Defining what we do
8th February 2007 by Michael Zimet
What is our profession? Is it “communications”? “Business communications”? “Corporate communications”? “Public relations”? Something else?
In a recent post, Jana Schilder wrote, in part:
“…public relations, which by my very expansive definition INCLUDES corporate communications and internal communications.”
Does “public relations” encompass internal and/or corporate communications?
Does “business communications” or “corporate communications” encompass public relations?
I’ve heard a broad range of views; I’d like to hear yours.
How do we describe our profession?
Is there an all-inclusive term? Have we ever definitively answered that question? Should we even try? And if so, how should we define it…
What do you think?
February 14th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Goodness.
Six days ago, Mr. Zimet asked 15 questions basic to our industry.
To date, no answers have been posted here. (And IABC has how many thousands of members around the world?)
Some might excuse the deafening silence with statesman-like tact: “No one’s denying those are important questions. And important people HAVE been discussing them. Just not on this board.”
(Oh? Maybe we should all troop over to where they ARE discussing them.)
“I’m sure you realize we’re very, VERY busy people.”
“I thought I could respond to a couple of Zimet’s questions, but for every statement I tried to write down, a dozen exceptions came to mind. It became overwhelming. I eventually gave up.”
“They were good questions. No argument there. But at a philosophical, 50,000-foot level. We pay a staff and elect leaders to wrestle with those issues. They’ll wrestle with the answers, or not, and later, we’ll buy what they come up with, or not. The world goes on.”
Wow. What’s a writer to do? Employee newsletters, I guess. Some Web content, a press release, an occasional white paper. The vp of IT wants a column under his picture next month and asked for some “input”. There’s also a sales brochure (with video) in the works, a trade show, four pages for the annual report, and don’t forget, the guy from Channel 6 is calling tomorrow….
Strange. At 50,000 feet, the view is grand and exciting and full of promise. The work, on the other hand, seems confined to the deck.
February 15th, 2007 at 9:50 am
If “public relations” is to encompass everything else, then “public” has to mean “all possible audiences”.
If “stakeholder relations” is all-encompassing, then you have to define everyone as a present or future stakeholder.
Much safer to focus on what the doer does, and say that business communication is (duh) all the communication that the business does.
I prefer to use “public” to mean people who are not affiliated with you directly. John Q. Public can sometimes be John Q. Customer, but for discussion and planning purposes he is two different people.
You can then argue that marketing tries to convince JQP to consider moving from JQP to JQC, and sales tries to convince him to DO it. Maybe he’ll even become John Q Employee or John Q Investor.
But whatever hat he’s wearing when you talk to him, you’re the business and you’re communicating with him.
Ergo, “business communications” or “corporate communications” includes the others.
I look forward to others’ cogent arguments in favour of each of the other pieces as the centre. I hope it doesn’t end up like the old joke about the parts of the body arguing over which is most important.
February 15th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
How are we to describe what we do?
I can describe what I do, and I can choose a title for it. From there, I could describe in short order what the mission of my professional association should be and what benefits it should provide. I could even appear brilliant and prescribe exactly what it should do to advocate on my behalf. I am bathed in clarity, as is my job, my career path, and my industry. And so are you.
Until we get together, that is.
The second two or more of us start talking strategy, the sun dims and fog starts rolling in. The ground becomess uneven, and it starts to rain. The thunder is deafening and the lightning bolts, blinding. The more of us there are, the worse it gets, and we number in the thousands.
Then, comes The Voice, “I want you to build an ark. ONE ark.”
We think we know what an ark is, but there’s some confusion about which side is starboard. We have pockets full of tools, which we guard jealously, but, while everyone seems to have a hammer or two, a 12mm. socket wrench has yet to surface.
If this admittedly tortured metaphor resembles the challenge before us, three truths stand out:
1. If Hammer Experts also know their way around wrenches, and Wrench Experts can do wonders with hammers, labeling them as one or the other defeats the very purpose of labels. It’s also confusing and just begs for a chorus of whatever the plural of, “..but…” is.
