When institutional communication fails to adapt to the digital age: a real case
Digitalization is already present in city councils and businesses, but it often remains limited to "posting on Instagram." This real-life case illustrates what happens when communication is approached with models not adapted to the current reality—based on data, segmentation, and evaluation—and how to correct course to achieve genuine impact on citizens.
Published November 3, 2025 · Category: Case studies
Measurable objectives
Define observable results (knowledge, participation, adoption), not just impressions.
Actual segmentation
Messages and channels by public; not everything can be resolved with a generic post.
Balance between creativity and dissemination
Visual pieces without paid outreach/testing rarely reach the people who matter.
1. Introduction
In transformative public projects, communicate well It is as crucial as execution. Simply “being online” is not enough: today, institutional communication demands measurable objectives,
audience segmentation, balance between creativity and dissemination and
evaluable planning. Otherwise, the effort becomes fleeting visibility without observable results.
The case we are analyzing—explained without proper names—is representative of a widespread reality in public administrations and SMEs: surface digitization. Presence is confused with strategy. Aesthetics are prioritized over measurability. Content is published on organic channels, but no strategy is designed. media mix that guarantees coverage, frequency, and learning (A/B testing, follow-up). The result is predictable: limited reach, poor connection with key audiences, and difficulty demonstrating public value.
Main idea
Our goal is not to point fingers, but learn how to go from “a design that excites” to a data-driven institutional communication, capable of informing, mobilizing, and being accountable.
2. Case: Exemplary green infrastructure project and mismatched communication
The project had an undeniable purpose: to transform the city by improving its green and blue infrastructure, making it more livable and resilient to climate change. As with many public funding opportunities, one of the requirements was to develop a communication plan explaining to the public what would be done, why, and how it would affect their daily lives.
So far, so good: clear and measurable communication is essential in projects of this scale. But in practice, the approach adopted reveals several shortcomings that are common in many public administrations and that are worth analyzing in detail.
1) Vague and unhelpful indicators
The requirement was to define indicators to measure the success of the communication. However, instead of working with metrics connected to real changes in the public, the objectives were limited to “impacts” or “visualizations.” These indicators are easy to obtain, but they say nothing about whether the population understands the project, participates in the activities, or adopts more sustainable behaviors. Without indicators linked to observable results, the plan cannot demonstrate its effectiveness.
| Type of indicator | Examples | What does it answer? | Utility for accountability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outputs (activity) | Impressions, views, clicks | How much do we publish/disseminate? | Limited: demonstrates neither understanding nor change |
| Outtakes (comprehension) | I remember the message, I understand the project | Did people understand the message? | Media: evidence of learning/understanding |
| Outcomes (behavior) | Registrations, assistance, applications, use of services | Were any concrete actions taken? | High: demonstrates observable results |
2) Lack of clear and publicly defined objectives
The plan did not include a definition of target profiles: young people, families, senior citizens, vulnerable groups. Nor were specific objectives formulated for each audience (e.g., “increase youth attendance at rewilding workshops by 201%” or “ensure that 301% of families identify newly created green spaces”). Without this segmentation, the communication becomes a generic message that hardly connects with the needs of each group.
3) Rejection of more strategic proposals
When the idea of including this segmentation and defining measurable objectives was raised, the proposal was rejected by the teams involved. They maintained a traditional approach, inherited from another era, where the priority is having eye-catching graphic material rather than building a results-oriented strategy.
4) Confusion between communication and aesthetics
The concept that dominated the process was “finding a visual design that evokes emotion.” This approach can be valid as a creative starting point, but if it becomes the sole strategy, the communication is reduced to an aesthetic piece without support or reach. A design, by itself, neither mobilizes nor informs; it needs narrative, context, planning, and dissemination to reach the public.
Creativity
- Clear messages for the public
- Pieces adapted to formats
- Visual and narrative consistency
Diffusion
- Targeted media buying
- Minimum frequency and coverage
- A/B testing and continuous optimization
5) Unbalanced budget
The campaign budget was almost entirely allocated to the production of visuals (and some animated versions), leaving no investment in targeted media buying, message testing, or content adaptation for different channels. The result is attractive material with a very limited reach.
Budget: the obvious discrepancy
For a typical project of 5 million euros, Various international benchmarks agree that between
1.5 % and 3 % only to the institutional communication campaign (strategy, creatives, paid media, and evaluation). That equates to €75,000–150,000.
Important: This item does not include face-to-face events or citizen participation processes, which must be budgeted separately.
| Typical project | % recommended (campaign only) | Recommended range (€) | Real investment (case analyzed) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| €5M | 1.5–3 % | €75K–150K | €9K (mostly creative) | −85 % to −94 % |
References
- Gartner – CMO Spend Survey: average marketing expenditure ~7–8 % of revenue.
- HubSpot – Marketing Budget Benchmarks: recommends 5–10 % in B2C; minimums of 2–5 %.
