A company communicates on an ad hoc basis when its messages are driven by urgent matters, trends, one-off opportunities or personal decisions, rather than by a defined strategy. If priorities are constantly changing, every new development becomes news, or each channel projects a different image of the company, there is likely to be a problem with reactive communication within the organisation.
The problem is not reacting. All organisations must respond to what is happening around them. The problem arises when there are no pre-established criteria to determine what is worth reacting to, with what message, and to achieve what objective.
Is everything that happens within the company worth communicating?
If you ask yourself this question every time something happens within the organisation, it may be that the activity is taking precedence over sound judgement in communication.
A new hire, an agreement, an accolade, participation in an event or the launch of a service may be important for the company. But just because something is relevant internally does not mean it will be of interest to journalists, customers, investors, employees or potential candidates.
When communication is reactive, the first question is usually: ‘How do we tell this story?’. In criteria-driven communication, other questions are raised first:
- Why do we want to share this?
- Who does it add value for?
- What impression of the company does this reinforce?
- Does it fit with the brand positioning we’re building?
- Is this the right time?
Strategic communication requires making choices. It is not about systematically publicising the company’s activities, but about identifying which events help to build a recognisable narrative.
Priorities that change with each new topic
All of these positions may be legitimate. The problem is that no one has explained the relationship between them, or which one actually represents the company’s stance.
When priorities change in line with current events, the competition or the latest management meeting, the company is not adapting its strategy. It is constantly replacing it.
A communication strategy should not prevent a swift response. On the contrary, it should facilitate one. Its purpose is to provide a framework for decision-making:
- which conversations are relevant to the organisation;
- from which position can one take part;
- which messages it should retain;
- which opportunities it is best to let pass.
Agility is a skill. Constant improvisation is a shortcoming.
When every channel seems to be talking about a different company
Imagine this scenario in a company. The website presents the company as a specialist in innovation. On LinkedIn, the focus is on culture and talent. Press releases mainly discuss the product. Meanwhile, internal communications convey priorities that are barely visible to the outside world. None of these messages is necessarily wrong. The problem is that, taken together, they do not paint a clear picture.
Each channel has its own distinct language, audience and purpose. Consistency does not mean posting exactly the same content on all of them. It means that the company’s various communications must stem from the same perspective and reinforce one another.
When there is no common approach, each department ends up communicating according to its own needs. Marketing prioritises campaigns; Human Resources, recruitment and company culture; the sales team, the product; and senior management, those matters it considers urgent at any given time.
The result may be communication that is formally correct but strategically fragmented. Content, publications and media appearances are produced, yet a recognisable perception of the organisation fails to take shape.
The question is not so much whether all the channels say the same thing, but whether they all help to explain the same company.
The company that only gets in touch when it needs something
There are companies that remain silent for months and only start communicating when they want to launch a product, attract candidates, improve their visibility, respond to an adverse situation or drive a business need.
This is a common sign of transactional communication: the organisation only engages with its audiences when it expects to gain something from them.
The problem is that reputation, trust and legitimacy cannot be improvised when the need arises. They are the result of a consistent and sustained presence over time. This does not mean that a company must post constantly or be active on every channel, but rather that it must develop its own voice, share knowledge, explain its decisions and participate in relevant conversations before it needs attention.
This principle is particularly important in media relations. A relationship based solely on sending out the occasional press release limits the company’s ability to become a recognised, useful and reliable source.
Decisions are justified on the basis of personal tastes, hierarchies or imitation
I’m sure some of these phrases will sound familiar to you:
“I prefer this headline.”
“We need to be part of this network.”
“The competition has published something similar.”
“The CEO wants us to announce it.”
Personal preferences, internal hierarchies or competitors’ moves do not, in themselves, constitute a strategic criterion. A communication decision should be linked to an objective, a target audience and a perception that the company needs to build.
When such a framework is lacking, discussions tend to focus on tactical aspects: the headline, the format, the channel, the date or the frequency of publication. There is a great deal of talk about how to communicate, but very little about the position one wishes to occupy.
Communicating thoughtfully does not mean failing to react
Recognising any of these signs does not mean that all of the company’s communication is flawed. This reaction tends to take hold gradually, particularly when day-to-day pressure increases, numerous departments are involved, or the organisation grows without reviewing who decides on the messages and according to what criteria.
Nor does the solution lie in creating a more rigid timetable or a procedure for every possible situation. It lies in establishing a decision-making framework: priorities, areas of discussion, target audiences, key messages and clear responsibilities. This distinction between framework and implementation is also explored in ‘Strategic communication vs. tactical communication’.
Within this framework, the company can respond to current events without changing its identity, capitalise on opportunities without chasing every trend, and adapt its messaging without undermining its positioning.
So, ultimately, the key question is not whether your company communicates a lot or a little. Nor is it whether it publishes often enough. The question is who actually makes the communication decisions. If they are based on a strategy, there is a clear approach. If they are driven by the urgency of the day, there is a reactive approach. Both ways of working can lead to very different perceptions in the long term.
As we explain here – and we recommend you read it – communication is a management function. It is not simply a department that carries out requests, but a function that helps to determine how the company should present itself to its audiences.