Integrated Corporate Communication and Corporate

Integrated Corporate Communication and Corporate Communication

Reflective Analysis Report

Integrated Corporate Communication (ICC) and Corporate Communication (CC) are the major communications and business developments of recent time, could be described as a millennial approach to business. While both have their history in marketing, they are more than simply communications or marketing approaches, but describe a synergistic management approach, in which communication is paramount. The idea that all of a corporation's public interactions helped shape its brand and its reputation led to the development of CC, which required approaching every potential interaction as an advertising opportunity, and reinforcing the brand at each of those opportunities. When the internet exploded, and it was no longer feasible for corporations to keep their internal communications from becoming external communications, it became clear that the most successful corporations were those that promoted the same messages internally and externally. The idea of an integrated corporate message is at the heart of ICC. In this paper, the researcher examines how ICC is the next step in corporate communications, both as a means of communication and as a management strategy, and how ICC helps develop brand recognition that goes beyond the brand recognition and messages conveyed through traditional advertising. The researcher does so by investigating three corporations that are well-known for their brands, as well as for their reputations: Starbucks, FedEx, and the New York Times. The research reveals that all three companies use ICC, and that this has been a conscientious approach for FedEx and Starbucks from their inception, and an approach embraced by the New York Times in 2005. ICC allows these corporations to more readily respond to stakeholder feedback, which gives them a competitive edge.

Introduction

Integrated Corporate Communication (ICC) and Corporate Communication (CC) are thought to be the major communications and business developments of recent time. These innovative approaches to communications and management span the time period at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, and could be described as a millennial approach to business. CC predated ICC, and initially really focused on communication. In fact, it built upon what was already known about advertising and marketing. The early results were not necessarily cohesive; corporations could end up sending conflicting messages because advertising methods are not necessarily the best methods for other elements of corporate communication. The larger the corporation, the more likely it was to send conflicting messages because the greater the number of stakeholders, and the greater number of opportunities to send inconsistent messages. In addition, as corporations grew through mergers and acquisitions, they became increasingly likely to have diverse interests, making it more difficult to structure a cohesive corporate message. This need for a cohesive message helped prompt the need for integration in CC. That is not to suggest that integration is a new concept; corporations have been integrating different aspects of their business since corporations began. Therefore, one cannot help but wonder if there is really a difference between CC and ICC or whether the ICC is simply a new name for CC.

Prompting that speculation is the fact that there are three very-highly branded corporations that are known for their ICC, Starbucks, FedEx, and the New York Times, which were highly respected and well-branded even prior to discussions of ICC. While most consumers of these corporations may only interact with a few distinct aspects of a corporation, cohesive branding and consistent corporate communication have made these three corporations powerhouses, even during faltering economies. Moreover, all three of these corporations have had strong corporate reputations even before the advent of ICC. It would be incorrect, however, to suggest that ICC has not improved their corporation communications. This paper will explore how these three companies have used ICC to their advantage to solidify their positions as brand-leaders. It will also look at how properly-used ICC increases corporate function by increasing gains for all of a corporation's stakeholders. This use of ICC helps demonstrate why ICC is a critical next stage for CC.

Aims and Objective

Aim

The goal of this research is to demonstrate how integrated corporate communication is the next step in corporate communications, both as a means of communication and as a management strategy, and how ICC helps develop brand recognition that goes beyond the brand recognition and messages conveyed through traditional advertising.

Objective

This paper will investigate three corporations that are very well-known for their branding and solid corporate reputations: Starbucks, FedEx, and the New York Times. By investigating the ways that these three companies communicate with all of their various stakeholders, the researcher will determine whether these highly recognizable, highly branded corporations use CC or ICC. Furthermore, by looking into corporate structure and organization, the research will demonstrate that CC and ICC are not simply about communication, but also about management style.

Literature Review

One of the most difficult things about researching CC and ICC is that different people have different definitions for the terms, which can make it very difficult to come up with a cohesive definition for either concept. In fact, the idea that CC and ICC are difficult to define is so prevalent, that one finds frequent mentions of it in the literature, as well as finding conflicting definitions and literature that is not universally applicable to ICC or CC. However, this fluidity is part of the concept of CC, not a reason to abandon CC. "The corporate communications function resists a single fixed definition. It is a dynamic mixture of problem solving skills and insights. It should be viewed as a process rather than as an entity. But there are three key responsibilities encompassed within a truly effective corporate public affairs function: aiding the management of change, helping to define a corporation's role in society, [and] assisting the creation of corporate vision and purpose" (Dolphin, 1999). Therefore, it is important to understand that CC is not fixed, instead it is a process, which means that the process will be impacted by the corporation, so that there will not be a single definition of CC. In fact, when one looks at it from the process perspective, it becomes much easier to understand CC, because its amorphous nature becomes part of its definition, instead of simply being a reason that it defies definition.

Understanding CC also becomes easier when one understands that it refers to a collection of ideas, not a single approach to communications or to corporate management. According to Paul Argenti, CC is: "a department with many functions, a set of communication product, a process to communicate key messages, [and] an attitude or set of mental habits" (Argenti, 2007). When one considers how broad that makes the category of CC, it is no wonder that it can be difficult to define. However, if a corporation is having a difficult time branding itself to the public; it is having a CC problem, because the heart of CC examines how a corporation delivers its message to stakeholders.

Of course, CC problems can also be seen when a corporation is having a problem communicating with its employees. Communicating to employees in a large corporation, especially a global corporation, can be particularly challenging. First, the company has to get the same message to all of its employees, oftentimes crossing language and cultural barriers. However, corporate communication extends beyond the message, and involves the medium of delivery as well (Chin, 2005). In fact, it is the combination of message, medium, and delivery that determines whether employees will receive and understand a corporate message (Chin, 2005). If the message is unable to grab the attention of an employee for the few seconds it requires for someone to determine whether or not to read the message, the message will not be received (Chin, 2005). Therefore, determining the medium that is most likely to garner employee attention becomes an important component of the CC process, adding to its definition and helping define its parameters. Furthermore, this medium is likely to change. For example, when e-mail was still a new form of communication, it was probably the most effective way for corporations to communicate with employees. However, now that email is so subject to inundation, messages can be lost in the medium, and corporations may need to look for another medium with which to relay their messages to their employees.

