△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

The IT take on corporate communications

I think I’ll write an article about router configuration. I know a tiny bit about routers, so I could probably sound a little like I know what I’m talking about. I’m a good enough writer that I could make it sound authoritative. Why not? Over at JupiterMedia’s Datamation website, IT writer Paul Chin has written an article about corporate communications. It’s superficial, misses key points that any entry-level communicator would catch, and paints a narrow picture of the process. If an IT person can write about corporate communications, I can write about IT.

Chin’s article is titled The Evolution of Corporate Communications, but it’s really just about the channels for delivering the communication. Even then, he talks about intranets, message boards, and email, not touching on print (it’s not dead, Paul), RSS, or other emerging media…not to mention face-to-face.

(By the way, isn’t media the plural of medium? When did it become okay to use mediums, which I would think you would find only at a convention for psychics?)

Missing from the article that purports to address corporate communications’ evolution are such trifling issues as measurement and outcomes. The article also seems to define corporate communications as employee-only.

I don’t know for sure that Paul Chin is an IT professional; the articles he’s written for Datamation contain no biographical information and Googling his name returned too many Paul Chins to sift through. The IT channel focus of the article leads me to believe he works in IT, though. The next time Datamation wants an article about communications, they might consider asking a communicator. It’s too bad the readers of this article will walk away with incomplete information.

01/09/06 | 7 Comments | The IT take on corporate communications

Comments

  • 1.Shel,
    Love your blog. While I don't disagree at all with the thrust of your post, I have to ask the question. Rather than just bash the article (which I don't deny needs some bashing) why don't you write "the" article on communications as it pertains to blogging (and intranets, etc.etc.). It's one of the most frustrating thing I find in blog posts (including my own often when I re-read them). Offer me something more than just the negative of the article - offer me what the point and/or theme should have been.
    Just my two cents - like I said - your blog in one I read often. Guess I'm just interested in getting to the answer of the questions "how is corporate communications evolving?"
    Ciao,
    mip

    mip | January 2006 | Toronto

  • 2.Shel,
    he is clearly an IT guy. And he clearly leaves out acres of content in his article. I bump into this daily when talking with IT folks about online mediarooms. They get bogged down in the method or the medium and pay little attention to the message.
    A typical call the other day went something like this. PR Guy has me on the phone with IT Guy. We're discussing that the company's new releases have to be sent out by fax, by email and by RSS and that all of these delivery methods should be "opt-in" by the end user. Like Chin, this guy says that we should just eliminate the email notification and go "all RSS". I point out that while that is a nifty idea in concept, the number don't prove it out quite yet. In the first month of having their mediaroom live, this company had over 1,300 subscribers sign up to receive news releases via email. They had about 10 subscribe to the RSS feed. The PR Guy finally spoke up (why PR pros are intimidated by IT pros I have no idea!) and says that his job requires him to get the news out to all of the audiences regardless of the method or medium. The IT guy finally shut up.

    Dee Rambeau | January 2006 | Denver, CO

  • 3.MIP, I agree with your general observation about bloggers tossing off criticism without offering up solutions of their own. However, in this case I've written extensively on this topic (including an entire book on modern corporate employee communications, not to mention every post on this site under the "internal" category), and one article won't cover the evolution of internal communications. My post was simply designed to point out something that irritates me in general: Non-communicators all think they know communication because, well, everybody communicates. But strategic corporate communication and phatic communication are dramatically different things, as the Chin article points out. My ultimate point: Let's engage communicators when we want to discuss strategic corporate communication! I don't think that's an invalid point to make in a blog post.

    I am definitely glad you love the blog, though; I've just discovered yours, which I'll start reading.

    Shel Holtz | January 2006 | Concord, CA

  • 4.Shel - thanks for the response. Again I agree with your point. I've spent most of my career bridging technology with the requirements/realities of business.

    As for my initial post, it raises the interesting aspect of how a single blog post can be taken out of context without a look at the other items a blogger might have written. Is there a reason you don't tag your posts using some category or is it becaue the theme of your blog is fairly narrow (which from the content I read it doesn't seem to be).

    Looking forward to reading the book you co-authored with Scoble (Naked Conversations) - I checked a couple of bookstores here in Toronto and they don't have any in stock yet.
    Ciao,
    mip

    mip | January 2006 | Toronto

  • 5.MIP, um, I'm Shel Holtz. The Scoble book was co-authored by Shel Israel. Shel and I know each other -- we've even had lunch together and, contrary to popular belief, when two Shels are in the same room, it does not create a tear in the space-time continuum. My book on blogging for business (titled, creatively, "Blogging for Business") was co-authored with Ted Demopoulos. Confusing, I know, but worth setting the record straight.

    Shel Holtz | January 2006 | Concord, CA

  • 6.Whoops. My goof. On the upside now I have another book to go out, purchase and read! I just phoned our local book seller here and they've indicated it is coming out in February. Will let you know what I think.

    mip | January 2006 | Toronto

  • 7.>>My post was simply designed to point out something that irritates me in general: Non-communicators all think they know communication because, well, everybody communicates.<<

    No less irritating than when the time I handled both ADV and PR accounts and had clients (obviously the obtuse ones) suggest their own creative concept or, worse, suggestions from their wives/mistresses/barbers, .etc, because they were so dang clever. Or the CEO of my last company, who admitted not knowing or really believing in marketing per se, espousing that we needed a campaign a brilliant as the "Wonder Bra," (I thought my agency rep was going to swallow his tongue trying to keep from busting into a hilarious uproar. <G>

    Alas, I think this is a cross we all are destined to bear.

    Craig Jolley | January 2006

Comment Form

« Back