice. London, GB: SAGE Publications.
Kotler, P., & Mindak, W. (1978). Marketing and Public Relations. Journal of Marketing,42(4), 13-20. doi:10.1177/0893318997112005Van Riel, C. B. (1997). Research in Corporate Communication. Management Communication Quarterly,11(2), 288-309.
