Some campaigns fail because they fail to find the right message. Some campaigns succeed because they get the tone, the timing and the right approach just right. And then there are campaigns that fail for a reason that is harder to pinpoint: what they choose not to say.

At comma, we are convinced that communicating is power. The power to construct narratives, to raise awareness, to preserve memory and to decide who takes centre stage in a public conversation.

The latest campaign by Madrid City Council to mark Pride 2026 is based on a slogan that appears to be friendly. “Diversity is lived in Madrid”. It sounds positive, inclusive and easy to accept. Perhaps that’s why it’s worth looking at it with a bit more attention. Who experiences that diversity. Who represents it. Who appears in the story.

Because on the posters we don’t see any LGTBIQ+ people from Madrid. We see balconies, flowers, shops, terraces, colours and scenes from everyday life in the city. We see Madrid. But we don’t see those who have made Pride a collective achievement, a public presence and a shared memory.

This shift and this absence are no small matter. The campaign positions Madrid as the centrepiece of Pride, whilst LGBTIQ+ people are reduced to an implicit presence, suggested merely through the colours of the rainbow flag. The result is a visually appealing but politically incomplete message.

In communication, these omissions also convey a message.

When absence also conveys a message

Pride did not begin as a friendly celebration of diversity in cities. It began as a response to persecution, silence and invisibility. It began as a way of claiming public space at a time when many people were being excluded from it. It began to give a name, a face and a voice to those who had been forced to live on the margins.

That is why promoting Pride requires more than simply using that rainbow colour scheme, which has been so overused and trivialised by the mass media. It requires an understanding of what it stands for. We are not just talking about an inclusive campaign or a positive image for the city. We are talking about a collective memory built on a spirit of advocacy.

The slogan “Diversity is lived in Madrid” can be seen as an invitation to normalise diversity in everyday life. And that idea is valuable. Diversity should not exist for just one week, nor should it be confined to high-profile moments. It should be part of everyday life, of neighbourhoods, of homes, of workplaces and of shared spaces.

The problem arises when that standardisation is communicated without subjects. When diversity becomes part of the urban atmosphere, but not in human presence. When we talk about a diverse city, but not of the diverse people who live there.

Madrid is no minor player in this story. Its Pride is one of the major international events, one of the most well-attended gatherings in Europe and a space where celebration, activism, tourism, culture, the economy and rights coexist. Precisely for this reason, institutional communication surrounding Pride carries a greater responsibility than perhaps any other. It cannot be treated merely as a city asset or a tourism brand. Nor can it be seen simply as a pretty postcard depicting Madrid’s spirit of togetherness.

Pride is a celebration, yes. But it’s not just that. It is also remembrance, protest, reparation and presence.

When Madrid takes up the whole frame

Every institutional campaign chooses a central figure. In this case, the spotlight seems to be solely on… Madrid. Its balconies, its terraces, its shops, its colours. Its sense of community. Diversity emerges as a defining feature of the city, almost like a brand attribute. Madrid is open. Madrid is welcoming. Madrid is diverse.

None of that need be problematic in itself. The tricky part is that, by placing the city at the centre, the campaign runs the risk of appropriating a history that did not originate in institutions, but on the streets. Pride does not exist simply because a city is diverse. It exists because there were people who had to publicly assert their right to be so.

Therein lies one of the most interesting tensions in the field of communication. An institution can celebrate diversity, but it must do so without marginalising those who brought it to light. It can champion an open city, but it should not reduce the LGBTIQ+ community to a mere backdrop. It can talk about coexistence, but without erasing the conflict that made that coexistence necessary.

The campaign aims to convey that diversity is part of everyday life in Madrid. But by avoiding faces, bodies, names or explicit references to the community, it leaves a question unanswered. Are we talking about diversity, or are we using diversity as a way of talking about Madrid?

When the representation is not an ornament

In corporate communication and institutional communication, we talk a great deal about representation. Sometimes it seems like an overused term. But cases like this remind us why it still matters.

To represent does not mean to place symbols in a generic manner. To represent is to decide who appears, who speaks, who occupies the centre of the story and who is left in the background. In a campaign on LGTBIQ+ diversity, the absence of people from the community is not a neutral decision. It can be interpreted as a way of universalising the message, but also as a way of neutralising its political agenda.

Institutions need to address a wide audience. They must craft inclusive messages. They must ensure that public communication does not become a source of exclusion. But inclusivity must not mean blurring the lines. And toning down a message should not mean stripping it of its history.

When a Pride campaign replaces people with objects, it runs the risk of shifting the focus from rights to decoration. From memory to aesthetics. From advocacy to a postcard.

When we run the risk of turning diversity into a mere backdrop

One of the major challenges facing communication today is to prevent social causes from becoming empty visual codes. This happens with sustainability, equality, diversity and in any area where symbols carry reputational value.

The rainbow, like any symbol that is powerful, can mean many things. It can be a flag of struggle, a gesture of support, a symbol of belonging or a visual device. The difference lies in the context, the intention and the consistency.

In this campaign, the colours are there. So is the urban setting. But the community seems to be diluted into an abstract idea of the city. Diversity is presented as something that Madrid embodies, rather than as something that LGBTIQ+ people have championed, fought for and upheld for decades.

Communication does not just shape our image. It also shapes our memory. It determines what we remember, how we remember it, and whom we recognise as the protagonist of a story.

When we realise that memory also communicates

At a time when many social achievements seem to be firmly established, there is a risk of presenting rights as though they had come about of their own accord. As though equality were a natural evolution of societies rather than the result of decades of mobilisation, organisation and conflict.

But rights are not merely institutional window dressing. They are hard-won achievements. And every achievement has names, bodies, voices and memories.

Pride came about precisely so that LGBTIQ+ people would not be silenced or rendered invisible. That is why any campaign that aims to represent it should ask itself a simple question. Is it raising awareness, or is it replacing that awareness with a feel-good metaphor? Is it commemorating the struggle, or merely celebrating its outcome? Is it talking about diversity, or is it avoiding any mention of those who made it possible? Memory does not preserve itself. It is shared. And when it is not shared, it weakens.

When we can celebrate without holding back

Institutions find themselves in a complex (and sometimes even delicate) position when faced with movements that arise from social demands. When they incorporate these movements into their communications, they can help to normalise rights, broaden support and project an image of a more open city. But they may also be tempted to neutralise the conflict in order to make it more palatable, more aesthetically pleasing or easier to share.

The challenge lies in striking a balance between celebration and advocacy. Between a sense of belonging and remembrance. Between pride in the city and pride in the community.

Madrid can celebrate the fact that diversity is part of its everyday life. It must do so. But that idea gains strength when it acknowledges those who made it possible for that diversity to be experienced freely. Without that acknowledgement, the campaign remains a correct but incomplete statement.

