Your research videos and podcasts deserve more engagement — here's how we can make it happen
Introducing the Outcomes-First Content Model
A working paper by Chris Pahlow
First published: April 2nd, 2025
Last updated: April 3rd, 2025
Estimated reading time: 20-25 mins
Table of contents
Part 1. Summary
The problem
It’s heartbreaking when your videos or podcasts land with a thud. You've poured your time, energy, and precious research funding into creating content, only to find that barely anyone's watching or listening, and the chances of that content actually driving meaningful outcomes or impact still feels like a pipe dream.
And this situation isn’t just frustrating — it can burn out your team, erode trust, take resources away from initiatives that might actually move the needle, and leave stakeholders grumbling that "content just doesn't work." The whole thing SUCKS.
The gap
But here's the thing — it isn’t your fault. A huge amount of the content produced by academic teams lacks evidence-driven strategic thinking — and I believe this is driven, in large part, by system issues. Too often academic teams are not given the time, tools, or support to pause before they hit record in order to clarify critical details like exactly what they're trying to achieve, precisely who they need to reach, and what are the most promising pathways to do it.
My proposed solution
The Outcomes-First Content Model flips this usual script. It’s a simple, practical model designed to help you get clear before you commit, and to help you avoid pouring time, money, and energy into content that is unlikely to deliver the results you want.
Instead of beginning with a topic or a format (“We need a video about X”), this model asks that we start with a clear understanding of our audience and the outcomes we’re hoping to achieve. “Audience-specific behavioural goals”, as Prof John C Besley would put it. That way, each time you do hit record, you can feel a lot more confident that what you’re doing is more likely to actually help influence that policy, secure that funding, or change those hearts and minds. And if it doesn’t help, then that’s something the model deals with too — with an important focus on measuring what really matters, so that you can learn and improve your approach with each project.
This working paper unpacks the challenges mentioned above as well as some common misconceptions about content creation in the academic world, before introducing the Outcomes-First Content Model through four straightforward phases —
Phase 1. Clarify — Get aligned on purpose, audience, and strategic fit
1a. What are you trying to change — and what’s getting in the way?
1b. Who do you need to reach?
1c. Where and how can you reach them?
1d. What’s the sweet spot?
Phase 2. Develop — Shape your content approach and test it before hitting record
2a. Sketch your approach
2b. Think in ecosystems
2c. Pilot and refine
Phase 3: Make — Produce the content
Phase 4: Learn — Track success and improve
4a. Measure what matters
4b. Adapt, improve, repeat
How to approach this paper
This paper is written for two kinds of readers:
Researchers, educators, and comms officers who create content — whether individually, with your team, or in collaboration with professionals. If this is you and you’re short on time, feel free to jump straight to Part 6 for a practical breakdown of the process. Part 4 might also be handy for providing some context on why some academic content you may have seen before hasn’t always generated the outcomes the creators may have hoped.
Academic leaders with the influence to shape systems, strategy, and support for research comms and engagement — whether at the level of a lab, centre, faculty, or the entire University. If this is you, you might like to focus on Parts 2, 3, and 7, and then head to Part 8 for some suggested next steps.
Wherever you sit, I hope this paper gives you something useful, something practical, and maybe even something hopeful.
To be clear: this model isn’t about algorithm hacks or chasing viral trends — there are no silver bullets when it comes to content creation.
Instead, this model is about making sure that every ounce of your team's effort actually moves you closer to your real-world objectives. So let's ditch the guesswork and start creating content that both your audience and your team will genuinely value.
Because otherwise, you’re not driving impact — you’re just creating content.
A couple of quick notes:
I use the term “stakeholder” throughout, as I’d like to make the ideas in this paper as clear and valuable to as many academic orgs as possible. I’m aware of the potential issues with this word, and personally I’m not a fan of it. I’m keeping track of the ongoing conversation about the language we use to talk about this, and I’m looking forward to updating this paper if/when consensus is reached around new terminology.
