In a more polarised and contested information landscape, think tanks need to be clearer about the purpose of their communication before deciding how they communicate. The purpose determines the audience, the message, the format and ultimately how success should be measured.
The battle of ideas
Think tanks have traditionally viewed communication as the final stage of the policy process. Research is produced, findings are disseminated and, if the analysis is sound, influence follows.
That assumption has become increasingly untenable in today’s contested information landscape.
As argued in The Battle of Ideas Is Escalating, liberal democratic actors now operate in a far more contested environment. Illiberal actors, political movements, governments, campaign organisations and commercial interests compete to shape public understanding, influence political choices and define what is considered legitimate knowledge. Communication is no longer simply about transmitting evidence; it is part of the political and narrative contest itself.
This raises a fundamental question. What is the purpose of think tank communication?
Too often, discussions focus on channels, formats, social media strategies or artificial intelligence tools. Yet these are secondary considerations. Before deciding how to communicate, think tanks need to determine what they are trying to achieve.
Multiple functions
Communication serves multiple functions simultaneously.
At the most basic level, it fulfils a marketing and branding role. Think tanks need recognition for the ideas they generate. Visibility protects intellectual ownership, reinforces credibility and differentiates organisations in an increasingly crowded marketplace.
Communication also supports fundraising. Relevance, visibility and credibility help attract funders, members and strategic partners.
Some forms of communication create exclusivity. Private briefings, confidential discussions and intelligence products provide value precisely because access is limited. In a world saturated with information, trusted interpretation can be more valuable than information itself.
But communication also serves broader strategic purposes.
Think tanks seek to shape narratives. Narratives combine evidence with identity, fear, hope and agency. They help people understand not only what is happening but why it matters and what can be done about it.
Communication can break organisations out of policy echo chambers. Many think tanks communicate effectively within relatively small communities of policymakers, experts and stakeholders. The challenge is reaching audiences beyond existing impact bubbles.
Communication can educate citizens, strengthen democratic debate, add to the public evidence base and build networks of actors around particular ideas or policy objectives.
At its most ambitious, communication seeks to influence decisions and ultimately political outcomes.
Evidence and agency
These different functions imply different understandings of what a think tank is.
A think tank that primarily sees itself as a research institution will focus on communicating evidence and findings. Success is measured through quality, credibility and contribution to knowledge.
A think tank that seeks policy change must communicate differently and more strategically. It must engage with politics, advocacy, coalition-building and persuasion. Evidence remains essential, but evidence alone rarely drives decisions.
The distinction is increasingly important. In a more contested environment, think tanks cannot assume that better evidence automatically prevails. Ideas need champions; narratives need defenders; evidence requires agency.
This does not mean abandoning independence or analytical rigour. Indeed, credibility remains the greatest comparative advantage of liberal democratic think tanks. But credibility alone is insufficient if evidence never reaches the audiences capable of acting upon it.
The audience follows the function
Once the function is clear, the audience becomes clearer too.
If the objective is fundraising, communication should focus on funders and supporters.
If the objective is policy influence, communication should target decision-makers and their advisers.
If the goal is narrative shaping, the audience expands to journalists, opinion-formers and broader publics.
If the aim is citizen engagement, communication must move well beyond policy circles.
If exclusivity and intelligence are the primary products, communication may be directed at a relatively small group of trusted stakeholders.
Different objectives require different audiences, different formats and different investments.
Too often, think tanks attempt to reach everyone with the same products, and end up reaching no audience particularly effectively.
What does impact mean?
The debate ultimately returns to impact.
Many organisations measure communication success through outputs: publications, media appearances, social media impressions, website visits or event participation.
These metrics are easy to collect but often reveal little about actual influence.
A publication may receive limited public attention yet directly shape a policy decision. A private discussion may have more impact than a widely shared report. A media intervention may succeed because it changes a narrative rather than a specific policy outcome.
The appropriate metric depends on the underlying purpose.
Communication intended to raise funds should be evaluated differently from communication intended to change policy, shape narratives or engage citizens.
Too often, organisations measure what is easy rather than what matters.
Form(at) follows function
The starting point for any communication strategy should therefore be clarity of purpose.
Only once a think tank is clear about what role it wants to play can it determine the audiences it needs to reach, the formats it should use and the metrics by which success should be judged.
In a more contested battle of ideas, communication is no longer merely about disseminating research. It is about deciding what role a think tank wants to play in society and how it intends to exercise influence.
Ultimately, form(at) follows function.