Here’s the reaction good advice gets: “Oh, that makes a lot of sense. I’ll have to keep that in mind.” 

And here’s the reaction great advice gets: “That’s a great way to approach it. I’m going to use it in the message I’m writing tomorrow.”

Good advice tells you what you could do. Great advice goes on to show you how to do it. Today, I’m launching a series of posts that aim to bridge that gap. Let’s call it the “So, how do you do that?” series.

(I’m not arrogant enough to promise great every time. But I promise not to settle for good.)

Here’s today’s good messaging advice starting place:

Remember: the most powerful and convincing 
messages are the ones that only you could send.

Makes sense, right? Too many nonprofit messages are swappable. They could be sent by any number of groups. Why does an “only you could send this” message matter? First of all, it’s hard to compete with the group that has the “franchise” in your issue area if both groups’ messages are indistinguishable from one another. 

But, even the lead groups benefit when they send their audiences with “only we could send this” messages. People devote more attention to and invest more interest in messages they can’t imagine anyone else sending. 

But how do you get there? What are some of the keys to creating a message that no one else could send? Here are seven guidelines.  

#1: It starts with really good, strategically focused research.

You can’t communicate what’s unique and persuasive about your group and its approach until you uncover it. Not sure what makes you stand out? Then dig for it. Do the deep research that can expose facts, stories, and angles of vision that differentiate your group from others. 

If a program director gives you a generic briefing, say “Great, but what is it about the work you’re doing that sets us apart? What can we do that no one else can?”  

Then you won’t settle for writing this: “As a leading environmental group, we are keenly aware of the environmental, economic and equity consequences of letting AI data centers spring up haphazardly.”

Because you’ll be able to write this: “Our research scientists have documented the severe strain data center cooling systems are placing on critical water resources. And we’ve already helped put a pause on data center plans in 16 states across the country.” 

#2: Strive for an “only you” opening.

The start of your message is the best place to set yourself apart. Indeed, failure to begin there might be the whole ballgame. Opening generically could render meaningless a later effort to get at what sets you apart.

Here’s my favorite political campaign “only you” opening. Most electoral letters start something like this. “My name is Joe Candidate and I’m running for Senate in one of the most critical races of 2026. I’m confident that, with your support, we can win a victory that advances the values you and I believe in.” Said Joe and a dozen other candidates each election cycle.

But many years ago, a candidate took a different approach. I didn’t write it and I’m reconstructing from memory, but it went something like this.

“When I was growing up, my parents had visions of me becoming a doctor or a lawyer. I was thinking more along the lines of shortstop for the New York Yankees.

“None of us had U.S. Senator on our dance card. So let me tell you why I’m running.”

That’s a no one else can say that opening. It gives you a positive sense of the sender and leaves you open to what he has to say next.

#3: Get as close to the ground as you can.

Sharing details only your organization has access to is another way to create “only you” messaging. Here’s a story I’ve shared before. When I worked with Doctors Without Borders, we featured a brilliant tale that illustrates the power of “close to the ground” communications. 

In the middle of the night, a Doctors Without Borders surgeon is called back to the operating room to perform an emergency C-section needed to save the lives of a woman and her baby. I’ll let the doctor take it from there: 

“We move quickly, time is critical. I pick up the scalpel and make the first incision in her skin when, suddenly, the unthinkable happens—the lights go out. It’s pitch black in the windowless operating room. I wait, for what feels like an eternity, but the power doesn’t come back on.

“Here I stand, two lives in front of me. All I can hear is the rain on the roof and my own heartbeat pounding in my ears. I don’t know what to do next; I feel utterly helpless.”

The story continues.

“Then, from the dark void, a light appears at the head of the bed. It’s the anesthetist, who has opened up a laryngoscope (a device we use to intubate people)—he is now holding it over the patient to light my way. 

“Next, the operating room nurse turns on a cell phone and holds it over the patient. I can almost see well enough to continue the operation. More hospital staff file into the operating room, carrying lit cell phones. Within a few minutes, there are six cell phones and a laryngoscope blade providing enough light for me to keep going.

“Luckily, the woman and her baby survived.”

It’s the in the middle of the action details that bring that story to life – the lights going out, the rain on the roof, that first light going on. It’s a story only the MSF doctor could tell. So, always search out stories and details only available from inside your organization.

#4: Emphasize stances that challenge your sector’s consensus.

Another way to stand out is to challenge conventional wisdom. I’m not suggesting being contrary for contrary’s sake. But it’s not uncommon for some organizations to challenge the commonly held views and assumptions of the overall sector.

Think PETA in the animal rights space or Greenpeace in the environmental community.  When stances that separate a group from the pack are authentic, it can be a powerful way to create messages that only your group would be willing to send.

One caveat is that a good portion of the nonprofit audience is uncomfortable with what they consider “fighting among ourselves.” So, this type of contrary positioning has to be handled carefully. The key is people have higher tolerance for it when the stance clearly stems from principle as opposed to just an effort to gain attention.

#5: Don’t just answer “What now?” Answer “why us?”

Especially in the current attention landscape with our audiences zeroing in on what’s most immediate and time sensitive, many nonprofit messages are focused on answering the “What now?” question.

They seek to present “can’t wait” work that is not only important, but also at a critical juncture – one where the person’s intervention can have a real impact.

That’s a correct focus. But especially in acquisition and in circumstance where multiple players are seeking support on the same front, it’s also critical to address the “why us?” question.

I call it the “vehicle” question. It’s not enough to convince your audience that what you’re calling their attention to is urgent and important. You also have to persuade them that you’re the right group to work with on the issue at hand.

Track record is one route to take. You’ve done this or similar things in the past and the current project stems from that. But if that’s not available, it becomes critical to have and emphasize a unique angle of vision – a way of looking at and solving the problem that other players aren’t advancing.

Here’s a related barrier to avoid. Some messages concentrate heavily on describing the problem and emphasizing the importance of addressing it. In the process, they end up giving short shrift to the vital role the organization is playing in pursuit of a solution.

You’ll never successfully answer the “why us” question if you minimize discussion of your group’s role.

#7: Use a simple way to test the uniqueness of your message.

So have you composed a message only you could send? Or is it actually a generic one that almost any group in your sector could own?

There’s an easy way to find out. Try replacing your organization’s name with that or a close “competitor.” If the message still largely holds up, what you have produced is generic, not unique. But, if it really doesn’t fit with the name change, you’re a lot closer to the “only you could send” standard.

Let me close with a warning. I’m not advocating that you concentrate on uniqueness as its own virtue. There are plenty of ways a message can be counterproductively unique. Your objective must always be unique and compelling

There are many lenses you can use to review and strengthen a message. But few are as compelling as asking yourself if the message you’ve written is one only you could send.

Try it on your next message. Apply the name change test. Look at each paragraph and ask yourself this question: Does it advance a case that only my org could make and tell a story that only we could tell?

If the answer is no, challenge yourself to bring it closer to that standard. You’ll end up with a far more persuasive message.