Lilleker, Darren

English

Bournemouth University Research Online

European Communications SummitDr D. G. Lilleker (Bournemouth University)Corporate and Political spheres: similarities and differencesCorporations are defined as groups of people authorised to act as an individual; essentially acorporation is a body of people acting as one[i]. Corporations were “first chartered in the publicinterest to meet a public need, to provide a public service. They were seen as extensions of thegovernment”… doing public business[ii].The requirement to balance out service and profit-making can lead to less than ethical strategicdecisions, particularly in the realm of communication (sales, marketing and public relations) inorder to sell products. However most recent studies of ethics in advertising, marketing and publicrelations talk of a fine line that is accepted by corporations, the media and consumers.Exaggerated claims are accepted, but with the proviso that no-one is harmed as a result ofbelieving advertiser’s claims; fundamental honesty is however demanded to maintain trustbetween consumer and the organisation. It is argued that such acceptance is on the decrease, theshort term gains of the hard sell has wholesale negative associations among the majority ofconsumers. Hence, much current thinking focuses on the notion of the corporation as relationshipbuilder and maintainer.This evolving relationship between the corporate sphere and the increasingly unmanageableconsumer means that ethical behaviour, social responsibility and honest, open communicationbecomes a fundamental part of corporate strategy in order to build and maintain relationships withconsumers and establish loyalty. Thus while profit may underpin the aims of a corporation, themethods used to gain that profit can be the provision of a product that meets public needs anddesires and about which communication is ethical and sustainable. Corporate communication isthe projection of a consistent, and perhaps positive, image of the organisation, its products andservices, its body of people, members, executive, across multiple audiences at one singlemoment[iii].Political organisations do not differ significantly from the bodies corporate. While they may notprovide the product, they set the framework for the allocation of resources and power within acommunity; this is the fundamental nature of the political offering. Equally, political organisationstend to work under similar constraints to their corporate counterparts, increased disloyalty andunmanageable consumers who are hard to reach due to fragmentation of the media and apostmodern approach to media usage. These factors, coupled with the competitive nature ofpolitics (electoral and cause) and the competitive nature of the relationship between politics andthe media, leads to greater use of corporate communication strategies (advertising and publicrelations). The goal is, as with their corporate counterparts) to gain profit – if we can elide theconcept of profit with electoral or donative support; but the earning of profit rests upon gainingand keeping public trust. Some, such as Kevin Moloney, Bob Franklin and others argue from ahighly idealistic perspective that there are vast differences between political and corporateorganisations; however, in practice, there is significant elision between their aims and objectives,the context in which they operate and the resultant communication strategies.There are key differences however; perhaps the most significant are not in terms of organisationalbehaviour or communication but in public expectations. While a high street brand can be excusedfor misleading advertising, providing the ramifications are minor; a political party is not excusedfor using spin. The representative function of parties and pressure groups within a democraticpluralist society appears to place pressure on political organisations to be honest and open toscrutiny from the media and the public; the same is not true to the same extent for corporatebrands. This places significant pressure upon the communication professionals that operate withinthe political sphere.Identity, both corporate and political, has come to the fore in recent years. In particular theimportance of the narrative (story) which enables either type of organisation to position itself in anera where ideologies and meta-narratives seem passé[iv]. suggest five types of identity, thenarrative covering three: professed (what the organisation claims as identity); projected (how itvoices identity); and manifested (the organisations’ history). While history can be perceived asmuch as it is controlled; these three elements can be determined by the organisation. Parties andindividuals position themselves ideologically and personally, defining themselves within thesociety they seek to represent; they will determine how to communicate these elements across themedia mix; also they will choose how to invoke history both in terms of accepting and rejectingparts of their own and the organisation’s past in a process of both deification and rehabilitation[v].Such narratives if built carefully and accepted and promoted via independent mass media can bepowerful tools of political communication[vi].The problems for political organisations lie in other two types of identity: experience andattributed identity, something that contrasts them with their corporate