- AMEC – Barcelona Principles 3.0: importance of budgeting and evaluating communication with outcomes.
- OECD – Public Communication: need for adequate resources and planning.
6) Insufficient channels
Communication was entrusted exclusively to the city council's own channels: Instagram and the local newspaper. This excludes key audiences:
- YouthsThey require TikTok or other micro-video formats and their own visual codes.
- FamiliesThey respond best to segmented campaigns with paid investment and specific messages.
- Older peopleThey need in-person channels or collaborations with local entities.
Limiting oneself to two organic channels means that the campaign does not reach the diversity or audience volume it needs.
7) Lack of structured planning
No campaign plan was drafted with phases, milestones, and key messages. Nor was a duration assigned to each action, nor were intermediate indicators established to assess whether the strategy was progressing in the right direction. Instead of a coordinated schedule, each action was improvised, making it difficult to maintain consistency and measure results.
Case conclusion
This case is representative of a pattern that is repeated in institutions and SMEs: the surface digitization.Digital presence is often confused with data-driven strategy. The consequence is clear: projects with great potential are left without the recognition and participation they deserve.
3. Common Blockages (and Their Consequences)
The case we just described is not an exception. On the contrary, it reflects a series of common roadblocks that are repeated in both public administrations and many SMEs. Identifying them is key to understanding why communication falls short and what concrete effects this has on projects.
1) Models not adapted to the digital age
Many organizations maintain communication routines inherited from another era: a press release, a generic social media post, or a physical brochure. Today, however, citizens get their information in a fragmented way, seek verifiable data, and expect two-way interaction.
Consequence
The messages fail to reach those who are most important to involve, and the project loses social legitimacy.
2) Vague and difficult-to-evaluate objectives
Simply stating that “we want to impact the public” or “raise awareness of the project” is not enough in 2025. Objectives must be formulated clearly, measurably, and linked to observable results: number of participants, level of understanding, degree of satisfaction, and changes in behavior.
Consequence
When the objectives are generic, no one can prove whether the campaign has worked, and the effort is perceived as an expense rather than an investment.
3) Mismatch between creativity and dissemination
Creativity is essential, but without investment in distribution, it becomes a limited resource. In the case analyzed, 80–90% of the budget was allocated to visual materials, leaving little room for segmenting, testing, or scaling the message across different channels.
Consequence
Attractive materials are produced, but they have a short lifespan and no real impact. The public remembers the design, but not the project or its benefits.
4) Limited use of channels
Relying solely on your own organic channels—like an Instagram account or a local newspaper—drastically reduces your reach. Each audience has its own codes and platforms: young people consume micro-videos, families respond to targeted social media campaigns, and older people often need in-person support or partnerships with local organizations.
- YouthsThey need TikTok or other micro-video formats.
- FamiliesThey respond better to segmented campaigns with paid investment.
- Older peopleThey require in-person channels or collaboration with local entities.
Consequence
Strategic audiences are left out of the conversation and the project reinforces inequalities instead of reducing them.
5) Improvisation instead of planning
The lack of a timeline with phases, key messages, milestones, and allocated budget turns communication into a series of reactive actions. Each campaign starts from scratch, without continuity or narrative coherence.
Consequence
Teams are worn out by urgent tasks, money is divided into small, unconnected actions, and citizens receive scattered messages.
Budget reminder
As we saw in the previous section, dedicating less than one 1.5 % of the total budget The institutional communication campaign is insufficient. The recommended range of 1.5–3 % It does not include citizen participation processes or face-to-face events, which require a separate, specific budget item.
4. What do current benchmarks teach us?
Good practices in public and corporate communication converge on four ideas: SMART goals, real segmentation, balance creativity-dissemination and evaluation by results.Next, we summarize the most useful frameworks and how they contrast with the approach observed in the case.
| Frame | What does it ask for? | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| AMEC – Barcelona Principles 3.0 | Measure beyond outputs; include outtakes (comprehension) and outcomes (changes/actions). Link objectives to clear metrics. | It allows for demonstrating public value and accountability; it avoids "vanity metrics". |
| UK GCS – OASIS (Objectives, Audience, Strategy, Implementation, Scoring) | SMART objectives, defined audiences, campaign strategy and plan, results review (scoring). | It reduces improvisation and ensures consistency between creativity, channels, and evaluation. |
| European Commission – Communication Guidelines | Planning, segmentation, use of appropriate media, transparency and monitoring proportional to the project. | It requires traceability of public investment and evidence of actual reach/participation. |
| OECD – Public Communication | Strategic communication based on data, active listening, and continuous evaluation of results. | It strengthens citizen trust and policy learning (iterative improvement). |
From “publishing” to “changing behaviors”
Outputs = activity (impressions, posts). Outtakes = comprehension/recollection. Outcomes = actions (registrations, attendance, applications, use of services). International frameworks especially value the outcomes, which are what justify the investment and the social impact.
