Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad
Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad 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
Continuum of ICC Integration permits the opportunity for all corporate communication activities to build together to create a greater positive ‘added value’ than would otherwise be achieved by a loose collection of unconnected activities. It is rarely the case that corporate communication is either fully integrated or not and Figure 14.2 illustrates the concept of a ‘continuum of integration’. On the right hand side of the figure, as a greater degree of integration is achieved, the greater the synergy in which more positive benefits result. At the central point there is limited integration of campaign elements but this results in only a neutral effect. Beyond this point and to the left there is an increased likelihood of each activity detracting from the others which can result in dysfunctional communication. The greater the degree of separation and dysfunction, the greater the negative value of the corporate communication effort. The development of corporate communication which lacks integration therefore not only fails to add overall value through lack of synergistic effects but also runs the risk of having a negative impact through dysfunction. This is the cost of not integrating – producing communication that is counter-productive and which produces negative effects when one piece of communication contradicts or is at odds with another. The extent of integration deemed to be necessary is further complicated by the ‘level’ of integration required which can vary from the corporate down to the product brand or even to very local, one-off promotions. It is a matter of managerial decision and strategy as to what extent the corporate brand interacts with the product brand (contrast, for Continuum of integration Very strong dysfunction Very strong synergy More segregation negative effects Segregation of corporate communication elements More integration positive effects Integration of corporate communication elements Increasing degree of separation and dysfunction Increasing degree of integration and synergy Corporate communication suffer from dysfunction Corporate communication benefit from synergy Figure 14.2 Continuum of integrated corporate communication © 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection; individual chapters, the contributors
- Page 200 and 201: from business leaders to the people
- Page 202 and 203: there were 78,339 firms involved in
- Page 204 and 205: Table 12.1 Advertising industry tur
- Page 206 and 207: loses the phonetic link with the or
- Page 208 and 209: of the issues discussed here will h
- Page 210 and 211: wants and attitudes, something that
- Page 212 and 213: Table 12.10 How did you integrate t
- Page 214 and 215: Table 12.14 What role does event sp
- Page 216 and 217: NOTE 1 The Chinese names of interna
- Page 218 and 219: linguistics; management and marketi
- Page 220 and 221: your company is in. This brings us
- Page 222 and 223: - securities - insider information;
- Page 224 and 225: Only 8.8 per cent use a vendor for
- Page 226 and 227: Building a corporate communication
- Page 228 and 229: America some seventy years ago, onl
- Page 230 and 231: and interpreting information. Liste
- Page 232 and 233: • Electronic means: email, broadc
- Page 234 and 235: People on their own and in organize
- Page 236 and 237: LANs (local area networks) function
- Page 238 and 239: Qualities of organizations and peop
- Page 240 and 241: Technology and the environment The
- Page 242 and 243: and external relationships. The act
- Page 244 and 245: CHAPTER 14 Assessing integrated cor
- Page 246 and 247: ment of working relationships with
- Page 248 and 249: Barriers to integrated corporate co
- Page 252 and 253: example, the different strategies a
- Page 254 and 255: Integration of communication target
- Page 256 and 257: Dimensions of integration Very stro
- Page 258 and 259: is an assessment tool. The resultin
- Page 260 and 261: CHAPTER 15 New technology and the c
- Page 262 and 263: However, there are also strong argu
- Page 264 and 265: smaller groups of people, i.e. from
- Page 266 and 267: dominated by a handful of huge comp
- Page 268 and 269: Figure 15.2 The changing face of Co
- Page 270 and 271: PART III MANAGING IMAGE, IDENTITY A
- Page 272 and 273: modes of delivery - it supports amo
- Page 274 and 275: Conversely, and of equal importance
- Page 276 and 277: open up new competitions in what we
- Page 278 and 279: May, with 24 hours non-stop music b
- Page 280 and 281: Kanter, R. M. (1989) When Giants Le
- Page 282 and 283: Table 17.1 The best corporate reput
- Page 284 and 285: Mandelson, Henry McLeish, and Slobo
- Page 286 and 287: Schultz, 1999). The second reason i
- Page 288 and 289: Table 17.3 Revenue (%) Less than $1
- Page 290 and 291: While there is little doubt that go
- Page 292 and 293: McCarthy, E. J. and Perrault, W. D.
- Page 294 and 295: Table 18.1 Operational functions of
- Page 296 and 297: Table 18.2 Differences between rout
- Page 298 and 299: Due to the wide range of circumstan
Continuum <strong>of</strong> ICC<br />
Integration permits the opportunity for all<br />
corporate communication activities to build<br />
together to create a greater positive ‘added<br />
value’ than would otherwise be achieved by a<br />
loose collection <strong>of</strong> unconnected activities. It is<br />
rarely the case that corporate communication<br />
is either fully integrated or not <strong>and</strong> Figure<br />
14.2 illustrates the concept <strong>of</strong> a ‘continuum <strong>of</strong><br />
integration’. On the right h<strong>and</strong> side <strong>of</strong> the<br />
figure, as a greater degree <strong>of</strong> integration is<br />
achieved, the greater the synergy in which<br />
more positive benefits result. At the central<br />
point there is limited integration <strong>of</strong> campaign<br />
elements but this results in only a neutral<br />
effect. Beyond this point <strong>and</strong> to the left there<br />
is an increased likelihood <strong>of</strong> each activity<br />
detracting from the others which can result in<br />
dysfunctional communication. The greater<br />
the degree <strong>of</strong> separation <strong>and</strong> dysfunction, the<br />
greater the negative value <strong>of</strong> the corporate<br />
communication effort. The development <strong>of</strong><br />
corporate communication which lacks integration<br />
therefore not only fails to add overall<br />
value through lack <strong>of</strong> synergistic effects but also<br />
runs the risk <strong>of</strong> having a negative impact<br />
through dysfunction. This is the cost <strong>of</strong> not<br />
integrating – producing communication that is<br />
counter-productive <strong>and</strong> which produces negative<br />
effects when one piece <strong>of</strong> communication<br />
contradicts or is at odds with another. The<br />
extent <strong>of</strong> integration deemed to be necessary<br />
is further complicated by the ‘level’ <strong>of</strong> integration<br />
required which can vary from the<br />
corporate down to the product br<strong>and</strong> or even<br />
to very local, one-<strong>of</strong>f promotions. It is a<br />
matter <strong>of</strong> managerial decision <strong>and</strong> strategy<br />
as to what extent the corporate br<strong>and</strong> interacts<br />
with the product br<strong>and</strong> (contrast, for<br />
Continuum <strong>of</strong> integration<br />
Very strong<br />
dysfunction<br />
Very strong<br />
synergy<br />
More segregation<br />
negative effects<br />
Segregation <strong>of</strong> corporate<br />
communication elements<br />
More integration<br />
positive effects<br />
Integration <strong>of</strong> corporate<br />
communication elements<br />
Increasing degree<br />
<strong>of</strong> separation <strong>and</strong><br />
dysfunction<br />
Increasing degree<br />
<strong>of</strong> integration <strong>and</strong><br />
synergy<br />
<strong>Corporate</strong> communication<br />
suffer from dysfunction<br />
<strong>Corporate</strong> communication<br />
benefit from synergy<br />
Figure 14.2 Continuum <strong>of</strong> integrated corporate communication<br />
© 2004 S<strong>and</strong>ra Oliver for editorial matter <strong>and</strong> selection;<br />
individual chapters, the contributors
Change language