Communicating Pride isn’t just about saying that Madrid is diverse. It’s about explaining why it can be so – and thanks to whom.

When we learn to recognise who not to delete

Every institutional campaign makes choices. It chooses images, words, symbols, approaches and what it leaves unsaid. Much of its credibility hinges on those choices.

The controversy surrounding the 2026 Pride campaign should not be limited to whether people like the posters or not. What happens when a public message tries to be so universal that it loses its connection to its origins? What happens when a cause becomes merely a matter of aesthetics? What happens when a city takes centre stage in a story that was created to raise the profile of a community?

Pride does not need to be expressed in a strident manner to be a statement of defiance. But neither can it be expressed with absolute neutrality without losing some of its meaning.

In communication, it is not enough simply to be on the right side of the values. You have to know how to represent them well. And representing them well involves something as simple and yet as difficult as not erasing those who gave meaning to that narrative.

Madrid City Council should learn a lesson from this campaign. After all, Pride wasn’t created to decorate the city. It was created to take it over.

La entrada When Pride is left without people: the campaign by the Madrid City Council and the power of what is not said se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

I’m going to tell you what this article actually is: a post about how to ruin a 26-year-old reputation (both personal and corporate) in 26 minutes. A post about how to lose control by giving in to improvisation and emotions, ultimately turning a public appearance into a real battleground. And, although moral lessons are usually left until the end, I’ll give you a spoiler right now: any spokesperson must prepare and carefully consider every statement in detail, and have the tools to maintain control (or regain it if they’ve lost it). Otherwise, their image will be in tatters, directly impacting the corporate reputation.

A corporate reputation is built slowly (very slowly), over years and decades, through strategic decisions and, above all, leadership based on credibility and consistency, but it can be destroyed in an instant: a single public statement made without an awareness of the role you represent and without proper preparation is enough to jeopardise decades of reputational capital. And, I think we can all agree, the press conference on 12 May by Florentino Pérez, the (still) president of Real Madrid, is an extraordinary example of this.

So, let’s take a look at the three key points that stood out during this press conference and the lessons we can learn from each of them.

When the spokesperson ceases to represent the institution

One of the basic principles of spokesperson training is that anyone speaking in public must be clear that they represent an organisation, its corporate culture and values, and that they represent these above and beyond themselves. In other words, above and beyond the spokesperson themselves. Spokesperson roles are individual, yes, but above all, they are institutional.

However, for much of the press conference, Florentino Pérez moved away from institutional matters and onto a personal level: the press conference ceased to be a corporate explanation of the club’s future and instead became a response to personal rumours, media criticism and conflicts external to the club he represents. And this loss of control had a direct impact in three areas: firstly, on the message, which ceased to be perceived as leadership and began to be perceived as a reaction; secondly, on the image of the executive himself; and thirdly, on the image of the company itself.

And that was exactly what happened.

The five lessons learnt:

1. Don’t speak without training first
2. Don’t lose sight of the main message
3. Don’t improvise
4. Don’t talk more than necessary
5. Don’t overlook non-verbal communication

The most dangerous mistake: speaking from a place of hurt

Let us always remember that the spokesperson’s emotional tone has as much, if not more, influence than the content of the message. This aspect marks a critical juncture in any public appearance: when the spokesperson ceases to steer and lead the conversation and begins to react to it and defend themselves personally.

In spokesperson training, there is one essential rule: you should never make a public statement driven by an emotional need for vindication or to settle scores, because when a spokesperson feels the need to deny something, explain themselves or seek revenge in public, they lose emotional control and their ability to exercise strategic control.

Corporate communication is not about winning debates or arguments. It is about leadership, and about demonstrating authority with confidence and transparency.

For this reason, one of the most sensitive aspects of the press conference was the constant personalisation of the conflict: naming journalists, accusing specific media outlets of orchestrating campaigns, or even using hyperbolic expressions such as “they’ll have to shoot me to get me out” are attitudes and elements that automatically shift the focus away from the institutional message and turn it into a personal conflict. And, in terms of reputation, this comes at a huge cost because the audience expects a calm, composed and controlled spokesperson who leads their statement with proportionality and reasoned arguments, especially in high-pressure situations. The spokesperson may be fundamentally right, but completely lose public support because of the manner in which they present their case, and that is one of the greatest risks in institutional communication: confusing firmness with aggression.

The five lessons learnt:

1. Do not get drawn into emotional arguments: do not react impulsively or speak out of anger
2. Do not use sarcasm or irony, nor display arrogance
3. Do not use a constantly defensive tone or threats
4. Confusing firmness with aggressiveness
5. Do not turn an official appearance into a settling of scores, nor adopt a victim mentality

When the spokesperson becomes the subject of the news

There is another fundamental rule regarding the role of the spokespersons in the field of corporate communication: the focus of the statement should never be the spokesperson. The protagonist should be the message, and the spokesperson, its messenger.

However, by the end of the press conference, the public debate was no longer centred on the elections at Real Madrid nor on the management of the club, but rather it centred exclusively on Florentino Pérez, his clashes with the press and the tone of his statements.

The ruling is clear from the perspective we are analysing: this shift in focus is one of the main indicators of communication failure. Because when public discourse strays from the strategic objective of the statement and focuses instead on the spokesperson’s behaviour, the organisation loses control of the narrative, with all that this entails for its reputation. And regaining that control often takes weeks, months or even years.

The five lessons learnt:

1. Don’t forget that you represent an institution
2. Don’t think that a reputation once established is indestructible
3. Do not make conflicts with journalists a personal matter or discredit the media
4. Do not ridicule uncomfortable questions or journalists because of their personal circumstances
5. Do not respond to provocations

Three key points and 15 lessons learned from a real-life example that highlight the pitfalls to avoid in public appearances, as they are exactly the kind of things any spokesperson should steer clear of.

A striking real-life example that illustrates how a business leader, accustomed to being in control and with three decades of reputation-building behind him, lost sight of the purpose of his appearance in the space of just a few minutes, and how this resulted in a complete loss of narrative control and emotional control. Because, beyond the political or sporting content of his statements, what is relevant from a corporate communications perspective is how a senior executive of an IBEX-listed company and a leading organisation such as Real Madrid lost the strategic focus of a speech that will take a long time to be forgotten.

That is why this is a prime example of how an institutional appearance can become a case study in poor media management. We must therefore always bear in mind one key principle: reputations can be destroyed in a matter of minutes – and almost always in front of a camera.