The email example helps explain why one must examine CC from a historical background, so that one can understand where it came from and why it developed. Changing technologies have certainly impacted how and why corporations communicate with their various stakeholders. In fact, while corporations have always needed to worry about how the public viewed their corporate images, this concern has grown exponentially over the last few decades. That is because historically corporations were somewhat insular; therefore, there did not have to be a significant connection between a carefully crafted public reputation and a company's internal workings. One can see the evolution of corporations themselves when looking at how CC has evolved as well. Looking at corporate communication from a historical light involves examining it from the perspective of evolving communications opportunities (Cornelissen, 2004). Corporate communications involves not just the message, but the idea that communications are managed, and are connected to corporate objectives (Cornelissen, 2004). Therefore, when communication possibilities were limited, corporate options were limited, and one did not see communications management perspectives that advocated the type of intimate connection between communications and corporate strategy that one sees in a modern context (Cornelissen, 2004). What this makes clear is that CC is not simply, or even primarily, about communications; it is an overall corporate strategy that helps define how a corporation interacts with the world.

The emphasis on communication is very different from how corporations were traditionally, historically structured. Traditionally, strategic planning occurred at the top of the corporate structure, management was considered a mid-level activity, and operational control was the function of first-level management, and this corporate strategy was used in most workplaces (Oliver, 1997). However, as institutional hierarchies were challenged and toppled, one saw a different type of organizational structure emerge (Oliver, 1997). Instead of a tiered-vertical management structure, one saw the emergence of horizontal management structures (Oliver, 1997). Instead of strategy being dictated from the top-down, different parts of corporations can engage in strategy-building. In fact, many modern corporations are very actively involved in having various stakeholders, be they employees or customers, help establish corporate policies and goals. Therefore, the communication in CC is not a one-way phenomenon. Instead, it becomes clear that CC interacts with corporate structure. Whether CC has changed the top-heavy configuration of corporations, or whether changes in that top-heavy configuration have led to the advent of CC is something that may never be understood, but it is clear that greater efficiency is one result of incorporation CC.

However, while CC can help streamline a company, it is important to understand that corporations are going to have to continue some compartmentalization because without the appropriate delegation, the corporate message gets muddled. In fact, when examining the corporate communication structure, it becomes clear that, regardless of how integrated a company is, there is still a clear delineation between the two types of communication systems existing in the corporation. The public cannot have full access to a corporation's inner workings. Even if that were plausible, it would be impossible for the public to keep up with all of the communications of every corporation. Moreover, it is not plausible; corporations are entitled to have trade secrets and to not be required or compelled to disclose all of their inner communications; anything else would literally eliminate any business advantage. Therefore, it is clear that, the there are two main types of corporate communications, internal and exteneral, and those two types are inner-related (Varey & White, 2000). Internal corporate communications are communications to employees and they are involved in organizing and accomplishing the company's goals, but those communications are based on information gathered from the company's external corporate communications (Varey & White, 2000). The external corporatate communications systems are how the company presents its information o the external environment, and have the goal of changing the behavior of external stakeholders (Varey & White, 2000).

In fact, there are so many different publics interested in corporate communications that it can be difficult to understand how a corporation should tailor its message. The various stakeholders involved in corporate communications are a mixed group and include investors, employees, customers, possible or current business partners, special-interest groups, all levels of government, community leaders, and the media (Argenti & Forman, 2002). In fact, these constituencies may seem even more influential than they are because the media literally hounds some modern corporations (Argenti & Forman, 2002). It may seem like the term hounding is weighted, but it actually describes the modern extremely connected environment very well. Corporations have benefitted from the global environment, but they have also been harmed by how readily available information is. If a corporation engages in activities that will be considered unacceptable, either legally or morally, they are going to lose clients. Moreover, some of that client loss can be permanent, even if a corporation acts immediately to correct a perceived wrong. Therefore, it is critical that corporations carefully manage their communications at all times, and that they manage the possible negative impact of any information about the corporation in a way that keeps that information consistent with the corporation's central message.

What has led to this change in how corporations need to communicate? It is no coincidence that CC and ICC have developed alongside the World Wide Web. The fact that complete strangers from totally different cultural backgrounds can communicate about a variety of things, including corporate practices, means that corporations have to be certain that their actions are consistent with their behaviors, to keep their message cohesive. For example, a company with a humanitarian advertising campaign needs to be certain that its offshore production facilities are not employing forced labor, or else they seem like hypocrites. However, it is a mistake to assume that the globalization of knowledge has been a detriment to corporations. On the contrary, a knowledge-based economy has helped change the face of corporate competition; it has made co-operation more efficient than competition in many instances, and has challenged the idea that business is a zero-sum game in which one party wins while the other loses (Varey & White, 2000). This knowledge-based economy has opened up room for friendly competition and cooperation between companies, which has helped change the face of modern business. To suggest that such cooperation is now the norm for business would be wrong; there is still intense competition in the business world. However, it has made it possible for some companies to understand that a corporation's gain does not necessarily require loss on anyone else's part.

These changes in CC have led to the advent of a different type of approach to corporate communications. Corporate communication is about more than communication; it is about corporate strategy. Corporations can use CC to gain a competitive advantage, by using it to lead, motivate, persuade, and inform employees and other stakeholders (Goodman, 2000). What this change means is that marketing has come out of the marketing department. Marketing language is no longer limited to advertisements, in part because of the growing awareness that all corporate communication is, in some way, marketing for the corporation. Therefore, corporate communication is intimately linked to marketing communication. Marketing communication drives the internal and external corporate message, as well as ensuring that the corporate image is aligned with the corporation's social identity (Belasen, 2008). Marketing communication deals with the branding of the corporation, and can help support the institutionalization of the organization by ensuring that the corporation's communications output is consistent with and reinforces that established brand (Belasen, 2008). Corporations have become aware that every single time they interact with people, whether internally or externally, those communications become part of the corporate brand. If even some of those communications are sending messages that are inconsistent with the corporate brand or the corporation's central message, the challenge for is to better integrate the different aspects of the company.

