(5 minute read)

Almost every change programme has the potential for slightly different permutations for different groups of people. Once the change itself has been defined, the question of tailored change communication often remains – whether everyone needs the exact same message or whether it needs to be adapted according to different audience groups.

The first instinct is often to go with one version – it’s simpler, faster and carries less risk of something going wrong; everyone will be able to work out exactly what it means for them.

But this assumes the people receiving it already have your perspective on it, when actually this might be the first they are hearing of it. So is a generic message for all really the simplest route for the audience? Is simplicity for the programme team the same as simplicity for the recipient and have all contexts been fully covered off? Each programme will have its own answer and here we consider the ins and outs of that decision.  

The case for tailoring

The case for tailored communication comes down to how relevant a generic message would be to the reader. 

When someone receives a communication about a change, they’re asking what it means for them. They’re not seeing it from the same perspective as the project – that it needs to flex to fit a broader population or apply to the whole organisation. 

One rule I always stand by in comms is to make it as easy as possible for the reader. The more you can do to avoid confusion, misinterpretation or more questions, the better. And in a complex change, you don’t want those things coming along at the most critical point of the programme and people’s attention. 

Tailored communication reduces the chances of misunderstanding and disenchantment. When the right information reaches the right people, the key information lands clearly instead of being lost in generic content that feels aimed at everyone else and actually works for no-one. It reduces the mental load on the reader, increases the chance that they absorb what matters and removes the distraction of irrelevant detail.

In change programmes with genuinely distinct audience groups – people affected in materially different ways so they have different roles, different questions and different concerns – a single communication often tries to cover too much ground and ends up serving nobody particularly well.

From tailoring to segmentation

Deciding that communication should be tailored is the easy part – now you need to understand exactly who your audiences are and what the change means for each of them, and then you need to split your data.

To segment your audience you need to identify that one data point that distinguishes them, and you need the employee or customer records to back that up. And then once you’ve understood who they are and what they need from the change, you need to map them to the communication that they receive. 

There are many examples that come to mind – such as customers of different legacy brands, regular visitors to a venue versus occasional visitors, or employees employed by different legal entities. They may be receiving the same announcement, but what it means for each of them can be quite different, as is what they need to hear. 

Getting the segmentation right is critical – if the audience groups aren’t correctly defined, or the data behind them isn’t accurate, the tailoring that follows will cause more problems than it solves. 

The operational reality

This is where it starts to get really complicated.

When it comes to developing the message, every additional version of a communication creates additional work – additional drafting and approval, and then additional production and distribution whether that’s in-house or outsourced. 

And then when amends come in (which they always do), the first question is whether every change needs to be washed through, and then it needs to be done consistently. If you miss one, you have communications in circulation that say different things – very difficult to recover from if it happens.

Maybe that’s just about manageable if the data is clean and the process is well governed, but without either of those, you’re in big trouble.

Anyone who works in internal comms will tell you that audience data in most organisations isn’t perfect. Sometimes people sit in the wrong groups, records are out of date or special cases don’t fit neatly into any segment. Getting the cut wrong means people receive the wrong version and the impact of that can be from a bit of a pain to causing real problems, particularly where the content is sensitive, has legal connotations or specific to a particular group.

Even if the data is watertight, human error can still play a part (I suspect there’s still a Business Analyst somewhere having nightmares about the time they mixed up the distribution lists on a project I worked on). So I recommend having two, or even three pairs of eyes on the segmentation process and when the lists are used to issue the message. 

The middle ground

Not every situation calls for fully tailored versions or a single universal communication. Sometimes the right answer sits in between.

A single core communication with clearly signposted sections can preserve the navigability benefit without multiplying the number of documents in play. For example – “If you are in group X, this section applies to you:” Your website / platform functionality may support this with FAQ functions and expanding headers or links to skip irrelevant sections. 

Sometimes it’s best to use a short universal communication covering the shared story, followed by separate targeted communications for the groups with specific needs (and that can be helpful to use the relevant figureheads across an organisation). And sometimes one version genuinely is the right answer, because the change affects people in essentially the same way and the additional complexity of tailoring wouldn’t add enough value to justify it.

The decision should be driven by the nature of the change, the distinctions between audience groups and an honest assessment of the operational capacity to manage multiple versions without errors. 

What this means in practice

Tailored communication done well feels considered and respectful of the reader’s time. It signals that the programme understands who its audiences are and what they need to know – that builds confidence in the change.

Communications with errors, inconsistencies or the wrong information reaching the wrong people do the opposite. It creates confusion, undermines trust and generates exactly the kind of noise a well-planned communication was supposed to prevent.

As with many change decisions, there’s no definitive answer without considering the audiences, the resources available to manage it properly and the change itself. 

Understanding your audiences, the data behind them and your capacity to manage multiple versions without errors is critical. Getting that right at the start is what determines whether tailored communication works in your favour.

If you’re working through that decision and want to think it through, you can get in touch at lumenchangecomms.com/work-with-us/