Hi Susan,
Thanks so much for the excellent and thoughtful comment. What i was trying to say (maybe didnt get the full point across) was that i think elements of the Paseo approach are great but did not really agree with how much it focused on pitting the approach against "PR" or corporate comms. Related to this, i think we are doing whole lot more than corporate communication much of this already doing alot of what the Paseo approach outlines.
In regards to corporate communication/PR, i still think this is an important area of work for center level communications. However, there area we need to better define in the CG centers with PR and corporate communication is how to move beyond branding to real marketing and campaigning. Like you say this can be integrated into the 'strategic level communication' from the start.
I also agree with you that we should see all types of communication-knowledge management approaches as necessary and needed within the bag of tricks that we use. We work in multiple levels and contexts. Corporate communication is still essential at hte program and organizational level. At the project and regional level we need to mechanisms.
I was just talking with Neil Palmer about exciting new ways to tell stories using photos and film and how to link this into communication within the projects themselves.
However, alot of good science communication, story telling, corproate campaigning takes a different approach from what many of our researchers and managers are used to. It takes creativity, playfullness and some risk-taking which i think it still not well appreciated. Until we can unleash this creativity, i think we will stay behind other research leaders (IIED, ODI, WRI) in how use communication at different levels.
Just some thoughts and again, thanks susan for the wonderful response.
Hi Susan,
Thanks so much for the excellent and thoughtful comment. What i was trying to say (maybe didnt get the full point across) was that i think elements of the Paseo approach are great but did not really agree with how much it focused on pitting the approach against "PR" or corporate comms. Related to this, i think we are doing whole lot more than corporate communication much of this already doing alot of what the Paseo approach outlines.
In regards to corporate communication/PR, i still think this is an important area of work for center level communications. However, there area we need to better define in the CG centers with PR and corporate communication is how to move beyond branding to real marketing and campaigning. Like you say this can be integrated into the 'strategic level communication' from the start.
I also agree with you that we should see all types of communication-knowledge management approaches as necessary and needed within the bag of tricks that we use. We work in multiple levels and contexts. Corporate communication is still essential at hte program and organizational level. At the project and regional level we need to mechanisms.
I was just talking with Neil Palmer about exciting new ways to tell stories using photos and film and how to link this into communication within the projects themselves.
However, alot of good science communication, story telling, corproate campaigning takes a different approach from what many of our researchers and managers are used to. It takes creativity, playfullness and some risk-taking which i think it still not well appreciated. Until we can unleash this creativity, i think we will stay behind other research leaders (IIED, ODI, WRI) in how use communication at different levels.
Just some thoughts and again, thanks susan for the wonderful response.
best, michael