While I cite various thought leaders from non-academic spaces, this is not an endorsement of all their views or political positions. My aim is simply to share useful ideas that we may be able to learn from and/or adapt in academia.
Part 2. The problem: content that doesn’t deliver
The video or podcast launch no one’s hoping for
It’s a very particular kind of heartbreak...
You’ve poured so much into bringing your research video or podcast to life. You’ve battled to carve out time and energy from your already inhumanly-stretched schedule. You’ve practically had to bend the laws of physics to find the funding for it. And you’re so damn excited to be getting the word out about the research you’ve dedicated years of your life to. But now it’s out...
And it feels like no-one’s watching. No-one’s listening.
Maybe it got a few likes. A couple of shares. Some polite internal congratulations. Maybe even an award or two that no-one outside (or even inside) the higher-ed sector’s ever heard of.
But has your video or podcast actually moved the needle? Has it actually changed the way people think or behave? Has it made it more likely that your team’s going to get that funding they really need? Has it actually driven any impact?
It gets worse (sorry)
This kind of outcome isn’t just disappointing. It’s costly. Not just in money, but in time, energy, morale, and trust. And so when content misses the mark, the potential damage can go well beyond just a failed campaign or video that didn’t click with audiences —
Opportunity cost: You’ve spent all that time and money — now there’s nothing left for what might have actually worked.
Team burnout: After putting in so much effort, the team is demoralised. They’re tired. And next time, they’ll have less energy — and less faith.
Future credibility: When content flops, it can be harder to get funding, harder to get buy-in, and harder to get another shot. You lose trust.
Systemic fatigue: Content becomes a chore. Stakeholders start saying things like “content never works” or “our audience just doesn’t engage.” But the real problem hasn’t been fixed.
But it’s not just you and it’s not your fault
If right now, you’re feeling alone – don’t. This problem is endemic throughout the academic world. I’ve consulted with University teams on content, media, and comms for over a decade now and you’d be shocked by what I’ve seen happen again and again and again.
I’ve seen thousands — even tens of thousands — of dollars spent on content that ends up with single or double-digit views.
I’ve seen teams producing content that reaches less than one percent of their total addressable audience.
I’ve seen content designed to support students that’s in direct opposition to what they say they actually want — resulting in content they find unhelpful, confusing, or just plain boring even though the team had the best of intentions.
I’ve seen generalist staff tasked with implementing complex content strategies without support, tools, or clear direction.
I’ve seen research assistants with no content-experience put in charge of content creation (instead of, you know, researching).
I’ve seen decision-making by committee water down or outright kill content that could make a real difference, because the project team has to keep everyone happy.
And I’ve seen internal politics and ego take precedence over audience needs, where content that was supposed to be addressing a serious need ends up turning into a laborious and alienating fluff piece so that all the requisite senior stakeholders can be featured reading the teleprompter.
It’s a depressing list, I know. And, trust me, I could go on...
But I don’t think any of this is coming from bad intentions. Over the years, I’ve worked with so many folks — both academic and professional staff — who really really care, and who are devastated when they realise that what they’ve been doing isn’t working.
So with this paper, I’d like to do a couple of main things —
Make it clear that it’s not your fault. In my opinion, this is a systems level problem, and you’ve been set up to fail.
And unpack the gaps we need to close, and provide a clear and actionable model for doing so.
Part 3. Why this keeps happening
In my experience, a huge amount of the content produced by academic teams lacks evidence-driven strategic thinking.
Teams jump straight to making, without slowing down to ask questions like:
What are we really trying to achieve?
Who do we most need to reach and what do we want them to do?
What are their needs, preferences, assumptions, and objections?
How and where can we reach them?
How are we actually going to do this practically?
How might this fit into our broader content ecosystem? Our org strategy? Our impact plan?
How can we test and iterate our idea before we spend all our money?
And how will we know if we’re actually heading in the right direction?
