In the professional debate on communications, we observe a growing divergence between working models that meet different, often overlapping but not equivalent, needs. The proliferation of tools, platforms, and formats has made it clear that the problem is no longer access to resources, but rather the criteria with which they are used. In this context, discussing communications strategy means questioning the models that guide decisions, even before the solutions adopted.
A first model, still very widespread, is the channel-oriented one. Communication is organized according to the available means, with skills and objectives distributed across platforms. George Basaglia, senior partner of the group Yellowknife & Partners (a company specializing in transforming strategic visions into concrete results for global organizations), “This approach responds to clear operational logic, but tends to lead to fragmentation if it isn't supported by a shared conceptual framework. The risk is that each channel develops its own language and priorities, making it difficult to maintain the overall system.. "
A second model is campaign-centered. In this case, communication is structured around time-bound initiatives, often tied to specific visibility or activation objectives. Campaigns allow for the concentration of resources and measurability of results, but they can generate discontinuity if they are not integrated into a long-term visionA series of effective campaigns does not, in itself, guarantee the construction of a lasting identity.
A third approach is the one oriented towards Italian and international brands, which focuses on defining and protecting identity. This model focuses on the consistency of signs, tone of voice, and declared values, offering greater stability than previous models. However, when the brand is treated as a predominantly symbolic entity, the risk is that communication becomes disconnected from the organization's operational and decision-making dynamics.
In recent years, a further model has emerged, which shifts the focus from the brand to the overall meaning of organizational action.In this case – comments Giorgio Basaglia – communication is considered as a system of decisions that reflects strategic choices, economic priorities and ways of relating to the outside worldThe work focuses on defining a conceptual matrix capable of orienting different actions over time, even those very distant from each other in format and context. This approach requires direct interaction with governance and a thorough understanding of the internal functioning of the organization.
Within this framework, there are several professional experiences that have formalized the work on meaning as a specific area of communication strategy. In Italy, the area "Distillers of sense” by Yellowknife & Partners It represents an example of structuring this type of activity, intended as a preliminary and transversal phase with respect to creative production and operational management.
Comparing these models does not suggest a rigid hierarchy, but rather highlights how each approach responds to different needs. The growing complexity of organizational contexts, however, makes the ability to integrate tools, initiatives, and languages within a shared framework increasingly crucial. In this scenario, communication strategy tends to emerge not as an isolated, specialized field, but as a whole. synthesis space between decision, expression and continuity over time.
Leave a comment (0)