2. If it’s conceivable that humans are adaptable and capable of cross-training, it makes sense to nurture those abilities. Artificial divisions, imposed or self-appropriated, can be costly and inefficient. Are nail-pounders really different enough from their tool-wielding colleagues to warrant their own restrooms, especially when the tide is rising?
3. Maybe it’s time to defer efforts (maybe permanently?) to discover the perfect labels for what people do based on anachronistic titles and fluid job descriptions. This will free up time and resources to get on with the necessary task of building an ark (ONE ark) that will get us from here to the future with sanity and careers intact.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I’ve purposely waited to see what this topic elicited before another fusillade–but it seems that there’s a natural point in the discussion to draw a clear distinction.
Some would argue for a common approach, the “one Ark” spoken of by Ron Iseri, or perhaps a “one size fits all (OSFA)” approach all too common within the industry.
It is true that there are some common denominators within the “business communications” industry. Many such common denominators align with the classic and academic definition of “public relations”.
But the value that is added by practioners does not derive from those generic commonalities–but from the depth and specialization we bring to the table–as internal communicators, as marcomms experts, as opinion researchers, as directors of corporate communication, as lobbyists, as graphic artists and as producers of printing, video and other forms of “collateral”.
Some of these specialties are well-formed industries, and IABC could make major headway in empowering its members to become players in that industry–and supporting them with lists and resources.
Others, like internal communication in the US, are areas where a large share of leading practitioners are IABC members, but where a distinct and open communication structure has yet to emerge. IABC could lead the way in helping this key industry reach the next stage of its development–again by providing lists and access to organizational resources.
In my view we do not need one big ark. We need a flotilla–agile, potent, closely connected and ready to support all who wish to take IABC into new and exciting waters.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
It seems to me that there is a lot of cross over with the profession of marketing here. Quite a few marketing people are conducting marketing communications especially in the areas of online communications. Corporate communications is not within marketing however.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:52 am
I’m less concerned with how “we” describe our profession as I am about how others do. I sat on an interview panel recently and saw a number of candidates with wonderful skills. Not communications skills, but wonderful skills nontheless. When we asked about communications planning, we heard, “Sure, I can do that.” When we asked about communications to support change, the response was, “I can do it.”
I think everybody thinks they can do it.
I’m happy to say that we re-advertised the position, noting that membership in a professional organization would be of benefit, and we now have an excellent candidate.
While we consider our own profession, let’s find ways to define our work to others so that they understand what makes our profession unique.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Excellent point, well made, Connie.
One of the biggest problems we face as a profession is that we are surrounded by lay people who think they know as much about what we do as we do.
Many of these people are our clients and bosses. The more we can summon that demonstrates our tangible value and (relatively) unique expertise to these “experts”, the easier our lives will become.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Academics such as Sandra Oliver (England) have described corporate communication as an umbrella function, which includes internal communications, public relations, and marketing etc. Technically, the word corporate means whole, so these areas represent areas of a company’s communication.
Public relations is based on the concept of relationships with stakeholders, and a company has internal and external stakeholders. If one were to consider business communication, then one may see it as more limited in scope than public relations. Consider the content of a business communication book to a public relations book. However, as many practitioners can attest to, sometimes their title does not necessarily reflect the entirety of their job scope.
It’s amazing how the discourse about what to call ourselves or how to segment communication responsibilities still abound. Often, a communicator finds him or herself performing traditionally business communication tasks such as presentations and public speaking, public relations activities such as consultations, and marketing efforts such as promotions. At the end of the day, regardless of titles, we are in the business of communications.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:27 am
In Brazil, we define ourselves as “social communications professionals”. I work for Petrobras - an international oil company. To work here you need to have a major in “Comunicação Social” and be “specialized” in one of the three areas: Public Relations, Publicity or Journalism. The term “Public Relations” is not as abroad here as it seems to me it is in the US, although our experience shows that people that come from this field deal better thinking the business.
I just took a course in São Paulo given by Syracuse University and when they talked about Public Relations it always seemed to me they were talking about Corporate Communications.
I hope I´m not “losing the point in translation”. But I just felt like contributing with our South American experience. The field here is big too. But we don´t have the culture to think of ourselves dissociated from our fellows that work in the media or agencies - we use the same undergraduate knowledge and are able to add graduate and specialized studies in the business and corporate field.
Let me try answering Jana Schilder without the pretension to end the subject (since this is not possible)
1. Does “public relations” encompass internal and/or corporate communications?
It has to, since you have to make things public and understandable and we cannot separate the internal from the external anymore.
2. Does “business communications” or “corporate communications” encompass public relations?
It has to. By using the knowledge and tools of public relations and other fields such as journalism, publicity, media studies, psychology, business communications is achievable.
March 9th, 2007 at 3:04 am
I’d like to pitch in a perspective from a European and not-for-profit perspective. I like the term “organizational communications”, as in “The IABC Handbook of OC”. Why? Because it’s a good umbrella term to cover all the disciplines. But also because “corporate” usually refers to a specific type of for-profit entity, and there are many of us out here in other types of structures. In France, we have trouble with the word “business” in IABC’s name because people in not-for-profit organizations or public administrations don’t think it applies to them.
I think IABC’s name (and definition of business communications) is a historical throwback to its origins as an association of corporate editors. We’ve come a long way since then. Organization comms is a better description of the wide range of disciplines and organizations we cover. And it translates better into other languages.
When I talk about IABC and define it and organizational communications, I talk about including all the areas of communications necessary to help organizations meet their objectives.
If we go back to metaphors, organizational comms is a boat. In a small entity, it may be a rowboat, with one person. In a slightly larger organization, different disciplines might be represented by several rowers. In a major corporation, it might look more like a galley. In all cases, you need to set a course and row with strength. But if there are more than one of you, you’d better be rowing in the same direction and in the same rhythm, otherwise you might end up on the rocks!
March 11th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
My view is what binds us all is communication. So I believe I am in the profession of communication, no “s”. Next I am in the branch “organisational communication”. But I am not so bothered about what I call what I do, as the way it’s done.
The comment about “everyone thinks they are in communication” is right - and it’s true, they are, and many of them are excellent at it, in fact more professional than some communicators (PR, business,marketing etc) I’ve come across. What sets us apart from these communicators is that we are paid to coach, advise and support organisations at a professional level. So our responsibility is leadership to the highest standard of communication.
I’m truly tired of this old chestnut about what we call ourselves - it’s a sign of immaturity and lack of confidence in ourselves, and it’s an ego trip for those who want to be at the top of the communication tree. We can be business communicators, or PR people or marketing communicators because those are the services our customers need from us. But the critical thing is to grasp the opportunity for leadership in communication within organisations.
As in all other service industries, on our own we are nothing because we don’t produce anything - we exist because others do. Our role is to give them something no-one else can give them quite so well, and that makes what they produce more valuable for those who are going to buy the product. If we can’t do that, we are nothing no matter what we call ourselves.
March 14th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
I have to tell you that I’ve been enjoying this discussion.
The other day I was driving to work and had the radio on. A person had just won a contest and was asked what she did for a living. She said she worked in “Communications” and the radio hosts questioned her on “what that meant exactly”.
I don’t think trying to define ourselves is about immaturity or lack of confidence, but the opposite. I think we are finally beginning to gain confidence in our ability to make a difference and are maturing as a profession. It’s also about realizing that like the ‘cobblers children’ we’ve done our own profession a disservice by allowing it to be misunderstood or not understood.
The discussions going on through this advocacy forum and IABC are important and have the potential to define the future of our profession in order for it to be better understood and seen as integral to any organization’s success.
Public Relations has a repution of ’spin’ - and is not results oriented. I like where Rodrigo was going with Social Communications and Kristen’s comments on Organizational Communications…but again, they weren’t as results-oriented as I would like. Business and Corporate communications can be seen as too limiting, but I’ve prefered these to PR. The term that comes to mind for me is Strategic Communications.
Look forward to continuing the discussion.
April 30th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Well said, Meryl, well said. I could not agree with you more. Every so often I have to step back get and remind myself that the value I add to my organisation as a business communicator must be strategic and not simply tactical. Anyone can do the tactics. But as a professional business communicator, I must be my firm’s trusted source for expert counsel on public relations, internal communications, media relations, marketing communications… you get the idea.