Corporate Communication

•

If, as is shown in this diagram, PR enclosed all communications and marketing activities, then it acquires commercial significance at a stroke. A logical case for this is also apparent: since all marketing activities concern publics, then Public Relations is the natural sphere in which those activities should be managed. For this to be refuted, marketing would be forced to make the bizarre assertion that its activities do not concern publics! Seen this way, only a small portion of the PR activities are indirectly commercial.

To me, the following configuration is an obvious solution to the problem of ascertaining the role of PR in revenue generation:

(Adapted from Cornelissen, 2020: 22)

A: corporate advertising (promotion of the brand, not a specific product)
B: direct marketing and sales promotions (e.g. e-mail and freebies, respectively)
C: distribution, pricing, and product development
D: corporate PR (internal communications and public affairs)
E: marketing PR (publicity and sponsorship, i.e. traditional public awareness activities)
F: mass media advertising (traditional advertising)

...continue reading →
0

•

The following model (by Cornelissen, 2020) shows the relatedness and constituent activities of marketing and PR. The C area intrigues me most. According to the author, activities in C concern price, distribution, and product development. Of the solid rings in the model, C is by far the largest. Does this mean therefore that a company's marketing is achieved through operations? Distribution (another name for "logistics") is typically managed as an "operation". Product development - although influenced by marketing - usually occurs as a separate operation (series of operations, to be specific), i.e. outside a marketing department, usually in a technical or engineering function.


(source: Cornelissen, 2020: 22)

A: corporate advertising (promotion of the brand, not a specific product)
B: direct marketing and sales promotions (e.g. e-mail and freebies, respectively)
C: distribution, pricing, and product development
D: corporate PR (internal communications and public affairs)
E: marketing PR (publicity and sponsorship, i.e. traditional public awareness activities)
F: mass media advertising (traditional advertising)

...continue reading →
0

•

This model centralises Tech Comm. This model is designed to describe communications practices in companies that are highly technical, so is less descriptive of communications practice in companies whose product is not technical. As in the PTC model described earlier, Tech Comm resides between Corp Comm and PR.

...continue reading →
0

•

This model describes another way of operating and conceptualising Corporate Communication, Technical Communication, and Public Relations as three distinct, but interrelated, departments or functions.

A: Corp Comm and Tech Comm joint-author messages for external stakeholders; PR acts as gatekeeper
B: Tech Comm authors messages for external stakeholders; PR acts as gatekeeper
C: Tech Comm and Corp Comm joint-author messages for internal stakeholders
D: Corp Comm authors non-technical messages for external stakeholders; PR acts as gatekeeper

...continue reading →
0

•

Let's consider what is these days a heresy: Corporate Communication is separate to Public Relations. The two operate largely in isolation, similar to the Marketing and PR silos described in the A ("Apart"/"Silo") model.

We will call this Model X, and illustrate it using the following model:

In Model X, PR and Corporate Communication are separate. PR handles all communications targeted at external stakeholders; Corp Comm creates all communications intended for internal stake holders.

Simple? Perhaps. But in companies that offer technical goods and services, can such a separation be operationally realistic? Must there not be some informational overlap? If the public require product knowledge, yes. If internal communications contain product information, yes. Given the certainty of these practical requirements therefore, how can these two functions be isolated? Stakeholders - both internal and external - will have technical information requirements, but the model features no such explicit linkage illustrating the mode or source of this adhesive.

...continue reading →
0

•

Available and Popular Social Media Platforms

Currently, Social Media platforms take many forms. Defining categories for Social Media platforms is not simple, as they share many common functions and features. Following is a list of the main forms of Social Media platform currently available and popular. 

...continue reading →
0

•

The Communication Advantages of Social Media: ATSICR

Social Media presents challenges and opportunities, but the opportunities far outweigh the challenges. What can be achieved through adoption of sensible and organized Social Media policy and practice can be summarized in the following phrase:

Effective communication with increasingly diverse and discerning publics.

...continue reading →
0

•

Background

Oh the strange files found on ancient hard drives! This series of articles presents a document that I composed in 2008 but never finished due to reasons that escape me (workload, probably). Around that time, companies, particularly entrenched and laggardly companies, were struggling with the concepts and practices of Social Media. It was simply too new, and too noisy. Moreover, people knew it would be disruptive, so avoided the topic.

...continue reading →
0

•

To me, this is the strangest, most illogical of the five models. The model describes the merging of Public Relations and Marketing into a single entity. In this model, the two are indistinguishable, at least conceptually. It is difficult to imagine, however, that the outputs of this hybrid would all be as much PR as marketing in nature and vice versa. There are, of course, marketing activities that have PR implications; and PR activities influence business performance so have implications for marketing. Nevertheless, the absolute equalisation of the two seems unfeasible or at least counter-intuitive if we accept the two are different, as older models declare and as certain current applications still suggest is the case.

...continue reading →
0

•

Companies who put Marketing inside (and by implication under the control of) Public Relations were once unusual. This is the inverse of the C-Mark model. Progressive currents in business theory propose such a model. Typical claims made in its support are premised on the concept that all business activity meets a public or a "stakeholder" one way or another, even if that public or stakeholder is an employee or a vendor, i.e. an "internal stakeholder".

...continue reading →
0