La entrada The case of Florentino Pérez: the three key factors in how to destroy 26 years of corporate reputation in 26 minutes se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

The term ESG has become popular since 2004, when the report ‘Who Cares Wins’ was published, a joint initiative by financial institutions led by the then UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, to find ways to integrate environmental, social and governance factors into the capital market. And since then, while communication agencies, companies and organisations have been striving to adjust the tone of sustainability reports, six out of ten people on the street think we are talking to them in Morse code or, worse still, that we are simply filling space.

One quickly learns that the longest distance in the world is not between Madrid and New York, but between a management committee and a shopping trolley in a local supermarket. Only 13% of citizens say they really understand what these acronyms mean. As Ana Gascón, Director of Human Resources, ASG, and Shareholders Office at PremiumFiber, pointed out in the presentation of the report: “It’s being seen, but it’s not getting through”. Companies are putting huge budgets on the table to transform themselves, but that investment seems to evaporate before it crosses the office door.

The Arctic is far away, but my postcode isn’t: there’s a trend that makes me smile because of its overwhelming logic: relocation. We’ve spent decades worshipping globalisation as if it were an infallible deity, only to realise that its impact is no longer measured globally, but locally. The report makes it clear: “Local is the new Global”. For me to believe that your brand is going to save the glaciers, I first need to see what you are doing for the park on my street.

72% of Spaniards prefer companies to manufacture here, at home, even if that means the final bill goes up. We want them to hire here (68% support) and buy raw materials from domestic suppliers (67%). It’s a kind of local activism. Beatriz Herrera, Corporate Communication Strategy, Reputation & Sustainability Director at Mahou San Miguel, summed it up with a phrase that should be on every marketing director’s screensaver: “Bring it down to me and tell me how this impacts my day-to-day life.” If sustainability can’t be touched, or at least seen in the neighbourhood, for many it simply doesn’t exist.

The wallet: that place where activism takes a break. Here comes our great contradiction, the one that makes us human and a little inconsistent. We love the idea of ethical business until we look at our bank account. Fifty-one per cent of Spaniards believe that tariffs should be reduced to encourage competition and lower prices. We want production to be domestic, but we also want avocados and mobile phones to continue to cost the same as when they came from the other side of the world.

This is what Beatriz Herrera calls shared responsibility. We cannot ask a company to be an NGO while we, as consumers, only look for the lowest price. With inflation pushing up the cost of the shopping basket by 35%, activism has become, for many, a luxury item they cannot afford. In fact, 56% of the population believes that companies should prioritise raising wages over reducing carbon emissions. In the end, it turns out that the first layer of sustainability is making ends meet.

The bureaucracy of ‘excellence’ and the virus of mistrust

There is a critical, almost scathing view of how this is managed internally. Sometimes it seems that we care more about the exam than the subject itself. Ana Gascón spoke of the difference between students who are only looking for a pass mark and those who really want to learn. The role of sustainability has become so bureaucratised that we run the risk of spending more time filling in indicator tables than transforming the business model.

And citizens notice this. Mistrust is the general mood: only 29% of people believe that large companies are transparent. This is the lowest score in the entire report. If we are not open, if we do not communicate naturally, people assume that we are hiding something under a mountain of technical terms. As Ana says, “a cat is a cat”; we can call it ESG, impact or transformation, but if there is no consistency underneath, the consumer simply tunes out.

What keeps us awake at night (and it’s not a 40-pages PDF)

Sometimes, in the bubble of the business world, we forget what the real priorities of people are. The report is a reality check: quality and accessible healthcare (65% of utmost importance), housing affordability (62%) and education (62%). These are the pillars upon which 78% of the Spanish builds their demand: they want companies that act in the interests of everyone, not just of the shareholders.

We value diversity. 72% strongly support closing the gender pay gap. We care about the planet, of course: 74% believe it is vital to take action against climate change. But all this has to be connected to real life. We don’t need more classroom teaching, but brands that understand that their survival depends on being relevant to their neighbours, not just their investors.

After delving into this data, my conclusion is that sustainability must, above all, be affordable and understandable. Being an activist by shopping consciously is all well and good, but the Impact Monitor reminds us that, in the current context, it is a privilege that not everyone can exercise.

If companies want young people (and those who are not so young) to trust them again, the answer is not to invent another acronym in English. The way forward is to demonstrate impact in small, everyday ways, in what Beatriz Herrera defines as the “fundamental simplicity of facts”. Less global rhetoric and more local commitment. Because, at the end of the day, if your company doesn’t improve my neighbourhood, I’m hardly going to believe that you’re going to improve the world.

La entrada The sustainability dilemma: we want responsible brands, but it hurts our pockets se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

That is why I would like to take advantage of 4 February – International Cancer Day – to share a reflection that will hopefully help us overcome a paradigm that limits the transformative power of communication by understanding it as a mere process of disseminating information.

This reductionist view of communication, which naively attributes to it the ability to change perceptions and behaviours, has a significant opportunity cost when we talk about social challenges such as cancer, which require a shift in the focus of communication from persuasion and reputation to cooperation and its prerequisite: trust.

The purpose of the learning service

The digitisation of the economy and the automation of knowledge production systems, which are driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution, also require a new conception of the relationships between organisations and their environment.

While it is true that we have accepted the need to transform organisational models towards greater decentralisation and autonomy, the role of corporate culture in transformation projects and the implications of its relevance for the managerial role itself are not so well known.

The influence of corporate culture on organisational behaviour manifests itself through shared core beliefs about ‘what needs to be done’ in line with the organisation’s raison d’être and the results of observing the environment, listening, introspection and reflection; processes that make learning the basis of the evolutionary process of individuals and organisations.

This paradigm shift regarding the role of communication requires a prior paradigm shift regarding the role of leadership in organisations with social impact. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the relationship between corporate communication, transformational leadership and the influence of corporate purpose.

Trust as a starting point

Only through trust can a vision for change be created that breaks down knowledge silos and develops collective innovation capabilities in collaboration with other key players in the environment.

The cultural influence of leadership and its transformative capacity stem from trust and the reinforcement of the ability to ‘learn to learn’, both within the organisation and in the society of which it forms part.

It is this capacity that allows us to change continuously by integrating two equally necessary forces into the behaviour of organisations and society: change and stability. Therefore, we can say that corporate culture is both the cause and effect of the evolution of organisational identity.

Dynamism of culture

The dynamism of corporate culture is embodied in a conversational process that helps us replace ideas that no longer serve to explain reality and guide our behaviour.

From this perspective, communication must be a transformative conversation that consists of:

• The expression of the values that arise from the shared beliefs
• The creation of symbols
• The interpretation of reality.

Organisational learning thus defines the new managerial function, which consists of promoting new communication processes capable of moving from discourse on ‘innovative culture’ to innovative behaviour resulting from the transformative capacity of the union between thought and action thanks to a constructive and ongoing debate on identity.