Once again, I don’t think this is happening because people don’t care, or because they’re not working hard. Quite the opposite!
But unfortunately, in the academy, this lack of strategic thinking around content creation isn’t just the bad habit of a few lone wolves. It's endemic and, I believe, driven by a number of structural issues. To start with just a few —
It’s far easier to measure activities rather than engagement (let alone meaningful outcomes and impact), so too often “let’s make a video” becomes the end, rather than an evidence-driven means.
Many universities are extremely hierarchical (even feeling like a class system at times), and so the preferences of senior internal stakeholders can override any thinking about the actual goals and audience of the project.
Comms and engagement are often seen as a bonus activity, that’s lesser than the real work of research and teaching. This can contribute to a lack of resourcing and specialist comms/engagement expertise. When content production is foisted on untrained ECRs and generalist staff, overstretched comms officers, and passionate researchers who sacrifice their nights and weekends to do unpaid content creation work (simply because they believe in the work)... Is it any wonder that things don’t line up with best industry practice?
In the next section, we’ll look at some of the most common misconceptions I’ve seen when it comes to content creation in the academic world, before introducing the model I’m proposing as a solution.
Part 4. Common misconceptions
Research organisations increasingly recognise the importance of visibility, credibility, and engagement — but the approaches commonly used (or inherited) come with severe risks and limitations. The result is often frustration, missed opportunities, and comms that don’t fully support institutional goals or individual aspirations.
The following are three models I see again and again — and while each has its upsides, none of them are really fit for purpose.
“We just need to explain more”
This is one of the most common traps in academic comms — assuming the problem is that people just don’t understand yet. But very often, the real issue isn’t clarity. It’s that your audience doesn’t care, doesn’t trust you, or doesn’t see why it matters. Explaining better won’t help if the audience has already tuned out.
As BeahviourWorks’ Dr Mark Boulet outlines in episode 12 of the Amplifying Research podcast — “There's this assumption that in order to stimulate action, people just need to know more... but that logic gets knocked off course by a number of other influences on behaviour.”
“Our audience is ‘the general public’”
“The general public” are three words that no strategist, no comms officer, no video producer ever wants to hear. Why? Because, as sci-comms expert Dr Julius Wesche explains in episode 26 — “The general public does not exist! If you try to cater to everyone, you're not catering to anyone.”
“My audience is just like me”
Unfortunately, this one’s just human nature. It can be hard to put ourselves in the shoes of others, and when we’re so excited about our research it’s natural to feel like everyone else should feel the same... And that their habits, needs, and preferences might just happen to be a little like ours.
But reality often doesn’t bear this out. Your audience may have very different values, habits, attention spans, cultural frames, senses of humour, and levels of knowledge. As BehaviourWorks’ content curator Geoff Paine tells us in episode 18 of the pod — “The researcher is not the average person. They're just not.” So it’s critical to start from a place of empathy and curiosity if you really want to reach people.
“High reach = high impact”
As I mentioned above, I’ve seen far too many situations where boatloads of time and money are spent on videos or podcasts that get single or double digit views. So obviously I think this can be a big problem.
But the tricky thing is, it’s not always a problem. Because, as I’ve suggested, this content should have a purpose. And that purpose almost certainly shouldn’t just be making a bunch of numbers go up on a social media dashboard.
It’s not just about how many people you reach, it’s making sure you reach the right people. If the right people aren’t engaging with your content — and if no one is thinking or doing anything differently — then reach is just noise.
Bonnie Johnson (who at the time of recording was the Comms Director for the Australian Academy of Social Sciences) tells us in episode 17 — “It wasn’t actually about the number. What mattered was who was listening... We had policymakers and sector leaders tuning in [to our podcast]. And that opened up conversations we never would’ve gotten through traditional press or email outreach.”
