How is corporate communication different from Persuasion, rhetoric or spin?

By Bihongoye Erica

In trying to define corporate communication it would be disingenuous not to consider the view it is all about using communication to win arguments, by persuading as many people as possible to support (or, at very least, not object to the activities of) an organization, to buy products, use services or support political parties and ideologies (among other things). Indeed ‘advocate’ or ‘engineer of public opinions’ was one of the top three terms identified as best describe the corporate communication function.

 Some see corporate communication as mechanism for negotiating with stakeholders to achieve a situation that benefit both parties, thus creating a ‘win-win zone’. These people (Grunig et al. 2002) define Corporate Communication as a mechanism for advocating an organization’s position and increasing its influence/power/profitability. Miller for example regards persuasion and PR as “two peas in a pod”. (in Botan Hazelton, 1989, p.46)

Rather than seeing this as a criticism of PR, however he sees the impulse to persuade as a natural part of the human condition. For example children soon learn that “pretty please and a winsome smile will achieve more than a tantrum. They spend much of their time trying to perfect ever-more effective techniques designed to persuade parents to give them things and friends to share things with them.

Well, all expect friends, colleagues, businesses, government, political parties and charities to attempt to persuade us to accept their positions every day. Whenever control of the environment hinges on the attitude and behaviours of others, attempt to control those attitudes and behaviours are inevitable. Miller argues then that persuasion is amoral.