The influence of this innovative culture on the dynamism of the organisation and its social impact are the result of:

• Contextual intelligence, which results from integrating relevant information from outside and inside the organisation.
• Creative confidence, which is achieved through the generalisation of a sense of belonging and awareness of the organisation’s distinctive personality (self-knowledge).
• The high level of commitment, which requires ‘intrinsic motivation’.

Lead from the future

Action-oriented thinking stimulates cultural dynamism and turns it into a factor for change by guiding relationships with other key players, both to improve decision-making and to design future scenarios.

A dynamic organisation requires a communication system that reinforces not only collective awareness of the organisational purpose, but also an understanding of the usefulness of a few simple rules that determine the behaviour necessary to achieve it and that also condition the way in which future challenges are faced.

This collective vision enables the organisation to evolve in solidarity with its environment and activates a network of alliances to monitor the evolution of potential risks, facilitating anticipation and preparation for crisis situations.

Accountability: inside and outside

An organisation’s strategic link with its environment is truly effective when it has an accountability system in place, both for the contribution of each part of the organisation and for the impact of the whole on society.

Only if we stop viewing reputation as an end in itself and use it to build genuine relationships of trust, will we be able to convert information from a global and dynamic environment into continuous knowledge and innovation, while also strengthening transparency.

To achieve this, senior management and governing bodies must contribute, with the support of communications professionals, to:

• Create a sense of alignment and encourage experimentation through the way you behave and interact.
• Create stories that connect identity with the dynamism of the environment
• Design and update listening systems
• Design and update support systems to overcome obstacles in the learning and personal development process.
• Design and update systems for measuring social impact and their consistency with the organisation’s priorities.
• Design and update talent management systems
  • Recognition systems based on the sense of belonging
  • Compensation for the contribution to results
  • Compensation for the contribution to collective learning
  • Compensation for the contribution to the connection with the environment

These indicators of learning and innovation capacity must be integrated into the management model so that they can be assessed in terms of their relationship to and influence on the dynamics of:

• Financial assets
• The value proposition
• Internal processes, especially those involving:
  • Senior management
  • Teams in the core of operations
  • Communication
  • Marketing
  • Human Resources

It may seem that many organisations that genuinely want to be impactful entities are far from having a communication system designed to create an effective link with their environment.

The intention with which I share this reflection is precisely to point out that the path is short if that will is sincere; it is the path of surrender of accounts.

Hopefully, this reflection will also help to put corporate communication at the service of cooperation—beyond shared intentions—among all organisations working for the well-being of people with cancer.

*Article written by Ángel Losada Vázquez, professor of corporate communication at the Pontifical University of Salamanca. Chair of the Committee for Communication, marketing and public affairs of the Spanish Association Against Cancer

La entrada Communication in organisations with impact. From reputation to transformative trust. se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

Communication is always a very delicate issue for companies to manage. Being exposed in public carries risks, controlling the message becomes more difficult as the degree of interaction with the press increases, and the media’s narrative may end up being very different from what the company had in mind, causing no small amount of upset and disappointment. However, there are always a number of easy-to-anticipate mistakes which, if we avoid them, will at least allow us to tread on solid ground. Below, we will outline the seven deadly sins that, unfortunately, are committed more often than they should be.

Forgetting that there is a thin line that separates communication from marketing

All executives know the theory, but in daily practice, many succumb to the temptation to approach communication with a “free advertising” approach in the news media. Every press release and every communication action must incorporate objectively interesting content with informational value. If a journalist asks a company spokesperson what they think of the current situation and the answer is “I think consumers should buy my product because it is the best on the market“, the result is counterproductive and contrary to the interests of the company: it creates a bad relationship with the press (which is looking for news, data and facts, not advertising), credibility is lost and the brand’s prestige suffers.

Trying to stop an ocean liner when it is going at full speed

What does this mean? Many firms are eager to communicate transactions that are very relevant to them and set the process in motion; but when it takes effect, they do not like what they see (or it frightens them) and they try to stop it. It is true that it is not the same to imagine yourself on the front pages of newspapers as it is to actually see yourself there: being the centre of attention, even if that was what we initially sought, can generate pressure or unforeseen side effects that are difficult to manage. Therefore, before initiating a communication campaign, companies must assess whether it really benefits them from a strategic point of view and analyse all the possible consequences, because once the game has started, it cannot be stopped.

“If it is very important to me, has to be important to the rest of the world.”

This is an extremely common mistake, despite how obvious it is. There are issues that are crucial for a company, but which are not important enough to be published at a general level. Companies must accept this reality: no matter how important something is to them, that does not mean it should necessarily make the headlines. On the other hand, if a corporate event is not newsworthy in itself, it is probably not as important to appear in the media as was previously thought.

Haste makes waste

Managing communication in a hurry is like buying all the tickets in a lottery where the prize is disaster. The communication management of an issue that is crucial for a company must be commensurate with the strategic importance of that action or decision. Communication must be an integral part of that strategic development from day one. The “I want this out now” approach, as an abrupt order with no room for planning, can only yield satisfactory results by pure chance. Typically, neither the repercussions nor the message will come close to achieving the quality and impact they could have had if careful planning had been done from the outset. Communication is not simply a matter of pressing a button and believing that everything will flow, as is too often thought.

The trees in the short term that prevent us from seeing the forest in the long term

Corporate communication is not limited to a one-day impact. To achieve a good relationship with the media, based on trust and influence, it is necessary to constantly cultivate and nurture that relationship. The desire to achieve short-term results, pushing the media to their limits or betraying their trust, jeopardises the long term, which is the road the company will have to travel throughout its life. Today’s impacts, if achieved at the cost of damaging relationships with journalists, sow the seeds of tomorrow’s failures. Communication, like economic development, must be sustainable and not compromise the resources that will be needed in the future.

Measure quantity and quality by the same yardstick

We really enjoy receiving a clipping from the press with hundreds of hits (if it’s good news). But, be careful, many times, a single impact can be more determining and decisive than 250. An exclusive in the launch of a medium with maximum dissemination and prestige is more valuable than a tonne of briefs to the weight, with all the affection and appreciation for the briefs. In communication, quantity matters, but quality matters much more.

In times of crisis, employ the ostrich technique.

Crisis communication is one of the classic methods that never fails, sooner or later it ends up happening. When a crisis erupts in a company, the technique of the ostrich is one resource that has been used since ancestral times: hiding one’s head under ground and trusting that the storm will pass. It may work, life is full of surprises, but that is a trump card with some cards that are very dangerous. Nor is it advisable to feed trolls by communicating compulsively, because transparency does not consist of that. It is about leading and maintaining control over the discourse of the company, make its message visible, manage the crisis with diligence and decisiveness, without allowing that third parties (media outlets or other sources) take ownership of the company’s discourse the discourse of the company and twist it to their whim.