Dr Julius Wesche backs up this thinking in episode 26 — “The likelihood that you're being called for a talk or a consultancy session or into a consortium is more likely when you get hundreds of thousands of views than if you get hundreds of views... But if you reach the 10 people making decisions on regulations in the European Union, that's more valuable than just having a big number.”
Where things get trickier still is zooming out from just thinking about your audience to thinking about other key stakeholders or relevant-parties. As business coach and author Jonathan Stark discusses in articles like this and podcast episodes like this, the audience isn’t the only group you can reach via content creation. And it might not even be the most important one!
As he puts it — “Hosting a podcast means you always have something to invite people to (especially, luminaries in your field). If I reached out to Seth Godin and asked, ‘Hey, you wanna to jump on the phone for an hour so I can pick your brain?’ he would surely say no. But if I asked instead, ‘Hey, would you like to come on our podcast and talk about that thing you care about?’ he might agree. When I dreamed up the idea for [my podcast], it was specifically for the purpose of having something to invite my favorite thought leaders to. It’s nice that the audience is growing, but all I care about is getting to talk to really smart people for an hour.”
My own experience bears this out. I’ve gone on to forge valuable collaborative relationships with a number of guests who have come on the Amplifying Research pod. And so, like Jonathan says, I always love to see an episode take off and reach a lot of people. But that’s only one success indicator I’m looking at, and some of the episodes that have contributed the most to my mission are more about what’s happening behind the scenes than what’s happening when it comes to the listeners.
“If it looks professional, it must be good.”
Doesn’t it just feel great when your video looks like a million bucks? Or your podcast sounds like it’s been recorded in the same studio that Serial was produced in? Trust me, I get it. I’ve been making content for coming on 20 years now, and us filmmakers are worse than anyone when it comes to wanting everything to sparkle.
It’s natural to assume that the more polished a piece of content looks, the more people will want to engage with it, and the more trust they’ll have for the messaging it contains. But unfortunately reality is more complicated than that.
Simply gunning for production values does not ensure meaningful outcomes. In fact, they may actually be counterproductive. Go and ask any social media officer you can find and you’re likely to hear words like “authenticity” and “organic content”. More and more, it seems that viewers want content that feels real and cuts through the bullshit. This doesn’t mean that production values are never important. But it’s an important assumption to question — and its one of the reasons that (as much as it pains me) I record all my video content on my phone.
“It has to be short.”
“Students tell us they find long videos boring, so we need to do short videos” is a line I’ve heard again and again. Intuitively, it makes sense. Particularly with all the talk around shortening attention spans.
But I got my start teaching Critical Thinking at the Monash Graduate School of Business, so please forgive me for this indulgence, but this always struck me as just a little too close to —
Premise 1: All men are mortal.
Premise 2: Socrates is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore, all men are Socrates.
So let’s unpack the potential meaning behind the statement “students tell us they find long videos boring”, because there might just be a few unstated premises lurking in the shadows.
What they might actually be saying is “this specific long video was boring” or “long videos produced by academic teams tend to be boring”.
Not too long ago I watched a 90 minute YouTube video that (at the time of writing) had 1.5 million views and more than 3,000 comments. It was not boring. And to be clear, this was not a Hollywood film. This was a video of a single person sitting at a table giving (incredibly valuable) advice.
And if we flip things around, making something shorter doesn’t make it intrinsically not-boring. It just makes it shorter. Trust me, there’s a wealth of short academic videos out there that can still bore you to tears.
I’m not saying that making things shorter isn’t a good idea in general (it is). And I’m not saying I’m at all representative of your target audience (I’m probably not).
I’m just saying, making something shorter is not the be-all end-all. And cutting up one long boring video into ten short boring videos isn’t really going to help.
The goal here is to make content that a) your audience wants to watch/listen-to, and b) is likely to meaningfully contribute to the outcomes you’re pursuing.
Part 5. Introducing the Outcomes-First Content Model
OK, we get it Chris, there’s a lot of problems! What do you want us to do about it?!?
