For any readers who are not a member of COM610 - you can read the article this discussion is based on HERE
__________________________
1. Please respond to Argenti, Howell, and Beck's (2005) characterization of communication as part of an organization's overall strategy. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain.
Although this article is almost 8 years old, the study findings and analysis are still as relevant today as they were upon publication. The overarching umbrella of "Communications" (as a function) is absolutely critical to the success of an organization. As discussed by Argenti, Howell and Beck - communications isn't just one way, a push of generic messaging to constituents. It is a two way loop, and Communications is charged with not only collecting the feedback and commentary, but analyzing and interpreting it to make strategic recommendations for the business. All communications must be strategic in nature; designed to deepen or build relationships with key stakeholders.
Steve Halsey, Principal and MD at Gibbs & Soell writes, "CEOs must make decisions based on the context of the market, and what they can do to make it more favorable for their business. It just so happens that listening to, interpreting and influencing market context are sweet spots of communications" (Halsey, 2012).
Not only do we see the importance of strategic communications in business - but take a look around - what graduate degree are we pursuing? A new program - Integrated Marketing and Communications. The demand for communications talent with business understanding and professional expertise has even influenced academia. It's very clear to me that Argenti, Howell and Beck's research was accurate - strategic communications is a vital component of an organization's management structure.
2. How does this characterization apply to marketing, advertising, and other elements of IMC -- and even social media?
The characterization of communications as a part of the organization's overall strategy suggests that all components of IMC need to be part of an overall strategy. Different companies will organize their M&C functions depending on their leadership. As mentioned in this week's readings, Jeremiah Owyang does an excellent job of describing some of the most common communications structures. To see the diagrams, and read more about Jeremiah Owyang's work - click HERE
The overarching point of all these articles is this - consumers are demanding transparent, two-way communications with brands. Without an IMC strategy, which includes senior leadership support, organizations are missing the opportunity to build lasting and profitable relationships with consumers.
3. How can social media play a role in an organization's overall strategy?
When I first started working in Communications, my friend Mauricio Godoy offered me some advice which I still reference to this day -
"People like brands who act like people - not people who act like brands"
Brands have the opportunity to use social media to interact with consumers on a more personal level than using traditional channels. The ability to respond quickly and concisely to complaints, questions or feedback allows organizations to develop brand personas in ways that make them relateable to consumers, and more profitable to stake holders. Take a look at this infographic outlining some of the benefits of using social media for business
4. How can we "align" each of IMC's elements and many social media channels to "enhance [our company's] strategic positioning"?
Communications needs a seat at the table - and needs to be heard.
Aligning IMC elements (which includes social media management) to support strategic positioning requires communications and marketing (depending on how your organization is structured) to be a part of executive level discussions about the future of the organization.
For example - you wouldn't hold a meeting about layoffs without the CHRO, would you? Of course not - senior leaders need the expertise of the CHRO to analyze and understand the impact of their decisions on their employees. Same practice goes for Communications/ Marketing teams.
No one can discussion Communications better than the Arthur W. Page Society. In 2007 and 2013, they conducted "The CEO View" about the impact of communications on corporate reputation / citizenship. The first of the study's key findings were -
"We see a shift in emphasis from defense to offense - CEOs in 2007 say the communications function largely as a way to fend off personal attackers and bad publicity. In 2013, they see more opportunity for our function to set agenda and build engagement across all stakeholders" (AWPageSociety, 2013).
It's clear that open communications across functions, and within senior leadership, allows for IMC to be part of strategic discussions. Based on the strategies and objectives of the organization, IMC professionals can make recommendations about which channels / messaging / content can be shared, and with whom, to help enhance the overall positioning of the company.
Sources / Citations
