A useful program has to be accessible.

A company with a presence in several cities wants to fund free workshops for adults who have difficulty using certain online services. An education partner would deliver the activities, and local organizations would help identify needs.

The communication challenge would not just be to announce the funding. It would be to reach people without labeling them, explain why it is useful and make taking part possible.

We would talk with partners and potential participants about the tasks they need support with, the devices available, schedules, transportation and the fear of making mistakes. We would check whether there are already initiatives we could support instead of launching another one.

We would ask for confirmation of real capacity: trainers, spaces, accessibility, equipment and support. We would not promote hundreds of places before knowing they can be delivered.

We would build the messages around concrete actions and a judgment-free setting: “Practice at your own pace. Ask as often as you need.” We would not promise full independence after a single workshop.

In a concept for local materials, the invitation would say what people learn, where, when, how long it takes, what equipment is available and how to confirm attendance without an online form. The message would be tested before distribution.

We would propose signing up by phone and through local partners, alongside a simple web page. The page would also be useful to relatives or people who help a participant. Printed materials would not have a QR code as the only way in.

Internal communication would explain the volunteer roles available. Employees would not replace trainers without preparation and coordination. In the exercises we would use demo accounts, without asking participants for passwords or sensitive data.

Before each workshop, participants would receive a confirmation through the channel they chose. After the workshop, there would be an accessible resource and a clear way to ask for further support, within the program’s capacity.

For planning, we could start with two locations, two groups each and a maximum of 12 people per group: 48 places in total. These figures are a capacity assumption, not a universal recommendation or a participation forecast.

We would limit promotion to the places available and communicate any waiting list openly. The budget would be estimated after confirming the costs of delivery, support and coordination; content production would not get automatic priority.

We would track access to information, eligible sign-ups and attendance. The education partner would propose a practical evaluation suited to the program, and a later follow-up if feasible. We would report places offered, people who took part and evaluated results separately.

Photos and testimonials would be optional. Aggregated reporting could show what was achieved without exposing individuals. A good immediate evaluation would not be presented as proof of lasting impact.

If demand is high but attendance low, we would check access and the schedule. If the workshops are full but the exercises are not useful, we would revise the content. If the relevant audience does not hear about the initiative, we would change distribution.

The proposed role for NOT MORE. would be the communication strategy, the concept, the materials and the participation path. Educational expertise and skills assessment would belong to the specialist partner.

The difference would not be that we communicate more. It would be that we communicate in a way that makes the program usable.

We can start by understanding those barriers.