Well, if our biggest gap is a lack of evidence-driven strategic thinking, then let’s flip things around!
Introducing: the Outcomes-First Content Model. It’s a simple, practical model designed to help you get clear before you commit... And to help you avoid pouring time, money, and energy into content that is unlikely to deliver the results you want.
Instead of beginning with a topic or a format (“We need a video about X”), this model asks that we start with a clear outcome: What change are we trying to make? Who are we trying to reach? What’s in the way of that change? Only once those questions are answered should we move on to actually planning what will be in the content — let alone actually recording it!
As “Strategic Science Communication” co-author Prof John C Besley says in episode 35 of the Amplifying Research podcast — “What are we doing? We're not just communicating for the sake of communication. We're trying to do something here... You can just hope that it happens, or you can start making the choices that increase the likelihood that people will consider [your] research... form new beliefs... and later on might factor it into decisions.”
The model is divided into four sequential phases —
Clarify — Start by asking the right questions.
Develop — Based on those insights, sketch your approach, think in ecosystems, and test before you build.
Make — Produce your content with clarity and purpose.
Learn — Measure what matters, and improve for next time.
This model is not a silver bullet. It won’t guarantee reach, virality, or engagement. But it will give you a clear process, a shared language, and a better shot at making content that actually contributes to the outcomes you care about — whether you’re making content on your own, as part of a team, or in collaboration with media professionals.
Part 6. How it works
Let’s walk through the model, step by step.
Each phase is designed to help you avoid the kinds of misfires, misalignments, and missed opportunities we’ve been talking about. It’s not about adding more work — it’s about making better decisions, earlier, so you don’t waste time, budget, or energy later.
You can use this model solo, in a team, or to guide a conversation with a collaborator or supplier. It’s flexible — but the order matters. Each step builds on the thinking before it, so don’t skip ahead.
Phase 1. Clarify
1a. What are you trying to change — and what’s getting in the way?
The more specific you can be here, the better. Are you trying to shift knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, behaviours?
It’s also important to think about how this piece of content fits in with the bigger picture — your team’s overall comms strategy, organisational strategy, and impact goals — and what kind of success indicators you can track once the content is released. Otherwise, how will you know if what you’ve done has pushed things in the right direction? Bonnie Johnson explains that when it comes to the Australian Academy of Social Sciences — “We used to track top-performing social posts… Now we care more about whether the content reached the right people and supported other goals like grant applications or media coverage.”
As Dr Mark Boulet explains — “The first thing we always say is, what do you actually want people to do? And to define that as a very observable, action-oriented behaviour.” Prof John C. Besley calls this an audience-specific behavioural goal — what you hope someone might do as a result of the time and money you're spending on communication.
And since we’re talking goals that are “audience-specific”, it’s critical to do this step in conjunction with the next one…
1b. Who do you need to reach?
Once again, the more specific you can be here, the stronger everything else becomes.
As Dr Julis Wesche tells us — “Your target group is not people between 18 and 25. It’s women, between 18 and 25, in a specific study program, in a specific country, who like podcasts and are in their second year of teacher training… Define them with teeth.”
You’re looking for the specific groups who are important to driving the change you outlined in Step 1a.
As Prof John C Besley explains — “Pick your audience, then get to know them. And what do you want to know about them? It’s not their age or gender — it’s what they believe.”
Who are they? What do they care about? What do they already know, assume, believe, fear, or want? What influences them — and what might steer them away from the outcomes you’re aiming for?
As Dr Julius Wesche says — “Talk to your audience. Call them, message them, take them for coffee. You can’t do that with 1,000 people — but you can do it with 3 [to start getting a rough idea of things].”
Bonnie Johnson adds — “Once you’ve named your avatars, you realise you can actually find them. You know where they are, what they read, what will land.”
Developing audience/stakeholder personas (aka avatars, as Bonnie puts it) can be a great way to build up a common body of knowledge your team can use to make more informed decisions over time. For more on how you can tackle this process, check out my working paper on defining stakeholder personas (coming soon).
