It's time To rethink How Communications Is Used In MSD Programming

When consulting with market systems development programmes in knowledge management and communications, we often start with “Who is your audience? And what do you want them to do?”. Inevitably, programmes have three distinct audiences in mind:

1. SCALERS - businesses, investors, and government stakeholders in the market systems they are intervening with
2. PEERS - development practitioners in other programs, and
3. FUNDERS - their donor/s and potential future donors.

When thinking through what you want these audiences to do, usually the objective of targeting PEERS and FUNDERS is to make future development projects better, increase the brand reputation of the program and/or implementing firm, and secure future funding. These are important, but in terms of programmatic dollars spent, these results are not tied to the impact objectives of the program.

Communications and knowledge management delivers the most impact when targeting the SCALERS. The answer to “what do you want your audience to do?” is tied across the AAER (Adopt, Adapt, Expand, Respond) systemic change framework. In the 2020 paper “AAER Revisited: from systemic change narrative to systemic change analysis”, it was suggested that some practitioners “believe Expand and Respond are supposed to happen without the involvement of the programme. Just get a partner to Adopt a change, check that they Adapt, then sit back and watch while Expand and Respond unfold.” In reality, some ‘change resources’ are required to support a behavior change: “if no additional resource were required, the behavior change would have already happened. A shift in underlying rationale for changing behavior will have no impact without information about that shift.” Communications is a key ‘change resource’ programs can use to achieve scale and sustainability of their interventions.

The lack of funding given to create robust communications teams may be a lack of tying their work to results. Measuring the impact of this communications function has been murky, at best, for most programs we’ve worked with. However, in practice, we’ve seen the impact of these communications efforts. Communications objectives can and should fit into each step of the framework. Pulling from the original 2014 Springfield Centre briefing on the framework, below are some examples of where communications can be used to achieve programmatic results for each part of the AAER framework as well as metrics to track to tie communications success to results.

Adopt: Partner(s) take up a pro-poor change that is viable and has concrete plans to continue in the future

Key Question: If you left now, would partners return to their previous way of working?

In the initial piloting stage, finding partners with the will and skill to pull off the new business model innovation is critical. However, in the beginning, you have two problems: 1) you are an unknown programme with varying levels of industry-level credibility, connections, and experience. How do you earn this potential partner’s trust? 2) you need to overcome relationship bias that leads to programmes working with the same partners as programmes before them have.

Recognition of the positioning of this new programme or project is an important early step that communications can assist with. Funding for the programme was secured because you have demonstrated particular expertise and/or success in doing this type of work in a different context, sector, or country. The expertise and objectives of the programme need to be conveyed broadly to help potential partners emerge that not only have the will and skill but may be unknown players or internal advocates in the systems that the programme was unaware of or not previously connected to.

Some potential metrics to track include: outreach, new relationships formed, and new partnerships signed.

Adapt: Initial partner(s) has “invested” in the pro-poor change adopted, independently of programme support

Key Question: If you left now, would partners build upon the changes they've adopted without us?

In getting to adapt, you are looking to secure a sustainable change within the partner you’ve piloted your intervention with. However, change management within an organization, especially large ones, are dependent both on set internal processes and the internal advocates within the organization. While a successful intervention achieves both the business and impact objectives both the programme and the business want, there is a need to reinforce the benefits of the change across an organization to ensure its “stickiness”.

Communications can support this in two ways: 1) Preparing straight-forward and clear collateral about its successes to be shared internally, and 2) Tying the successes of the changes to the outwardly facing brand of the company. The first way is about promoting common knowledge and instilling a sense of ownership throughout the various players of an organization. The second makes the change part of the identity of the organization, makes it harder to undo in the future, and begins to help the process of expanding and responding.

Some potential metrics to track include: Partner satisfaction and intent to continue (with main contact, across the organization, or leadership), Additional investment in the business change, and Reach of partner communication.

Expand: Similiar or competing players copy the pro-poor change or add diversity by offering variants of it

Key Question: If you left now, would pro-poor outcomes depend on too few people, firms, or organizations?

This is usually where communications efforts begin to take off in typical programmes. The programme has secured and piloted new business model innovations with early partners, demonstrated success with them and has begun showing results for the logframe. To see real market systems change and scaled results, similar and competing players need to copy or offer variants of the change. While we can hope businesses in a competitive environment conduct appropriate market monitoring and competitive research to see and identify the success of their competitors, in reality, businesses in especially thin markets also often lack robust research departments.

To spread these market-changing innovations faster, the programme can use research and communications. The research part may come naturally to many development consultancies. To prove results to themselves and their funder, they may have already conducted research or even a randomised control trial, to show results. This research however is usually to show both the impact results as well as the results for the business which demonstrates the sustainability of the innovation. To create change among market system actors like businesses, investors, government stakeholders, etc, this research needs to be transformed into targeted pieces that are consumable and shareable by these audiences. This can take the form of webinars, live events, videos, infographics, one-sheets, social media posts, articles, and more. Once these are completed, the task of sharing them with the audience members begins, because if the content is created but never reaches the audience, the content has no purpose at all.

Some potential metrics to track include: outreach, response, survey feedback on materials (will they / did they change their business behavior?), and changed behavior of competitors.

Respond: Non-competing players adjust their own practices in reaction to the presence of the pro-poor change (supporting functions and rules).

Key Question: If you left now, would the system be supportive of the changes introduced (allowing them to be upheld, grow, and evolve)?

Similar to Expand, Respond is looking for a behavior change among actors outside the one receiving the main intervention. In particular, among supporting functions and rules. This can be getting regulators to change standards based on the success of the main intervention actor or suppliers changing their practices to respond to a large buyer implementing a new inclusive buying scheme. Again, these supporting functions will not know to change their behavior without communication or information on the change and why it is important.

For every market system in every country, this creates a growing and diverse audience to communicate with. The sooner a program starts these efforts the more likely they will understand all the players, influencers, and platforms in the market to target.

Some potential metrics to track include: outreach, response, survey feedback on materials (will they / did they change their business behavior?), and supporting function engagement.

So communications is key to delivery across AAER, but why is it not given the importance it deserves? Four final observations:

1. The communications function of any program usually comes online late in delivery. The assumptions being “we need to learn something first before we can communicate it out” or “we need some successes under our belt to show to people” or “communications is for crowding in (ie: expand and respond) so we need to prove the new business models with early partners”. However, a common refrain looking back from most program team leaders we work with is, “We really should have done this earlier.”
2. We need to look at program incentives and the program proposal process. When knowledge management or a learning function is not explicitly in the Terms of Reference (ToR), this becomes something that is assumed that isn’t a priority. Looking outside market systems development programming, Water for Women, the Australian Government’s flagship WASH program working in 15 Countries in South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific, and Suaahara II project in Nepal, a nutrition program funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), have been noted for their exceptional communication. This; however, is because they were funded for and designed to have robust research and M&E components so that other programming could learn from them. These components are for collaboration, learning and adapting (CLA) reasons, but also including a clear direction to influence other market systems actors in the ToR would mean more programs working at similar levels.
3. We hold a restrictive view that MSD programs should be invisible. This holds true early in the implementation when we want partners to self-select and not to consider the program as another donor handout (but would better upfront branding and positioning about the program be more effective to find the best partners?). And later when we believe all communications to invite replication should come from the partner (but what about when their business objectives are aligned to implement an intervention but not to broadcast the change?). Programs apply short-term change resources in terms of co-funding and technical assistance, program-led communications shouldn't be off the table.
4. Lastly, and not least, some stakeholders confuse the purposes of program communications. It can be seen as programs patting themselves on the back or trying to look good to funders. In reality, programs look good when they spend their budget wisely on influencing systemic change. Because of this tension, communications is typically given a small budget and a small share of mind among many implementors. However, communications, as noted, is an integral part of both delivery and measurement tracking.

Launching and funding a robust communications function early in the life of a program increases the chances of achieving market systems change. By monitoring the results of these efforts and tying them to programmatic impact measures, programs can prove the value of these efforts to themselves and their funders, as well as harvest outcomes as they are happening. For example, Discovered Markets’ Amplify service creates targeted content from a program’s work, disseminates it to our database of 400+ niche sector-level/country-level platforms and influencers, and monitors reach and response on a real-time tracking dashboard. It is used by various donor-funded programs, development banks, and foundations to improve communications efforts and track success. Incorporating your own target audience mapping, dissemination efforts, and tracking or using services like ours means more ‘change resources’ behind your desired market systems change.

Bio: Jason Eaves is the founder and Lead Strategist at Discovered Markets. Discovered Markets uses systems data and strategic communications to help its clients make returns, improve lives, or influence systemic change in emerging and frontier markets. Its global clients across Africa, the Middle East, and Asia have included iDE Global, DAI, Adam Smith International, ILO, SIDA, FMO, DFID, USAID, Global Good Fund, Gates Foundation, Gatsby Africa Foundation, RLJ Private Equity, LixCap Advisory & Capital, ELAN RDC, CASA Programme, SOBA, and Grow Liberia. Jason has an MBA from the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley.