When Your Organization Starts Sounding Like Everyone Else

I recently read about a marketing roundtable where everyone sounded smart, prepared, and confident. Every answer seemed reasonable, but by the end, I still wasn't sure what most of them actually believed. That stuck with me because I see the same problem in marketing communication all the time.

Too much communication is designed to sound correct rather than to say something meaningful. The language becomes repetitive; opinions are softened until there is barely a point of view left; and familiar words about connection, engagement, storytelling, visibility, and authenticity start to lose their meaning.

This isn't just a problem within the marketing industry. For municipalities, public agencies, nonprofits, and other public-serving organizations, communication has a responsibility beyond sounding professional. People need to understand what you're saying, recognize who they're hearing from, and trust that your words reflect how your organization actually operates.

The organizations I tend to trust communicate differently. They speak plainly, answer questions directly, and follow through. Their communication remains consistent over time because their message aligns with people's experiences when they interact with them.

That matters more than sounding impressive does.

When Communication Becomes a Performance

Too much marketing conversation focuses on marketing itself rather than on the people organizations are trying to reach.

From what I see in my work, a new tool can emerge and quickly spark conversations about how everything has changed. When a platform adds a feature, organizations feel pressure to respond. A phrase gains traction online, and before long, variations of it appear across websites, presentations, campaigns, and leadership posts.

I understand why this happens. People pay attention to what others are doing, especially when something appears to work. There is nothing wrong with learning from another organization's approach. The problem arises when learning becomes copying, and organizations gradually lose the qualities that make their communication recognizable.

If your language, tone, and message could belong to almost any organization, you're making it harder for people to understand who you are and what makes your work meaningful. You might be saying all the technically correct things while saying very little that is specific to your organization.

That is when communication starts to become a performance. Instead of asking, “What do we need people to understand?” the conversation shifts to, “What are organizations supposed to sound like right now?”

Those questions lead to very different decisions.

Public Communication Has a Job to Do

For public-serving organizations, this issue carries greater weight because communication often determines whether people understand and access services, participate in programs, or make informed decisions.

Consider a program announcement. The people reading it need to understand who the program serves, what it offers, how to participate, and where to get more information. They should not have to wade through several paragraphs of impressive language to find those answers.

The CDC's Clear Communication Index is a useful reference. It encourages communicators to establish a single main message, place important information early, use language familiar to the intended audience, and specify what people should do with the information.

Those principles are useful well beyond public health communication. They remind us that the purpose of communication is not simply to publish information but to help people understand what matters to them.

This doesn't mean every message needs to sound casual or that every public agency needs an unconventional personality. Public communication must still be accurate, responsible, and consistent with authorized decisions. An organization's voice should reflect those responsibilities while remaining understandable to the people it serves.

Sometimes that requires explaining a complex decision in plain language. Sometimes it means acknowledging what has not yet been decided. Other times, it means providing a direct answer rather than sending someone through another series of links, forms, or general statements.

The goal isn't to sound impressive. It's to communicate something useful.

AI Did Not Create the Problem

AI has made sameness easier for me to notice, but I don't believe AI created the problem. Organizations were borrowing language, following trends, and producing generic communication long before these tools became widely available.

In my experience, AI can save time, organize information, support workflows, and help people develop content. These are useful capabilities. The problem arises when organizations confuse producing more content with communicating better.

Faster content is not automatically stronger communication. Longer posts are not necessarily more useful, and publishing more often does not automatically build trust.

AI can help you craft a message, but it cannot take responsibility for what your organization says. It cannot decide what leadership has authorized, what your organization can reasonably promise, or whether your operations support the message being published. Those decisions still belong to people.

If an organization doesn't know what it needs to communicate, who needs the information, or what people should understand afterward, producing more content won't resolve those questions. It may simply allow the organization to communicate the same unclear message more often.

I don't see the answer as using less technology for its own sake. I see it as being more deliberate about the work we ask technology to support.

Your Communication Has to Match Your Organization

A major problem with generic communication is that it can create a disconnect between what an organization says and what people experience.

If your organization says it values communication but people struggle to get a response, the message and the experience don't align. If you ask for public participation but your information is difficult to understand, the message and the experience don't align. If your website promises a helpful process but people encounter confusion when they try to use it, better promotional language won't resolve the underlying problem.

The OECD's 2024 Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions examined trust across 30 countries, including how people's perceptions of responsiveness, reliability, openness, and fairness relate to their trust in public organizations.