What the above makes clear is that marketing has to permeate the entire company, yet CC is not only about marketing. Marketing is a huge part of communication, but communication is about more than marketing. Corporate communication practitioners need to be able to: teach; absorb and comprehend vast amounts of complex information quickly; build relationships; build trust; build a corporate culture; solve problems in groups; understand media technology; and feel comfortable in a global business environment (Goodman, 2004). All of these additional components are at least as critical as the marketing component, because they help shape the nature of the corporation's communications in a way that goes beyond the attempt to sell products, even if they are about the attempt to sell the company in some way.

It is by looking at all of the various components that one can really begin to understand integration. ICC, like CC, can be very difficult to define because it is highly conceptual. According to Paul Argenti, in order to explain integration in the context of corporate communications, one must first explain what it does not mean o explain what "integrated" means, we can start by looking at what it does not mean (Argenti, 2006). Argenti argues that when a company subdivides its corporate communication functions into different areas, such as investor relations, public relations, etc., and then gives each subdivision its own agenda and set of messages to deliver, then that corporation is not using ICC (Argenti, 2006). This is because each target constituency is getting a different set of messages, rather than getting a tailored version of a single integrated message (Argenti, 2006). Moreover, when a company is subdivided in that manner, communication between the different subgroups is relegated to a voluntary status, rather than a necessary status (Argenti, 2006). When a company is divided in this manner, a company's communications are not integrated (Argenti, 2006). However, Argenti also cautions against the assumption that integration somehow requires centralization (Argenti, 2006). Integration can and does occur in organizations where the communications functions are spread throughout various business units and even various global locations (Argenti, 2006). Therefore, integrated means that all parts of a corporation are working together, but it does not necessarily mean that they are acting in a centralized manner. In fact, being centralized could act against integration, since centralization could actually dilute the intent of a message because of cultural differences in communication across the globe. Therefore, centralization is not critical to integration; as long as the corporate message is clearly-defined, it can be delivered through discrete units, working separately.

While ICC can be difficult to define, that does not mean that there is not some consensus about what it means. A corporation has to agree on the toe and nature of the communication that pervades the entire corporation, so that there is a central message, or theme that permeates all of a corporation's communications. According to David Pickton, the key features of ICC are: clearly identified corporate communication objectives consistent with organizational objectives; a planned approach covering the full extent of corporate communication activities; coverage of a range of target audiences relevant to all stakeholders; effectively managing all forms of contact; effective management and integration of all communication and people involved; identification and recognition the impact of all product and brand communications on corporate communication efforts; exploitation of a range of promotional tools; use of a range of messages; and the use of a range of media (Pickton, 2004). Therefore, ICC can involve multiple messages, as long as those messages convey a central theme.

What becomes fascinating is that when one considers the various different ways that a corporation can communicate with people, internally and externally, it becomes clear that these different communication combinations are vast. Some people envision corporate communication as a wheel, with audiences as the outer ring of the wheel and communication channels as the inner ring of the wheel, which yields over 121 combinations of audience and communication channel, even before considering other factors that are unique to particular individuals, such as culture, possible business partnerships, country of origin, or industry image (Percy, 2008). Some of these factors the corporation can control, like the actual message the corporation is conveying. However, there are some factors that a corporation cannot control, such as cultural context in different global locations. Being aware of how those factors are going to interact with the corporate message is critical, because body language and non-visuals could actually send a message that conflicts with the corporation's intended message.

It is important to understand that existing marketing knowledge can be used to help navigate the differences between those markets. In order to be successful, a corporation does not have to be able to sell all of its products in every one of its markets; instead, it merely needs to know the appropriate markets for the appropriate products and services. There are already exercises that exist to help determine which marketplaces will support new and existing products (Coulson-Thomas, 2004). Moreover, there are checklists that allow corporations to look at the importance of seemingly dichotomous elements like "action and reaction, complexity and simplicity, activity and reflection and change and continuity" (Coulson-Thomas, 2004). Going from one extreme to the other can help a corporation examine possibilities and come up with different alternatives (Coulson-Thomas, 2004). To understand this, it is important to understand that different stakeholders have different preferences, and may make different decisions based on the possible available alternatives (Coulson-Thomas, 2004). In other words, something that will be successful in one market may not be successful in another market, and a corporation does not need to strive for universal success. On the contrary, corporations can be very successful by carefully choosing the appropriate markets for the appropriate products and services.

One factor that cannot be overemphasized is the critical role that people at all levels of the corporation play in developing CC and ICC. People play a huge role in corporate branding; in fact, for many corporations people are the corporate brand. People drive the company; not only do they interact with customers, they interact with one another, they make the products, they perform the services, and they develop the marketing and communication strategies for the company (Melewar & McCann, 2004). Therefore, it becomes clear that the people in the corporation control the perceptions of the organization, and that this control exists at all levels of the corporation (Melewar & McCann, 2004). Moreover, people play a role even when they are not actively involved in the business of a company. A company that markets to women would find itself in a public relations nightmare if one of its high-level executives was convicted of domestic violence without facing any repercussions from the company. People help shape the brand, so if employees are not consistent with the corporation's central message, then they may be incompatible with the corporation. Obviously, lower-level employees are unlikely to get the same amount of press for misdeeds as higher-level employees, but they can still help set the tone for the corporation. A single experience of a fast-food worker using dirty hands to prepare food, though clearly against corporate policies, can be enough to prevent customers from returning to that establishment, because of the message it carries to the customer. In fact, the lower-level, lower-wage employees are more likely to directly interact with the public than other employees, which means that brand management often comes down to managing these employees.

