8. Communications and discovery

Choose channels around a useful next step

A channel plan explains how a particular person finds relevant information, evaluates it and takes an appropriate next step. It is not a schedule of posts for its own sake. Begin with the audience situation and the service journey. Someone with an urgent advice need may use a referral, a search query or a trusted local notice; a commissioner may need a detailed service specification.

Choose a small set of routes the team can maintain accurately. Free distribution is not free work. Research, writing, checking, formatting, responding and updating all consume time. A social account that looks active but gives outdated eligibility information can create more friction than a modest, accurate service page supported by reliable partners.

Give each channel a job

A service page can provide the durable explanation of eligibility and steps. Email can support an existing relationship through appropriately permitted communications. Social posts can point people towards useful information, while offline notices and partner briefings may reach people who do not use the same digital platforms. Public relations can bring attention but offers limited control over the final account.

Do not assume that one channel's audience is representative of the people the mission should reach. People who comment are visible; people excluded by format or distribution are not. A channel mix should include a reason for each route, its intended audience, the information it carries, a next step, a maintenance owner and a way to notice failure.

Use a content brief before drafting. State the reader's question, the decision the content supports, the supported claims, the practical next step and the limits that must remain visible. A brief that only names a topic such as 'our impact' leaves the writer to invent the audience and evidence. Specify what must not be promised.

Make content usable without special formats

Plain text should carry the essential meaning. Use descriptive headings, short steps and labels that explain an action. A link called 'check whether this advice service fits your issue' is more informative than 'click here'. Avoid making a graphic, sound or colour the only way to understand eligibility or instructions. A text transcript is useful when audio or video is offered, but this course does not require either.

Write for uncertainty and stress as well as attention. Put the essential next step near the information needed to choose it. Distinguish eligibility from documentation requirements and tell people what happens if they cannot provide something. Do not invent an alternative route: operations must confirm it before publication. A compassionate tone does not compensate for an unusable process.

Accessible content needs review in context. A text-only version removes some barriers but does not prove the entire service is accessible. Device behaviour, language, cognitive load, assistive technology and organisational response all matter. Record the checks performed and the remaining gaps rather than claiming universal access from a checklist.

Investigate search as a journey

Search discovery begins with the person's question, not a list of fashionable keywords. Build a small query set covering the need, local context, eligibility and practical next step. A page should answer those questions accurately and be maintained when the service changes. Search visibility does not make a misleading page useful.

For a discovery audit, record the query, date, location or context if relevant, result type, source shown, claim and whether the next step is correct. Search results vary across users and time. A single observation is a snapshot, not a ranking guarantee. No paid search tool or advertisement is needed for the course; use the supplied fictional observations.

Distinguish being found from being understood. A result might display the organisation's name but imply a service it does not provide. A high click count could lead to unsuitable enquiries. Add checks for correct eligibility understanding and handling capacity rather than optimising traffic alone.

Treat AI answers as claims, not endorsements

An AI answer may summarise, omit or invent information. If it names your organisation, inspect the underlying claim and any cited page. A mention is not evidence that the answer is accurate or that the organisation has endorsed it. Do not promise a reliable way to control another system's answers.

Use the fictional discovery snapshots to compare what a person would learn from a service page, a partner listing and an AI answer. Trace discrepancies back to a maintained source where possible. A correction request or page update may be worth proposing, but the course does not require contacting a platform or publishing changes. Record the gap and the responsible role.

Avoid platform certainty. Advice that a particular posting frequency, content format or technical trick guarantees discovery should be tested against evidence and current context. A tool-specific claim can become obsolete quickly. The durable principle is to maintain accurate, useful source material and observe whether people can find and use it.

Allocate communication work honestly

Choose channels with a simple resource table. Include initial preparation and recurring maintenance. For the fictional advice case, a plan that uses all 20 improvement hours on content leaves no time for access investigation or response handling. Reconcile the channel allocation with the whole project budget, not a separate imaginary marketing team.

Compare an online-only plan with a partner/offline route. The latter is not automatically inclusive; a partner's opening times, language or referral practices can also exclude people. Explain the missing groups and the evidence needed to evaluate reach. If no audience evidence exists, label channel suitability as a hypothesis.

A useful plan may recommend fewer channels and better information. Define a review trigger such as repeated eligibility misunderstanding or maintenance exceeding the available hours. Then decide whether to revise content, change distribution or repair the underlying service. Communications should help people make a good decision, not simply create more measurable activity.

Turn a topic into a usable content brief

A brief called 'write about our advice service' leaves major decisions hidden. Instead specify: the reader is deciding whether the service fits their issue; the content must explain scope, the booking step and current limits; the evidence is the approved fictional fact sheet; no response guarantee or outcome claim is allowed. The proposed action is to check fit and follow the confirmed booking instructions, not to provide personal information through an invented form.

