Strategic Communication Idea
By Msc, Msd, Bsc Cristian Guerrero Castro.
The professionals from numerous fields are working on what they name Strategic Communication, which has generated quite a lot of individuals who speak about "their science", express their observations and dictate norms which might be trying to establish something like a structure in a non-existent science.
I say "non-existent science" as a result of it has not been established as such, having neither a definite conceptualization, nor a current or a systematic and unified lineament.
There are several disciplines that declare the Strategic Communication, reminiscent of public relations, journalism, visible communication, advertising, marketing and others. Due to this fact clarifying questions come up, akin to: which discipline does strategic communication belong to? Or: Can each self-discipline talk strategically? Now my question is: how can a self-discipline verify to speak strategically without data about strategy?
If we analyze the diverse theories of communication, we are able to mention the theory of mass communication by Harold Dwight Lasswell that defines it as "structure and function", which suggests communication is the supervision or surveillance of the surroundings, the correlation of different elements of the society responding to the surroundings that leads to communicate.
We may title many communication theorists, comparable to David Berlo who analyzed the objective of mass communication by emphasizing the best: "So that there is communication between the sender and the receptor, they have to speak the identical language and understand the same signs as a way to make the process of communication perfect", or maybe renowned theorists who contributed considerably to the science of communication like Gerhard Maletzke, Warren Weaver, amongst many others.
Herewith we make clear that the communication is established as a science, because it has theories and scientific lineaments. However what happened with the strategy? On this point the "autopoiesis"(MATURANA) or unification of communication and strategy does not get established for those who do not understand the "logic of motion" of technique. Nevertheless, later I'll show that the strategy is both a science and art.
So, what are the theories of technique? What are its fundamental theorists? What are the strategies of strategy? How does the strategy work? Or a quite simple query like: what's technique? Questions that paralyze all the alleged "consultants" of the so-known as "strategic communication" that we see these days with harmless and illusory publications on one thing they do not have an correct knowledge about and haven't analyzed thoroughly. Knowledge of the communication theories yes, but no data of the idea of strategy and its implementation.
Strategic Communication at this time, as we now have already stated, is a mixture of various actions, every of which has to the next or lower diploma structured its procedures of analysis, analysis and management, a scenario that isn't defined in the real situation of strategic communication.
This technique, that we're lacking, should contain the important goals of the entity, that are the premise of the strategic process in its three dimensions (strategic, operational and tactical).
This methodology must also embody a structured analysis of the components of the scenario with the pertinent qualitative and quantitative instruments of analysis, contemplating the traits of the situation, the origin of the conflict, the odds, measures, percentages, programs of motion, the direct and oblique actors, the intervening factors in each stage of the situation, and the behavior of the actors prior to now, current and future.
The shortage of a technique to define the strategic communication has as result that in observe every entity, firm, establishment or group develops these activities in keeping with how it is interpreted by who's answerable for this space. That results in incorrect, incomplete or undoubtedly inapplicable communication administration.
And not using a precise information of the theories of the strategy as a software, technique, self-discipline and as science, those don’t unify. This leads to one of many beforehand indicated issues the place many people from different disciplines irresponsibly call strategic communication what they contemplate "communicating strategically", backed by their experiences, cases, or typically by their "enlightened reward of odor"
They confuse social communication with strategic communication.
This is highly essential as a result of with no structured methodology where the sciences communication and technique work, we fail to develop strategic communication, we solely talk, as a result of strategy is the science of conceiving, activating, deciding, planning, executing, using and guiding the media at a selected time, place and space to achieve and / or preserve the set objectives in a particular scenario.
This concept, primarily based on an intensive 5-year analysis proposes a methodology for outlining communication methods, contemplating that the strategy is the nucleus and the motor driving the communication whit an integration of Mass communication and Strategy sciences.
In conclusion;
S+A = (S-rf + C.rf) = S= (S*) + M+C= (Sig1, chn, cod, sn, sig2) = C = (C*)
+ [Mng] Σ S.C
"Without strategy we will solely communicate. Solely with strategy we are able to communicate strategically." © Cristian Guerrero-Castro. 2011.
Post a Comment