These sins capital of communication may seem of common sense. However, the truth is that I have seen how for years many companies make one and another mistake after these errors. That is why I have wanted to highlight them. Planning and placing communication at the level of importance that it deserves, companies will have an easier life in the always complex relationship with the media.

La entrada 7 capital sins of communication that are as frequent as they are easy to avoid se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

Artificial Intelligence, yes, but with method, critical thinking and purpose.

Professor Ramón Salaverría has just announced the launch of NextDigiMedia, a project promoted by the Centre for Digital Research at the University of Navarra. a16> Digital of the University of Navarra – in collaboration with the University of Santiago de Compostela – and coordinated by its Faculty of Communication with the aim of a33> analyse the impact transformative of AI on digital journalism and the ecosystem of the media in Spain.

As explained by Salaverría himself, the project proposes to investigate the models of adoption of artificial intelligence in digital media and its impacts on the media ecosystem in a19> Spanish media ecosystem with the aim of building scenarios for the future of the sector.

It occurs to me that this very approach is the one we should also adopt from corporate communication: less a8> also from the perspective of corporate communication: less dazzle and more understanding. AI is a tool (a powerful one, no doubt), but its true value will liehow it is used to amplify credibility, not to replace it.

As Mónica González Ortín rightly points out, what is at stake is the narrative of trust: attributing, recognising and legitimising the value of those who generate knowledge. In a context of growing mistrust towards AI, organisations that know how to build narratives based on transparency will have not only a technological advantage, but also a reputational one. And as Joaquín Mouriz rightly pointed out in his participation in our podcast El elefante verde, “reputation is business, otherwise what are we talking about?”

Reputation, experience and emotion: the triangle that underpins brands

Mouriz of a step further and remembers something fundamental: the experience of a brand is woven from emotions. We are not talking about sentimentality; we are talking about that capacity—so human—to leave a mark. In his analysis of the barometer by Havas CX, highlights that emotion accounts for 60% of what consumers consider to be a perfect experience. The challenge lies in turning every point of contact, every interaction, into an opportunity to connect. A brand without the ability to move people will struggle to achieve loyalty or differentiate itself.

And this challenges us directly as professionals in communication. In what way are we contributing to building that emotional experience that is consistent with the personality of the brand? a14> emotional consistent with the personality of the organisation? Do we really understand that reputation is no longer just image, but also experience?

Communication is not the problem, but neither can it be the backdrop.

José Manuel Velasco presents a critique of the use (and abuse) of communication as a tool for cosmetic politics: spokespersons who prioritise the photo over action, speeches that take precedence over the facts, strategies that are constructed from the emotion of rejection. All this generates disaffection, yes, but it also puts the legitimacy of the profession itself at risk. If we communicators allow ourselves to be swept along by posturing and renounce a52> the critical gaze, we are collaborating with the mud.

For that reason it is urgent to strengthen our role as honest creators of of the story. It is not a matter of disguising reality, but rather to connect it with meaning. Communication is not the problem, but it can stop being be part of the solution if it is not exercised with responsibility.

Loyalty (properly understood) as the backbone of organisations

Behind this analysis, planning and implementation are the people: professionals who make this open debate possible, who verify the effectiveness and consistency of our thinking and theorising, who accept the challenges that arise from time to time. I really liked Pablo Gonzalo Molina’s review of the concept of professional loyalty because he approaches it from an unusual angle: loyalty is not obedience; it is critical commitment. It is not about keeping quiet to avoid tension or applauding out of habit. A professional who is loyal to their organisation is one who proposes, questions, disagrees… and then, once the decision has been debated, aligns themselves and executes it. This view of loyalty as a drive for improvement — rather than submission — is more necessary than ever in times of strong leadership and groupthink. What a powerful tool for transformation.

Communication, in this sense, fulfils a dual function: it is a symptom of the internal climate and a lever for cultural change. A team where there is no disagreement, where everything is agreed without discussion, probably is not loyal to the organisation. And that, in the medium term, will take its toll.

Narratives of one’s own, listening genuinely and ethically as a driving force

In this exercise of compiling other people’s thoughts, which has been so helpful in getting me started after the holidays, I have found a common thread that I believe is key to tackling this new academic year: we need to generate our own narratives. Let’s stop following other people’s agendas, easy headlines, and urgent but insubstantial issues. Communication should serve to build conversation, not to replicate noise. I realise this is not a new idea, but I cannot resist emphasising it.

And to build conversation, we need to return to real listening, not only externally, but also within our organisations. Listening to what is said, what is not said, what bothers, what inspires, what makes people uncomfortable… and from there, generate value.

Listening will also be the first step in building a solid communicative ethic. Because, as María Ángeles Quesada reminded me in a conversation I enjoyed very much, ethics cannot be imposed; they are built collectively from shared values. And only with ethics can a sustainable reputation be built.

Conclusion;

With this new post, I am not attempting to pass judgement or give definitive answers. a7> give definitive answers. Rather, I dare to draw a map of topics that will set the course: artificial intelligence with purpose, emotion as a factor in reputation, communication as coherent action , loyalty criticism as an organisational value and narratives of one’s own as a driver of of identity.

If anything we have learned from this process —in which also participated an AI—is that technological tools can help us to process, organise and generate content, but ideas, decisions and vision strategic continue to be unquestionably human.

So then, with pencils sharpened, notebooks blank or keyboards charged, let’s begin the course. With thought. With judgement. With purpose.

We’ll see you on the road.

La entrada Think before you communicate: communicate with meaning se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

In a context, such as today’s, where messages circulate at high speed and are amplified immediately, communication errors can have major consequences, both in terms of image and trust.

What are the most common mistakes in corporate communication?

1. Lack of coherence between discourse and reality

One of the most common – and most damaging – mistakes is the disconnect between what the organisation says and what it actually does. Promising sustainability, innovation, inclusion or social engagement without these assumptions being rooted in the actual culture and practices of the company is a direct way to erode credibility.

Consistency between speech and action is a basic principle of reputation. If a company communicates values that it does not apply, sooner or later the market, the media or public opinion will detect it. And in a social environment that is hypersensitive to inconsistency, the consequences can be difficult to reverse.

To avoid them , communication must be aligned with real values and internal culture, continuously validating that messages are backed up by concrete and sustainable actions over time and encouraging honest, realistic and factual communication.

2. Reactive rather than strategiccommunication

It is common to find organisations that only communicate when they “have to put out fires”, i .e. reactively in the face of a crisis, controversy or external pressure. This defensive attitude weakens the brand image and conveys a perception of improvisation or lack of transparency.

