Cornelissen Chapters 8 & 9

When discussing news routines and how they can reflect organizational ideology, Cornelissen refers to a study by the BBC trust that criticized the BBC business editors’ “negative and narrow views on business” (p. 147). I laughed when I read this; no wonder I like to listen to the BBC World Service so much. Of course, I have always known that I like the BBC and NPR because my views align with the emergent ideologies of their news routines.

While I found his framework for news routines a helpful description of media practices, his discussion of agenda-setting left me asking a few questions. I do understand he is attempting to neutrally present the critical theory of other scholars, but I also think he can do that while discussing where it might be limited. I struggle to imagine a critical reader who encounters the statement, “The news media thus ‘set’ the public agenda” (p. 148).  This statement alone at face value is contradictory to the stakeholder theory which he earlier claimed was now widely accepted and practiced. Yes, the media has a role in setting the public agenda, but media outlets are for profit institutions which must also be responsive to the preexisting interests of their audiences.  Also, many media outlets are under the umbrella of publicly traded companies, so shareholder agenda must also be considered. Again, I find myself asking Cornelissen for more counter-examples of the models and theory he presents.

The notion of agenda setting, for me, relates to Cornelissen’s discussion of internal employee communications. Whether upward or downward communication, issues can easily become salient within organizations by volume and will. That is, employees can be heard even in organizations where upward communication is not the norm if there is enough volume. The IBM case study (p. 174-177) posits that open (upward and downward) lines of communication centered on corporate values were created in response to low employee morale: new employees had no idea of a corporate value system and long term employees were disillusioned as a result of cuts in benefits and increases in layoffs.

The result of this initiative was an articulation of core values, but I am left wondering about the initiative’s effect on employee satisfaction and productivity. There is a mention of aligning performance management and compensation with these newly articulated values, but there is no further mention of the “disenfranchised” long term employees.

The communities of practice idea also strikes me as marketing efficiency to shareholders rather than an effort to improve employee direction and morale.

Was this an initiative generated from employee dissatisfaction and listlessness that only led to reframed corporate messaging? I am unsure of how to interpret this case study.

Chapter 7: The Truth Squad

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.

Response to Cornelissen, Chapters 5 and 6

I have previously tried to write posts as comprehensive reactions to the chapters. For this post, I will be more focused because Cornelissen touches on some aspects of corporate communication in which I actually have a preexisting interest: corporate taglines and slogans.

Before that discussion, though, I do need to mention how helpful I found section 5.3 on Strategic Messaging. I am growing to appreciate Cornelissen’s use of models and diagrams for making fine distinctions within a broad topic. His breakdown of strategic message styles is a useful model for evaluating corporate communications, but, as I read through the different styles, I was able to draw connections to my own work in teaching the rudiments of rhetoric and argumentative writing to my adult learners. I know that this is a section that I will revisit to inform my own work outside of a corporate environment.

My wife works in advertising, so we have many dinner table conversations about writing choices in advertisements.  Generally, she cites the steps outlined in section 6.2 as essential to the process of creating an excellent tagline or slogan (or even a complete campaign). She emphasizes the importance of step 1, strategic intent. In the parlance of her industry, she refers to this intent as an “insight,” a concept or idea that drives the communicative choices of the agency or corporation.

To the detriment of my own marriage, I do not accept this.

I am certain (even though I have never worked in a corporate environment, an advertising agency, or for any sort of communications firm) that effective slogans and taglines are born of the proper execution of any of the three tactics discussed by Cornelissen on p. 117: wordplay, figurative language, and iconic words. From my admittedly limited perspective, shaping corporate communication/advertising based on market research and insights is akin to the same impulse that leads to the creation of bad art: trying to please the audience rather than communicating a sincere message.

Also, even as a grammar nerd and language instructor, I love witnessing departures from standard grammar and usage that effectively communicate the intended message. My favorite example of this tension between adhering to the rules of edited English and communicating a message is this email exchange published by Harper's in 2003.  

Response to Cornelissen, Chapters 3 and 4

Stakeholders

I am employed in public education, and I live in fear of neoliberal policies and “market-driven” decision-making taking over that realm. Thus, when that term is employed, I am usually skeptical and assume it to be a euphemism for “shareholder.” Cornelissen’s third chapter did make me ease back on my disdain for the word. This is due to his broad definitions for the term and the outlines of different models of stakeholder engagement. The stakeholder salience model and the power-interest matrix present logical frameworks for how corporate entities categorize stakeholders and determine when they must be engaged with. The three strategies of engagement mentioned (informational, persuasive, dialogue) also provide a useful guide for understanding how those entities choose to communicate with stakeholders.

I do take issue (perhaps due to my bias mentioned above) with how Cornelissen has framed this discussion. He carefully distinguishes the old neo-classical model of stakeholder engagement, which gives primacy to profits and shareholders, with the newer socio-economic model of engagement, which takes into account the different contexts in which corporations must engage different stakeholders. Prior to making that distinction, Cornelissen claims that the “widespread adoption of the stakeholder perspective in business marks a move away from” the neo-classical to the socio-economic. I am not sure this is the case. While I do believe the stakeholder model and socio-economic theory have changed how corporations communicate, I would assert that primacy is still given to shareholders; that is, the shareholders are engaged and the remaining stakeholders are managed.

Identity and Branding

In a past life, when I was working in the grocery industry, I knew a Brownberry Bread vendor who disparaged one of his competitors, owned by the Sara Lee Corporation, by saying it was good bread, “if you want your bread made by razor blade manufacturers.” This was before Sara Lee sold off all of its non-food inventory to other corporations, among those other corporations was Unilever. Cornelissen’s discussion of Unilever’s transition from branded corporate identity to monolithic highlights both why the monolithic strategy “creates” value for corporations and why consumers might be skeptical of the strategy. It makes sense that this is a profitable strategy because the corporations using it (Disney, Apple, Google, GE) are already exceedingly powerful and the monolithic strategy serves to consolidate that power within one overarching brand that is attractive to shareholders and prospective shareholders. The downside to this strategy is the negative perception that it can create with consumers. As a consumer, I am put off by monolithic branding because I do not want any corporations to become too powerful, but, call me a hipster or elitist if you like, I like supporting boutique brands and unique products. I do not think I am alone in either of those perspectives.

In looking at these aspects, stakeholder management and branding, through the lens of corporate communication, I am led back to concepts from Chapters 1 and 2. In the same way that marketing and public relations have overlapped and become extensions of each other, so too have stakeholder engagement and branding. Strategic engagement of stakeholders is identity building regardless of the models any corporation is working within.