What all of the above means is that, in ICC, everything a corporation does, as well as every single piece of communication that the corporation releases either internally or externally, has the ability to be an advertisement. Any form of media corporation can be an advertisement. That is why media control is critical. The media can be used to help generate interest in a company, ranging from customer interest to capital investment (Ryan & Jacobs, 2005). In addition, both public relations and internal relations are critical in a company's media communications strategy (Ryan & Jacobs, 2005). An integrated communications approach uses PR and IR in a checks and balances manner, to ensure that both sides of the communications function are helping one another and are forwarding the desired corporate message (Ryan & Jacobs, 2005). However, there is a potentially negative side to this phenomenon. If handled improperly, the media can sink a corporation, quickly, even if a corporation has not engaged in any type of inappropriate behavior. In this day and age of instant information exchange, it would be irresponsible for a corporation to ever assume that even its highest-level private communications are going to remain private. While the potential for disclosure may be low, the costs that come with such potential disclosure can be amazingly high. This paper is going to look at The New York Times as an example of a highly-branded, highly-reputable news organization. If one contrasts that organization with what happened at News of the World when the public found out about its wiretapping, it becomes clear that every corporate communication, every corporate action presents the opportunity for press, both good and bad.

In fact, it may be appropriate to look at ICC professionals as knowledge managers, not simply as communication managers, because they need to be aware of the possibility of instant revelations about corporate communications and ensure consistency across all forms of communication. Communication was previously viewed as almost a passive process, but that approach is no longer tenable. Now that communication is about information and knowledge management, information managers have to act in an active and participative mode (Roberts, 2004). Specialized knowledge managers, while autonomous, have to interact with other leaders in an organization, rather than substituting their judgment for the judgment of others (Roberts, 2004). In other words, as corporations become more integrated, and the world becomes more global, more and more people in a corporation have to take on the responsibility of being knowledge managers.

Perhaps no area reflects the importance of ICC more than the area of corporate social responsibility, which is becoming an increasingly important part of corporate communication. Product quality and price are no longer the driving factors in purchasing decisions; now that people can easily learn about a company's employment policies, environmental impacts, or political contributions, all of those factors become part of how consumers make their purchasing decisions. No longer are companies judged simply on products, but also on the perceived ethics behind the creation and distribution of those products. Corporate social responsibility is a relatively new concept; it is only since the 1970s that the public has become critical of the larger role that corporations play in society (Barker & Angelopulo, 2006). In fact, this type of public interest can effect huge corporate and social change. Anti-apartheid sanctions against corporations engaging in business in South Africa, led by interest groups in Europe and the United States, helped change segregationist policies because the corporations exerted pressure on the government (Barker & Angelopulo, 2006). Considering the significance of that role is critical. Consumer pressure against apartheid led to reduced sales for many corporations, and corporations had to consider the message that they were sending by continuing to do business in or with South Africa during apartheid. That refusal to buy had the makings of a classic boycott, and those have been around since the first vendor sold the first item to the first customer. What is more interesting, though, is that this pressure by consumers on corporations actually helped lead to a change in the political structure of country. The fact that corporations can help bring about political change makes it even more difficult for corporations to engage in questionably moral behavior, because consumers have the expectation that corporations are powerful and can effect change, if they choose to do so.

While it may seem like ICC is clearly the way for corporations to move their management strategies, it is important to realize that not all corporations have embraced the idea of ICC. In fact, looking at only the marketing aspect of ICC, what becomes interesting is that the idea is not a new one, and that corporations have seemingly been resisting it for more than half of a century. What is fascinating to note is that integrated marketing programs were first introduced in the 1950s, but most companies have still failed to fully endorse or adopt those programs (van Riel & Fombruni, 2007). Many companies do not get past the stage of integrating media communication and to the stages of integrating marketing communication and integrating communication across the enterprise. Instead, they seem mired in a twilight stage between CC and ICC, so that their companies are not operating at their optimum levels.

Why are there so many barriers to the successful usage of ICC in companies? If the strategies work, it would seem like companies would be happy to implement ICC strategies in their companies. Given the overabundance of corporate wealth, it seems clear that it is not due to a lack of funds. Some companies are easily able to achieve a global presence through marketing. However, a global presence cannot be achieved simply by throwing money at an issue; instead, for a corporation to have a consistent global presence there needs to be real inspiration behind the corporation's central message. In fact, while money is in abundant supply for global campaigns, it can be difficult for marketing or communications professionals to develop the creative ideas that fuel successful global campaigns (Melewar & McCann, 2004). These corporations who are global leaders recognize that every interaction that they have with the public impacts how the corporation is perceived by the public. Moreover, these global campaigns are not limited to marketing, but include all types of media creation. "Media creation can be, and is, generated and sustained by innovative and creative communication and media usage" (Kitchen & De Pelsmacker, 2004). Therefore, they strive to always be innovative and creative in their communication. Moreover, they strive to be honest and honestly represent the company's ideals.

This report will specifically examine three corporations, Starbucks, FedEx, and The New York Times, to see how they have applied CC and ICC in their corporate communications programs and in their management strategies. Paul Argenti offers an excellent discussion about why FedEx and The New York Times are good examples of highly-integrated companies. Before delving into his analysis of those companies, it is important to understand why Argenti feels that companies have been pressured to integrate their communication. He feels that there have been catalysts in the modern business environment that have helped promote the idea of integration. The first catalyst was that companies were prohibited from disclosing nonpublic information to investors unless it had already been disclosed to the general public (Argenti, 2006). This legal change made it imperative that corporations align communications to the general public with communications to its stockholders and potential investors. Argenti's second catalyst was the fact that constituencies now overlap for many corporations (Argenti, 2006). Employees may be stockholders, and customers may be stockholders as well, since the 1990s saw a dramatic increase in the number of people owning stock. In addition to the fact that these constituencies tend to overlap, Argenti noted that stakeholders have become more sophisticated than they were in the past (Argenti, 2006). In fact, stakeholders have become thirty for information, and this access to information has made them more able to make discriminating judgments about purchases and about investments (Argenti, 2006). Furthermore, in the stockholder context, this greater access to information has given the individual stockholder more power than he or she traditionally held in the past (Argenti, 2006). The once "silent majority" is now eager to assert themselves in corporate governance, by using proxy votes and otherwise actively participating in the corporate structure (Argenti, 2006). The third catalyst is organizational growth; as corporations grow larger and more complex, they have to change their corporate communication functions (Argenti, 2006). The fourth catalyst for change, which is discussed above, is technology; changing technology has provided an immediate outlet for the release of private corporate communications (Argenti, 2006).

