As the saying goes, we often don’t know exactly what we want until we see clearly what we don’t want. This phrase, which may sound like a domestic observation or a lesson learnt through trial and error, has a very specific application in the field of corporate communication. An organisation may believe it has identified a need (a campaign, a strategy, a content plan, a media initiative, a corporate narrative or a response to a specific problem), only to discover too late that what it asked for was not what it actually needed. Worse still, it may have phrased its request so ambiguously that the person tasked with interpreting it built a solution on the wrong premises.
This is where the briefing comes in – that seemingly simple tool which, in reality, encapsulates much of a project’s strategic quality. A briefing is not merely a kick-off document or a formality designed to formalise the relationship between an organisation and its agency, its in-house team or its suppliers. It is the space in which the objectives of the brief, the resources to be deployed, the existing constraints, the relevant audiences, the business context and, ultimately, what is and isn’t required, are all set out clearly. When well-crafted, it serves as a common basis for interpretation. When poorly formulated, it acts as a source of confusion.
The difference is by no means insignificant. In communication, misarticulating a requirement does not usually result merely in an operational problem, such as a delay, a part that needs reworking or a presentation that doesn’t fit. It can shift the focus onto what doesn’t matter, obscure the real needs, lead to the mobilisation of inappropriate resources, or result in solutions being accepted as valid simply because they literally respond to a poorly formulated request. If the initial error is not corrected in time, it snowballs: first it affects the assessment, then the strategy, later the messaging and, finally, the way in which the organisation presents itself to its audiences.
The briefing as the first filter of reality
Every communications project stems from an interpretation. Before writing a headline, drawing up a plan, appointing a spokesperson or choosing a channel, someone must understand what is happening, why it matters and what the aim is. The briefing should help to organise that understanding. It should set out the problem clearly enough so that the response does not depend on random intuitions, personal preferences or vague statements.
A useful briefing does not, on its own, answer all the questions that might arise, but at least it brings them out into the open. It forces us to distinguish between desire, symptom, objective and constraint.
When that distinction is not made, the briefing becomes a sort of corporate ‘letter to Father Christmas’: a jumble of aspirations, deliverables and expectations that are not necessarily related to one another. The result is usually a proposal that is formally correct – and may even appear brilliant – but is disconnected from the organisation’s actual circumstances.
In such cases, the problem lies not only with the person responding to the briefing, but also with the raw material they have been asked to work with. If an organisation is unable to articulate its circumstances correctly, it is highly likely to receive a distorted approach: an over-ambitious strategy when what was needed was focus; a visibility tactic when the challenge was trust; a reputation campaign when an internal inconsistency needed to be resolved first; an external communication initiative to cover up a problem that employees had already identified long before.
Inconsistency does not appear overnight
Communication crises rarely arise at the very moment they erupt. They often manifest themselves in a headline, a viral comment, a public complaint, a leak, a pressure campaign or a negative reaction from certain audiences. But their origins usually lie further back: poorly explained decisions, mismanaged expectations, inconsistent messaging. In that lead-up, the briefing is more important than it seems.
A vague briefing can lead to inconsistencies in a number of ways:
- The first is strategic: it misidentifies the problem and, as a result, leads to the wrong solution. If a company interprets a loss of trust as a simple lack of visibility, it will probably call for a greater presence, more content, greater impact or more campaigns, when what it actually needs is to rebuild credibility through explanations, evidence and verifiable decisions.
- The second is narrative. A briefing that fails to clarify priorities, risks, sensitivities and boundaries can result in messages which, although well-written, do not address the real tensions of the context. The organisation talks about innovation when the issue of concern is safety; it talks about social commitment when its audiences expect operational transparency; it talks about leadership when it has not yet explained a controversial decision. The disconnect between what is said and what is perceived does not always lead to an immediate crisis, but it gradually erodes trust.
- The third is operational. When the briefing suggests services or resources that are not appropriate, the project mobilises the wrong capabilities. Creativity is called for where analysis was needed; a press office is requested where internal communication was needed; a digital campaign is proposed where spokesperson training was needed. In communications, choosing the wrong resource is not a neutral matter: it wastes time, raises expectations and may leave the vulnerable point unaddressed.
From a poor commission to a reputational problem
The link between a poor briefing and a communications crisis may seem exaggerated if a crisis is understood as a sudden and exceptional event. However, in practice, many crises are fuelled by small accumulations of inaccuracies. A briefing that fails to mention internal resistance may result in a campaign that the employees themselves perceive as merely cosmetic. A briefing that conceals regulatory constraints may lead to promises that exceed what the organisation can deliver. A briefing that fails to identify critical audiences may exclude groups who subsequently feel ignored.
This can give rise to various types of crisis. Some are crises of expectation. Others are crises of coherence. There are also internal crises and, of course, those involving missed opportunities: moments when the organisation had scope to anticipate, refine or prevent issues, but the initial brief failed to highlight the risk.
Crisis communication begins with the ability to identify what might undermine trust before that breakdown becomes public knowledge. That ability depends, to a large extent, on how the initial questions are framed. A good briefing is no absolute guarantee against a crisis, but it does reduce the likelihood of operating in the dark. It helps to avoid confusing urgency with importance, tactics with strategy, symptoms with causes, or visibility with legitimacy.
It also allows the brief to be discussed before it is carried out. In communication, accepting a request at face value can be a way of overlooking what is actually needed. That is why the contrabriefing, understood not as a bureaucratic correction but as an exercise in shared intelligence, is so valuable. It serves to raise questions, refine assumptions, highlight gaps and propose a more precise approach.
Precision as a strategic practice
A useful briefing should enable the reader to understand the context, the objective, the target audiences, the constraints, the risks and the criteria for success. Above all, however, it should help to distinguish the essential from the incidental. The question is not simply ‘what do we want to do?’, but ‘what needs to change for us to consider that this has worked?’.
This nuance requires us to think more carefully. If the aim is to build trust, we must explain where the mistrust stems from. If the aim is to raise profile, we must define which audiences we are targeting and what associations we wish to be made with them. If the aim is to strengthen one’s reputation, it will be necessary to identify which attributes are credible and which are not yet substantiated. If the aim is to manage a sensitive situation, it will be necessary to recognise what information is missing, which issues could escalate, who needs to know what, and what promises should not be made.
There is a simple trick for improving the quality of a briefing: write it a second time from the perspective of the person who has to interpret it. If, when reading it from an outsider’s perspective, it is not clear what the real problem is, what decision lies behind it, which audiences matter and what risk you are trying to avoid, then the briefing is not yet finished.
Another useful exercise is to explicitly state what you do not want, in order to clarify your criteria. Sometimes, seeing what we do not want is the quickest way to get to what we do need.
In communications, accuracy from the outset is not a methodological luxury, but a means of safeguarding one’s reputation. A poor briefing may seem like a minor formality, but its effects rarely remain confined to the document: they seep into the strategy, the messages, the channels, the expectations and an organisation’s ability to stand by what it says when asked to explain itself. That is why it is worth devoting time, judgement and honesty to it, in order to think things through more carefully. And, above all, to avoid realising too late that the crisis began long before anyone called it a crisis.