That research reinforces an important distinction. Communication can help people understand an organization, but their experience with that organization also influences whether they trust it.

In my work, I assess whether an organization's message reflects what it actually does. Does it answer questions? Does it make information accessible? Does it follow through on commitments? Can people recognize the same priorities and standards in its communication and actions?

Those questions matter because trust develops through repeated interactions. People hear what you say, experience what you do, and form their own judgments over time. A communication strategy should account for that relationship rather than treating every message as an isolated piece of content.

Being Recognizable Doesn't Require Being Louder

Marketing often equates standing out with being louder, more creative, or more visible. Those approaches can work, but they aren't the only ways an organization can become recognizable.

For public-serving organizations, recognition can also come from consistency. People become familiar with how you explain information, the language you use, the questions you answer, and how you respond when something changes.

That requires knowing what your organization stands for and understanding the boundaries of what it can responsibly communicate. Not every message needs to inspire people. Not every leader needs a carefully developed personal brand, and not every organization needs to respond to the latest platform, trend, or feature.

Sometimes the best approach is to say what needs to be said, explain it clearly, and leave out anything that doesn't help.

That might seem simple, but it requires judgment. It also requires leadership to recognize that being professional and communicating effectively are not always the same thing.

Before You Publish Another Message

If you're responsible for your organization's communications, review a few recent examples before adding another campaign, platform, or content series to the schedule.

Review a program announcement, a website page, or a recent social media post. Read it from the perspective of someone who doesn't work for your organization. Can that person understand the message without already knowing how your organization operates? Is the information specific and useful? Does it tell people what they need to know or what they should do next?

Then consider whether the communication sounds like your organization. Are you speaking in your own voice, or have you borrowed language that could appear on almost any organization's website? Are you making a clear statement, or filling space with words that sound appropriate but don't convey much?

Finally, compare your message with the experience your organization provides. If you're inviting questions, can people get answers? If you're encouraging participation, is the process clear? If you're communicating a commitment, does your organization have the ability to follow through?

You may discover that the problem isn't the writing. It may be the process behind it, the information provided, or the expectations leadership has set.

Technology will keep changing. Platforms will keep changing. AI will keep improving. But organizations will continue to face the same basic question: Do people believe you?

That question cannot be answered by the amount of content you produce.

Start by reviewing your organization's recent communications and ask: Does this sound like us, and does it align with how we actually operate?

DeShawn Scott is the founder and CEO of The D5 Group, a marketing management firm serving public-sector and nonprofit organizations. He advises nonprofits, municipalities, and public agencies on marketing strategy, management, and communication that helps organizations connect with the people they serve. He earned the Professional Certified Marketer (PCM®) credential in Marketing Management from the American Marketing Association and brings more than a decade of experience working with leaders responsible for public trust, organizational reputation, and growth.