Draft the essential text before deciding its format. Then check each sentence against the reader's question. A long history of the organisation may be interesting but should not block an urgent practical answer. Conversely, a short call to action without eligibility information may increase inappropriate enquiries. Brevity is useful only when it preserves what a person needs to make a good decision.

For distribution, write the minimum accurate version a partner could reuse and identify who updates it when scope changes. An old printed notice may remain visible after a web page is corrected. Your maintenance plan should therefore include version dates and a review route for the small set of materials you actually choose. Do not promise universal removal of outdated copies. In a discovery audit, record a discrepancy without asserting how many people encountered it or what they did afterwards. Those are separate questions requiring evidence. This distinction keeps a sensible information-maintenance task from becoming an invented story about channel performance.

Study allocation and completion

Allocate 1.5 hours to this lesson and worked example, 1.5 to critical reading, 2 to the lab, 3 to the assignment, 1 to critique and 1 to reflection and revision: 10 hours in total. These are planning allocations, not measured duration or a timed assessment. Read in short sessions if helpful. All resources are plain text; a notebook, calculator or optional free spreadsheet is sufficient. No video, AI account or paid service is needed.

For critical reading, use the linked selection if accessible and the internal reading comparison. Record its question, argument, evidence type, assumptions and one reason it might not transfer to your organisation. A missing external reading does not prevent completion: compare the two original internal positions and state that you have not appraised the external source. Keep a source log with title, URL, access date if accessed, claim supported and limitation. Links are references, not permission to copy or upload readings to AI.

Complete the lab manually first. The supplied simulated AI output is authored teaching material, not a transcript, real research or verified model performance. Mark each claim supported, unsupported or contradicted. Optional live AI may generate alternatives from these fictional inputs only; record tool, date, instructions, checks and revisions. Never supply personal, confidential or unauthorised material. If not using AI, compare the supplied output against your manual work and label that route accurately.

For critique, use the rubric and annotated example, alone or with a consenting peer; no peer is required. For reflection, revise one consequential decision and record the old choice, new choice, evidence and unresolved uncertainty. Keep work locally. Self-completion records learning activity, not professional competence or an independently assessed award. Version: 1 November 2026; report suspected errors through the course host's available contact route, or retain a correction note if no route exists.

Practical lab — 2 hours

Use the three fictional discovery snapshots. Record the question answered, correctness, missing eligibility information and next step. Draft a 200-word text-only service explanation from supported case facts without inventing a response deadline. Allocate six project hours between source-page preparation, partner information and review. Explain what other project work those hours displace.

Portfolio assignment — 3 hours

Create a channel plan, accessible content brief and discovery-check method, approximately 800 words plus a table. Include an offline/partner option, ownership, maintenance, audience gaps, claims ledger and response/capacity check. Use supplied snapshots instead of live browsing if preferred. No posting, email sends, tracking installation or account signup is required.

Critique — 1 hour

Use the rubric and example, alone or with a consenting peer. Challenge the denominator, the strongest unsupported assumption and the most consequential operational risk.

Reflection and revision — 1 hour

Revise one decision and retain both versions with reasons. State the evidence that would reverse your choice. All work can remain local; no live AI, spend, contact or publication is needed.

Self-review weights: evidence and source appraisal 25%; critical reasoning 25%; contextual fit 20%; feasibility and evaluation 20%; clarity and reflective judgement 10%. Score each 0–4, then sum(weight × score / 4). These are illustrative learning criteria, not validated academic grades.

Evidence: label discovery records as fictional snapshots. Reasoning: distinguish reach, comprehension and appropriate action. Context: include offline access and maintenance limits. Feasibility: reconcile hours with the full project. Reflection: specify when to remove a channel rather than merely add more.

0 is missing or misleading; 1 asserts without support; 2 supplies partial relevant support; 3 links evidence, alternatives and a feasible decision; 4 tests a serious contrary account and states a reversal condition. Correct invented evidence, privacy risks and unsupported public promises before self-completion, irrespective of the total.

Weak: 'Post daily and AI will recommend us first.' Neither guarantee nor audience fit is supported. Competent: 'Maintain one clear service page and a partner description.' Strong: 'Use a maintained source page for eligibility and next steps, with a partner version linked to the same facts. The fictional partner listing invents walk-in access; the AI snapshot invents legal representation and same-day help. Record these discrepancies rather than copying them. Reserve review time and monitor unsuitable enquiries as well as traffic.' Annotation: this answers a practical discovery problem without claiming control over search or AI systems. A page draft is not evidence that real users found it accessible.