Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad

addressed in each dimension and between
the dimensions. These dimensions or elements
of integration range from ensuring
that the communication mix and messages
are integrated and targeted towards a variety
of audiences to ensuring that integration is
achieved between the many individuals and
organizations involved in the process. Nine
dimensions in total have been identified and
these will be explained in more detail shortly.
Output vs. process measures
Measuring communication effects has been
notoriously difficult. While some elements are
relatively straightforward, others are less so
and, because of the multiplicity of variables
involved, spurious cause-and-effect relationships
can be (incorrectly) claimed. In assessing
communication, attention has previously
tended to focus on ‘output’ measures to evaluate
the results of communication; whether
the activity has worked and to what extent – is
the sale made, at what contribution; what
coverage is achieved, how many column
inches; what are the customer reactions, what
is their recall of the latest campaign; how have
the range of publics responded, to what
extent do they hold positive attitudes; how
are employees affected by internal communication,
do they know the corporate mission
and objectives; what impact have financial
disclosures to the City had on share values;
and so on.
Public relations utilizes an extensive array
of communication tools each with its own
purpose and outcomes and each requiring different
means of assessment. Advertising is
seen as a strong force by some (e.g. Jones,
1995), having a direct bearing on sales,
whereas it is seen by others (e.g. Ehrenberg
et al., 2000) as a weak force principally affecting
recognition and reinforcement. There is no
agreement on how (or whether it is even possible)
to use output measures to satisfactorily
assess the full array of all the individual elements
of corporate communication, let alone
their combined effect. What should be used as
appropriate measures of assessment is hotly
contested. Furthermore, while a plethora of
measures exist, it is the interplay and interaction
of numerous variables that ultimately
have an impact on the success or otherwise of
the communication; consequently, arguments
abound concerning the best use of output
measures (important though they are).
An alternative perspective exists in which
one might look at the ‘process’ of communication
rather than its ‘outputs’ as a way
of assessing its management and effectiveness.
Duncan (1994) has observed that there
are two ways to measure and control most
operations – through the use of output controls
and through the use of process controls.
‘Output controls evaluate the results of programmes
. . . Process controls evaluate how
programmes are developed . . . Up to now,
however, process controls have seldom been
used in marketing (and corporate) communication’
(p. 26). Having previously identified the
importance of recognizing that integrated
corporate communication is a managerial
activity, it seems highly appropriate under
these circumstances to adopt a ‘process’
driven approach to its assessment. To make
sense of this and to ‘map’ the total integration
process, two frameworks are presented below
which will then be combined together to
create an assessment profile (Figure 14.3) that
can be used by managers as a development,
evaluation and control tool. The first
framework (Figure 14.2) is the ‘Continuum
of Integrated Corporate Communication’. The
second is ‘Dimensions of Integrated Corporate
Communication’.
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors