To critically engage with the readings this week (and I
presume for the rest of the semester), I must make a concentrated effort to confront
and/or set aside some of my assumptions about corporations and how they
communicate. I have a reflex of distrust when encountering corporate messaging.
It is not that I do not appreciate corporations (I mean, I really like buying
goods and services.), but I cynically view every move corporations make as a
service to their bottom line and nothing else. Holding onto this cynicism will
not allow me to critically approach the readings in a fruitful way, and I assume
that my bias will bubble up in my discussions. I mention this not to excuse
myself, but to help hold myself accountable.
Also, I am working to develop my background knowledge of
business, marketing, corporate communications as academic disciplines. As a
result, I feel like my initial reactions to these readings are superficial at
best. My perspective of business is firmly consumer-centric at this point.
Throughout this semester, I will work to broaden my perspective.
As I began reading Argenti’s argument for corporate
communications as its own discipline, I immediately began drawing parallels to
sub-disciplines within my own academic background (humanities, language,
literature), so I was delighted to read Argenti’s mention of a similar parallel
drawn by Daniel (p. 87-88). In the same way that English as a discipline had to
prove its worth in academia so must other nascent disciplines, and, seemingly,
these nascent disciplines are met with skepticism from practitioners in long
established disciplines. Generally, I am in favor of proposals such as Argenti’s
because examining subjects from multiple perspectives can enrich any field.
So, I am on board with his argument for corporate communications
as a separate area of research and study, but I do not fully understand what
his conception of corporate communications is. Is he calling for hierarchy of
communications disciplines with corporate communications as the
all-encompassing top rung?
I also question some of his assumptions about a lack of
research in certain areas. Regarding image and identity specifically, Argenti
claims that they have “never been studied as rigorously as [they] should” (p.
92). This strikes me as a broad claim that would be difficult to defend in a
more developed discussion. Of course, I must take into account that this
article was published nearly 20 years ago.
Argenti’s call must have been heeded as evidenced by the
existence of Cornelissen’s text. Again, I must admit that I am working through
a learning curve to develop stronger background knowledge. Thus, while I found
it a slog to read through discussions of different corporate organizational
structures, the first chapter of Cornelissen’s text is already helping with my
background knowledge deficit.
Cornelissen’s framework of corporate communications growing
from the gradual integration of marketing and public relations seems logical. This
may be because, as a business outsider, I have always viewed marketing and PR
as being parallel and as having the same end-goal: higher revenue and a
consistently positive public perception.
Yes, Cornelissen's text does demonstrate the growth in the area of corporate communication. Any textbook demonstrates that. But Argenti also has his own textbook called Corporate Communication, which is in its 6th edition. Cornelissen's is in its 4th edition. I said in my post that I chose Cornelissen's because it was $55 and Argenti's was $125!! When I reviewed the textbooks, I thought they pretty much covered the same ground. They use different case studies and I suspect Argenti's is probably a little more on target. But I just couldn't justify making students shell out $125 for a small textbook. Check out the detailed TOC for Argenti's book and see what you think: http://highered.mheducation.com/sites/0073403172/information_center_view0/table_of_contents.html.
ReplyDeleteWell, we all certainly appreciate your consideration of that 70 dollar difference in textbooks, Dr. Bridgeford!
DeleteI'm a debate coach, so the kinds of over claims and generalizations you draw attention to here are at least somewhat frustrating as you point out, Kevin. They didn't stick out so much for me as I suppose I'm assuming the first read would lay some ground work which will further explored in later readings. We'll see what happens, I suppose! Also, I share a similar experience level when it comes to background knowledge, so it's nice to know there is at least one other person with whom I can share this perspective.
I work in corporate communications and am familiar with your attitude toward corporate entities. However, corporate entities are under the most scrutiny they have ever been in during this information-heavy age. I believe this forces corporations, especially public ones, to offer full-disclosure to maintain multiple stakeholders' interests, i.e. shareholders, employees, deciding boards, consumers, regulatory agencies, general public, etc. Privately held companies may also face the same scrutiny, but they have fewer stakeholders, specifically those that have financial interests within the corporation. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that corporations and organizations are the most conscious of stakeholder interests at this current time, perhaps making the corporate image, identity, etc.. above, or at least at par with the bottom line.
ReplyDeleteI work in corporate communications and am familiar with your attitude toward corporate entities. However, corporate entities are under the most scrutiny they have ever been in during this information-heavy age. I believe this forces corporations, especially public ones, to offer full-disclosure to maintain multiple stakeholders' interests, i.e. shareholders, employees, deciding boards, consumers, regulatory agencies, general public, etc. Privately held companies may also face the same scrutiny, but they have fewer stakeholders, specifically those that have financial interests within the corporation. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that corporations and organizations are the most conscious of stakeholder interests at this current time, perhaps making the corporate image, identity, etc.. above, or at least at par with the bottom line.
ReplyDelete