Methods of communication can (and often should) be used in conjunction with each other to achieve the desired result. For example, flyers, posters and press advertising may be needed to publicise an event.

Care should taken to ensure that the method of communication is appropriate, both to our target audience and to the messages we wish to convey. How you send messages is as important as what we say – the public image of the Partnership will be influenced by this.

The following methods or mechanisms could all be used:

Media releases
Articles/Features
Newsletters
Posters
Flyers
Competitions
TV and Radio Interviews/Programmes
Advertising/Direct Marketing
Internet – websites, automatic e–mail responses
Recorded answerphone messages
Training initiatives
Demonstrations
Public Workshops
Seminars and Conferences
Exhibitions
Endorsements by high profile organisations, celebrities, role models
Peer pressure

Events – consider whether you wish your audience to be passive spectators or involved participants. Often the opportunity to do, rather than simply see, makes an event more appealing, and can generate more fun and involvement. Participative events require careful planning however, to ensure that a positive experience is created and delivered.

In addition to considering messages, target audiences and the variety of communications methods, communications planning should also try to match appropriate communications methods with target audiences. It is then important to assess how to evaluate and monitor the communications effort. The amount of money available for communications will also inevitably influence these decisions.

The use of a ‘Communications Matrix’ provides a quick checklist approach to matching communications methods with target audiences, in order to ensure that all potential mechanisms have been considered and to indicate which method is may be the most appropriate. Matrices can be recommended for their ease of construction and reference. The following matrix has been constructed as an example:

It should be stressed here that although useful as a planning tool, communications matrices have their limits. They cannot easily include information on the resource implications of using specific communication methods, or account for any overlap that can occur in target audiences.

All communications projects and initiatives should be carefully costed where possible, taking into account such factors as staff availability, resources needed to undertake the project, materials origination and production, marketing and promotion and project monitoring and evaluation. It is best if costs are defined as precisely and thoroughly as possible – potential funders or sponsors are not impressed by vague figures or ‘stabs in the dark’.

The choice of media will influence costs, and it is worth exploring possible free methods of communication, eg. free papers, local TV news, possible web sites, etc. Cost efficiency does not, however, always imply choosing the cheapest method – free newspapers may not be read by your target audience, for example.

Allow for reasonable ‘margins of error’ in your costings, for there may be a need for contingencies, despite careful planning. There will often be something to pay for that wasn’t originally included in the figures.

Opportunities for monitoring and evaluation should be built into all communications effort, both at the planning and implementation stages. This will provide the necessary feedback required to ensure that communications continue to be appropriate and relevant to target audiences.

Precise evaluation of the success of communication effort can be difficult to achieve. This may be because it could be many years before the successful achievement of the intended outcome will be apparent, in which case it will be very difficult to attribute any particular effect to any specific cause. It may also be because the cost of accurately evaluating the communication (eg. the cost of market research) is too expensive in relation to the cost of the effort as a whole. Despite these difficulties, monitoring and evaluation is possible, providing SMART communications objectives have been set.

The success of media coverage is notoriously difficult to quantify, for a measurable target is not necessarily a meaningful one. Some useful measures of media outcomes are:

Another method of evaluation is measuring the amount of column centimetres per newspaper per month, in order to assess current awareness of an organisation such as the London Biodiversity Partnership. This can be problematical, as there may not always be a direct relationship between column centimetres and communication effort. The significance of pictures compared to text is difficult to assess, although research indicates that picture captions are the most widely read text in newspapers after headlines.

Whatever the method of monitoring or evaluation used, care must be taken to ensure that meaningful results are obtained and that communications effort is adjusted accordingly. The cost of monitoring and evaluating communication effort should always be built into communications planning at the start of any project.

Page1, Page 3

Home