An organization we work with from time to time undertook a newsletter redesign in-house, with the goal of enhancing their expert credentials by providing high-level information to a key audience. When we saw the result, we were floored: lovely design and fine writing, but the content was unlikely to inspire their target audience and failed to deliver key messages.

The only real surprise here is that we were surprised. We were looking at something we see all the time: the gap between strategy and execution.

We’re always preaching strategy, and many organizations do have a strategy in place. Yet communications still misfire. Informal polling and our own experience indicate that the top reasons include a familiar triumvirate: lack of time, lack of skills and lack of money. Strategies and their associated tactics need to be run through the reality checker with an honest evaluation of what’s needed to deliver on goals.

Strategy Doesn’t End with the Plan
There’s a deeper, less-recognized cause of the strategy-execution gap: a failure to engage in execution as a strategic activity. (This was the problem with the newsletter project.) Executing a big-picture strategy involves myriad strategic decisions about virtually every aspect of a communications tool, yet most organizations see strategy and execution as separate rather than interacting endeavors. 

Getting the ‘How’ Right
The strategy may be, “we can reach this audience with a newsletter (or whatever) that does X.” Therein lies the gap—how will your communications tool do X? It’s not always obvious.

Say your strategy is to build credibility by providing expert industry insights. The project lead recruits subject matter experts to write the copy and defers to them on what’s important (hey, they’re the experts). Will that work? Probably not—unless they’re the rare experts who are good writers, know and write to the audience’s knowledge and interests, and can also convey the organization’s work and message. A strong editorial hand is needed to shape the material so it hits those targets, but the project has no editor.

Quality Can Deceive
This kind of breakdown can occur in every aspect of project execution—choice of tool, design, style, content. Professional quality often disguises the problem and compounds it—when results disappoint but there are no obvious flaws, the organization is likely to assume the problem was the strategy and abandon a perfectly good approach. They just don’t see the gap between strategy and execution.

Want to make sure all the resources you devote to developing sound communications strategies pay off? Mind the gap. 

A new poll conducted by ABC News, Planet Green and Stanford University on Americans’ attitudes about global warming shows a few alarming trends and sheds some light on persistent contradictions and communications issues.

On the upside, more people (seven out of 10 surveyed) say they’re doing something to reduce their carbon footprint (such as driving less, conserving power and water, recycling), and most believe global warming presents a real threat.

Doing the right thing is not a primary motivator for most people. Of the 71 percent who said they’re taking action, only one-third are doing it to improve the environment, a quarter to save money, and 41 percent of them say both reasons apply equally.

Most alarmingly, now that we’re really feeling the pinch of sky-high gas and oil prices, more people than ever are in favor of environmentally unsound practices to meet energy needs. Among those polled, 63 percent say we should drill for oil offshore, and 55 percent favor drilling in wilderness areas. Support for nuclear power is the highest it’s been in nearly three decades, with 44 percent in favor; those opposed are still a majority (55 percent) but that’s trending down. Previous polls, says ABC, showed more support for alternative energy sources.

The conservation message is getting lost: 64 percent of people believe finding new energy sources is more important than improving conservation efforts, up nine points since 2001. This conflicts with the finding that nearly three-quarters of those polled believe global warming will be reduced only if people make “major changes in their lifestyles.” (Interestingly, 44 percent of respondents believe those changes will cause them financial hardship, and half say they won’t.)

There is confusion about what to do. Of the 28 percent of people who aren’t doing anything to reduce their carbon footprint, about 20 percent say they don’t know what to do. Other resisters say that it’s inconvenient, it won’t make a difference, it’s too expensive or they’re just not interested.

Some inaction could be attributed to a perception that individual action isn’t a significant cause of global warming. Only 33 percent of respondents say it’s caused by “things people do.” When the choice also includes business and industrial activities, the response rises to 63 percent.

The green message may be losing traction. While 25 percent of people say global warming is our biggest environmental problem, that’s down from 33 percent last year, and fewer say it’s important to them personally. Survey analyst Gary Langer points out that the subject is getting less attention in the media, too: there were half as many news stories on the subject in the month prior to this year’s poll, compared with the month prior to last year’s poll.

Langer also points out that if the danger isn’t immediate, people aren’t worried about it. While more people now believe that if global warming continues unchecked it will be a serious threat in their lifetimes, the vast majority say it will only be felt in future generations.

History bears this out: witness the many alarms raised in the past that have gone unheeded. Now we’re busy playing catch-up, and struggling to find messages that have resonance and motivate without causing people’s eyes and brains to glaze over.

Communications that are honest, informative and relevant to people’s lives can make a difference. And don’t forget a sense of humor. Ponderous gloom-and-doom is definitely not appealing. (See Grist.)