Effective corporate communication should not be limited to managing emergencies. It must be built from a strategicvision, with planning, defined objectives and a solid narrative that positions the organisation in its environment.

Therefore, it is important to design an annual communication plan, with proactive actions and clear message lines, to integrate communication into the global strategy of the company, and not just something isolated or punctual, and to anticipate possible scenarios by having well-defined protocols of action for each moment.

3. Not segmenting messages according to audiences

Each audience has its own expectations, languages and codes. One of the most recurrent mistakes in corporate communication is also to send the same message, with the same tone and through the same channel, to all audiences equally: employees, customers, media, investors, suppliers, institutions…

Lack of segmentation not only dilutes the impact of the message, but can also lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations. Effective communication requires always adapting the content to the receiver.

To avoid this, it is important to identify and map the organisation’s key audiences, define specific messages for each one, considering their level of knowledge, interest and relationship with the company, and choose the most appropriate channels according to each audience: internal communication, media, social networks or face-to-face meetings, among others.

4. Excessive use of technical jargon or empty language.

The tendency to use artificial language, excessively technical or full of set phrases is another common mistake that can alienate our audience from the message we want to convey. Corporate communication should not be an exercise in opacity or unnecessary complexity. Its aim is to inform, connect and generate value, not to impress with grandiloquent terms or messages that are not understood.

When language is confusing or unnecessarily stilted, the clarity and therefore the effectiveness of the message is lost. Similarly, speeches that abuse marketing without providing substantive content tend to be perceived as unreliable or manipulative.

To avoid this, it is advisable to use clear, precise and direct language, without renouncing the institutional tone, to replace technicalities with understandable explanations when necessary and to always opt for authenticity and proximity, without losing professional rigour.

5. Ignoring the value of internal communication

Internal communication, often undervalued or treated as a purely operational tool, is actually a key pillar of any company’s communication. A well-informed workforce, aligned with objectives and committed to corporate values, is a brand’s best ambassador.

Therefore, failure to communicate properly inwardly can lead to misinformation, rumours, mistrust or demotivation. The lack of transparency or space for internal dialogue has a direct impact on team cohesion and productivity.

It is important to design an internal communication strategy aligned with the corporate culture, to foster two-way channels, to enable the active participation of employees and to report regularly on decisions, changes, achievements and challenges of the company.

6. Forgetting crisis communication

In an environment as exposed as the current one, where any incident can go viral in a matter of minutes, not having a communication crisis management protocol is a real imprudence. Silence, improvisation or denial of the facts tends to aggravate the situation and multiply the reputational damage.

Every organisation is exposed to critical situations: from operational errors to labour disputes, technology failures, leaks or media scandals. The difference between a well-managed crisis and a poorly managed one lies, in large part, in the ability to communicate quickly, transparently and responsibly.

To be prepared, the most important thing is to have a defined crisis plan that addresses different scenarios and responses, to designate spokespersons and train them properly to make statements, to have clear key messages consistent with the company’ s narrative, to maintain constant communication with key audiences throughout the process and to own mistakes when appropriate, and to implement corrective actions quickly, clearly and concisely.

7. Ignoring or underestimating the power of digital media or social media.

The emergence of social networks and the digital environment has radically transformed the communication ecosystem for many years now. It is not new that it is no longer enough to issue press releases or update a corporate website or blog. Today, communication requires active presence, constant listening and real-time responsiveness.

Ignoring digital media or social networks or using them without a strategy can lead to lack of control, contradictory messages or missed opportunities to connect with audiences.

It is key to integrate digital communication into the general corporate communication plan, to have up-to-date and professionally managed institutional profiles, to monitor the online conversation (constantly) to detect risks and opportunities and to respond with agility, coherence and appropriate tone in each of the channels.

The importance of corporate communication

Corporate communication is not just a functional tool, it is a central axis of organisational management. When it is planned, aligned with the strategy and executed with rigour, it has the power to build reputation, generate trust, build public loyalty and consolidate the positioning of a brand or institution.

Avoiding the most common mistakes, which we have reviewed, does not mean having perfect communication, but it does mean developing a conscious, responsible and professional communication practice. Commitment to clear, consistent and long-term communication is undoubtedly a competitive advantage for any organisation.

La entrada Common mistakes in corporate communication and how to avoid them se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

In communication, disclosure is still essential. A branded content without context; a press release that does not even interest internal audiences; a press conference without content; a website that misinforms; an image that is not consistent with the raison d’être of the company, an unprepared spokesperson, an unmanaged crisis situation… Everything communicates, but, above all, it communicates, and very badly, the absence of strategy. Because it shows, when it doesn’t save lives.

Communication budgets are much more limited than marketing budgets; we know that. But so much money is thrown away…! Going out for the sake of going out, an obsession that in most cases is led by people who neither know nor understand communication, can end up taking its toll on an organization’s most valuable asset: its reputation.

What do we mean by communication strategy?

It seems a truism, but, just as there are (or should be) political, economic and health strategies… there must be communication strategies. Simply put, a communication strategy is a set of actions aimed at achieving a common objective based on coherent messages. We are talking about image and reputation. It is the roadmap that will direct all communication activity, understanding as such all those activities aimed at conversing with the public, both internal and external, of the organizations.

A communication strategy must be both accurate and realistic. Paper holds everything, and trying to establish an unattainable plan is as useless as it is absurd. We are often obsessed with setting goals that justify what we do and why we do it, forgetting that a sensible strategy simply has to reflect the company’s reality: what it does, how it does it, why it does it and with whom. It is to transmit messages that are thought out and aligned with your brand values and business objectives. Simple and at the same time tremendously complicated.

That’s why communication should never be underestimated. It is the hallmark of a brand, a project, an idea… How is it possible, then, that we launch ourselves into the folly of traveling without GPS?

Elements of the communication strategy

To implement a strategy there is only one thing to do: want to communicate well. If what you want to do is to tell your movie in a haphazard way, and if – what’s more – you don’t have the budget, don’t even bother.

But if, on the contrary, you are aware that communication is an essential value in your company or organization, be sure to draw the roadmap through a planned and realistic strategy that includes the following aspects.

Starting point

Put in black and white what is the real situation of the organization/company at the moment you face this task. Try not to fool yourself. If you have come out of a crisis badly, write it down; if your competition is gaining on you, point it out; if you are in a buoyant moment, don’t be afraid to be too self-congratulatory; if you are just starting out, be honest. Let what you collect be the truest reflection of the starting point – from the inside out – from which you are going to begin your communication journey. Also add the ‘what for’, not the ‘why’.

Objectives

Don’t try to cover the universe. Two objectives, three at the most, achievable, also realistic and taking into account the context and the reality of your organization.

