I’ve worked in communications for some ten years, and like you may expect with a description as broad as it is, it’s a buggery to work in and seems to mean everything and nothing to everyone.

In my experience it’s often described by way of channels. Communications to manage media. Communications to manage newsletters and brochures. Not by purpose or by its specific strategic impact.

The 34 page journal article by Kirk Hallahan (2007) among other researchers on this topic define strategic communications as the purposeful use of communication to fulfil an organisation’s mission. While providing a starting point, it leaves much ambiguity to navigate.

Is that communications by way of slogans for campaigns and collateral for brochures; or is that communications by way of media, events and speeches for executives; is that written communications with words, or also visual and multimedia communications with design work and video; or perhaps that’s a controversial email from an executive to their team or a letter template to reach out to a client.

Given all remain business functions that strategically serve the organisation’s need, it begs the question; When does a communication job start, and importantly, when does it stop.

Communications as a field

As a field, the discipline of media and communications stemmed from World War II with social psychologists, sociologists and political scientists throwing interest and heart behind the key issue of how political power was born and public attitudes formed.

The learnings behind how people reason, why we trust one figure over another, and where we throw our consumer or public allegiances, became of paramount interest to Governments and corporate America alike.

The American Government used these insights to influence voter preferences and pin communism against capitalist democracy. And corporate interests drew on the insights to garner further trust and loyalty from customers for stronger profits.

From here we see communications advisors pop up across organisations applying communication science insights to serve various business and government functions.

First there was media and public relations in the 1950’s, with the White House employing its first Press Secretary to navigate media briefings and queries. Then there was social marketing or communication of behaviour change (CBC) that developed from the 1980s to shift attitudes and behaviour in way of HIV through to tobacco use.

There there was the rise of internal communications in the 90s as business studies began to show the value of people, morale and retention. To the growth of strategic communications now across organisations to help businesses, governments and political bodies navigate the complex web of channels that help shape our understanding of issues, stakeholder influence and reputation.

Trends in intention and use

In this work, methods traditionally began with top down approach – PR spin at best, propaganda at worst – applying communication theory to shape public opinion. For whatever reason, possibly out of ethics, this then shifted towards a two way dialogue that was either designed to better understand and learn from audiences, to one that was about building a shared understanding.

Overall purpose

Either way, political bodies, organisations and companies sort to draw on communication theory and research to better meet their objectives, whether this be:

• Growing interest and understanding of complex or technical information;
• Preserving trust and shaping attitudes towards your business or line of work; and
• Being one instrument, and a times a very important instrument, to help influence behaviour, whether that be of consumers, clients, donors or public alike.

When to get Strategic Communications advice and expertise involved

We all manage communications each and every day. We can all write, prepare emails, and offer comment to the journalists’ question when it comes our way.

Often I see an executive or board consider communications expertise when they have more work in that space than they can manage. More emails, opinion pieces or speeches to deliver than they would like to spend time on.

Or more tactical work than they wish to spend time managing – ensuring the website is up to date, the newsletter sent, the annual report prepared and the brochures delivered. Tactical work to tick off knowing that it’s what others do and likely an expectation for us too.

The question to ask is – when can a message not afford to be mucked up. When do attitudes in an organisation or community need to change – and you’re not sure you have the expertise to do so.

It’s likely that while some of us have an incredible knack for communication and sharing an idea in its essence and most compelling manner possible, much of it isn’t common sense, and much of it goes against our rational intentions. Much of it is complex to navigate and manage when under pressure.

Getting someone to help you navigate the theories, navigate the complex web of channels and build a message that plants in minds and grows in reach. And can measure this process and impact all the while, is gold. That is what you should look for in communications. And that is when you want a professional involved.

Not a tactic to tick off, or a channel to update. Both those are administrative duties that benefits from a good writer or editor, not a communications professional.