1c. Where and how can you reach them?
There’s no point making a video or podcast if no one’s going to find it.
Where is your audience already paying attention? What platforms do they use? What types of content do they engage with? Who do they trust? When are they most receptive?
As A/Prof Suzie Sheehy explains in episode 4 — “If you go to where the audience already is, that's half the work done for you... People get this impression that you start your own YouTube channel and if it's good enough, somehow it will manage to go viral… You do have to be a bit more strategic than that... I've never run my own YouTube channel… Instead, I ended up working with the Royal Institution… They have all those skills in house [as well as a built-in audience].”
Timing is also important to consider. As Dr Mark Boulet outlines — “The default assumption is, let's do something on social media… But why are we yelling at people about our research when they're paying attention to something else?”
1d. What’s the sweet spot?
This is where purpose meets practicality. What’s the overlap between what your audience needs, what you have the expertise and resources to create, and what you can actually imagine following-through on without wanting to dive into the abyss?
As science journalist Jacinta Bowler explains in episode 9 — “What do you like doing? Are you a person who listens to podcasts all the time? Do you like watching TikToks? Think about what you enjoy consuming — that’s probably where you want to start.”
You might have a great idea for a slick animated explainer… but no budget, no designer, and no time. You might want to film a live panel event… but your audience is mostly watching content on their phones while commuting. Or you might be considering a podcast… but no one on your team knows how to edit audio, and no one has time to learn. That’s not failure. That’s reality.
So this step is about finding that strategic sweet spot — where your team’s skills, time, and resources align with something the audience will actually find useful, engaging, or meaningful. Be honest with yourself here. Don’t default to what’s flashiest or most familiar. Default to what’s doable, aligned, and most likely to work.
Phase 2. Develop
You’ve got clarity on purpose, audience, barriers, and context — now it’s time to start figuring out what you should actually make and pressure-testing it early (while there’s still time to change your mind).
2a. Sketch your approach
This is where we draft up the key messages and decide on the format, tone, and structure of the content. The key is often to make sure it delivers value, not just information.
Just exploring this could be a whole working paper in itself (maybe multiple papers), so if you’re interested to hear more about this let me know and I’ll put it on my schedule.
2b. Think in ecosystems
One piece of content is rarely enough. Even if it’s brilliant, it can’t do everything. And if you only share it once — and only in one place — most of your audience will never see it.
So step back and ask:
How can this piece of content be part of a broader ecosystem?
Are there other formats that could support it?
Could this become a series, or be broken into smaller chunks?
Could it be shared more than once — with different framing, at different times?
How does this content link to the rest of your team’s efforts, or to other content your org is putting out?
You don’t need to create everything at once. But you do need to think beyond “one and done.”
2c. Pilot and refine
Don’t wait until you’ve spent the money — or used up your team's time and energy — to find out the idea doesn’t land. Pilot early. Prototype small. Share something rough.
That might mean:
A sample script or partial storyboard
A lo-fi audio snippet
A rough cut filmed on your phone
A few slides or frames that show tone and structure
Then test it with people who are actually part of your audience — not just internal colleagues.
As Professor Bianca Brijnath explains in episode 14, even the most well-intentioned, evidence-based content can still miss the mark. “Sometimes people will switch off completely. You have to know what imagery, messaging, or assumptions might push people away.”
Her team created a dementia prevention animation grounded in robust research, but when they piloted it with culturally diverse audiences, things went sideways. References to olive oil — common in Mediterranean diets — triggered backlash among Indian viewers, who felt their culture and food traditions were being erased. One participant even asked if she had “shares in an olive oil company.”
That moment of “semi-amusement and horror,” as Bianca put it, led to important changes — not just in the script, but in how the team approached audience inclusion and feedback.
Imagine if they only learned this after the content had been released! This is why piloting your content is so powerful. It’s where the assumptions get revealed. And where the best content starts to take shape.