Audiences

Who are you going to target? Is your plan a general strategic plan or are you clear that it is for a very specific audience? Customers, investors, analysts, employees, media… Analyze in detail how they are and what they need and how, from corporate narratives, you can achieve your communication objectives. If your strategy aims to cover all your audiences, detail them. Each one has its peculiarities and will determine objectives, channels, tools…

Key messages

It is also very important to identify the target audiences because this will be fundamental when developing key messages. Although every communication strategy has common messages, these must be adapted to the audiences and channels.

Context

You are not alone in the world, nor are you isolated. You belong to a country, to an international context, to a specific economy, to a specific sector; you compete with other companies, organizations and individuals; you are affected by regulation, politics and consumption… A good snapshot of the moment in which you face the realization of your communication strategy can be very valuable to land the task in a way that is as realistic as possible.

Channels

Let us be fully aware of the liquid world in which we live, where the boundaries between channels are non-existent. Communication is not controlled, it is managed, and for this it is essential to understand how each of the channels in which we want to act work and what they should be used for. To simplify the process we can organize them by:

• Own resources. These are all those channels that belong to us, that we manage ourselves and that depend solely and exclusively on our planning. It is curious because, in some cases, they are the least cared for, least managed and most abandoned channels. And, sometimes, they give an image that is the opposite or different from what we intend. Moreover, these media are essential for communication with internal audiences. I personally believe that these channels must gain prominence and become empowered. They can even become models of brand journalism, as in the case of Nobbot, the technological media par excellence directed by David Martínez Pradales, owned by MásOrange. Identify them and keep in mind that each of them will require a specific plan, a map of narratives, actions, resources and, obviously, budget.
• Every external communication strategy must consider the need to relate to the media through useful and truthful information. Be realistic: I repeat: useful and truthful information. Do not try to sneak your commercial messages into a press release. Journalists are not stupid and they can destroy a much-needed relationship for your organization. Here it is even more important, if possible, that you let yourself be advised by those who really know. And don’t insist when they tell you that the topic is not newsworthy.
• Paid media. Have a budget for branded content actions, round tables, debates, lunches, congresses, events, etc. that will help you to buy strategic communication spaces for your activity. But don’t just do it for the sake of doing it. Make sure it really serves your objectives and allows you to broaden your range of action, give visibility to your company and transmit the messages you have identified in the appropriate forums.

Spokespersons

Identify who will be the visible faces of your organization. It can be one (maximum representative) or several, according to specialization, responsibilities and knowledge. Collect it in such a way that the whole company is very clear about who is going to talk about what. Do not forget that everyone must be adequately trained. A lot of knowledge does not guarantee a good spokesperson.

Budget

It is not surprising that without resources it is very difficult for a communication strategy to succeed. You will need professionals who, although from the world of communication, belong to very specific specializations. If you are not clear about your objectives, don’t skimp or skimp; let yourself be advised by those who know. Otherwise, your strategy will only be a reflection of what you have bet on (if you pay with peanuts, you will get monkeys).

Phases and schedule

Distribute how you want to implement the strategy in deadlines and a realistic agenda with enough space to carry it out. Don’t be in a hurry to open the doors of your house. Put it in order first and then invite people in.

KPI

Set the milestones you want to achieve, also in this case realistic, and avoid the easy things. In communication, quantity is not as important as quality and that is where you should focus. Avoid big donkeys, whether they walk or not.

Why we need a communication strategy

I think it is clear that without strategy we are quite lost. Will we be able to reach our goal without it? I don’t think so, but what I am sure of is that it will cost you much more, you will suffer in the process and you will not arrive safe and sound. But why do we need it?

• Because it strengthens the sense of belonging for internal audiences and recognition for external audiences.
• Because it allows you to act much more accurately in the face of a problem or crisis, although there will always be a part at the mercy of uncertainty. You learn how to manage this too.
• Because it guides, advises and enriches the conversation with your audiences by being confident in your messages.
• Because it will allow you to save time and money by consciously implementing actions for a very specific purpose.
• Because, as everything communicates, it will help you to reflect the corporate culture and, therefore, to communicate beyond your words. We are talking about reputation.

In short. This communication is serious, very serious. Taking it as something anecdotal or irregular is serious because it can deeply damage the reputation of your company.

Count on the right professionals. Give them a voice and power to guide the organization along the right path, and count on the fact that good communication requires a good investment. The return is unquestionable.

La entrada Strategy: the backbone of communication se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

Let’s start at the beginningWhat do we mean by spokesperson training?

Spokesperson training is a process designed to teach representatives of an organisation how to communicate effectively and coherently in different situations and to the various audiences they will face. This type of training focuses on developing verbal and non-verbal communication skills, as well as providing specific knowledge about the functioning of the media and corporate communication strategies. During a spokesperson training, participants will learn first-hand how communication processes work with different audiences and will receive instructions on how to structure and present their key messages, how to handle interviews and appearances before the media or their target audiences, how to answer difficult or sensitive questions (inside and outside the organisation), and how to adapt their communication to different audiences and media platforms.

Who should do spokesperson training?

Spokesperson training is suitable for awide variety of professionals within organisations with one common denominator: They need to communicate effectively with different audiences. Some of the recipients of this type of training, within organisations, are:

Executives and business leaders

Senior managers often act as spokespersons at corporate events, in media interviews and in internal organisational communications. Spokesperson training helps them to develop strong communication skills and to deliver key messages effectively and efficiently. Public relations and communications professionals Corporate communications and public relations managers also need to be prepared to represent their organisation to the media, investors, customers and other key audiences. Spokesperson training provides them with the necessary skills to manage these interactions effectively. Experts and/or specialists Sometimes experts in technical and/or specialised areas are required to act as spokespersons on behalf of the organisation to explain complex issues or answer detailed questions on a specific topic. Training spokespersons helps them to communicate their expertise in a clear and accessible way to the general public.

What are the keys to good spokesperson training ?

Needs assessment and customisation

Good spokesperson training must be adapted to the specific needs of the organisation and the participants and never respond to a standard, homogeneous model, regardless of the spokesperson to be trained. This implies knowing the company very well, taking into account the sector of activity, its organisational culture, the communication challenges it faces, the reputational risks it may have to face and the level of experience and skills of the spokespersons. It is therefore important to identify in advance what the objectives of the training are, analyse the previous skills and knowledge of the participants and assess the areas for improvement and the challenges they may face. With all this information, a personalised and tailor-made programme can be designed with a prior definition of the topics to be covered and the learning objectives to be achieved, selecting the methodologies and learning resources that best suit their needs, thus adapting the programme, as much as possible, to the specific needs and characteristics of the participants.

