PR vs. Strategic Comms: Do You Need Volume or Clarity?

When an organisation faces negative publicity, stakeholder frustration, conflicting messages or reputational concerns, the instinctive response is often straightforward:

“We need PR.”

Sometimes that is exactly right. But sometimes the organisation does not have a PR problem at all.  It has a strategic communications problem.The distinction matters because the wrong diagnosis can produce more activity without identifying, addressing or aiming to resolve the underlying issue.

Start with the symptom but don’t stop there

Example – an organisation experiencing negative media coverage.

The immediate response might be to engage a PR agency, increase media engagement, issue statements, arrange interviews and generate positive stories. These actions may be useful.

But what if the negative coverage is being driven by a deeper problem?

• Employees are communicating contradictory information.
• Leadership is not aligned on the organisation’s position.
• Key stakeholders have not been engaged properly.
• The organisation’s positioning is unclear
• There is no agreed protocol for responding to emerging issues.
• The organisation has never developed a coherent stakeholder strategy.

In such circumstances, more PR activity may treat the symptom while leaving the cause untouched.

Ask a different question

Instead of asking:

“How do we get better publicity?”

Ask:

“WHY is this problem happening?”

That simple change in question can completely alter the communications response.

A strategic communications diagnosis would examine positioning, leadership alignment, stakeholder relationships, organisational structures, internal communications, policies, processes, capabilities and decision-making. The issue may turn out to be communications related. But it may also sit partly inside the organisation itself.

Activity can amplify a strategy. It cannot substitute for one.

This is one of the most important distinctions between tactical and strategic communications.

• • • • • • A campaign can amplify a message.
          • A media programme can increase visibility.
          • An event can create engagement.
          • A digital programme can extend reach.

But none of these automatically creates strategic clarity.

Outcome-Driven Communications

If the organisation does not know what it wants stakeholders to understand, believe, support or do, increasing the volume of communications will not necessarily improve the outcome.

In fact, it can sometimes make confusion more visible. And keep the organization busy but continuously running in circles.

Look inside the organisation

Strategic communication often requires looking beyond external communications.

STRUCTURE

• How is the communications function structured?
• Who advises leadership?
• Who owns stakeholder relationships?

• How are communications decisions made?
• Are there clear policies and processes?
• Does the team have the capabilities required for the organisation’s current level of complexity?
• Are internal and external messages aligned?

CAPABILITY

• Is there a crisis communications framework?
• Are leaders prepared to communicate during difficult situations?
• Are agencies and vendors working from a common strategic architecture?

ALIGNMENT

• Is there a coherent and integrated internal and external communications strategy that is aligned with business objectives and the organization’s strategic agenda for the current year and the next 5 years?
• Is communications regarded as an afterthought or a strategic lever for influence in the sector and in society?

These questions can reveal that what initially appeared to be a PR problem is a broader organisational communications challenge.

PR may still be part of the solution

This does not mean strategic communications replaces PR. PR can be an important component of a broader communications solution. The distinction is about where PR sits in the architecture.

A strategic communications approach might involve:

Diagnosis → Strategy → Architecture → Capability → Deployment

PR, media relations, campaigns, digital communications and other execution activities can then operate within that framework.

In other words, the question is not:

“PR or strategic communications?”

It is:

“What does the organisation actually need? And what role should PR play within that solution?”

The cost of getting the diagnosis wrong

The danger of treating every communications challenge as a PR problem is not simply financial.

• It can consume leadership attention.
• It can produce fragmented activity.
• It can create dependency on external vendors.
• It can exhaust communications teams.
• And most importantly, it can leave the underlying organisational problem unresolved.
• The organisation may become very good at communicating around the problem without actually addressing it.

Before commissioning another campaign

The next time a significant communications challenge emerges, pause before writing the brief.

Ask:

• What organisational problem are we trying to solve?
• What needs to change?
• Which stakeholders matter?
• What is preventing the desired outcome?
• Does the organisation have the structures and capabilities required?
• What role should communications play?

Those questions move the conversation from activity to strategy. And sometimes the most valuable communications intervention is not another campaign. It is diagnosing if/why the organisation needs one in the first place. And what it needs to do internally and externally to achieve the required objectives in tangible and real-life impact terms.

Sola Abulu & Associates is a strategy and communications consulting and training firm dedicated to enabling businesses and brands to achieve desired objectives through strategic communications, organizational effectiveness and reputation risk management.