Ch 12: Develop a Communication Plan
Chapter 11 was helpful, but uneventful in the realm of supplying me with thought-provoking statements. On the other hand, ch.12 included plenty of what to me felt like not-so-common common sense. For instance, the figure outlining the facets of a comprehensive communication plan advised the communicator to convey under what authority the risk being communicated. Frankly, as a public relations practitioner, I think that all risk should be communicated simply for the benefit of those at risk and the organization. The thought that a risk would be made public in response to a law was initially surprising, but eventually logical.
I liked the suggestion of including not only audience descriptions but an explanation of how audience information was gathered. After all, if any discrepancies occur in response to the audience summary, the methodology and results of the information-gathering process can be assessed. The same figure included a portion on gathering necessary approvals. This brought back painful memories writing a brochure and having to get approval from several layers of the organizational structure who were often so involved in their own responsibilities that eventual hounding for approval became a frustrating part of the process. This would of course delay the artistic layout of the piece. Unfortunately, the piece is not ready for printing once the layout is complete because the promotional piece requires approval once again. This is all tedious, but a sometimes inevitable part of the communicative process.
The section on using storyboarding as a planning tool contained a good description of how the process should work. My attention was caught by the sentence stating that “[t]he facilitator should let the ideas flow and not censor them, even if they are impractical or impossible” (p. 185) because it seems like in so many instances, during brainstorming sessions, people are likely to have the desire to discredit other’s ideas based on their lack of pragmatism. Including everyone’s ideas regardless of feasibility can lead people to thinking of ways in which something that initially seemed unrealistic can become a possibility. Furthermore, not making someone feel rejected is an essential part of team-building at any time.
The following statements provided me with a sad realization: “Dozier and his colleagues warn that organizations often focus communication efforts solely on the last group. Ignoring the other groups, however, can have serious consequences. By the time ignored members become active, their views are often negative, entrenched, and oppositional” (p. 189). Unfortunately, active publics often do arrive at their situation out of necessity in response to their frustration. This means, that once again, in communications, activist publics are seen as (or can actually be) something to be “dealt with” in a negative context.
The section on viewing audiences by what causes them to be interested in the risk, which lists the segments developed by the team of experts including Peter Sandman, was truly eye-opening because although every one of those segment descriptions are what communicators would consider common sense, addressing each of those audiences is something that is so often overlooked. For instance, perhaps because of my association of risk and crisis communications with affected area residents, so far I had not included the business community and how it would be affected into my mental image of potential audiences. Regardless, if people of a community are affected, of course businesses that serve those very residents can also be impacted. Next, not to say that I did not treasure the experiences that I gained at the organization that I used to work at, I’ve survived through instances in which the concept of informing your own organization’s staff about the details surrounding a project may as well have been foreign. Therefore, without an ounce of doubt know that I absolutely agree with the fact that there is a great need to keep the staff and management of an organization informed at all times—even over-informed if at all possible.
Keeping other involved organizations informed is once again, one of those logical, but sometimes cumbersome necessities. For instance, the organization where I interned this past summer joined with a similarly-scaled organization to promote spaying and neutering. The two organizations were nonprofit organizations whose goals were to tackle the problem of pet overpopulation. Before witnessing the complications associated with fighting through the politics of simply keeping the communication lines opened among the two organizations I would have thought that the entire concept was a no-brainer. Alas, that was not the case. In retrospect, I’ve realized that although I used to only associate aggressive competition with money-hungry corporate entities, money-needy nonprofit entities can be just as cut-throat with each other.
I liked the suggestion of including not only audience descriptions but an explanation of how audience information was gathered. After all, if any discrepancies occur in response to the audience summary, the methodology and results of the information-gathering process can be assessed. The same figure included a portion on gathering necessary approvals. This brought back painful memories writing a brochure and having to get approval from several layers of the organizational structure who were often so involved in their own responsibilities that eventual hounding for approval became a frustrating part of the process. This would of course delay the artistic layout of the piece. Unfortunately, the piece is not ready for printing once the layout is complete because the promotional piece requires approval once again. This is all tedious, but a sometimes inevitable part of the communicative process.
The section on using storyboarding as a planning tool contained a good description of how the process should work. My attention was caught by the sentence stating that “[t]he facilitator should let the ideas flow and not censor them, even if they are impractical or impossible” (p. 185) because it seems like in so many instances, during brainstorming sessions, people are likely to have the desire to discredit other’s ideas based on their lack of pragmatism. Including everyone’s ideas regardless of feasibility can lead people to thinking of ways in which something that initially seemed unrealistic can become a possibility. Furthermore, not making someone feel rejected is an essential part of team-building at any time.
The following statements provided me with a sad realization: “Dozier and his colleagues warn that organizations often focus communication efforts solely on the last group. Ignoring the other groups, however, can have serious consequences. By the time ignored members become active, their views are often negative, entrenched, and oppositional” (p. 189). Unfortunately, active publics often do arrive at their situation out of necessity in response to their frustration. This means, that once again, in communications, activist publics are seen as (or can actually be) something to be “dealt with” in a negative context.
The section on viewing audiences by what causes them to be interested in the risk, which lists the segments developed by the team of experts including Peter Sandman, was truly eye-opening because although every one of those segment descriptions are what communicators would consider common sense, addressing each of those audiences is something that is so often overlooked. For instance, perhaps because of my association of risk and crisis communications with affected area residents, so far I had not included the business community and how it would be affected into my mental image of potential audiences. Regardless, if people of a community are affected, of course businesses that serve those very residents can also be impacted. Next, not to say that I did not treasure the experiences that I gained at the organization that I used to work at, I’ve survived through instances in which the concept of informing your own organization’s staff about the details surrounding a project may as well have been foreign. Therefore, without an ounce of doubt know that I absolutely agree with the fact that there is a great need to keep the staff and management of an organization informed at all times—even over-informed if at all possible.
Keeping other involved organizations informed is once again, one of those logical, but sometimes cumbersome necessities. For instance, the organization where I interned this past summer joined with a similarly-scaled organization to promote spaying and neutering. The two organizations were nonprofit organizations whose goals were to tackle the problem of pet overpopulation. Before witnessing the complications associated with fighting through the politics of simply keeping the communication lines opened among the two organizations I would have thought that the entire concept was a no-brainer. Alas, that was not the case. In retrospect, I’ve realized that although I used to only associate aggressive competition with money-hungry corporate entities, money-needy nonprofit entities can be just as cut-throat with each other.
posted by Nadya at
2/11/2007 10:49:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home