Argenti considers The New York Times as a wonderful example of ICC. The New York Times began to integrate its communications in the 1990s, partially in response to the changing media landscape. Up until the early 1990s, the Times had been able to rely upon its reputation as an outstanding news source. However, with industry changes, the company was forced to refine its strategy, and had to take a more disciplined and coordinated approach to its corporate strategy, specifically CC (Argenti, 2006). This allowed the company to take advantage of more opportunities. The company speaks with one voice in its day-to-day operations (Argenti, 2006). This is the result of a formalized integration process that allow the group to communicate with one another across business units, in a way that allows it to provide a central message, regardless of the targeted audience (Argenti, 2006). The New York Times created a communications council to deal with integrated communications. "The council, comprised of executives representing a cross section of the company (including executives from the 15 regional newspapers, human resources, broadcast and digital), meets once a month to discuss current communications issues and programs" (Argenti, 2006). By meeting and coordinating efforts, the council ensures that there is no duplicate work, as well as making sure that there is a central voice for the company. The entire company is also involved in helping develop strategy, which ensures that the company's entire audience range is being considered in the development of the company voice (Argenti, 2006). One of the side-effects of that strategy is that ICC led the Times to establish committees to address specific business areas in need of transformation and honing (Argenti, 2006). The fact that communication led to the discovery of business areas that needed transformation helps demonstrate how ICC is more than a communication plan; it offers a way to run businesses.

Argenti also focused on FedEx. Communication always played a critical role in FedEx's business structure. The founder insisted on always being kept aware of situations, and on keeping his employees informed, as well, which established a corporate structure of communication (Argenti, 2006). Though the company started out with an integrated approach, it carried integration to a higher level when it began its global expansion. Due to the increased complexity of businesses and constituencies, societal demands, and corporate governance issues, the company had to take an integrated approach to communications (Argenti, 2006). The company developed a "One Vision, One Voice" policy that allowed it to deal with all of its constituents in a consistent manner, while still recognizing their different needs (Argenti, 2006). At FedEx, this is done by having a central person deal with understanding all of the key stakeholders, and personally attending many of the meetings where vision and voice are developed and discussed (Argenti, 2006). He works together with an Internal Relations team that is focused on developing things to reflect the needs and desires of Wall Street (Argenti, 2006). It is that part of the company that works to develop press releases. The company also aggressively manages its reputation, both internally and externally. "They use metrics such as the Reputation Quotient and Delahaye Media data to track the company's progress, and then use this in planning and shaping their messages" (Argentis, 2006). Moreover, the message has to flexible enough to fit in different markets, while still providing a consistent voice for the company (Argentis, 2006). One of the factors that Argentis points out is that integration crosses internal and external boundaries; the integrated message is the same regardless of whether the audience is an internal or external one (Argentis, 2006). FedEx has a private satellite broadcast network and produces and broadcasts a daily 10 minute segment to employees, to keep them current on important corporate information (Argentis, 2006). This insures constant communication with internal employees, which enables them to provide a consistent message to external stakeholders.

Starbucks is another wonderful example of an industry leader. Starbucks image is based on the idea that it is more than a cup of coffee; it is a community based on ideals shared by the corporation, its consumers, and its partners (Storace, 2009). How does Starbucks convey the idea of community through its communications? It uses an integrated marketing communications effort, including internal marketing to its partners, encouraging customer participation, and participation in the type of sustainable development projects that the company says it supports (Storace, 2009). In fact, participation in those sustainable development projects helps demonstrate that communications can involve actions, not just words or messages.

What makes Starbucks so interesting is that much of its brand development was done internally. The company has built up a reputation as a wonderful place to work, and that reputation is based on corporate action. For example, employees are referred to as partners and treated as community members (Storace, 2009). Starbucks employees, even part-time employees have access to health-care benefits and other perks that are widely unavailable in the pay bracket for those employees in competing organizations (Storace, 2009). Furthermore, Starbucks expects its employees to extend this sense of community to its customers. Employees are expected to be friendly and knowledgeable to customers, so that each customer feels like parto f the Starbucks community (Storace, 2009). In addition, though Starbucks is a large chain, it tries to become involved in each of its host communities, making it a member of the community and showing understanding of its stakeholders. In other words, Starbucks wants every host community to experience tangible benefits from Starbucks entering into he community (Storace, 2009). Moreover, Starbucks is aware of the fact that a relationship with consumers must flow both ways. Starbucks very actively solicits customer feedback and participating, and is aware that doing so can increase brand loyalty, because customers feel as if they have a stake in the company (Storace, 2009).

Analysis

As a review of the literature makes clear, CC and ICC are not clear-cut concepts. Instead, they are fluid concepts, and they change to reflect the needs of the corporations using them, as well as the different stakeholders applicable to each individual business scenario. However, the review of the literature also makes it clear that ICC goes a step further than CC. At its heart, CC basically involves any corporate management structure that is based upon communication. ICC takes CC a step further and looks at integration among that communication. Of the three businesses discussed, two of them actually refer to the idea that the corporation should present one voice to its various constituencies, making it clear that one voice is an important element of ICC. While ICC does not require a centralized communications center, it does require a centralized message. Therefore, this analysis will look at the central messages sent by each of the three companies being researched, as well as the ways in which they send those messages.

Starbucks

Beginning the analysis with a look at Starbucks, the first thing to consider is why Starbucks is more than a coffee company. This question is important, because Starbucks has a successful business model, despite the fact that its coffee is significantly more expensive than its competitors' coffee. Looking at the Starbucks' mission statement, one sees that Starbucks attempts to send the message that it is about more than coffee. According to Starbucks, its mission is "to inspire and nurture the human spirit- one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time" (Starbucks, 2011). The mission statement then goes on to describe specifics. It discusses sourcing the finest coffee beans, and improving the lives of those working as coffee growers, which is a critical issue given the sub-human conditions many third-world coffee growers and pickers endure (Starbucks, 2011). The mission statement also discusses Starbucks partners, stating that "We're called partners, because it's not just a job, it's our passion. Together, we embrace diversity to create a place where each of us can be ourselves. We always treat each other with respect and dignity. And we hold each other to that standard" (Starbucks, 2011). Furthermore, as is critical for integration, Starbucks believes that all of the stakeholders should receive the same message. They talk about making a "human connection" with their customers, which translates into stores becoming a refuge from the outside world, where people can come participate in a community that extends the idea of a haven (Starbucks, 2011). Moreover, Starbucks does not simply envision itself as a business. It believes that it can "be a force for positive action- bringing together our partners, customers, and the community to contribute every day" (Starbucks, 2011). Finally, the mission statement addresses the shareholders, and the idea that Starbucks will endure and thrive as long as it is fully accountable to the other parts of its mission statement (Starbucks, 2011). Clearly, Starbucks message is that it is selling more than a cup of coffee. It is selling humanity, compassion, interaction, and community.

