The company as a message
It
shouldn’t take me so long to write again. But time is something I can’t always
spare. Today
I’d like to talk about an idea I’ve had in my mind for some time. The company as a message. Why this? Simple. A message is a “Set of signals, signs or symbols that are an object
of communication” according to the Royal Spanish Academy (www.rae.es) and, as I read a few days ago on the
Internet (unfortunately unsourced, but I don’t think it’s wrong), 60% of blog
entries talk about companies. “Object of communication,” says the dictionary. Clearly, if
someone is talking about companies, they are an object of communication.
Organizations are signals, signs or symbols. They are symbols because all of
them have isologotypes that define them and that define a great deal of their
visual identity. They are signs because they are the materialization of an idea
conceived by one or more of the founding partners. Lastly, they are signals
becuase they aim at sticking out as something different from the rest (here I’m
assuming that no company seeks to be just like any other.)
It’s important for
companies to know this. They are no longer unidirectional message senders and
no longer begin bilateral dialogs (as suggested by communication 2.0). Beyond
this idea, we have the company as a message.
This can’t be left to
chance. If the company is to become the message of
thousands of conversations (both online and offline), it must be a good
message. We PR specialists are in charge of designing strategic messages or,
what would be the same, designing companies. We have to shape the message,
provide it with some logic, a direction, make sure it’s received without any
“noise”, and it must be a message that says “this is the company.” When a
company has a good image from the beginning, if it is mentioned in connection
with something negative, overcoming this instance will prove easier. On the
other hand, if the organization is not created as a friendly, correct message,
any noise will distort its image and turn it into a negative message.
In
these few lines, I wanted to present you with a preliminary idea of what I
think. I’d like to read your comments on this and I will write again soon.
______________________________________________________
Message Seekers
This is the first of
what I hope will be many updates, postings, entries or whatever you may call
it. Retórica 2.0 is a new version of Greek rhetoric, or a re-version, or just
an idea I’ve had in my mind for a long time. It’s ideas I come up with from
work, from what I think, from comments and from plenty of research. I am, so to
speak, a communication addict. I’m addicted to good communication, something
that must be well thought, measured, based on a strategy and, as any good
strategy, it must have feedback to work on and improve. Nothing is certain in
communication or in social science; nothing can be left to chance. That’s why I
started this blog: to leave new ideas for you and listen to those you have for
me.
Today I’ll begin with a
thought on social networks. Something that leads us to communicate, even if we
don’t have much to say. People talk, discuss. But what do they talk about?
Well, that’s the greatest problem. Doing some research, I found some figures
(from Spain) about what is discussed in social networks. Here are those figures
and the source:
“According
to a study by ROI Research, the most common conversation topics are:
-Comparing prices (59%).
-Commenting on offers (56%).
-Sending opinions to brands (53%).
-Giving or requesting advice (50%).
-Commenting on purchases made (49%).
-Criticizing a product, brand or
store (47%).”
So, people discuss prices, offers, give advice and offer
criticism. Although more than 50% claims to “send opinions to brands”, they
don’t discuss with the brands directly; most of them discuss with each other.
This led me to think about the old model of communication
(sender-message-receiver). Yes, I am assuming that it is an old model and that
it doesn’t work. But I don’t think it’s completely obsolete. There simply is a
larger model now. We have now what I call “Message Seekers”. They would
basically be the prosumers (Consumers who produce, or users of social
networks.) Social networks lead them to talk, so they look for something to
talk about. And many things come into play at that point. Mainly, companies
stop being a Sender and become the message. People talk ABOUT the company and
not to it. I’m not going today into how the company is a message and what must
be done to shape that message. I would just like to think that there is a new
“Model of communication”. And it is a model that has thousands of
senders-receivers (prosumers) communicating with each other, sharing one
message: the company. That’s where the companies should put the emphasis, in my
opinion. It is more important to be a good message (in every sense). And to
that end, communication companies and communicators like us should be a door.
But it must be a door that opens both ways, where we can show the company for
the “message seekers” to find us and talk about us, and also for them or others
who see the message to tell us what we can do to improve. Feedback, as I said
above, is so essential nowadays as it was in the model of communication where
the receiver became a sender and responded to the first sender.
I look forward to your comments, thank you for reading!
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario