When an organization asks for help with its communication, it almost always starts the same way: "we want to strengthen our social media presence," "we need a new content plan," "the newsletter needs a rework." These are legitimate requests. They are also, almost always, an answer given before the question was asked.

The prior question, the one that's rarely on the table, is this: what destination does this organization's communication need to reach over the next twelve or twenty-four months. Without that answer, choosing channels is choosing roads without knowing where you're going.

The symptom: communication plans with no verifiable objective

Many of the plans that land on our table state objectives ("improve our reputation," "get closer to the public," "position ourselves as a reference"), but they're rarely objectives in an operational sense. They have no verifiable destination: there's no way to know how arrival is measured, by when, or against what starting point.

When the objective isn't verifiable, any activity satisfies it. And, above all, any activity fails it without anyone being able to prove it. This is very comfortable for the team executing the plan, and very costly for the organization paying for it.

If an objective can't be demonstrably met or missed, it isn't an objective. It's an intention.

The asymmetry between first creation and second creation

All communication done well goes through two phases. A first creation, mental, where you define what you want to achieve, with whom, why and by when. And a second creation, operational, where you choose channels, formats, calendars and metrics. The quality of the second phase depends entirely on the quality of the first.

What we frequently see in public and complex organizations is that the first phase gets skipped or delegated away. The second phase is executed with discipline, sometimes with substantial budgets, and the results are mediocre not because execution is poor, but because it's executed toward a destination that nobody defined.

Three questions no plan should avoid

Before choosing a channel, format, tool or calendar, there are three questions whose answers need to be written down and signed off by whoever has the authority to decide them:

  1. What has to happen among our relevant audiences after twelve or twenty-four months for this communication to be considered a success? It has to be an observable change: in perception, in awareness, in behavior, in the relationship with the organization.
  2. What will we notice internally once we've reached that destination? Decisions that will no longer be debated, conversations that will no longer repeat, metrics that will move in a specific direction.
  3. What are we willing to give up to get there? Any strategy that doesn't involve giving something up isn't a strategy — it's an aggregate wish list.

From statement to destination: the role of the methodological framework

The move from a vague statement to a verifiable destination isn't a rhetorical exercise. It's methodological work that requires structured conversation with leadership, knowledge of the sector's context and prior experience with comparable problems.

This is exactly the first phase of the VISTA cycle. Without it, the rest of the cycle (execute, verify, adjust) operates with no point of reference. It's like measuring speed without knowing where you're heading: the number exists, but it tells you nothing useful.

The destination test

If, eighteen months from now, a board member asks "how do we know if the communication is working?", the team should be able to answer with three concrete sentences and a number. If the answer starts with "we're publishing X pieces a month," the plan has no destination: it has activity.

Why this conversation gets avoided

Defining a concrete destination is uncomfortable. It means making a commitment. It means that, once the deadline arrives, someone might say "you didn't get there." It's far more comfortable to operate in activity mode: producing pieces, keeping channels running, presenting volume reports. No one will be able to prove anything failed, because nothing concrete was ever promised.

But that comfort has a cost: the organization moves forward by inertia, not by direction. And inertia, in public and political environments, is the first thing that erodes in a crisis.

If your communication plan is heavy on calendar and light on destination, you probably don't need more production. You need a strategic conversation.

Let's talk

No commitment. Reply within 48h.

Conclusion

A communication strategy is, before anything else, a decision about the destination. Everything else — channels, formats, metrics, resources — is execution in service of that destination. Without that prior decision, there is no strategy: there's a well-presented activity program.

Organizations that communicate to lead are the ones that have dared to put the destination in writing and accept that they will be measured against it. The rest simply publish.