Minimum viable multichannel
- Own channels (website, email, social media)
- Segmented digital paid
- Selective local/offline alliances
Budgetary balance
- Creativity
(messages/
formats) - Diffusion
(coverage and
frequency) - Assessment
(surveys/
metrics)
Continuous optimization
- A/B testing of messages
- Audience adjustment
- Iterations by data
Actionable checklist based on benchmark
- SMART goals aligned with outcomes (not just impressions).
- Profiles and segments with differentiated messages and creatives.
- Campaign plan with phases, milestones, schedule and budget per channel.
- Paid media layer to reach audiences outside the organic market.
- Metrics of outtakes (comprehension) and outcomes (actions), with baseline.
- Evaluation report with lessons learned and improvements for the next cycle.
Contrast with what was observed in the case
The approach described (vague outputs, limited organic reach, budget focused on visuals, lack of paid advertising and evaluation) is incompatible with these frameworks. To approach the standards, it is necessary to rebalance the budget, define measurable objectives for each audience, and implement targeted outreach with results tracking.
5. Takeaways and actionable solutions
The key is to move on from surface digitization (publish without a plan) to a data-driven institutional communication,with measurable objectives, real segmentation and a balance between creativity, dissemination and evaluation.
1) Operational checklist (applicable within 30 days)
- Define 3–5 SMART goals linked to outcomes (e.g., “+25% workshop attendance”, “300 registrations”, “70% project understanding”).
- Segment 3–4 key audiences (young people, families, seniors, local agents) with messages and pieces differentiated.
- Design a plan of campaign with phases (awareness → interest → action → follow-up), schedule and budget per channel.
- Ensure paid media layer for coverage and frequency that organic cannot achieve.
- Establish baseline (brief survey or initial registration) and outtakes/outcomes metrics from day 1.
- Plan test A/B of messages/pieces and a bi-weekly data review for optimization.
2) Balance between creativity, dissemination, and evaluation (mini-budgets)
Indicative distribution for institutional campaigns with measurable objectives. Adjust for duration and complexity.
| Scenery | Creativity (messages/formats) | Distribution (paid + partners) | Evaluation (surveys/analytics) | Example of expected scope* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lite (≈ €25K) | 35% (€8.75K) | 55% (€13.75K) | 10% (€2.5K) | Local awareness + 1–2 active segments |
| Standard (≈ €60K) | 30% (€18K) | 60% (€36K) | 10% (€6K) | 3–4 segments with optimal frequency |
| Expanded (≈ €120K) | 30% (€36K) | 60% (€72K) | 10% (€12K) | Full multichannel + continuous optimization |
* Illustrative; actual reach depends on segmentation, creatives, local CPMs, and duration.
Own channels
- Website/microsite with FAQs and project map
- Email/SMS to consented databases
- Social media with editorial calendar
Paid indispensable
- Targeted social ads
(incl. TikTok for young people) - Search/
Display
locals
(intention/
scope) - Cabbage-
aborations/
local media
(packages)
Selective Offline
- Street furniture in key areas
- Flyers/QR codes on municipal facilities
- Partnerships with neighborhood organizations
3) Metrics that “move the needle”
How to measure without friction
Use micro-surveys in-page And post-event, UTMs per channel, simple dashboards (Sheets/Looker Studio), and a bi-weekly review with clear decisions (keep/kill/iterate). Without data, there is no optimization.
4) How we at Rumbo & Resultados can help you
If you've seen yourself in this situation, we can help you move from publishing without a plan to strategic communication that delivers results. Integrating Advanced digitization (automation, workflows, measurement) and Institutional communication strategy (objectives, segmentation, media mix and evaluation), we leave the campaign ready to operate.
Starter template (free)
Want to get started today? We're sharing our minimum viable campaign checklist (SMART goals, segments, calendar, and metrics matrix) so you can get organized even if your budget is limited.
6. Conclusion
This case demonstrates that digitization understood as “posting on social media” is not enough. Effective institutional communication in 2025 is strategic, measurable and multichannel: defines objectives linked to results, segments audiences, balances creativity–dissemination–evaluation and learn from the data.
- Switch from outputs to outcomes: from impressions to understanding, participation, and actions.
- Plan by audience: Different messages and materials for young people, families, and seniors.
- Activate paid media: Organic alone does not achieve sufficient coverage or frequency.
- Book a realistic budget: 1.5–3 % of the project for the campaign (excluding face-to-face events).
- Measure and optimize: baseline, A/B testing, and bi-weekly review with improvement decisions.
Final key idea
Communication is not an aesthetic addition: it is a public impact lever. When it comes to transformative projects, citizens deserve clear information, opportunities for participation, and visible results.
👉 If you manage public projects or run an SME and have seen yourself reflected in this, we can help you move forward From superficial digitization to communication with measurable objectives, segmentation, and results.
Would you like us to notify you when we publish new content?
We value your time. We'll only send you articles, guides, or tools that help you improve, make better decisions, or take better action.