< Older Post

Your Marketing Goal Has a Price Tag

By DeShawn Scott • August 24, 2026

“We need 1,500 people to participate in the program.” “We need more eligible residents to complete their applications.” “We need 500 registrations for our upcoming event.” These all sound like marketing goals. But before anyone starts discussing social media, advertising, videos, email campaigns, or creative concepts, leadership should ask a more fundamental question: What will that result reasonably cost? Marketing and money are often discussed in separate conversations. Leadership establishes the goal. Someone approves the budget. Then the marketing team or agency gets asked to make the two work together. I think that conversation is backward. A marketing budget should reflect what you are trying to accomplish, the resources available, and a realistic assessment of what it will take to produce the desired result. That doesn't mean every outcome has a predictable price. It means the goal and the money should be part of the same conversation. Start With Participation, Not the Campaign Suppose a public agency needs 1,500 people to participate in a new program. Before deciding how to promote it, we need to clarify what participation means. Does someone count as a participant when they complete an application? When they attend an orientation? When they receive a service? Or when they complete the program? These outcomes differ and may require varying levels of effort, resources, and follow-up. Consider a hypothetical scenario: an organization spends $30,000 on outreach and generates 1,000 completed registrations. That works out to $30 per completed registration. Is $30 a good result? Maybe. The calculation is useful, but it doesn't tell us whether the marketing investment was successful. If the original goal was 1,500 participants, the organization is still short of its target. We also need to know whether the people who registered were eligible, how many actually participated, and what happened after registration. A completed registration is not necessarily a completed program outcome. That distinction matters when leadership decides whether to continue spending, change direction, or approve another campaign. A Low Cost Doesn't Always Mean a Better Result Marketing professionals often report impressions, clicks, website visits, engagement, and registrations. Those numbers tell us something about the work. They help us understand whether people are seeing and responding to a campaign. But they don't always tell leadership what it needs to know. In July 2026, the U.S. Government Accountability Office addressed this issue in its examination of federal program performance. The report distinguishes between resources spent, activities completed, and the actual outcomes programs are supposed to achieve. The same distinction belongs in a marketing conversation. A campaign that generates 1,000 registrations may look successful on paper, but what if only a small portion of those registrations result in actual participation? Or consider a program designed to serve residents who face barriers to accessing information or completing an application. Reaching those residents may require more than digital advertising. The organization might need direct outreach, community partners, printed materials, or personal assistance. That could increase the cost per completed registration. Does that make the campaign unsuccessful? Not necessarily. A lower cost per registration isn't automatically a better outcome if the less expensive approach fails to reach the people the program is meant to serve. The real question is whether the money is helping the organization achieve its intended outcome. What Should It Reasonably Cost? This is where the marketing conversation becomes more useful. If your organization needs a specific number of people to register, enroll, apply, or participate, we should begin by examining what it has taken to produce those results in the past. What did previous outreach efforts cost? How many people responded? How many completed the required action? Where did people lose interest or encounter difficulty? Those answers give leadership a starting point for estimating what the next effort might require. Past results aren't a guarantee. The audience, program, timing, and available resources may differ. But they are more useful than selecting a budget without understanding the work. We also need to look beyond advertising expenses. Who will respond to inquiries? Is the registration process clear? Can staff handle the expected volume? Are people receiving the information needed to take the next step? The CDC's Program Evaluation Framework encourages organizations to assess resources, program costs, audience reach, and progress toward desired outcomes when evaluating public health programs. That approach is useful for marketing management, too. Advertising might generate interest, but if the application process is confusing or no one follows up with interested residents, spending more on promotion might not solve the problem. Maybe marketing isn't the problem at all. Determining that before spending another dollar is valuable. Sometimes the Budget Isn't Going to Change Sometimes the marketing isn't failing. The expectation is unrealistic. An organization might set an aggressive participation target and allocate a budget that is unlikely to support it. A responsible marketing strategist should be willing to say so before the money is spent. But public agencies and funded programs don't always have the option to increase their budgets. Leadership may already know how much money is available for outreach. That doesn't make the outcome conversation any less important. It makes it even more important. If your organization has $20,000 available, we still need to understand what you're asking that money to accomplish. Can the proposed approach reasonably achieve the desired number of participants? Are there existing communication channels or community partners that can help? Does the timeline allow enough time for people to respond? If the available resources don't support the original expectation, leadership may need to reconsider the scope, timeline, priorities, or target participation. There may also be minimum requirements the program cannot compromise. Those need to be part of the decision. The answer isn't always to spend more. Sometimes the better decision is to revise the plan before launching a campaign unlikely to meet its objective. Marketing Needs a Seat at the Financial Table Marketing is a management responsibility. It shapes how people learn about services, understand programs, respond to outreach, and participate in opportunities intended for them. That work requires resources, and leadership should understand what those resources are expected to accomplish. A program director, department head, executive director, or board member eventually needs to answer a question: “What did we get for the money?” That doesn't mean every marketing activity must generate revenue. Public agencies aren't businesses, and nonprofit programs aren't measured solely by sales. Some campaigns aim to improve public understanding, raise awareness of available services, or encourage participation. Those objectives matter, even when their full effects can't be captured by a single number. But we should still be able to explain what the organization set out to accomplish, how much it spent, what happened, and what the results tell us. That means marketing needs to be part of the planning and budgeting conversation—not just the team asked to produce materials after decisions have been made. Better Marketing Starts With Better Questions One of the most common questions in marketing is, “What is your budget?” It's a necessary question, but I don't think it should always be the first. I would rather understand what you're trying to accomplish, how much of that outcome you need, and what your organization already knows about the effort required to achieve it. Then we can have an informed conversation about money. If you tell me you have $20,000 before we understand the objective, all I know is that you have $20,000. I don't yet know whether that amount is too high, too low, or about right. Before approving another campaign, a new video, more advertising, or a larger content calendar, bring the program objective and the available budget into the same conversation. Ask yourself two questions: What are we trying to achieve? And what should it reasonably cost to make that happen? Those questions won't answer everything, but they can help leadership recognize unrealistic expectations, identify problems that marketing alone cannot solve, and make better decisions about where to allocate the money. That's where I believe smarter marketing begins.