Carlos Barrera is a professor at the Faculty of Communication of the University of Navarra (FCOM) and has an extensive academic background and prestige. He is the director of the Master's Degree in Political and Corporate Communication (MCPC) at the same centre, where he also teaches "Media and Public Opinion", as well as "Media and Politics in Recent Spain", "Spanish Political System" and "Electoral Communication" in the journalism degree at FCOM. He is also co-author of the book "Communicating Europe in the 21st century".. With the start of the new academic year, PROA Communication has discussed with him the strategic communication challenges facing organisations.
What makes the University of Navarra's MCPC different from other academic offerings?
Apart from being one of the pioneers in this type of postgraduate education, because we started two years before master's degrees became official qualifications, I believe that our differentiation does not lie in a single element but in several elements that make up the whole. I'm referring to the balance sought between the academic and the professional; to the training offered in political communication, corporate y public affairsThe two international stays of one week in Brussels and one month in Washington thanks to our agreement with the George Washington University; the Final Master's Thesis by groups with real clients; and the curricular professional internships in the last three months. In the combination and management of all these factors lies the success of an eighteen-year trajectory at the Pamplona campus until this year, which will now be developed at the Postgraduate headquarters in Madrid from September 2022.
How do students benefit from a programme with a dual political and corporate focus? Do you think there are elements of election campaign and political communication strategies that can be applied to the business environment? And if so, could you give us some examples?
The mere fact of speaking, in both cases, of communication clearly refers us to common points that cannot be ignored, especially from the perspective of certain working methods, prior research and strategic planning. At the same time, the "products" offered in one or the other type of communication have a different nature and it is important to take this into account when "selling" them: a rebranding or IPO communication campaign for a company is not the same as the dissemination of new services for citizens by a public institution or a campaign to raise awareness among certain sectors of public opinion to ensure that specific legislation does not go against the interests of a specific social organisation or business sector. In any case, it is essential, in these and many other cases, to have a strategic - not merely tactical - mindset to guide all actions. Recently, talking to a former student who works in political communication, she told me how much what she had learned about corporate communication in the Master's programme had been useful -and is still useful- when planning strategies and actions in politics. The same could be said vice versa. It is an experiential proof that the formula we devised from the beginning in 2004 is bearing fruit despite the external appearance that they may be two different fields. I would also like to recall, in this respect, that we believed then - and continue to believe now - that joint training in political communication, corporate communication and public affairs enriches the possibilities of professional opportunities for our graduates. The reality of the professional careers of a good number of MCPC alumni speaks quite clearly of how that vision we had has been borne out by reality.
Given your experience collaborating with DIRCOMs and other members of management teams, what do you think is most in demand by organisations today from communication professionals?
In almost twenty years of experience of frequent contact with the sector, at the MCPC we have witnessed a sustained growth and greater internal and external recognition, with some shocks following the great financial crisis of 2008-2014, of the role of communication in all types of organisations, as well as the relevance of institutional relations or public affairs. At the same time, the technological and social changes that have affected all actors in public life are leading to the need for continuous adaptation to the new habits of consumption of goods and services by users and customers, or the management of expectations by citizens in the case of politics.
This means that communication managers, and political and corporate communication professionals in general, must be up to the task of listening and monitoring what society demands or what it is concerned about and then take it into account when proposing realistic strategies for their organisations: aligned with the business, of course, if they are for-profit, or in any case with the corporate purpose or the values represented by an institution or a party. If they are to be properly valued and provide tangible value, communication professionals must be agents of change in an organisation as well as ethical compasses for their work, with a 360-degree vision of everything that can affect them, including in the legislative sphere, which brings us to the importance of taking care of public affairs.
In this sense, what role do you think communication consultancies should play? Do you think it is enough for them to offer mere support to execute your communication actions and relate to the media, or should they provide a much more strategic service?
The growing complexity of social reality and the changes occurring in its dynamics of operation and interests make it increasingly difficult for companies, organisations and institutions to have the capacity to research, diagnose, plan and implement comprehensive communication plans to face specific challenges with their communication teams. The support of communication and public affairs consultancies is therefore a proven necessity. The level of this collaboration, which can take different forms, intensity and depth depending on needs and available budgets, is a different matter. In any case, even at the most basic levels of support for specific communication or media relations actions, it is important to insist to clients that these are not isolated issues without context, but are aligned with a previously defined and agreed strategy so that they make sense and are efficient.
Finally, what general communication advice would you give to a manager or politician to respond to a crisis situation in their organisation?
Obviously, what I am going to say are general proposals, as indicated in the question, since each case has its own particularities. As a preliminary question, I think that we must be able to deal with them naturally: every existence, every company, every organisation is going to experience crises of different sizes and conditions during the course of its existence. This should lead to a second attitude, which may perhaps be paradoxical because it goes against the tide: peace, or in other words, to de-dramatise the situation as far as possible in order to face it head on, first of all, but also with the heart because they often affect people. Having said that, I am not discovering any Mediterranean if I say that naturalness and peace are easier to achieve when crises and their possible scenarios and consequences are foreseen and, furthermore, criteria and protocols for action have been formulated that must be activated when they break out or, better still, when they are on the horizon; hence the importance of risk assessment, especially reputational risk assessment, in crises. As is logical, there are different nuances in political and corporate communication due to the different segmentation of the audiences to which both are directed, and especially due to the representative responsibility that politicians have in having to periodically pass an exam before the ballot box. But in the end, both have to be held accountable, and what is not appropriate in crises is to take a blind eye or adopt the tactic of the ostrich, attitudes that are usually punished.