5 Comments

Respectfully, I disagree with Ms. Lagalante's position that IC should be viewed through a "marketing lens." I've written a little bit about the differences between the professions. (After all, there's a reason why the two are separate college majors.) https://mistereditorial.substack.com/p/content-creation-internal-communications

Some of my thoughts from that article:

For internal communications, storytelling is supposed to support a business goal.

Sometimes that goal is to increase sales, but just as often it’s not directly about profit-making. For example, storytelling can support diversity and inclusion initiatives, philanthropic efforts, or cybersecurity awareness.

For marketing, storytelling’s ultimate goal is to sell a product or service. According to the Content Marketing Institute, content marketing is “a strategic marketing approach focused on creating and distributing valuable, relevant, and consistent content to attract and retain a clearly-defined audience — and, ultimately, to drive profitable customer action.”

...

Internal comms folks who genuinely love their job do so because they find meaning in helping their colleagues achieve something great, overcome a physical or psychological barrier, connect with each other, and ultimately build belief in the company they work for. They are people-driven.

There’s a certain nobility in the role. (Please, I don’t think this is god’s work.)

Not to say that content creators in the marketing department don’t find meaning in their work. But the ultimate goal of content marketing is not to build a belief in a higher cause; it’s to sell something for a profit. They are profit-driven.

Expand full comment
author

I totally understand where you're coming from, and I see it. What I don't agree with is that not every role isn't profit-driven. If you can't make a case for how your role doesn't influence profit, if not tangentially, it likely isn't a role that will last cost-cutting measures.

And, I've seen JD's/KPIs where IC is responsible for results like employee engagement, which leads to less turnover, which leads to cost savings - or, an increase in benefits being used (to maximize ROI on an investment). Sure, likely more akin to HR than external marketing, but in the end it's about using influence to inspire an action, right?

Expand full comment

Oh you're totally right. EVERY role should be tied to business outcomes. IC is no different, even if some of their metrics need to be triangulated.

Expand full comment

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Shaun! When I mentioned using a "marketer's lens" for internal comms, I was referring to the care given to these comms. Often, internal/HR comms are not given the attention that external comms/marketing receives. This includes a lack of branding, creativity, and measurement, all of which are imperative to ensure your employees receive and retain the intended message. As Clare mentioned, even if IC's main goal isn't to drive profit, it does help cut costs like employee turnover. Additionally, effective internal comms help create a great culture that empowers employees to do their best work, eventually leading to success for the company.

Expand full comment

Hi Kait! Indeed, as I argue in my mini-book, Communications As Craftsmanship, I call on comms pros to take their work as seriously as a craftsman does (attention to detail, love of work/outcome, etc.) Similar to how you perceive marketing (but we both know there is sloppy work coming out of both departments, even with fancy graphics budgets). Perhaps it's also relative to someone's experience. I've worked on comms teams that have dedicated artists (many big companies have such roles within comms), whereas in small companies IC is often a department of one, so those resources remain a dream.

Here's the book if you're interested: https://mistereditorial.substack.com/p/new-mini-book-communications-as-craftsmanship

And thanks for the back-and-forth!

Expand full comment