However, wanting to convey a message is different than successfully conveying a message. The key to understanding how Starbucks uses ICC is to understand how it convinces its customers that they are getting all of those things in addition to their cups of coffee. What makes Starbucks such a fascinating business example is that it is able to integrate its corporate messaging in a very thorough manner (Croasdale, 2011). Starbucks uses cross-channel communication, os that whenever a person interacts with Starbucks in any way, the person receives the same message (Croasdale, 2011). One way that Starbucks is able to deliver this consistent message is that its message rarely focuses on financial tangibles, but instead emphasizes non-financial aspects that help drive the corporate brand, such as the availability of health benefits to all of tis employees (Croasdale, 2011). In fact, Starbucks has built its reputation on the idea that the corporation's goal is to serve people, and that it is almost secondary that the corporation happens to be serving those people coffee (Croasdale, 2011). Moreover, Starbucks manages to deliver this same message and this same performance over the long-term, helping substantiate the seriousness of its message (Croasdale, 2011).

Furthermore, it is impossible to overemphasize the role that the employees play in Starbuck's image. One key to Starbuck's brand image is that it has sold its message to its internal stakeholders (Storace, 2009). Staff members are treated like community members, and, if they have worked in any competing organizations, they understand this treatment is not the norm for low-wage entry level fast-food positions. These employees are able to genuinely appreciate being part of a unique company, and they transmit that appreciation to the consumers (Storace, 2009). The result is wonderful customer service, and "this great customer service plays a crucial role in conveying Starbucks' community-oriented and customer-centric image to the public" (Storace, 2009). The reality is that when a consumer walks into a Starbucks, the entire experience may be defined by the barista. The fact that the lowest-wage-level employee can determine a company's reputation is not something that is lost on Starbucks, which is why it is committed to investing in each of its partners.

However, Starbucks is not content to simply believe that treating its partners like partners will result in exemplary customer service. Instead, it focuses on providing such exemplary service (Hosford-Dunn, 2007). That is critical, because people tend to only interact with corporations about customer service when it has either been exceptionally good or exceptionally bad. However, Starbucks solicits this information in a respectful way, ever aware that surveys can become a nuisance to customers and can actually detract from the customer service experience (Hosford-Dunn, 2007). Therefore, it is able to consistently assess how it is performing in terms of customer service without acting in an invasive manner. Moreover, it takes action based on customer feedback regarding customer service. This attitude goes a long way towards explaining why people will pay significantly more for a cup of coffee at Starbucks than they will at faster retail operations, even when the suggestion is that there is no substantial quality difference between the actual cups of coffee, which is the actually product sold by Starbucks. In fact, Starbucks' "growth rate is phenomenal as is its valuation performance relative to the S&P 500" (Croasdale, 2011).

Looking at Starbucks growth and its success, it seems clear that Starbucks is doing something right. Though it did close many retail establishments in the wake of the depression, it has continued to expand globally and remain profitable, despite a global economic recession. One of the things to examine is Starbuck's identity. Starbucks is primarily a coffee shop, but it has extended its brand to merchandise like espresso and coffee machines, music, books, gift items, and snacks (Lambarena, 2011). The identity that Starbucks communicates differs slightly depending upon the stakeholder. Secondary communication areas for the Starbucks corporation include product-related communications, employee-related communications, and corporate social responsibility related communications, but the company is always cognizant that there will be overlap between these secondary stakeholder groups (Lambarena, 2011).

How does Starbucks exercise such a high-degree of control over its corporate image, while somehow maintaining an identity that challenges the idea of such control? Starbucks uses controllable communication to target its customers (Lambarena, 2011). Examples of this controllable communication include a Facebook page (Facebook.com/starbucks), the company's own website, and a general internet presence that emphasizes Starbuck's people-first approach to business (Lambarena, 2011). Employees and investors receive different messages through press releases, but these focus on something different than customer-oriented communications, such as financial results and company rewards.

However, the communicated identify and the actual identity are slightly different than the corporation's conceived identity. In fact, it is important to recognize that a corporation can have several different identifies. For Starbucks, the conceived identity looks at the organization from the stakeholder's perspective (Lambarena, 2011). An understanding of the conceived identity involves an examination of Starbuck's efforts to communicate with various stakeholders. Looking at Starbuck's official Facebook page, people can see how those efforts translate to social media. For example, consumers can upload their personal photos to a photo album, showing how their personal experiences relate to the corporate brand (Lambarena, 2011). As a result, one finds photos of consumers and partners with Starbucks beverages and in global Starbucks locations, on this social media site (Lambarena, 2011). Looking at the juxtaposition of these photos, one sees consistency in the global experience of the Starbucks brand (Lambarena, 2011). However, one also sees an example of just how global the corporation is, because there are photos from around the world, with consumers enjoying products one can find in the same locations (Lambarena, 2011). Somehow, the company manages to emphasize its global nature and its small community feel at the same time, which shows that different users can have different perceptions of the same message (Lambarena, 2011). That material depicts Starbucks' conceived identity, which is the identity that it wants to convey to the public. There is some conflict with the conceived identity and actual perceptions by people, and, even though Starbucks attempts to convey an integrated message, it also acknowledges that user perception helps create Starbucks' identity. There is a recognition that the corporation cannot completely control its image; customers help create the business message as well (Lambarena, 2011). What Starbucks has done with this interactive stakeholder communication is create an open system that allows different stakeholders to create their own identities while still carrying the Starbucks message to other stakeholders (Lambarena, 2011).

