The multiple audience problem — why trying to please everyone usually pleases no one

Some communications challenges are about finding your voice. Others are about finding the right words.

And then, there’s a structural one. And it's one of the hardest to get right.

When you operate in a complex environment with multiple audiences, for instance in a public-private environment, answerable to institutional stakeholders on one side and commercial partners on the other, you quickly realise that what counts as "credible" looks completely different depending on who's in the room.

I've lived this. For several years I led marketing communications for an organisation that sat right at that intersection. Different audiences, different definitions of success, different expectations of what good looked like. And both watching every message that went out.

The instinct is to find a middle ground. Something that covers all bases. Vague enough that no one objects.

That's a mistake.

Vague messaging doesn't keep everyone happy. It just fails everyone equally.

Here's what I did instead:

Map your audiences properly

Not just who they are. What does credibility look like to each of them. For one side, that meant rigour, long-term impact and institutional reputation. For the other, reliability, commercial competence and proof that working with us reflected well on them. Written down side by side, the gap was significant. Ignoring it would have been a disaster.

Find the shared territory

There's almost always a version of your story that both audiences can stand behind. In my case, it was the bigger narrative — that we were doing work that genuinely mattered, with real-world application. That became the core positioning. The line that held everything together.

Build separate messaging layers on top

Same organisation, same values, same standards. Different framing, different emphasis, different channels. Thought leadership and research credibility for one audience. Capability and commercial proof points for the other.

Agree internally before you communicate externally

This is the one people skip. If the people around your leadership table are working from different assumptions about what the organisation stands for, it will show up externally. Get the alignment first. It's ungratifying work. Do it anyway.

Hold the line under pressure

It will be tested. A senior stakeholder will feel entitled to shift the narrative in a direction that serves one part of the organisation at the expense of the other. Your job is to hold the strategic centre, clearly and without apology.

The results landed on both sides. A seven-figure commercial pipeline with key industry partners, and relationships built on genuine mutual credibility, not just commercial value. On the institutional side, enhanced reputation, stronger grant outcomes and growing recognition as a leader in the field.

Combined, the organisation became known as a place where serious research met real-world application. Credible to one audience, compelling to the other. A reputation that worked in both rooms.

That didn't happen by accident. It happened because the communications strategy held two audiences simultaneously, without diluting either.

*Freepik