Most communication strategies fail before the first message is written.
The problem is usually not poor writing. It is poor thinking.
Organisations often begin with channels—LinkedIn, media releases, newsletters, events, websites and social media—before deciding what the communication is supposed to achieve.
That produces activity.
It does not necessarily produce results.
A genuinely effective communication strategy starts somewhere else: with the organisational problem.
Start with the decision, not the channel
The first question should be:
What decision, behaviour or outcome are we trying to influence?
Suppose a research institute wants government officials to take its findings seriously.
Its communication objective is not "increase social-media engagement."
Suppose a company wants to enter a new African market.
Its objective is not "generate 50 pieces of media coverage."
Suppose a CEO wants employees to support a major restructuring.
The objective is not "send a newsletter."
The channel is subordinate to the objective.
This sounds obvious. Yet Cision's research shows that communications teams remain under considerable pressure to demonstrate business value. Its 2025 Comms Report found that 81% of communications professionals were under greater pressure to deliver bigger results with fewer resources, while 96% said they were relying more heavily on data.
The implication is straightforward:
Communications teams need to become more selective, not simply more productive.
Do not write:
"We need better visibility."
That is not a strategy.
Better questions are:
The clearer the problem, the easier it becomes to decide what communication is necessary.
A stakeholder list is not enough.
You need to understand the relationship between stakeholders.
Consider a university trying to influence national policy.
Its stakeholders might include:
But these groups do not have equal influence.
A minister may influence policy.
A researcher may influence the minister's understanding.
A journalist may influence public debate.
A donor may influence institutional priorities.
A student may influence public sentiment.
The communication strategy should therefore distinguish between audience, influence and interest.
This is one reason stakeholder mapping belongs inside strategic communication rather than being treated as a separate exercise.
Organisations often communicate from the inside out.
They know their history, terminology, achievements and priorities.
Their audiences do not.
The result is predictable: organisations explain themselves rather than answering the audience's questions.
A useful communication strategy therefore identifies:
This is where research becomes important.
Communication should be based on evidence about audiences rather than assumptions about them.
Most organisations have too many messages.
They want to say everything.
The result is usually that audiences remember nothing.
A better strategy has a hierarchy:
This structure also makes communication more resilient. If the CEO is interviewed, a journalist asks a difficult question or an employee needs to explain the strategy, the same underlying logic remains intact.
Evidence is not decoration.
It is persuasion.
Their audiences do not.
For a research institution, that might mean primary research.
For a business, it could be customer data, performance figures or independent market research.
For a policy argument, it may be legislation, official statistics or economic analysis.
For reputation, it may be stakeholder research.
Cision's 2025 State of the Media research found that journalists strongly value relevance and useful information when considering PR pitches. Its broader findings show that evidence-backed, audience-relevant stories are more likely to cut through crowded newsrooms.
The implication is important:
Do not ask journalists or audiences to care simply because you care. Give them a reason.
A common communications mistake is to create a separate strategy for LinkedIn, Instagram, email, media relations and the website.
That reverses the logic.
Instead:
If senior policymakers need a concise briefing, give them one.
If researchers need a detailed technical explanation, give them one.
If the public needs an accessible explanation, translate the substance without stripping away its meaning.
If journalists need a timely news angle, provide one
One strategic argument can therefore produce several forms of communication without becoming repetitive.
Modern communication is increasingly interconnected.
A strong research report can become:
That does not mean copying the same content across every channel.
It means extracting the different useful elements of one substantive piece of work.
Cision has argued for closer integration between PR, social and content teams, while Muck Rack's 2026 research shows that media relations remains central even as AI and generative search become increasingly important to communicators.
For a policy argument, it may be legislation, official statistics or economic analysis.
The lesson is simple:
Build one intellectual strategy, then adapt it intelligently.
A communications strategy should include hostile, awkward and unexpected questions.
If an organisation announces a major investment, what will critics ask?
If a university publishes controversial research, what objections will arise?
If a business enters a new market, what political or social concerns could emerge?If a business enters a new market, what political or social concerns could emerge?
If an executive makes a mistake, what happens next?
A useful strategy therefore includes:
This is especially important in crisis communication.
You do not want to invent your strategy when the story is already breaking.
A communications report filled with impressions can look impressive while telling management almost nothing.
The important question is whether communication contributed to the intended outcome.
Muck Rack's research has repeatedly highlighted the difficulty communications teams face in connecting measurement to organisational objectives. Its 2025 measurement research found that 81% of PR professionals measure their efforts, but measurement is increasingly being treated as part of communication strategy rather than merely as reporting.
The right measures depend on the objective.
If the objective is reputation:
may matter.
If the objective is influence:
may matter.
If the objective is commercial:
may matter.
The metric should follow the objective.
Not the other way around.
A useful real-world example: Starbucks
Starbucks' "Back to Starbucks" turnaround illustrates another important principle: communication works best when it reflects a broader organisational strategy.
CEO Brian Niccol's programme focused on improving the customer experience, simplifying operations and making Starbucks stores more welcoming. Reuters reported in 2025 that the strategy included restructuring the corporate organisation and reducing complexity, while maintaining investment in store operations.
The communication was therefore attached to a tangible organisational proposition.
That is much stronger than inventing a slogan and asking communications teams to make customers believe that everything has changed.
The five-question test.
Before approving a communication strategy, leadership should be able to answer five questions:
1. What are we trying to achieve?
2. Who must understand, believe or do something for that to happen?
3. What do those people currently think?
4. What evidence supports our argument?
5. How will we know whether communication made a difference?
If those questions cannot be answered, the strategy is not ready.
The best communications strategy is rarely the one with the most channels, content or activity.
It is the one that makes the organisation's objective clearer, its argument stronger and its next action more obvious.
Good communication begins with good strategy.
Key sources
Cision — 2025 Comms Report
Cision — 2025 State of the Media Report
Cision — 2025 PR trends and strategy
Muck Rack — State of PR 2026
Muck Rack — State of PR Measurement 2025
Reuters — Starbucks turnaround