One of the ways that Starbucks does to maintain ICC is to periodically assess whether its identity is in line with the image that it wants to portray. While a corporation may be trying to relay a single message, it is possible for that message to be misconstrued. Therefore, a corporation has to stop and look for misalignments. Are all of the communications reinforcing the company's central message. It is important to keep in mind that the brand acts as s promise to the various stakeholders, and that all of a corporation's multiple identities must be capable of carrying out that promise (Lambarena, 2011). By assessing whether different stakeholders are getting the message that Starbucks is intending to convey, or whether Starbucks is actually speaking in a voice other than the one it intends to use. Therefore, they consistently assess information to make sure that they are communicating in an integrated manner.

FedEx

FedEx is an industry leader in package transportation. It is a company that is not without its controversy, because its competitive advantage in the United States may be partially due to its unique classification as an air freight company rather than a land freight company. Those questions notwithstanding, the reality is that FedEx is a massively successful, huge corporation. Moreover, FedEx is not simply a package transport company, though deliveries are still the bulk of its business. Today it is a company with $36 billio in annual revenues, which offers various business applications through different branches of companies all operated under the FedEx brand (FedEx, 2011). The result is a multi-faceted company that can deal with e-commerce and business services, in addition to transportation services.

It is important to realize that FedEx's global dominance has been the result of incredibly rapid growth. It was 1973 when FedEx established its operations, and the first night of operations had 389 employees and 14 jets delivering 186 packages to 25 U.S. cities (FedEx, 2011). In 1978, FedEx became a publicly owned company, and began focusing its communication efforts on shareholders as well as other stakeholders. In fact, in 1979, FedEx opened up a central call center for package tracking, which is a great example of CC, because it allowed customers to continuously track packages, ensuring communication with the customers (FedEx, 2011). These innovations in communication continued. For example, in 1980, FedEx introduced Digitally Assisted Dispatch System in their vans, which made it the first air express carrier with computers in their vans, making it easier to coordinate on-call pickups for customers (FedEx, 2011). These innovations in communication made FedEx tremendously successful. In 1983, only 10 years after its creation, FedEx became the first U.S. company to reach the $1 billion in revenue mark without mergers or acquisitions (FedEx, 2011). In 1984, FedEx launched the first PC-based automated shipping system, allowing customers to interact directly with the company in a way that was not previously available in the shipping business (FedEx, 2011). The tracking innovations continued; in 1986, FedEx introduced a hand-held bar code scanner that would capture detailed package information, making it possible for FedEx to communicate even more information with the customer and facilitating communication by the customer to the company (FedEx, 2011). In 1993, FedEx introduced tracking software that allowed their customers to track and trace their own packages from their workplaces, further increasing customer and corporate communication (FedEx, 2011). All of the above are great examples of how FedEx has focused on enhancing communication between the corporation and its customers.

It is also critical to realize that this emphasis on communication is not one that is limited to communication with customers, but also to communication within the organization. "Like Starbucks, FedEx harnesses all communication channels with dynamic and consistent messaging. There is nowhere in the FedEx universe that you can turn where you don't get the message. It is pervasive; and it is visceral" (Croasdale, 2011). This similarity may be due to the fact that FedEx founder Fred Smith, much like Starbucks' founder Howard Shultz, focused his efforts on communication when building the company (Croasdale, 2011). Smith developed a 'one vision, one voice' approach to communication, which insured that the different faces of the company would present the same central message (Croasdale, 2011). This approach was collaborative and focused strongly on building up a corporate reputation (Croasdale, 2011). In fact, the similarities between Fred Smith and Howard Shultz may help explain why both companies embrace ICC. Both corporations take a similar approach to management, focusing on communication as a core management skill at all levels of management (Croasdale, 2011). Moreover, both corporations are constantly engaged in research with the goal of ensuring that their communications are always relevant and consistent (Croasdale, 2011). Moreover, FedEx has a unique program to make sure that their employees get this consistent message: a company-wide private television network, which broadcasts the message to employees (Croasdale, 2011). Like Starbucks, FedEx has had tremendous success with the emphasis on communication (Croasdale, 2011).

One of the interesting aspects about FedEx, which proves the idea that an integrated message does not have to involve centralization, is that FedEx focuses on specific customer groups and markets and targets its messages towards them accordingly. Although FedEx sends a central message, its marketing department activity is not centralized, but is centered around customer segments (McGoon, 1998). "Each segment is staffed by a cross-functional team composed of a manager, a marketer, an analyst, an agency account executive, and -- if applicable -- a representative from the agency-managed fulfillment house"(McGoon, 1998). Each of these segment teams meets frequently, as well as communicating via email on an as-necessary basis, meaning that they can be in constant communication with one another and with other teams (McGoon, 1998). Therefore, while FedEx has a central message, it is very aware that different markets require different forms of communication.

In fact, while FedEx was using partial integration, it did not feel like it was actually using a fully integrated approach until 2010. It was in early 2010 that Steve Pacheco, FedEx's director of advertising, talked about rolling out an integrated campaign. He talked about integrating as many elements as possible, including display ads, social media, online video, direct mail, and e-mail (Dilworth, 2010). The unified message being sent by this ad was "we understand" (Dilworth, 2010). Furthermore, the ads directed consumers to a microsite, helping explain this central message (Dilworth, 2010). Furthermore, this central message is a different one than the one the company has sent in the past. The "we understand" message is meant to address the financial difficulties that have hit consumers as a result of the recession and position FedEx as an affordable and relatable brand in difficult financial times (Dilworth, 2010). Therefore, reliability and affordability are two key parts of the campaign, since those attributes are especially salient in a recession-economy.

Furthermore, this marketing campaign reflects the way that ICC interacts with customers and their realities. For a long time, FedEx focused marketing campaigns on sporting events, with the idea that it could market to executives during their downtime (Pacheco, 2011). However, as the economy has taken a tremendous downturn, this type of marketing seems much less likely to be successful. In fact, FedEx may be struggling with some backlash because of a perceived technical, legal advantage over its major competitor in the United States, UPS. In 1996, lawmakers included language in an aviation bill that classified FedEx as an airline rather than a trucking firm, which prevented FedEx employees from unionizing, giving it a competitive advantage over rival UPS, whose employees belong to the Teamsters union (Czerniec, 2010). UPS has sought to challenge this different classification, and FedEx has fired back with aggressive marketing that suggests that UPS is looking for some type of government bailout (Czerniec, 2010). However, this willingness to take advantage of loopholes while disparaging a rival has not promoted the traditional reputation that FedEx has tried to establish.