Phase 3. Make
When people think of content creation, this is almost always the only part they think of. It’s beyond of the scope of this paper to dive into this phase, but there are a wealth of free resources already available online.
My friends at the University of Melbourne’s Video & Media team have some resources that are a good starting point. Here’s a few sections from their DIY Video Guide that you might find useful —
If you have any favourite resources, let me know and I’ll add them here as I update the paper.
Phase 4. Learn
4a. Measure what matters
Don’t just track views.Track value.
Go back to the purpose you defined in Phase 1. What were you actually trying to change? What signals might tell you that shift is happening?
You might look for:
Who’s watching or listening — and whether it’s the right people.
What kinds of comments or shares the content is getting.
How it’s being used (in teaching, in meetings, in advocacy).
Whether it’s led to new questions, conversations, invitations, or relationships.
Whether it’s supporting a bigger outcome — like a grant, a policy shift, or a team goal.
You might not get all the data. That’s okay. But you need some way of checking whether your content is doing what you hoped it would do. Otherwise, you’re just guessing.
4b. Adapt, improve, repeat
What!?! The project’s all done right?
While it’s important to take time to celebrate your wins and rest up, this is an ongoing process.
With the metrics you’ve gathered in 4a, ask —
What worked?
What didn’t?
What did we learn about the audience, the format, the process?
What would we do differently next time?
Look for the bright spots and keep that positive momentum going, so that when you head back to Phase 1a for your next piece of content, you’ll be starting way ahead of where you did last time!
Part 7. Common concerns, and what you can do about them
"We don’t have the time to do all this." →
Start small. You don’t have to do every step perfectly the first time. Even answering two or three of the Clarify questions can dramatically improve your chances of making something that works. Build these muscles over time.
"If we do all this, everything will grind to a halt. Things already move slowly, and we can’t afford to miss opportunities." →
You're right—alignment can take time, especially in large, complex organisations with lots of stakeholders. But the Outcomes-First Content Model isn't designed to add unnecessary red tape.
By clarifying purpose and getting stakeholders aligned from the beginning, you'll dramatically reduce misunderstandings, unnecessary revisions, and stakeholder conflicts later on. Sure, you might end up producing less content — especially as you're first testing and embedding this process in your team. But the trade-off is content that you know is strategically valuable and clearly aligned with your goals.
It really comes down to a choice: would you rather keep producing large amounts of content without clarity on its actual value, or invest your time into creating fewer pieces of content you can be confident are genuinely contributing to meaningful outcomes?
If momentum is a concern, start small — pilot the model with a focused, manageable project you can run alongside your BAU processes. Once folks can see the benefits in action, it’s likely to be easier to scale and streamline the process moving forward.
"Our audience is too diverse — we can’t pick just one." →
Pretty much everyone who’s ever said this to me was eventually able to narrow their audience down at least somewhat — and you probably can too. And you don’t have to do it alone — you can work with a collaborator to help you prioritise.
Consider whether any of your prioritised audience personas can be grouped together. If there are shared needs, assumptions, or behaviours, it can sometimes make sense to speak to them collectively in a single piece of content. As Prof Bianca Brijnath explains — “In the real world, we have to create content that can’t always be totally bespoke... We have to find common ground that takes enough people on the journey of helping facilitate change.”
Sometimes it does make sense to just focus on one audience persona per piece of content. Bianca describes how her team adjusted content by testing different images, translations, and culturally relevant references — sometimes making unique versions for specific groups.
Lastly: you don’t have to do it all at once! Things can feel more achievable if you start small, focusing on the highest priority audience personas. So, stakeholder/audience prioritisation should either be a key step in your overall comms strategy (see my working paper on the Adapt and Align Comms Model — coming soon), or at the very least, something you do in part of Phase 1b of this process.
