One of the biggest challenges communicators face is being able to justify and show a meaningful return on investment to the client. The topic of AVE, as one unit of measure for external communication has long been debated, and has now reached a point at which practitioners realise that to show true ROI one must correlate and align communication to business; not just how many press clippings were obtained and their equivalent monetary value.
Similarly, and possibly more challenging, is the role of internal communication, widely seen as the soft human capital management issue of engaging staff. Only when considering the reality that staff is an organisation's key enablers and that communication is probably the only tool companies have to share information that shape the perceptions of staff, does the gravitas of internal communication reach home.
Broadly speaking, there are four stages to an internal communication cycle: (1) create awareness; (2) change perceptions; (3) obtain the buy-in; and (4) changing attitudes and behaviours. The former two are the realm of corporate communication, but the latter two form part of meaningful employee engagement and are implemented by the stewards in your organisation.
Measurement of these categories is also critical to business success. A company cannot implement a corporate newsletter and determine its success based on measuring levels 1 and 2, which determine content and process. Meaningful internal communication results can only be determined by measuring impact, which requires companies to obtain their staffs' buy-in and demonstrate the adoption of attitudes that are in line with the organisations' direction.
Getting buy-in is not easy. But if the messages are right and staff's perceptions are brought in line with business imperatives, one will likely experience a culture modification because it asks managers to redefine their roles - they are the key communicators. Culture modification is an entire rethink of the communication framework, and creating a meaningful bottom-up leadership approach.
At the recent Ad Review Awards, a highlight of the advertising calendar, marketing guru Andy Rice shared his insights into the dos and don'ts of agency/client relationships. His first key point noted the importance of asking for strategic insights as opposed to operational tactics. Simply put, an agency should demonstrate an understanding of the fundamentals of communication or advertising, as opposed to having to show that they can execute it for a specific environment.
He suggested that instead of being prescriptive, companies should ask agencies for their opinions and guidance, acknowledging their experience and vast array of applications. Interestingly, he noted that on pitches, companies would do well do follow their gut feelings about the effectiveness of solutions offered, not always the hardcore score sheet that do not take the most important element into account - the human ability to perceive beyond what is in front of you.
Of equal importance, is for marketing directors and key decisions-makers to know the agency environment and its key players, ensuring 'bigger picture' awareness of the environment within which one is operating. On that note, Rice also said that companies looking to engage an agency should not ask for creative work upfront... a pitch or tender is aimed at establishing the competency of an agency and the method/strategic insights they have; not to do the work first.
The challenges are to ensure capable agencies are not overlooked because of procurement and paper work or because of budgetary constraints, but rather engaged with on a strategic, results-driven basis that can deliver a turn-key solution.
The first challenge is to overcome the stereotype that communication does not add value to the bottom line, albeit an intangible one. Corporate intellectual property is often branded a key intangible asset, but for some reason communication is not given the same standing. In reality, goodwill and brand recognition are significant intangible assets in the marketplace.
Using Coca-Cola as an example... the company wouldn't be nearly as successful as it is, if it were not for momentous brand-name recognition. While brand recognition is not a physical asset, its positive effects on bottom-line profits have been proven to be extremely valuable year after year as the brand's strength drives sales.
Communication as an intangible asset is no different. Aligning staff and engaging them in a meaningful way to a business means your return on investment will be higher (this can be proven through payroll) as they are likely to release discretionary effort; you will increase employee retention; improve customer service (and show proof of this through models like Sears Roebuck); increase customer retention; and increase in brand value because staff are working harder towards a common goal while pleasing the end user.
All of these can be scientifically measured with internationally accepted models that move communication from a 'soft' and 'nice to have', to something that sits on a company's balance sheet and reflects true value to a business; not to mention good corporate governance.
