Newsletter
In a context saturated with channels, formats, and trends, communication has become more complex than ever. The constant emergence of new platforms and communication fashions has created a misleading idea: that to be relevant, organisations must be everywhere, follow every trend, and adapt to every popular format.
Effective communication is not built on the accumulation of channels or the uncritical adoption of trends, but on strategic coherence, clarity of message, and the ability to adapt the conversation to each channel without losing identity.
Channels Are Tools, Not Objectives
Communication channels should be understood as tools in service of a strategy, never as an end in themselves. Opening a profile on a new social network, launching a new format, or jumping on a trend only makes sense if it clearly contributes to organisational objectives and delivers value to the intended audience.
Before adopting a new channel or format, it is worth asking:
- Is our audience actually here?
- Do we have something relevant to say in this space?
- Can we sustain this channel with quality and consistency?
- Does it reinforce or dilute our positioning?
In many cases, a more limited but well-executed presence generates greater impact than being everywhere without a clear purpose.
Not Every Trend Fits (and That’s Fine)
Memes, viral formats, challenges, or fashionable narrative styles can be powerful tools, but they are not universal. Forcing their use when they do not align with tone, context, or message can trivialise content, create confusion, or weaken brand credibility.
Knowing when to say “no” to certain trends is also a strategic decision. Not being present on a channel or not using a popular format is not a weakness; it is a sign of judgement when it does not add real value.
As philosopher Byung-Chul Han argues in The Transparency Society and later in Infocracy, the excess of information does not necessarily generate clarity, but often leads to noise, fragmentation, and a loss of meaning. As he puts it,
“More information does not lead to better decisions, but to more confusion.”
Byung-Chul Han, Berlin
In this context, blindly adopting trends can amplify confusion rather than improve communication.
Taking Risks Is Also Part of Communicating Well
Communicating with judgement does not mean communicating from fear or comfort. Taking risks is necessary to stand out. Exploring new languages, formats, or approaches can be an opportunity to differentiate, connect with new audiences, or rethink how a message is delivered.
The key is to take risks intentionally, not by inertia. Trends should not be rejected automatically, but they should always be assessed through a simple question:
Does this risk reinforce our message, or does it distract from it?
When risk is aligned with identity, objectives, and timing, it becomes a lever for impact rather than a threat.
Separating Channels and Adapting the Conversation
Each channel has its own dynamics and demands a different type of conversation. Replicating the same message across all platforms reduces effectiveness and weakens communication.
The corporate website should be a space for clarity and focus, where what the organisation does and the value it provides are explained precisely. Email and newsletters allow for more direct communication, where messages can be sharper and more human. LinkedIn is a professional channel, but it should not be neutral or impersonal: it is a space to contribute perspective, opinion, and learning. More visual channels such as Instagram or YouTube can play a complementary role, provided the language and approach remain consistent with brand identity.
Separating channels does not mean fragmenting the message, but adapting it so it works better in each context.
How to Take Risks and Be Disruptive in Each Channel (With Judgement)
Taking risks does not mean the same thing across all channels. Each one offers different opportunities to break inertia without losing coherence.
On the website, risk lies in being direct where others are vague: talking less about the company and more about the problems it solves, removing empty language, and taking a clear position from the very first message.
In email, taking risks means sending less and saying more: breaking predictable structures, focusing on one strong idea, and building a recognisable voice worth reading.
On LinkedIn, disruption is not about following viral formats, but about offering original perspectives and simplifying complex ideas without jargon.
On Instagram, the risk is prioritising identity over popularity: rejecting empty aspirational content, showing real processes, and using creativity to provoke reflection rather than just engagement.
On YouTube, taking risks means respecting the audience: getting to the point, avoiding superficial content, and committing to explaining complexity properly.
Coherence and Boldness Are Not Opposites
Not taking any risks is, in itself, a risky decision. Brands that never challenge do not stand out; those that merely follow trends fade away. Communication with impact is built on the balance between rigour and creativity, between coherence and boldness.
In an environment shaped by what Byung-Chul Han defines in Infocracy as a system where information is abundant but meaning is scarce, communicating well becomes an exercise in reduction, intention, and clarity. As Han suggests, “communication today is dominated not by truth, but by the accumulation of information,” making it even more necessary to prioritise coherence over volume.
Communicating well is not about being everywhere or being viral, but about being relevant, recognisable, and coherent over time.
Further Reading
This perspective is part of a broader reflection explored by multiple authors who have examined the effects of information saturation on communication and attention, including Herbert Simon, Neil Postman, and Nicholas Carr.