Contrast the idea of a disparaging ad campaign with the information that FedEx has worked hard to imbue its brand with what it calls its brand attributes. According to FedEx's own brand-specific literature, "Our brand attributes are at the core of our brand. They summarize our promise to our customers, showing people not only what we do, but how we do it. Everything that bears the FedEx name should live up to these attributes" (FedEx, 2008). These brand attributes are: simplifying, optimizing, certain, personal, inventive, and connecting (FedEx, 2008). When FedEx does something that fails to live up to its attributes, the consequences for that behavior could be more damaging than for a company with a less solid reputation, because it challenges the core beliefs that customers hold about the corporation.

Furthermore, their internal promotional literature suggests that FedEx firmly believes that it lives out those brand attributes in its daily business. According to them, "It's easy to work with FedEx. We don't waste anyone's time. Our procedures are straightforward, and our communications are clear. Every FedEx customer has different needs. We find the right solution -- and the right price -- for each customer's business. Global business constantly changes. So does FedEx. As we invent new solutions, we lead the way in operations, technology and e-commerce. FedEx makes connections. Our networks link people, packages and information around the clock and around the world. Our customers don't have time for "almost." They demand certainty. FedEx delivers. FedEx customers are people, not transactions. We get to know each customer and offer them the tools they need to achieve their goals" (FedEx, 2008). In other words, the company has a commitment to bringing the integrated customer service goal to each individual customer. Being integrated in its customer-service goals actually means being responsive to those individual customers.

Moreover, Bill Margaritis, FedEx's chief communication officer, is very aware that his company needs to be responsive to change. Moreover, he is aware how important communication is in the role of change, believing that corporate communication plays a central role in the execution of change. Margaritis has ensured that all smaller-level communication plans support the central corporate message, and that by meeting smaller tangible short-term goals, the company furthers its long-term goals (Forman & Argenti, 2005). Despite having some missteps, like the seeming attacks on UPS, it is impossible to ignore the fact that FedEx has very consistently and successfully developed its reputation and brand management, so that its corporate reputation is considered admired and interactive with customers. One interesting distinction is that Margaritis differentiates between reputation and branding, by saying that reputation depends upon behavior, while brand is the expectation of performance (Forman & Argenti, 2005). Reputation is more than a brand, and cannot be created through advertising alone. In fact, focusing on reputation has been a critical part of FedEx's ICC strategy. In fact, FedEx has focused on reputation more than brand. FedEx has focused on explaining the meaning of reputation to its stakeholders, why that reputation is important, and what FedEx is willing to do to ensure that it lives up to that reputation (Forman & Argenti, 2005).

The New York Times

If ever an organization were to be said to be built upon the reputation, The New York Times is such an organization. Though it is often considered to be a left-leaning publication, it has been considered reliable and trustworthy when it comes to facts and factual reporting. In fact, it was the desire for such reliability that prompted its founders to start The New York Times. Henry J. Raymond and George Jones founded The New York Times in 1851 as a "sober alternative to the more partisan newspapers that dominated the New York journalism of the time" (Sourcewatch, 2011). Adolph Ochs acquired the paper in 1896, and it achieved international scope, circulation, and reputation underneath him (Sourcewatch, 2011). Ochs' descendants maintain a dominant role in the modern New York Times Company. The reliability of the information that they release has been the consistent message of the newspaper, and has been one that it has attempted to send to all stakeholders.

That is not to suggest that The New York Times has been without its credibility problems, and, for a company built upon the single message that its information is factually reliable, these problems have had a significant impact on its reputations. In 2003, the Times was plagued by journalism fraud problems when one of its reporters, Jayson Blair, was discovered writing fraudulent articles (Sourcewatch, 2011). These problems were exacerbated by allegations of affirmative action and reverse racism, because of Blair being African-American (Sourcewatch, 2011). Though Blair was immediately fired after the incident and several top official resigned following the incident, it cast a taint on the Times reputation (Sourcewatch, 2011).

This scandal was followed by another credibility issue in 2004, when the Times published an editorial letter in which it acknowledged that its reporting in the buildup to the war in Iraq was flawed, as it helped promote the idea that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (Sourcewatch, 2011). Moreover, the credibility issue regarding the WMDs was not merely an instance of reporters having their facts wrong, but, according to Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent, a signal of an institutional problem (Sourcewatch, 2011). When the Times discovered factual errors in its reporting, it failed to notify readers of its mistakes. In fact, Okrent believed that the Times allowed itself to be used a method of spreading false propaganda to encourage a war (Sourcewatch, 2011).

These types of systemic failures demonstrate the problems that can occur when a corporation is content to rest on reputation without doing the work to ensure that the reputation remains a valid one. In other words, those types of failures reflect a lack of integration. While the Times was busy advocating one message to its customers and stockholders, which was that the Times was a reliable newspaper, it was not sending the same message to its reporters and editorial staff. Instead, somehow the writers and editors at the Times were getting the message that half-measures were going to be sufficient to maintain their positions and maintain the newspaper's prestige. This led to sloppy journalism, which made the Times into a tool to promote false information about WMDs. It also led to outright fraud by a journalist.

However, it is critical to examine how the Times responded to those threats to see how a company can use ICC to revive a failing, threatened brand. The reality is that news organizations, even ones that seem untouchable, can be brought down by scandal. One need only look at recent events in Great Britain to understand that the press can be held accountable for malfeasance. Though the Times did not engage in the same type of illegal behavior, it could have found itself marginalized because of its unwitting participation in fraud and propaganda. However, instead of issuing a piecemeal response to either scandal, the Times took the opportunity to evaluate weaknesses and systemically address them. Although it took time to coordinate the efforts, the Times eventually sent the message to its staff and its customers that fraudulent or sloppy journalism would not be tolerated. It also openly acknowledged the fact that its reputation had become tarnished, and that it would have to meet the challenges of restoring itself to its once-lofty status.