Question

Topic: Other

Ideal Structure For A Communications Dept?

Posted by Anonymous on 250 Points
I have been asked to propose the ideal structure for our Comms Department going forward. I would like to know how other companies structure theirs - by region, by function. We are an international B2B Aerospace industry manufacturer, 4000 employees, $1 bn turnover.
To continue reading this question and the solution, sign up ... it's free!

RESPONSES

  • Posted on Accepted
    Be careful about using other companies, especially in other industries, to serve as benchmarks for how you structure your own communications department.

    It's better if you start with your mission, or the business objective, to get at this. A company seeking aggressive growth, for example, might organize differently than one that's more mature and just seeking to maintain market share. And the needs may be different in different countries/continents, so don't rely too heavily on what others are doing unless you know exactly what their objectives and strategies are.
  • Posted on Accepted
    It would be helpful to understand the scope of what your company considers communications. Will you have a marketing communications function or are we talking strictly internal and external activities without any sales objectives?

    If you don't have a marcom function, then the simplest way to divide the work is by internal vs external. Internal includes deliverables like employee newsletters, intranet, exec speeches, employee events, etc... External could include media, government, investor and industry relations. I have aerospace experience, and from what I have see, the vast majority of industry exec leaders see comms as something they begrudgingly support. They'd rather be putting their money elsewhere.

    Regardless of what shape your department ultimately looks like, I would strongly recommend you develop quantifiable metrics that are as black/white as possible to demonstrate ROI. Link your activities to revenue targets on the external side, and cost-efficiency/reduction on the internal side. That will take some creativity and resources, but it is critical to lay the groundwork for success.
  • Posted on Author
    Yes, we will have a Marcoms function, separate from Corporate Communications and Investor Relations. Internal Communications is managed by HR. It's really Marcoms I was focused on. Whether it is better to have managers by region who are responsible for all aspects of the mix - or whether its best to have one person with global reponsibility for PR; one person responsible for events; one person for sales tools. i can see pros and cons of each.
  • Posted by Peter (henna gaijin) on Member
    Depends on how much your markets vary between countries.

    If an aerospace manufacturer, you mean something like Boeing, then the main break would be between markets (civil versus military). Beyond that, the market is basically the same between different countries.

    But if you are making something that varies in how it is used between markets, then you may need a more decentralized method. For example, if you have different agency approval requirements between US and EU, and these cause the products to be significantly different between these two markets, then you likely need to have separate marcom functions for each of these areas.

    Languages also come into play. Often a centralized marketing function can not handle all the languages needed.

Post a Comment