"We don’t have the skills to produce what we want to make." →
That’s okay, you’ve got two great options that guests frequently mention on the Amplifying Research podcasts, and I’m in total agreement.
1) Start small and take the pressure off. This is why phase 1d is so important, and I took this approach myself. Even after working on feature films, television shows, documentaries, music videos, podcasts, and consulting on countless teaching and research videos... I chose to roll out content production for Amplifying Research in a very slow and careful way. I started with audio content only, as it’s cheaper and less time consuming than video. I started by interviewing guests I already knew well and was comfortable with, to take the pressure off myself as a host. And I spent about a year gradually building confidence and improving process efficiency before I began making video content. So if someone like me, with almost 20 years of media production experience, can take it this slowly, I would certainly recommend taking that pressure off yourself too.
2) You can team up with professionals — whether that’s strategists like me, podcast or video producers, professional science communicators, comedians or actors. This is another thing that’s come up time and again on the podcast. Unless you’re in love with doing all the jobs associated with creating content yourself (and there’s a lot), the maths of teaming up with other folks really makes sense. The more time and energy you don’t have to spend learning how to use video editing software or figuring out how to light your scene or what microphone to get, the more time and energy you actually have for working on your research project. This is what A/Prof Suzie Sheehy recommends — “Work with professionals. Be the talent, not the producer. Because as a researcher, you have the expertise — but if you want reach, it helps to have a team behind each piece who are going to amplify it.”
"We followed the process and it still didn’t land." →
There are a few reasons this might happen — and none of them mean you’ve failed.
It could be that the process worked, and this outcome is a feature, not a bug: now you’ve got valuable insights to inform the next iteration or the next piece of content.
It could also mean there was a misstep somewhere in following the process — maybe the audience wasn’t specific enough, or the barrier wasn’t diagnosed clearly, or testing feedback wasn’t fully integrated. That’s normal. The model is meant to support better thinking, not guarantee perfection.
And finally, it might mean the model itself needs improving. That’s part of the reason this is a working paper. If a part of the model feels clunky, unclear, or like it’s leading you in the wrong direction — get in touch. Let’s improve it together.
Part 8. Let’s take this from working paper to working model
If you’ve made it this far — thanks for coming on the journey, I know it was a long one!
Hopefully, what you’ve seen in this paper is that most of the content challenges we face in academia aren’t about people being lazy or clueless — they’re about a lack of time, shared processes, and support.
The Outcomes-First Content Model isn’t magic. But it gives you something to start from — whether you’re:
Working solo
Leading a team
Collaborating with media professionals
Or trying to shift how your organisation approaches comms and engagement
If you’re working at the project level...
Try it out on your next video or podcast project. And take the pressure off — start small, and don’t worry about getting everything perfect. Even just starting with the questions in the Clarify phase can make a tremendous difference.
And if you do try it, I’d love to hear how it goes. Your feedback will help me keep improving the model.
If you’re in a leadership or strategy role...
Here are a few ways you might contribute:
Pilot this model with a team or initiative — and protect their time and space to do it properly.
Change how success is measured — start asking whether content is reaching the right people and contributing to real outcomes, not just how often it was viewed.
Resource strategy, not just output — give your teams the tools, time, and trust to think before they create.
The dream? A scalable approach that helps address the systemic challenges limiting so many teams — and the outcomes they could be generating.
For me, the dream would be an approach that can be scaled up throughout the sector to address the systemic challenges limiting so many teams — and the outcomes they could be generating.
It’s too early to say what that scalable approach might look like. Perhaps it’s a future iteration of this model. Perhaps it’s something different developed in response. Either way — let’s keep testing and improving together — and maybe, over time, we can make a real dent in the systemic challenges that so many teams face.
I’m not naive. I know that systemic change is a big ask. But I do believe we can work together to change things over time. And if we can shift how academic content is made — even just a little — we can open the door to work that’s not only more engaging, but more impactful, more fun, and more true to the values that brought many of us into research in the first place.