Do You REALLY Need a Communications Department?
Today, we had the great fortune of talking with John Palfrey, co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. John and his colleague Urs Gasser co-wrote a great new book, Born Digital.
John talks almost as fast as I do, but he thinks even faster -- and bigger. In our hour together, John switched seamlessly from the impact of Digital Natives on the future of democracy to privacy to productivity.
While all of it was fantastic, my favorite bit came at the end: the Berkman Center does not have a communications department. Instead, they have community organizers. I've written about this subject before, so I was excited to find a compatriot out there thinking similar thoughts. Is communications part of community organizing? Yes. Is community organizing part of communications? We want it to be, but it isn't yet.
Over the last 60 years, marketing and communications have been centered around the idea of talking AT people. Think about it in terms of the language we use when we talk about communications: we "deploy" "campaigns" to "target" markets. It's all militaristic and linear. I'm guilty of using the same language and thinking the same way.
But the way people expect to be communicated with -- and WITH is the operative word here -- is different now. They don't want to be talked to, they want to be part of a conversation. You know that. I know you know that. But the steps we're taking to create that conversation are not good enough.
- You can't just have comments on your blog, you have to comment on THEIR blogs.
- You can't just ask people to email you with ideas, you have to respond to those emails.
- You can't just start a group in Facebook, and then only message at them.
Communications is more about listening than it is about talking -- and demographics and user surveys don't count as listening any more.
You need to go deeper. You need to listen harder. You need to add value to existing conversations as much or more than you try to start your own. You need to hear what people are asking for, and then help them get it. That's what community organizers do.
So let me ask you: do you really need your communications department?
Share with us in the comments (be sure to include your name), and we'll select a few of you to receive John's book!
I think that what Ben says is true with a caveat -- there needs to be at least one person who is responsible for ensuring that communication happens. Especially if your staff already has a huge amount to do, you can't expect them to be responsible for the organization's communications as well if it hasn't been part of the organization's culture previously. Those tasks will never become a priority. They don't generally demand attention unlike a client who unexpectedly shows up.
And this person who is responsible really needs to play the role of facilitator. I've now worked for two non-profits that haven't had communications departments when I started. Both organizations tried to get the message out and have a conversation with their supporters, but staff already had so much on their plate to do that it was hard for them to figure out which conversations were worth having and how to channel the good bits and pieces from what they were hearing into action. Once there was a person even marginally responsible for this role in the organizations, it was amazing how much better the conversations were. Those people were able to pick out good stories from within the organization that otherwise wouldn't have been brought to the forefront. They also could really listen to what supporters were saying and summarize for the rest of the organization or shout out when others needed to really pay attention to what was being said.
Hi Nancy - I agree, listening is not new, and good communications staff have been trying to be good listeners for a very long time.
> But the listening tools available to us pre-social media (surveys, focus groups, and of course, your results) were not very good. So I think that many of us have gotten used to half listening. We're not listening as well as these new tools allow us to. And yes, I totally think we need communications staff. I just thought that the Berkman Center model was really interesting. Essentially, they still have a communcations ddepartment, but it's renamed to give it a particular focus, which I appreciate.
> The points you make are spot on - I love the idea that everyone in the org is responsible for communicating in that they know the outline and can speak to it, rather than prattling off a scripted statement.
> I also want to note that I'm totally NOT trying to point any fingers. When I say that "we" have had a hard time ilstening, I absolutely mean me and NTEN as well. This stuff is hard to do right!
> Thanks so much for your smart and savvy comments. I wish I could get my thoughts out so succinctly!
Provocative post, Holly, at least for us communications folks. Thanks for getting the discussion started.
==>First thought is that a focus on listening isn't anything new. Nonprofit communicators have been concentrating on that for a least a decade now; social media tools just make it a whole lot easier.
==>That being said, there's value in folks who specialize in communications, and who have the skills specific to doing so. Just like every field, there's knowhow involved..in writing, design, partnering, and, before anything else, ID-ing the right strategies to meet communications goals (which need to be shaped by how communications can be put to work to meet org goals).
==>Ultimately, it's only when communications is put to work as a support mechanism, rather than a strategy, that its value is questionable.
==>On to messaging. Message development and graphic identity are two crucial ways for an organization to convey its identity (aka brand), including its promise (of the value it delivers) to its base. Not that everyone involved parrots the same script, but that programmatically speaking it's vital to have a clear org-wide understanding on what the org is trying to do, and a consistent way to express that focus.Again, that doesn't mean a script, it means an outline.
==>Know what I'm saying?
I love that list!
I should probably say that I am not trying to malign the communications department. Nor do I think that all organizations should get rid of their communications department. I just really think it's important for us to start thinking about what that department should do differently. New tools mean that we have new opportunitites to engage our audiences in ways we've always wanted to. It's going to take big bold steps to really take advantage of that.
I love this post, Holly! I think we've gradually seen a shift in the way we communicate and market. We started by talking AT people, like you pointed out. Then, a small improvement was to start talking WITH people. But we still weren't thinking much about listening.
The rise of social networking and social marketing has made LISTENING the thing that differentiates good marketers from bad ones. But of course the problem is that you have to actually WANT to listen to be a good listener.
If the job of your communications department is to "create messages" then axe 'em.
If the job of your communications department is to "ensure effective communications take place", then the yes, you do need a communications department because *this is exactly the type of question it is their job to answer*.
If you kill your communications department, you need to ensure that its (hopeful) functions are embedded into the individual, managerial and executive levels of the rest of the organization. That means everyone is paying attention to:
- Authenticity/Authority/Legitimacy (When does information become a contract?)
- Accuracy (Is information correct?)
- Relative Consistency (Diverse messaging means the opportunity to target niche audiences, it also can lead to confusion when different messages overlap)
- Comprehensiveness (If you have a necessary initiative that staff aren't jazzed about, will the word still get out?)
- Measurement and Evaluation (Is this communications strategy *actually* effective? What are our alternatives?)
- Training, policy-making, oversight, and accountability (Who gets a bonus... or falls on their sword?)
And even if you dissolve the communications department, someone forevermore must still be asking the question "Do we need a communications department?"