{"id":1360,"date":"2013-10-08T22:26:17","date_gmt":"2013-10-08T22:26:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/\/"},"modified":"2016-01-19T22:28:37","modified_gmt":"2016-01-19T22:28:37","slug":"taking-think-tank-communications-to-the-next-level-determining-what-goes-where-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/taking-think-tank-communications-to-the-next-level-determining-what-goes-where-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"Taking think tank communications to the next level: Determining what goes where (Part 1)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\u00a0<\/i>A \u201ccommsversation<\/a>\u201d between\u00a0Jeff Knezovich<\/a>,\u00a0Melissa Julian<\/a>\u00a0and the communications team at\u00a0ECDPM<\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n Unless a think tank is comprised of only one person, it\u2019s unlikely (and perhaps unwise) that each person in a team has exactly the same skill set. In a similar way, various parts of a think tank or research organisation must specialise in specific functions and skills \u2013 a\u00a0Durkheimian \u2018organic society\u2019<\/a>\u00a0writ small. For such a society, Durkheim observed that they were more likely to have laws and regulations that facilitated cooperation rather than those that punished individuals.\u00a0Kicking communications activities up a gear within an organisation requires a similar approach: rules (however formal or informal) that facilitate cooperation around its constituent parts.<\/p>\n Within the communications remit, that\u2019s about figuring out\u00a0what goes where<\/strong>. In other words, it\u2019s about determining: a) what should get done, b) who is best placed to do it, and c) empowering those who are best placed to do it to, well, actually do it!<\/p>\n I\u2019ve seen various different models for this \u2013 everything from a strict \u2018command and control\u2019 model (the phrase ‘YOU DO NOT SPEAK TO THE MEDIA. ONLY I SPEAK TO THE MEDIA. IF THE MEDIA COME TO YOU, YOU COME TO ME. GOT THAT?’, comes to mind) through to a highly decentralised\u00a0laissez faire<\/i>\u00a0approach. Except in extreme situations, I would veer towards a middle ground \u2013 one that creates clear roles and expectations for all players, perhaps formalised through some sort of \u2018service level agreement\u2019 (SLA).<\/p>\n But before we get there, let\u2019s start in this first post of this section by talking about \u2018le petit a<\/i>\u2019 in the paragraph before: determining what ought to get done. And when thinking of communication planning, let\u2019s put it within the context of the\u00a0content strategy<\/b>.<\/p>\n A content strategy is a basic framework to ensure a range of appropriate content in a timely manner. It should be based on a clear\u00a0understanding of the type of work an organisation does<\/a>\u00a0as well as their\u00a0target audiences<\/a>, which we conveniently just covered in the previous set of blogs (it\u2019s like we planned it or something!).<\/p>\n The most important element of a content strategy is setting out the stall of core outputs to be produced by a particular project or organisation. This allows a project or think tank to clearly establish specialised series of outputs, which helps to establish a strong brand and pre-determined channels and structures for researchers to publish.<\/p>\nWhat is a content strategy?<\/h2>\n
Core outputs<\/h3>\n