Theoretical information but always with a practical approach

Theoretical training is a must, but the focus of the training should always be practical. An introduction to the basic concepts of corporate communication and spokesperson management, explaining the key communication strategies and best practices for representing the organisation, followed by exercises to simulate meetings with the media, interviews or public appearances, as real as possible, to help identify the weak points that need to be improved. It is important that these practical exercises are repeated after the training, so that the concepts learned can be put into practice. These practices will improve confidence and the ability to deal with real-life situations. Moreover, we must not forget that we live in a fully digital era, so it is essential that the training of spokespersons includes the integration of tools and technological platforms relevant to corporate communication, such as social networks, digital media and videoconferencing platforms.

Feedforward o feedback constructivo

Feedback is key to the development of communication skills. Trainers should provide specific and constructive comments on participants ‘ performance, highlighting their strengths and pointing out areas for improvement. Good communication of individualised feedback on participants ‘ performance, detailed analysis of videos and recordings of practices to identify areas of improvement and to evaluate the effectiveness of the and evaluate the effectiveness of the training or make the necessary adjustments are key aspects.

Continuous monitoring and updating

Effective spokesperson training must be dynamic and adaptable to changing communication trends and public expectations. changes in communication trends and public expectations. It is important to monitor regularly to evaluate the impact of the training on the training on the performance of the spokespersons in real-life situations and, continuous support to resolve doubts and provide additional guidance.

And what are the advantages?

Improving corporate image

A good spokesperson is a great business card. To this end, an effective spokesperson training helps to ensure that company representatives deliver messages that are consistent and aligned with the organisation’ s identity and values. company’ s representatives convey messages that are consistent and aligned with the organisation ‘ s identity and values, which contributes to strengthening its image and reputation.

Skills development

Spokespersons will learn techniques for structuring messages effectively, learning how to adapt communication to different audiences and channels, even handling difficult or unforeseen communication situations. By being better prepared spokespersons will be more confident in themselves and in their ability to represent the ability to represent the organisation or brand they work for, This will result in greater credibility with the public and the media.

Efficient crisis management

Well-designed spokesperson training includes strategies and techniques to handle crisis situations appropriately and effectively. to handle crisis situations appropriately and effectively, This will enable the organisation to respond quickly and coherently to unforeseen events that may affect the events that may affect the organisation ‘ s reputation.

Resource optimisation

By having well-prepared spokespersons, the company can optimise the time and resources devoted to communication, avoiding misunderstandings and ensuring that key messages are conveyed efficiently and effectively, avoiding misunderstandings and ensuring that key messages are conveyed efficiently and effectively.

Protecting the organisation ‘ s reputation

Acting as a spokesperson carries great responsibility as your words and actions can have a significant impact on an organisation’s reputation. Spokesperson training helps to avoid costly mistakes and protect your organisation’s reputation by providing the skills and knowledge needed to communicate in an ethical and professional manner. In short, good spokesperson training is essential to ensure that your organisation’s representatives know how to properly convey messages to the media and your audience. It is important to invest in the development of communication skills, which will strengthen your organisation’s image and reputation, improve your ability to deal with crises and difficult situations, and build strong and effective relationships with different audiences. Our experience over 25 years shows that a well-trained spokesperson is a guarantee of success.

La entrada The importance of spokesperson training in your corporate communications strategy se publicó primero en Agencia comma.

My word is not dogma, I know. I speak only from my experience and with the sole objective of contributing something to the growth, improvement, consolidation and reputation of the communication sector to which I have dedicated my entire working life (and which is no small thing given my year of birth). And also, why not, to make an appeal not to enter into a spiral of ‘anything goes’ in order to get our own way.

Today, as we enter the summer season, it occurs to me that it is appropriate for us to talk again – as I have done on other occasions in the past – about the value of the work we do. And, logically, of their just retribution.

The proliferation of agencies of different sizes; of understandable and ununderstandable communication channels; the large portfolio of journalists affected by the ERES of the different media; the urgent need to achieve size at the expense of specialised services; the dilution of the barriers between marketing, advertising and public relations (in which everyone does everything and in any way)… are causing our sector to become a gibberish difficult to understand for the uninitiated and, what is worse, to respect. Why?

This is the key. A few months ago, we received the tender specifications for the contracting of the communication service, web maintenance and social networks of the technological clusters of the Community of Madrid. So far, so good. We are talking about 4+1 different clusters, each with a different management team, different content, different audiences… and to which we had to provide, in addition to the services indicated in the call, analogue and digital communication strategy, design, audiovisual production, coverage and promotion of events, workshops and conferences, SEO, monitoring, design and implementation of campaigns for different audiences, photography, evaluation report, strategy and management of social networks… In the tender documents a team of 7 professionals is required, although they gave the option of having the professional orchestrator (the one who does more than one thing).

It is embarrassing to even repeat the budget: €60,000 per year for the 5 clusters. This amounts to a monthly fee per cluster of €1,000. Who charges €1,000 per month for all these services? The competition has been awarded, i.e. there is an agency/consultancy/professional that has won this jackpot. In other words, it has accepted the budget and may even have lowered it in order to be competitive with other candidates. Are they paying to be able to include the Community of Madrid in your client list?

A question of quality

No matter how hard we try, the figures don’t add up. And here there are only two options. That there is something going on behind the scenes (it would not be the first case of a questionable tender or that a ‘modification’ is already planned, i.e. deviations from the award budget to make the work more economical for the companies awarded the contract) or that the quality of the service does not matter. If you pay with peanuts, you’ll get monkeys.

Consultancy services have to be remunerated accordingly. Just as we buy a product, let’s say a suitcase, we know perfectly well that the price is directly related to the quality of the product, its durability, its image and its service. Let’s not fool ourselves.

The problem is that we all know what a suitcase is, what it is for, what shapes it can have depending on what we want it for, the size and whether it does not go against good taste. However, not all of us know what communication is and what it is for. This post is not about that, for that you have many posts on this blog to enlighten you. This is about what is a fair price for our work and why people accept such reckless casualties that it is laughable. Is it ignorance? Has communication lost the real value of its impact?

We have already talked about the consequences of the insistent refusal not to ring-fence the budget of the competitions when we call on several agencies. The most repeated phrase is “we don’t have a figure” to which later, after the presentation of your proposal, they add: “it’s out of our budget”. Excuse me? Would it not have been more sensible, professional, fair and logical for them to say from the outset what this budget was that we are supposed to have gone outside?

Of course we are in a free market and everyone can value their work as they wish; but, let’s not fool ourselves, there are certain limits that should never be crossed because the only thing we are achieving is that our work is less valued every day; that our specialisation is undervalued and that communication consultancy is, in short, something anecdotal instead of strategic.

And the only ones responsible are ourselves.

La entrada The price of communication versus its value se publicó primero en Agencia comma.