What a Good NGO Communications Strategy Needs to Achieve

Why NGO Communications Strategy Often Creates Activity Without Impact 

An NGO launches a new programme that depends on the participation of one or more audiences.

As expected, communications becomes part of the plan.

The programme lead then develops a Request for Proposal or Terms of Reference outlining the programme goals, activities and expected outcomes.  Somewhere inside the document is a section describing the communications component of the programme.

Usually, the communication goals sound something like:

• raise awareness
• build excitement
• promote the initiative
• educate the public

The problem is that the person writing the document is often not a communications strategist. So while the programme goals may be clear, the actual behavioural purpose of communications usually is not.

Programme teams then bring in a communications practitioner and ask them to “support the programme.”

In practice, this often means:

• coordinating launches and media coverage
• producing press releases
• creating social media content
• designing flyers
• drafting emails
• organising stakeholder invitations
• producing videos or public service announcements

The activity starts immediately.

But beneath all the communications activity, a more important question often remains unanswered:

What exactly needs to change?

Not generally.
Specifically.

Because this question is rarely defined clearly enough, communications work often becomes highly active but strategically thin.

There is content everywhere.

But very little clarity around the actual movement communications are supposed to create.

And over time, that gap begins to show up operationally.

Participation targets lag behind expectations.
Staff adoption moves slowly.
Communities show interest but do not follow through.
Programme leads become frustrated by low uptake despite “heavy promotion.”

The issue is not necessarily that communications did not happen.

Sure, communications happened but the issue is that communication activity became a substitute for communication direction.

Communicating everywhere is hardly a victory if nobody clearly defined what needed to change.

The Missing Step in an NGO Communications Strategy 

Most people do not realise that communications can start to break down very early in the planning stage, when there is no clear definition of what different audiences are actually supposed to do differently.

At this point, practitioners are often expected to “get started” with visible outputs. That usually means building microsites, setting up social media accounts, and launching campaigns.

Two things are happening at once.

Programme leads and sponsors understandably want visible evidence that the work has begun. At the same time, there is often an assumption that communications equal awareness building, so activity becomes the default measure of progress.

The Default is Output Thinking, Not Outcome Thinking

As a result, communication goals get translated into outputs rather than outcomes:

• build the website
• produce 20 social media posts per month
• run one campaign
• launch a newsletter
• increase online visibility

The problem is that none of these describe what needs to change.

What is Missing is Behavioural Clarity

Before any of that work begins, you should at least have a clear idea of what different audiences need to commit to for the programme to succeed.

That commitment will look different depending on the audience and the context.

In some cases, it is a shift in understanding or interpretation.
Others require a move from passive awareness to active support.
In others, it requires accepting a belief as relevant to their role or identity.
And in some cases, it requires taking a specific action or adopting a new behaviour.

But the important gap is not just the type of commitment.

It is the lack of clarity around what that commitment actually looks like in practice for each audience.

What does it look like when that shift has happened?

What is the observable expression of it?

And what level of effort does it realistically require from the audience?

These questions matter because they determine whether communications are being designed around behaviour, or around visibility.

In most programmes, awareness is not the end point. It is only one stage in a wider process of perception and behaviour change.

But without that defined movement goal, communications default to producing activity instead of producing change.

How Audience Movement Shapes an NGO Communications Strategy 

Step 1: Identify audiences and commitments

In my approach to planning communications for a programme, I first identify the target audiences and the type of commitment each audience ultimately needs to make for the programme to succeed.

This matters because different types of commitment require very different levels of communications and content design effort.

Some audiences only need a shift in perception or understanding. Others need to internalise the issue as personally relevant to them. Others may need to actively participate, adopt a behaviour, sustain that behaviour over time, or even advocate publicly on behalf of the initiative.

The further the required movement, the more intentional the communications strategy needs to become.

For example, one initiative I worked on involved the establishment of a Youth Court called “Peer Resolution.” The programme recruited youth volunteers to participate in hearings that determined appropriate restorative sanctions for first-time child offenders referred by a Judge.

One of the programme’s target audiences was children between the ages of 13 and 17 who could volunteer for different youth roles in Peer Resolution hearings.

This audience required more than awareness.

The programme depended on them making a behavioural commitment: signing up, completing an application process, undergoing training, and eventually participating in court proceedings.

That immediately changed how communications needed to be approached.

Step 2: Define Behavioural Movement

The next question was:
What movement would realistically need to happen for that commitment to occur?

At the start, most children knew nothing about the programme. But lack of awareness was not the real issue. The deeper challenge was helping young people see themselves as capable of taking on a meaningful leadership role in matters connected to youth justice.

That insight had direct implications for communications and content design.

The programme could not simply be promoted as “a volunteer opportunity.” It needed to be framed as a chance for young people to have a real voice in decisions affecting their peers and communities.

Step 3: Define Success Outcomes and Audience Effort Required

The next step was defining what success would actually look like at the audience level if that shift happened.

In this case, success meant receiving at least 200 completed applications from eligible youth.

That clarity matters because it gives communications a precise behavioural target instead of a vague visibility goal.

It also changes the strategic questions communication teams need to ask.

If the desired outcome is 200 completed applications, then communications cannot only focus on generating interest. It also has to support follow-through.

How difficult is the application process?

Where are applicants most likely to drop off?

What uncertainties or confidence barriers might prevent completion?

What information or support would help applicants successfully submit their forms?

In this case, the application process required a moderate level of effort from participants. That meant communications and content needed to do more than generate excitement. It needed to build confidence, reduce uncertainty, and help applicants clearly understand how to complete and submit the application process successfully.

Why Organisations Default to Awareness and Visibility Instead of Behavioural Outcomes 

Even though clarity on what you need an audience to do should sit at the foundation of any communications and content strategy, there are several reasons why organisations miss it.

First, leadership often limits the role of communications to visibility. There is a common assumption that awareness is what drives action, even when programme success depends on specific behavioural or participation changes.

Second, outputs such as emails, advertisements, social media posts, and campaigns are easier to produce and measure than actual outcomes. As a result, organisations often default to tracking activity rather than defining what change those activities are meant to produce.

This also means a critical step is frequently skipped: translating programme goals into clear communication outcomes such as shifts in attitude, understanding, participation, or behaviour.

Another common issue is timing. Programme teams often bring communication teams in after key decisions are already made. By that point, the focus has usually shifted to delivery, leaving little space to step back and define behavioural direction.

In some cases, especially with highly technical or complex programmes, leadership expects communication teams to produce quickly while still trying to understand what the programme is actually trying to achieve at an operational level.

This creates pressure to focus on output rather than strategy, with limited opportunity to clarify the behavioural goals that should guide the work.

Good Communications Start With Defining What Needs to Change, Not Producing Content 

Good communications does not begin with content production or channel planning. It begins with clarity about what needs to change.

When that clarity is missing, communications easily become activity focused. Teams send messages, launch campaigns, produce content, and increase visibility. But none of that guarantees movement.

This is where many communication efforts fall short. Most organisations build them around the assumption that informing people is enough, or that reaching people in enough places will eventually lead to action.

Communications work best when it has a clear understanding of what different audiences need to move toward, and what that movement actually looks like in practice.

Without that, even well executed communications can fail to produce the desired outcome.