All Posts

There is a familiar instinct at the heart of most public debates, that if we present better facts, clearer evidence, and a more rigorous argument, people will change their minds and come to our way of thinking. It's wrong.

Research hasn’t necessarily replaced judgement, but it seems to be replacing responsibility.

I would like to stop hearing the exact same phrase dished out to every question a journalist asks from multiple interviewees.

Human behaviour hasn’t changed nearly as much as our strategies assume. This creates a fundamental mismatch between how organisations communicate and how people actually receive our communications.

For years, we’ve treated communications as a desk job. Writing statements. Monitoring channels. Managing approvals. Reacting to headlines. Producing content at speed, often at arm’s length from what we’re supposed to be explaining and off the back of SLT requests. It’s efficient because it’s measurable – you always know where they are. Increasingly, it’s a massive problem.

You don’t need to find your story. You already have one. And it is every campaign you’ve run, client you’ve helped, the challenges you’ve solved for customers.

Why trusting your communications team to consider all outcomes is the key to great comms.

A case study into the loss of trust PFEW is facing and how they can fix their brand reputation.

A case study on our work to support the launch of the National Police Association.

A guide on how to utilise AI to improve your communications and utilise tools effectively.

A case study on how JAM created a successful submission for funding for History Knights.

Why leading with the story changes everything for your communications strategy.