I am beginning to see a pattern in
my reactions to Cornelissen, and my reaction to Chapter 7 certainly aligns with
that pattern.
I find tremendous value in the
models he creates to simplify larger concepts with which I have limited
experience; in this chapter, his five-part model (Figure 7.1 on p. 129) for
research and evaluation and his related case study of FedEx (p. 131-132) is
very helpful for me. Apart from my work for this course, I spend no time thinking about the inner
workings of corporations, but I do think about and examine how effective advertising
campaigns are or how well corporations brand themselves. Essentially, in my
day-to-day life, I only think about the results of corporate communication.
This model helps conceptualize the execution of a communication campaign.
Conversely, in each chapter, I am encountering
assertions that are not treated as critically as I would like them to be;
Cornelissen’s glossing over of the FedEx Truth Squad is an excellent example
from Chapter 7. As Cornelissen writes, “Margaritis and his team identified an
inner circle of media contacts and conducted personal briefings with these
journalists to forge and strengthen relationships with them and to reinforce
messaging and reduce any gaps in understanding” (p. 132). Cornelissen frames
this as an insightful practice which helped FedEx ensure that its messaging is
not misconstrued, without even the briefest mention of the ethical problems
practices like this can create. It is possible these practices occur with no quid pro quo understanding between the
journalists and the corporation, but I am skeptical.
The FedEx case study provides me
with an example of how research is an ongoing, recursive process for
corporations and how Cornelissen’s model might ideally function. However, I do
wish Cornelissen provided us with more “negative” case studies that demonstrate
how some of his models may break down or the problems and circumstances that
can create such a breakdown.
Great point about Cornelissen's case studies. They are overwhelmingly positive, or at worst, turnarounds of bad situations. We may be missing details that will be covered in later chapters, but I agree that he doesn't drill down as much as he could. Just what does it mean to "conduct personal briefings" and "reduce any gaps in understanding" with journalists? That last phrase speaks a lot to your ethical concerns. It sounds like a euphemism for an agreement to give only the company's "understanding." But I also just don't know. This is why it'd be nice to have a more detailed case study.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your observations about Cornelissen's overwhelmingly positive case studies. As we can see through his organization of information and graphics in each chapter, the author seems to be trying to communicate the information as clearly as possible. An unfortunate result of Cornelissen's quest for clarity seems, so far, to be a lack of complexity. As we all know, some businesses operate ethically and some do not. It can be tempting to let ethics slide when you are in pursuit of a profit, so it stands to reason that many of the corporate communication techniques Cornelissen describes can be used for deceptive purposes. I wish that, in addition to the successful examples, Cornelissen had included some examples of companies unable to solve their public perception problems with savvy communication skills, and at least mention instances where communication strategies didn't work out the way the company hoped.
ReplyDeleteLike the others commenting before me, I'm in agreement with you, Kevin. A failing example would certainly help to illuminate the process of communication analysis and restructuring. I would like to see more discussion of the brick walls that exist between the communicator's intentions and their outcomes as well. For instance, what about companies in the midst of rebuilding their communications efforts that fall into greater problems? EX: BP making efforts to avoid trouble with the increasing distrust of fossil fuels and then simultaneously dealing with the gulf spill. That kind of situation would be tremendously interesting and helpful in boiling down exactly what the communications of corporations need and ought to do in adverse conditions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of you. Cornelissen's overly positive perspective is disheartening. I wonder if it is the textbook genre that causes it or his own perspective. Textbooks are such passive ways to learn. I think you all are asking better questions than he asks at the end of his chapters. His questions seem to just ask us to reiterate what he said. They don't ask us to think through a problem. I'll have to check out Argenti's textbook the next time I teach this class. But $125 for a textbook. Ugh!
ReplyDelete