counterparts. The keychallenge for political organisations is bridging the identity gap created by a lack of directexperience with the brand. While members and activists may have experienced the brand’sidentity, for the rest of the population experience of political products is indirect and assumed, ifnot attributed by the mass media. Therefore identity is attributed from perceptions built from thirdparty commentaries, often mediated, and preconceptions based on performance character.Perceptions of parties can be built from media appearances by the leader; in contrast a bank,supermarket or even online insurance agent can offer a tangible experience to its customers. Itappears then that a clear challenge for professionals in political communication, particularly at thegovernment or supra-national level is translating political actions (policy) into tangibleexperiences that audiences can see and feel. But is that possible?What is required is a clear linear connection between the narrative as developed over time, oftenthrough marketing and public relations campaigns, and the provision of services to the individualand their community. The separation between a government or supranational political body, whosets the parameters for the allocation of power and resources, and the bodies that then provide theservices can lead to confusion over the role of the overarching body. Successes can be attributedto the local provider; failure linked to the larger body. This is particularly the case in thecompetitive environment of politics. A major problem for a party in government is the criticismthey face within political systems built around opposition. While opposition is necessary to ensurechecks and balances, too much opposition leads to mistrust in a system of yah-boo politics.Electoral politics needs marketing! Oppositionalism can creates mistrust, but it is the perceptionof non-accountability that often appears to be key to the entrenched mistrust that exists in manyWestern democratic societies. Politicians fight amongst themselves but have little interaction withthe public; the media assume the role of hectoring watchdogs, digging the dirt on all sides; thepublic become spectators of the process.Corporate organisations have a clear message, they have competitors but not ones who challengetheir claims directly; thus there is a clear linear process between brand, message and product. Ifsatisfaction is created, so is trust. The fractured route political communication takes, and the lackof clear connection between the narrative and experience, leads to the creation of an attributedidentity, one led by negative perceptions offered by oppositionalist reportage and separatingpolitical organisations further from their public. This is the challenge, can it be met?The direction some academics[vii], and it seems many political organisations, are looking towardsis that offered by Information and Communication Technology (ICT). The solution to thedisconnection between society and its elected representatives, and actual and attributed identity, isfor greater interaction to take place[viii]. Given that ICT and in particular Web 2.0 offers thepotential for that interactivity it is unsurprising that candidates for election are exploiting socialnetworks, weblogs, websites, email and e-newsletters and even Second Life[ix]. But studies findthat the current online offerings are more about shaping perceptions and attributed identity[x], soappearing to interact, than actual interaction and, where interaction does take place, it is morelikely to be during a campaign than a term of office. Thus a gap exists for political organisationsthat is not a problem for most corporations; the lack of direct experience with the brand and itsproducts means that narratives become all important but the narrative must be shared more widelyand inclusively with society; the big question is how possible this is?------------------------------------[i] Christensen et al, (2008), Corporate Communication, London: Sage, p. 8[ii] R. Estes (1996) Tyranny of the bottom line: Why corporations make good people do bad things. San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler, p. x[iii] Cornelissen, (2004)[iv] B. Moingeon and G. Soenen (2002) Corporate and Organisational Identities: Integrating Strategy,Communication and Organisational Perspectives, London: Routledge, p. 17[v] On this point parties which rebrand as ‘New’ as in the UKs New Labour or alter their image such as many leftistparties, or develop a personal history such as French presidential candidate Segolene Royal[vi] There is little work on the power of the narrative in political communication but on broader brands see the workof Phillip Pullman[vii] In particular the work of Professor Stephen Coleman.[viii] G. Stoker (2006) Why Politics Matters, Basingstoke: Palgrave.[ix] The use of ICT during election has been mapped see D G Lilleker & N Jackson, Mapping the new politicalcommunication arena, forthcoming 2008/9.[x] In the UK alone, even the use of social networks focus mainly on top-down communication, see D G Lilleker & NJackson, Bandwagon or Revolution, paper presented to the Web 2.0 political communication strand, 17 April 2008.Publication to follow.

Corporate and Political spheres: similarities and differences

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Bournemouth University Research Online