Agency vs. Corporate. One is more flexible. One is better paying. One offers a greater variety of projects for new associates. The other likely has a better health plan. I’m here, folks, to argue for another employer for young public relations and marketing types: the government.

Yes, it can be tradition-bound. Yes, your friends likely do not think it’s cool. Chances are, one of your managers will be wearing a short-sleeved shirt - in winter. Your business cards are certainly boring. There will be no fancy lunches …

Still, there are very good reasons to give some thought to working in government communications.

(This is the first of an irregular series meant to argue for a career as a government communicator - written by a government communicator.)

Argument 1: Variety is the spice of life.

I often hear the agency vs. corporate argument framed as a choice between creative opportunity and stifled imagination. My impression is that government communications is subject to an even more cocked eye.

Truth is, the apparently generic job of government communicator can touch upon all of the following tasks during a career. Or in one month:

• Media analyst
• Public opinion research analyst
  
• Communications strategist
• Speechwriter
• Spokesperson
• Policy analyst
  
• Consultations expert
• Publications project manager
• Risk communicator
• Internal communications
• Senior counsel
  
• Brand manager
• E-communications specialist
• Events manager
• And many more …

These roles are available to the new graduate as well as the experienced communicator: while government demands hierarchy, it also produces learning plans, training funds and opportunities for growth.

Next argument to be covered: government work doesn’t mean professional or personal stagnation.

[tags] government communications, agency, communicator [/tags]