Why your comms plan might be the problem (and what to do instead)
I was listening to a panel of senior communications practitioners recently, and one comment has stayed with me.
"My strategic comms plan is never more than two pages."
It was said almost in passing, but it resonated, because I've seen what happens when it isn't.
The presenter, a corporate affairs leader with decades of experience, made a distinction I think a lot of organisations miss.
There's a difference between a strategic communications plan and a campaign plan.
A strategic communications plan answers one fundamental question: what do we want people to believe about us, and does everything we do line up to that? It's the foundation. It's short, clear, and — crucially — it should be something your whole organisation can rally around.
A campaign plan sits on top of that. It's the tactical execution. The media release, the social calendar, the stakeholder briefing, the event. It serves the strategy.
The problem is that most organisations skip straight to the campaign plan. Someone makes a decision and needs "the comms around that." A document gets written. It's thorough. It's well-formatted. It gets presented with great confidence.
And then it goes in a drawer.
I've seen this before
Working with Territory organisations, I see the same thing regularly. There's no shortage of communications activity. Media releases go out. Social posts get made. Events get promoted.
But underneath it all, there's often no clear answer to the most basic question: what are we actually trying to build trust around?
Without that foundation, every campaign is just noise. It might be well-produced noise, but it doesn't add up to anything.
The real challenge: fitting everything in
Here's the part nobody warns you about. Writing a short strategy is much harder than writing a long one.
A single briefing meeting can easily generate five pages of notes, new ideas, key dates, stakeholder concerns, project details.
A few things that help
Get clear on the purpose, and say it out loud A strategy document isn't meant to capture every message and every activity. It's meant to highlight the handful of things that matter most, and the overall approach. If you're not sure whether something belongs in the two-pager or in a supporting appendix, ask: is this essential to understanding our direction, or is it a detail that supports it? Appendices exist for a reason, let them hold the detail so the strategy can stay focused.
Find what's genuinely interesting, not just accurate. Everything in a strategy might be true. Not everything is essential. A useful test: if you described this project to someone who knew nothing about it, what's the first thing you'd tell them? What comes right after that? Those are probably your key messages. Anything you'd only mention much later in the conversation is detail, not strategy.
Organise into stages or themes, not an exhaustive list. This is the part that makes the biggest practical difference. Rather than one long timeline of every activity, break the plan into a small number of stages — something like launch, reinforce, wrap up. Or organise by content type instead of date: explainer content, time-bound content, content generated by your audience or community. Either approach turns a sprawling plan into something a reader can hold in their head, and refer back to without starting over each time.
Why I focus on shorter, more agile communications material
When I work with clients on communications, I'm not aiming for a comprehensive document that covers every scenario. I'm aiming for something short enough to be used, clear enough to be remembered, and specific enough to actually guide decisions.
That might be a one-page messaging framework. A two-page communications strategy, organised into two or three clear stages. A simple stakeholder map. A set of key messages that a spokesperson can actually use when the journalist calls.
Shorter isn't lazy. Shorter is deliberate.
Because here's the reality for most Territory organisations: you don't have a full-time communications team. You have someone who does communications alongside three other roles.
What actually helps is a clear, simple foundation that people can refer back to in the middle of a busy week. Something that answers: who are we talking to, what do we want them to believe, and how do we show up consistently?
The question to start with
The panel discussion touched on something I find myself returning to constantly with clients.
What will a reasonable skeptic believe?
Not your most enthusiastic supporter. Not your most hostile critic. A reasonable person who doesn't know you well, doesn't have time to read your full website, and will make a judgement based on a headline and their gut feeling about whether it matches their experience.
If your communications plan isn't built around that question, it's built around what you want to say, not what they're likely to hear.
That's a very different starting point. And it changes everything about the plan.
Where to start
If your organisation has never had a strategic communications foundation, here's a simple starting point.
Answer these three questions in plain language:
What do we want to be known for?
Who most needs to know it, and what do they believe about us right now?
What's the gap — and what would close it?
Then organise what comes next into two or three clear stages rather than a single exhaustive list. That's your two pages. Everything else is execution.
If you'd like help building that foundation for your organisation, a Comms Clarity Session is a good place to start.
