Author
Tamara Pevec Barborič
That’s why this piece is not a “trend report”. It’s not a list of new platforms or formats. It’s a short proposal of five shifts that are more about fundamentals and discipline than anything else. And precisely for that reason they will be decisive in 2026.
In 2026 there will be less room for promises and more for proof. Not because people have become cynical, but because they’ve become cautious: “what does that actually mean?” and “how does it show in practice?” If adjectives (high‑quality, sustainable, innovative) dominate the text without concrete evidence, the impression is that we’re speaking in generalities.
The simplest shift is a disciplined one: for our key messages we prepare a set of proofs and use them consistently. That can be a number, an example, a process, a standard, a concrete change, or a stakeholder quote. In practice it helps to follow a rule that every important message includes at least two proofs—and that each text contains at least one concrete detail someone could repeat or verify.
A technically correct text is not yet a strategically effective one. It works when, alongside the “what” and the “how”, the “why” is also clear—in other words: what it means for the public on the other side. With complex topics it’s easy to share too many details and too little meaning.
A good “trick” is to write three sentences for each key topic that hold the story together: why it matters, what is changing, and what a person should understand or do as a result. The point isn’t oversimplifying; it’s building a bridge. Once the bridge exists, we can afford precision too.
External communication is always stronger when it rests on internal reality. If we don’t have a shared language and agreement on the core inside the organization, it shows externally as fragmentation: different explanations, different emphases, different promises. Communication then unintentionally becomes a “project collage”.
A shift we often underestimate is actually a very basic alignment: one central idea (what we are / who we are / what we do), three content pillars (what we return to again and again), and, for each pillar, a few proofs from practice. Not slogans—proof. Such a framework doesn’t restrict; it unifies. And when it’s unified, communication can truly become strategic, not just diligent.
Strategic communication is not only “broadcasting messages”, but above all managing relationships and expectations. If we speak up only opportunistically, we will often be too late or not relevant enough for key stakeholders.
In 2026 the “advantage” will belong to organizations that have a basic stakeholder map and an agreed rhythm: who the key stakeholders are, what matters to them, when they need information, and who inside the organization is responsible for it. There’s no need to overcomplicate—one page that brings order to communication is enough. Once the rhythm is set, improvisation decreases, predictability improves, and trust grows. And that shows especially when we have to talk about more difficult or “uncomfortable” topics.
Hard situations don’t announce themselves. But they come often enough that the difference between “we improvise” and “we know how we will respond” quickly becomes visible from the outside. Organizations that have the fundamentals for crisis communication prepared communicate more calmly in such moments, align messages faster, and are less likely to slip into “firefighting”.
This shift is very concrete: we outline basic scenarios (the most likely, not necessarily the worst), we agree on responsibilities (who decides, who approves, who speaks), and we prepare a short set of Q&A questions that tend to repeat. A “holding” framework helps too—what we say when we don’t yet have all the information, and when we will update again. It’s a small investment that makes an enormous difference in critical moments.