The Messaging Tug-of-War: Bridging What Clients Want to Say & What Audiences Need to Hear

Every communications professional has experienced that moment: A client proudly presents their messaging, brimming with industry jargon, technical specifications, and company history, convinced they've captured the perfect story.

Meanwhile, you're mentally translating it into something their audience might actually care about.

This tension between organizational messaging preferences and audience needs represents one of the most fundamental challenges in strategic communications. After two decades helping organizations navigate this delicate balance, I've found that bridging this gap requires equal parts diplomacy, strategy, and behavioral psychology.

This disconnect is common and nearly universal.

Organizations develop deep expertise in their work, creating a natural tendency to communicate from an insider perspective. They rightfully take pride in their processes, technical capabilities, and institutional knowledge. And still, audiences tend to approach communications with an entirely different framework: "What's in this for me?" and "Why should I care?"

The resulting gap isn't a reflection of poor intentions but instead of human nature.

Effective messaging bridges this divide through "strategic translation." This doesn't mean dismissing what organizations want to say, but instead recasting those points through the lens of audience needs, priorities, and language. IMO, the most successful approach includes:

Start with validation, not correction: When clients present messaging that misses the audience mark, beginning with acknowledgment of their expertise builds trust. "I can see why these technical capabilities matter to the organization," creates receptivity before suggesting adjustments.

Ask revealing questions: Rather than directly challenging messaging preferences, questions can guide clients to audience-centered thinking:

• "How would you explain this to someone with no technical background?"

• "What keeps your audience up at night, and how does this address those concerns?"

• "If your audience could only remember one thing, what should it be?"

Reframe features as benefits: Organizations naturally focus on features (e.g., what something is), while audiences respond to benefits (e.g., what it does for them). The art of translation involves maintaining technical accuracy while emphasizing audience-relevant outcomes.

Present evidence, not opinions: Data-driven approaches cut through subjective messaging debates. Audience research, A/B testing results, and case studies demonstrating successful communication approaches carry more weight than personal preferences.

Create parallel narratives: The most elegant solution often involves developing tiered messaging that satisfies organizational and audience needs. Primary messaging addresses audience priorities directly, while secondary messaging incorporates the technical details and institutional background that the organization values.

In practice, bridging this divide works best through a collaborative workshop approach. I typically guide clients through a structured process:

1. Audience empathy mapping: Before discussing messaging, we explore the audience's 1) challenges, 2) motivations, 3) information preferences, and 4) decision-making factors

   
   

2. Value translation exercise: We identify each organizational feature or capability and systematically translate it into audience-relevant benefits and outcomes

   
   

3. Message testing simulation: We review draft messaging through the lens of different audience personas, anticipating questions or objections

   
   

4. Prioritization framework: We develop criteria for determining which messages deserve prominence based on audience importance rather than organizational preference

This collaborative approach achieves something crucial: it allows clients to maintain ownership of their messaging while gradually shifting toward audience-centered communication. Rather than positioning audience needs against organizational preferences, it creates alignment between them.

When clients experience the difference in audience response between organization-centered and audience-centered messaging, the shift in perspective often becomes permanent. They begin to filter communication instinctively through audience needs rather than organizational preferences.

The most successful communications professionals don't present this as a binary choice between what clients want to say and what audiences need to hear. Instead, they demonstrate how audience-centered messaging more effectively achieves organizational objectives, creating alignment that serves both purposes.

After all, the most potent messaging isn't what organizations say about themselves—it's what audiences understand, remember, and act upon.