Having a high-profile spokesperson is generally regarded as an advantage. A well-known figure who is able to handle the media, take part in forums, generate discussion on social media or represent the company to various stakeholders seems, at first glance, to be an undeniable asset.
But visibility, on its own, does not generate influence. Nor does it necessarily build a reputation.
When a spokesperson appears in public without a corporate framework for their discourse that lends meaning, coherence and continuity to their statements, the organisation does not gain a stronger position: it gains exposure. This exposure is difficult to control and can fragment the narrative, create false expectations or lead to the spokesperson’s personal views being confused with the company’s official stance.
The problem isn’t talking too much. It’s talking without a framework.
A good communicator is not always a good spokesperson
There is a certain tendency to choose spokespersons based, above all, on their communication skills. It is valued that they speak fluently, come across as approachable, have a commanding presence, are able to react quickly, and feel at ease in front of a camera. And whilst all these qualities are indeed important, they are not enough.
A corporate spokesperson does not speak solely on their own behalf. Every word, silence, example or assessment helps to shape the public perception of the organisation they represent. For this reason, their role is not merely to communicate effectively, but to convey a corporate position credibly and consistently.
This is an important distinction. A person may deliver a presentation that is brilliant from a formal point of view, yet contribute very little to the company’s strategic objectives.
They may respond confidently, but end up making statements that were not planned. They may generate headlines, but on issues that should not be prioritised. They may come across as approachable, but project a different vision to that of the organisation’s other spokespersons. They may even achieve significant personal exposure without bolstering the company’s reputation.
Because communicating effectively isn’t just about grabbing people’s attention. It’s about directing that attention to the right place.
The framework turns an intervention into positioning
Having said all that, a corporate communication framework is not a list of phrases that the spokesperson must memorise, nor is it a set script designed to restrict their spontaneity.
It is a shared framework that sets out the organisation’s stance, the issues it wishes to champion, the values that should underpin its messages, and the boundaries that should not be crossed.
This framework must be common to the entire organisation and must address a number of fundamental questions: On which issues do we want to have a recognisable voice? What do we want people to think of the company after each communication? Which messages should remain consistent regardless of the channel or the audience? Who should speak on each issue?
When there is no clear answer to these questions, every public appearance becomes an isolated event that may work on its own, but is unlikely to help build a recognisable narrative in the long term.
This framework allows an interview, a conference, an institutional meeting or a LinkedIn post to all form part of the same direction. Formats may change; the organisation’s stance must remain the same.
The risk of having as many voices as there are spokespersons
The larger a company is, the more difficult it is to maintain consistency in its messaging. Senior management, business leaders, technical staff and in-house experts may all act as spokespersons at different times and before very different audiences.
This diversity can be a strength. It allows for the incorporation of specialist knowledge, helps to humanise the organisation and enables messages to be tailored to each context. However, it can also result in the company projecting as many different identities as there are people speaking on its behalf.
Risk does not always take the form of an obvious contradiction. Sometimes it manifests itself in a more subtle way: differing priorities, nuances that are difficult to reconcile, promises that are hard to keep, or differing interpretations of the same issue… in other words, the problem arises when we look at the various actions as a whole and realise that they do not form a coherent picture.
Greater visibility, a greater need for control
We must also bear in mind the current communications landscape, in which statements do not simply disappear once an interview has ended or an event has concluded. They are shared, edited, reinterpreted and may resurface some time later out of their original context.
Furthermore, the role of spokesperson is no longer limited to formal appearances. A comment on social media, an off-the-cuff reply during a meeting or a reflection posted on a personal profile may be interpreted as representing the organisation’s position.
That is why the greater a spokesperson’s visibility, the greater the potential for any inconsistency to be blown out of proportion.
Technical preparation helps you to handle a challenging interview, answer difficult questions or improve your verbal and non-verbal communication. But it does not resolve a fundamental question: what position should you take and why?
Without that definition, the technique can ensure that the wrong message is conveyed with great effectiveness.
Shaping the discourse does not mean everyone saying the same thing
Having a corporate framework does not mean that all spokespersons must speak in the same way or repeat messages as if they were reciting a script. Credibility also depends on each person retaining their own voice, their own experience and their own way of connecting with others. In other words, it is about striking a balance between consistency and authenticity.
To achieve this, the organisation must be clear about who is authorised to speak, on what issues and to which audiences, as well as defining a set of priority messages and red lines to guide statements without restricting them.
Within this framework, each spokesperson can use their own language, draw on examples from their own experience and adapt the message to each situation. The framework does not stifle individuality; it simply provides a direction.
First the framework, then the training
Having said all that, it is important to emphasise the importance of training spokespersons, as this helps them to communicate more clearly, gain confidence, summarise ideas and respond more effectively in challenging situations. However, this must be based on a well-defined communication strategy.
Before practising how to respond, it is a good idea to decide what position we want to defend. Before practising headlines, we need to know which ideas we want to use as key points. And before raising an executive’s profile, it is important to understand what role they should play within the company’s narrative.
As we explained in our article on the spokesperson as a strategic asset, their value is not measured solely by their ability to appear in the media, but by their contribution to the organisation’s reputation, influence and business objectives.
Companies don’t just need people who can speak well. They need spokespersons who know what they stand for every time they speak.