Define Strategic Communications In terms of marketing and reaching competitive advantage the importance of strategic communication should not

be underestimated. It has already been acknowledged that consumers today became more demanding and capricious. Moreover, the variety of choice and relatively low cost of switching to alternative product intensified rivalry and reinforced marketing practices. However, strategic communication is more than developing long-term relationship with customers. Basically, it is the use of communication in order to fulfil a particular mission, in other words interacting with all stakeholders providing a sole foundation for further mutually beneficial relationship. The purpose of this paper is to define strategic communication in business context. The paper will outline the basic purpose of communication and central components and aspects to analysis. In particular, the term strategic will be discussed from the perspective of communication messages. Interactivity and networking are defined as the sole component of modern paradigm of research. The process of communication messages development will be approached historically. Evaluation of communicative activity is to come as the conclusive phase of strategic communication. While strategic communication is defined as the purposeful use of communication (Hallahan et al., 2007), the term has already been examined from various perspective. The concept of strategic communication lies across disciplines and must be approached as a social phenomenon, the implication of strategic (manipulative) component, the focus on relationship

and influence. Therefore, the conventional focus on specific managerial problems solved through strategic communication cover only the small part of the issue. In fact, strategic communication exists in the context of the whole scientific paradigm including, but not limited to, audience analysis, goal setting, message strategy, channel choice, and program assessment (Hallahan et al., 2007). The importance of communication practices has been widely recognized across industries. Within large and complex organizations economist distinguish management and marketing communications, public relations, technical and political communications and social marketing campaigns integrated with the organizational design. Within identified practices the organization itself interacts in the external environment and promotes itself as a social actor pursuing its mission. The term strategic is commonly used to define the managerial traits as well as the decision-making abilities. It is proposed to refer to the particular action as a strategic one if it is based on prior experience. From my consideration, this perspective might overturn the topdown communication practice and develop new vision of strategy formulation. On the other hand, Hallahan et al. (2007) mentioned that strategic today economists often understand in terms of change management and link strategic decision to cultural change. Therefore, strategic decisions reflect the relationship between external and internal communication practices and use organizational symbols in communicative messages.

While the term strategic is generally viewed in context of potential to reinforce the perception of stakeholders, it has to be referred to as communication practice of tactical level because the execution of practices is performed technical level. Moreover, the term strategic does not necessarily imply control and dominance over stakeholders, today the relationship between organization and stakeholders could be characterized as participatory. However, academics clustered communication practices into corporate communication (referred to the inner corporate environment), marketing, advertising and public relations (started from advertising and gradually developed to integrated communication to build the brand image), business communication (focusing on leadership and networking skills), and last but not least, organizational communication with the main focus on subordination, organizational climate, Hallahan et al. (2007) defined two main models of communication where the one historically emerged from the other. The so-called transmission model conceptualizes oneway emission of information when the feedback capacity is limited. It was argued that receiving feedback in the process should not be ignored so the interactive model emerged. The interactive model proved its similarity to the ritual model through creating, maintaining and transforming the process of reality creation. Here is the key feature of the modern interactivity the communication is no longer the transmitter of information, it participates in the process of shared reality creation. In terms of entrepreneurship, communication activates the change of ideas, behaviors and attitudes and creates the new ones.

According to Rosenberg, communication is all about meaning creation. As soon as every message is understood and elaborated, various constituents give conscious and unconscious responses to the organization. In terms of meaning creation through interactive model of communication, the receiver-seller conventional bound has been replaced by actor orientation meaning creating, exchanging and sharing mutual understanding of reality. Alike, influence is performed through engagement in communication activities, not convincing or infusing. The lack of collaborative environment leads to underperforming in terms of possessed resources. Therefore, formal and informal connections and networking is encouraged to achieve synergy. In business environment, networking is more about creating value-based networks, like matrix organizations, integrated business lines, and vertically structured practices. This idea practically brings us to the key principle of strategic communications which is the use of communication in order to achieve pursued goals. To attain the maximum effectiveness of the input, the network is to be aligned to the strategic objectives of the organization. Researchers defined two major types of network structures: customized and routine response network. Their features are quite obvious from the structure names: customized responses are usually given in flexible environments while routine response networks operate best when the work is standardized. Both of them maintain high value but it is delivered in different ways. Generally, the network structure depends on the value proposition, strategic objectives and the nature of work.

Indeed, the understanding of communications in business evolved from advertising and one-direction information transmission to production of self-understanding in relation to the environment (Holmstroem, 2004). In connection to that, Marsh (2010) researched the precepts used to create organizations view. In general, the communication endured a shift from managing and persuasion to engaging and sharing. Marsh approached the communication process from the historical perspective and suggested to pay significant attention to the reflective paradigm of Isocrates. In fact, isocratic precepts stated core concepts of self-control and social communication. These historical concepts are easily applicable to the modern business and social mindsets. Thus, Isocrates fully relied on observation from the outside, advocated panhellemism and encouraged continuous dialogue and dissent. Moore (2010) drew the parallels between modern communication principles and ancient times and suggested that strategic communication practices were developed in preindustrial societies. In early attempts to fight uncertainty ancient media addressed the spiritual or unconscious worlds organized long before under the religion and politico-military hierarchy. As of the form of early communication, Moore mentioned simple messages, symbols, words, and images that were interchangeable and repeated frequently. Public buildings and ceremonies, the politys centre, songs and poetry (so-called word of mouth), coins and images were the main symbols borrowed by modern communication practices from the ancient society. The priority message sent via these forms of communication was explaining or promising stability, justice, and understanding of the natural forces that

dominated productive activity. While today we have more tools, the similar strategies are being used. The implementation or use of communication forms and tools initiates the relationship with stakeholders when the evaluation accesses the results of the campaign and judges on the quality of the public relations. Burkart (2007) distinguished between two types of evaluation programs: summative research (measurements at the end of the campaign) and formative research (continuous individual measuring process). The author proposed COPR (ConsensusOriented Public Relations) model to be used in evaluation. Transparency, truthfulness and legitimacy are the central characteristics of such model to pursue. To conclude on the above, strategic communication exists across disciplines being the paradigm which influences the vision of shared reality. The business units embraced the strategic communication in an attempt to engage stakeholders in long-term mutually beneficial relationship. The modern communication practices include the wide variety of forms and channels aimed to produce self-understanding of the object while conducting relationship.

References Burkart, R. (2007). On Jurgen Habermas and public relations. Public Relations Review 33, 249254 Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Vercic, D. & Sriramesh, K. (2007): Defining Strategic Communication, International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1:1, 3-35 Holmstroem, S. (2004). Intermezzo: The reflective paradigm of public relations. In B. van Ruler & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations and communication management in Europe (pp. 121133) Marsh, C. (2010). Precepts of Reflective Public Relations: An Isocratean Model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(4):359377 Moore, S. (2010). The Origins of Strategic Communication: Precedents and Parallels in Ancient States. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 18:227240