It’s that time of year when comms strategies get dusted off, reworked, applauded — and then quietly abandoned.

We’ve all been there; the deck lands beautifully, everyone nods and the work feels smarter. But, three months later — timelines have slipped, messaging is off, and some of the tactics don’t ladder up.

Nobody is questioning the strategy, because in reality very few are using it.

The conversation moves straight to KPIs, and too often the focus narrows to the easiest things to track — attention metrics. The work gets optimised for what spikes reach or engagement, not for what delivers real strategic impact.

Success should link to business outcomes — preference, trust, mental availability, penetration, share — not just reach and engagement.

What's the problem?

The problem is, we treat strategy like a big reveal when it’s supposed to be a system. If the system isn’t properly installed and defended, you don’t have a strategy. You have something that looks good in a deck but disappears in delivery.

The real issue facing comms teams isn’t that clients don’t value strategic thinking, as most do. It’s undervalued because what gets implemented is often a half-arsed version of the strategy. So clients never actually experience what a proper strategy looks like when it’s working.

That said, most comms strategic drift is usually a two-part problem. Firstly, teams struggle to get a clear read on the real problem and mistake an inspiring platform for a strategy. Then, under pressure, tactics take over.

Real strategy is research-based, audience-led, and ruthless about what we will not do. Only then is it worth protecting. It’s not laziness. It’s not that anyone doesn’t care. It’s because turning strategy into action is one of the hardest parts of the system and the part we pay least attention to.

The strategy-execution gap isn’t a crack, it’s a canyon and it’s widening fast. In modern comms, timelines are squeezed, channels are fragmented, in-house teams are being restructured, and reputations can change overnight. The threat of strategic drift is greater than ever.

When a real comms strategy is protected, the opposite happens: teams move faster, ideas get sharper, the narrative stays consistent and the impact compounds.

We need to stop defending strategy at creation, and start defending it at execution.

Let’s stop fighting the old battle (clients should value thinking more) and start fighting the real one - investing time upfront to develop a clear, evidence-based earned strategy - and then protecting it from dilution, drift and misinterpretation.

So what does protection look like in practice?

Build it into the system from day one:

1. Clarify. What are the non-negotiables? What does ‘good’ look like across each channel? What are the first-week decisions this strategy should drive?
2. Guard. Put some guardrails around the strategy that make the trade-offs explicit and visible. Name the ‘don’ts. Define what would count as drift. Put boundaries around interpretation.
3. Guide. Assign a strategy owner and build in some leading indicators that track progress toward the business objective - not just comms outtakes and outcomes. Someone needs to be responsible for keeping the strategy alive, and teams need early checkpoints that reveal drift early enough.

This is not about managing execution, it’s about protecting the strategic choices that make the idea work.

Protection only works if the strategy is properly researched and audience-led in the first place.

For agencies, this isn’t theory. It’s commercial.

If we only sell thinking, we stay stuck defending a line item that feels abstract. 

But if we sell thinking, plus protection, we sell what in-house teams actually want:

• reduced risk
  

• better outcomes
  

• smoother delivery
  

• higher confidence at senior level
  
  

So let’s stop treating strategy as something you present, and start treating it as something you live by.