LAIZER EDWIN N 
BAPRM 42691

Who has the balance of advantage in corporate communication?

Constitutional answer is that the balance of advantage, defined as the last word on policy in a democratic state, should lie with the elected government. Such governments, especially centralized ones such as the United Kingdom’s, are very powerful.

They are leviathans, but perhaps democratic ones. Since the 1980s, British governments have dismantled the industrial public sector; reduced the power of trade unions; favoured markets over monopoly and cartels; introduced the ‘big bang’ of competition into the City of London; reformed the education system, and introduced regulation in all these areas of national life. Corporate interests in the private, public and voluntary sectors have not halted this policy flow: they have only shaped its margins.

 The constitutional citizen, individual or corporate, may not like it but has to accept it as the consequence of elected government. Government communication in structure, volume, frequency and contentreflects the powerfulness of their political sources. Indeed so powerful is government communication in the United Kingdom that they have been paid a dubious compliment: Deacon

The tension between these perspectives is another reminder of the need for prudent judgement when corporate interests private, public and voluntary communicate with government. There is first the question of whether the corporate communicator has the technical competence to deliver a persuasive message to the most powerful listener in the state. Are you communicating a position which aligns your interest and government’s definition of the national interest? Have you identified the most persuasive mix of message forms and channels? Are you communicating publicly or privately or in both modes? Will you be listened to alone or as part of a larger interest? Are political and official channels giving you the same messages?

These questions are the tactics of communication with government: the strategic questions still needed answering as well. Where does your interest lie in the scale of government imperatives and favoured policies? Do elected politicians gain or lose votes by communicating with you? Are you an insider or an outsider to the business of running the country? Your communication can propose but government’s invariably dispose.

Corporate Communications: tracking and analysis

Corporate communication pervades our public messaging spaces (the media, websites, official documents, face-to-face debates) and is easy to track. The strategy and tactics behind it are, however, more difficult to analyse. Businesses, public bodies, interest and cause groups are always seeking communicative advantage vis-à-vis competitors and government, and a continuous, thoughtful scrutiny of their communication reveals organizational aims and objectives. Here are three tracking exercises.

 1 What communication comes from your employer or industry/trade representation body? Specifically, identify the messages; how they are channelled to government; and why they are sent.

2 Discover government’s communication on an issue which interests you. Search the websites of the sponsoring ministry, parliamentary reports, and interested MPs. Follow political reports in the media. Can you identity government’s policies and if they have changed over time? How do these policies relate to the organizations you support on the issue?

3 Take a policy of government which you oppose. Identify the businesses or interest and cause groups which are critical of that policy and devise a corporate communication plan for them. Compare your plan with theirs.