Questions that usually come upbefore the first conversation

Most often when a business change affects reputation, market position or relationships with key stakeholders.

Typically: entering a new market or category; a change of strategy, positioning or leadership; transformation, M&A or reorganisation; rising reputational risk, an issue or a crisis; a complex environment of stakeholders, regulators and partners; and rapid growth, where decisions stop travelling coherently into the organisation and the market.

The common factor is not that “nothing works”. These are usually companies with a strong product and capable people, facing a decision whose consequences reach well beyond operations.

Yes, if the company faces a decision whose consequences reach beyond day-to-day delivery: repositioning, entering a new market, communicating an acquisition, or a situation where reputational risk is rising.

Capable teams execute well against what has been agreed. The harder question is how the company should be understood by the market, clients, partners and employees at the moment of change, and what risk each possible answer carries.

Rapid growth adds one more thing: the market starts reading the company in several versions because decisions are made faster than they are agreed. In those cases we also work on internal coherence, as a consequence rather than an end in itself.

It does not always have to be settled at the outset. In high-stakes situations, what matters more is establishing which decision is needed, who influences whether it succeeds, and where the risk actually sits.

Working on that decision then shows whether clarifying positioning, argument and stakeholder communication is enough, or whether the source of the problem lies deeper in the organisation.

One sign that it runs deeper is a company that has repeatedly tried to “improve communication” while the same difficulties keep returning, because functions are working from different assumptions about what a leadership decision means.

A communications agency usually comes in once the direction is set and it has to be turned into activity, content or channels. Classic strategy consulting focuses on the business decision and the model. Narrative House works between the two: where a leadership decision carries reputational consequences and calls for positioning, stakeholder work and strategic communication judgement.

In practice, that means working at the level of the decision: how to position the company, how to explain the change, which risks call for a response, in what order to speak with each group, and what each option costs.

Ongoing PR support, content production and social media management are not part of our work. Nor do we replace strategy consulting on the business model and finances.

No, although technology companies and complex B2B businesses are our natural area of specialism.

We know environments where the product is difficult to simplify, sales cycles are long, buying decisions involve several people, and the company is judged at once by clients, partners, candidates and market observers.

The same patterns appear in manufacturing businesses, professional B2B services, organisations undergoing complex transformation, and family-owned companies navigating succession. The nature of the problem matters more to us than the sector.

We need a mandate from someone with real influence over the decision. Often that is a board member or the CEO, but the work can equally be led with a CCO, CMO, Head of Communications or the leader accountable for the area concerned.

Depending on the matter, we involve representatives of the functions the decision directly affects — for example sales, legal, HR, product or operations.

This is not about involving the whole organisation. It is about access to the people who understand what is at stake and can take or prepare the decision.

No. The scope follows the matter, not the size of the company.

Many engagements concern a single decision: positioning, the response to an issue, communicating an ownership change, or preparing the leadership team for conversations with a specific stakeholder group.

A broader scope appears when the way decisions are made and carried through the company is part of the problem. We then agree the critical assumptions with the functions directly concerned.

We work in four steps. The first is reading the situation and the decision: what is genuinely at stake commercially, reputationally and publicly, and which decision has to be settled first.

The second is mapping stakeholders, risks and tensions: who shapes the outcome, what they need to know or understand, where expectations conflict, and where the risk is real rather than assumed.

The third is strategic direction: positioning, recommendations, argument, scenarios and communication decisions, with the consequences of each option made explicit.

The fourth is implementation and alignment: we support leaders through implementation and, where needed, align key functions and adjust the approach as the market and wider environment respond.

We do not stop at a recommendations deck, and we do not build a permanent dependency on advisers. The organisation should ultimately be able to carry the direction itself.

Yes — either as part of an engagement or as focused support for a leader in a specific situation.

We work as strategic sparring partners: helping the leader structure the situation, prepare the decision and its rationale, anticipate stakeholder reactions and prepare for high-stakes conversations.

It does not replace the leader's accountability for decisions. It provides an external perspective and a partner for matters that are not always easy to discuss openly inside the organisation.

It depends on the matter, which is why we do not sell a single standard package of documents.

Most often: positioning and the strategic logic of the communication, a stakeholder and risk map, recommendations and scenarios, key messages and argument, material and preparation for executive and stakeholder communications, and a decision framework for the next stages.

Where the engagement also has an internal dimension, this extends to agreed assumptions, cross-functional working principles or internal communication standards.

The duration depends on what is at stake and the scope of the matter. Some engagements are short and focused on one decision or one issue. Work covering positioning, several stakeholder groups and implementation support takes longer. We agree the scope and rhythm after the initial conversation and, where needed, after the diagnostic stage.

We agree how impact will be assessed at the start, because not every change can honestly be reduced to a single metric.

Most often we look at the progress of the strategic decision or the sales process, the reactions of key stakeholders, the quality and consistency of the company's market position, how effectively decisions are communicated, and the reduction of risk and escalation.

Organisational measures — such as decision speed or the quality of cross-functional cooperation — apply when the engagement also covers internal alignment.

We do not attribute to Narrative House outcomes that were materially shaped by other factors.

We begin with a free 30-minute initial conversation with someone who knows the matter and can influence the decision. It is not a services presentation or an audit. We want to understand what is at stake and assess whether we are the right partner.

If the situation calls for a closer look, we propose a separate, paid diagnostic stage. Within 9–15 business days, the client receives a map of what is at stake, the stakeholders, the risks and the decision points, together with a recommendation on what to do next.

The 9–15 day timeline applies to diagnostic engagements. Urgent and crisis situations are handled in a separate working mode.

If the primary need is content production, an advertising campaign, social media management, a brand redesign or ongoing PR support, there are partners better suited to that work.

We are also unlikely to be the right choice when the decision and the direction have already been settled and only execution remains.

Our work is most valuable when the decision is still open, its reputational consequences are real, and the matter involves several stakeholder groups at once.