- Don’t shy away from communicating the high stakes of your issue.
- Keep your audiences in suspense to keep them engaged and willing to take action.
- Use graphic and sound design to signal your organization’s “story brand.”
- Relevance is highly personal and determined by the recipient
- Segmenting your audience allows for better, more relevant communications
- Your organization already has the data to segment, even if you don’t know it
If you want to know what people think—ask them! And then listen to what they have to say. That’s what the Communication Matters research project is all about.
As communicators, we know how powerful listening is.
The Communications Network and its members have a point of view about the value of communication in creating social change. But what do our colleagues think, whether they’re making decisions from the executive suite, managing a portfolio of grants, or working in the field?
Here’s a taste of what we’re hearing.
From a small regional foundation:
“Our president & CEO gets it. When she was hired, she visited foundations of a similar asset size to find out, ‘If you could do it all over again, what would you do differently?’ The consistent message was, ‘Get communications right from the get-go. Tell your own story lest someone else tell it for you.’”
We’re uncovering great examples of communication being used in strategic ways.
From a medium-sized health care foundation:
“We fund a fair amount of policy analyses and our goal is to have impact by informing and influencing state-level decision making. We couldn’t do that without an aggressive and comprehensive approach to communications. When grantees produce analytic deliverables, we invest a lot of resources in helping them to shape the story, tease out the key take-aways, develop concrete recommendations, and express their work in a way that is both compelling and persuasive.”
And we’re hearing about some of the interesting challenges, twists, and turns that communication work can take.
From a program officer at a large foundation:
“We have found that our use of communication—particularly ‘naming’ the reform—has simultaneously advanced the measurable elements of the reform discussion and annoyed allies who use different language. It raises the larger question of whether everyone working on an issue agrees on what to call things and how to talk about them, which can be either a good discussion or a distraction from program outcome goals.”