Defence communications is broken. Here is how we fix it. 

Five years ago, I was working in Army communications, running technical campaigns, developing strategic messaging, and working across government and industry to make the case for innovation, modernisation, and deeper collaboration with the private sector. It was work that required a genuine understanding of the institution, the ability to translate complex capability into accessible language, and the judgement to navigate a stakeholder landscape that was rarely straightforward. 

But if I am honest, I was working with a fairly narrow toolkit. And looking at the sector today, too many people still are. 

The landscape has shifted. Not everyone has noticed. 

Defence has always attracted scrutiny, but something has changed in the last three to five years, and the organisations that have not noticed are paying a price for it. 

The war in Ukraine brought defence spending, capability gaps, and industrial capacity into mainstream public conversation in a way that had not happened for a generation. The rise of dual-use technology has blurred boundaries that once made communications decisions relatively straightforward. When a company's AI capability, drone platform or satellite imagery service has both civilian and defence applications, the question of who you are speaking to, and what story you are telling, becomes considerably more complex. Primes face growing public and media scrutiny around ESG, supply chain transparency, and industrial strategy. SMEs entering the defence market are discovering that a good product is no longer enough: you need to be able to communicate it credibly to procurement teams, primes, and potential partners — in a way that actually lands. 

The bar has risen and the toolkit has expanded. The organisations still operating as though it is 2019 are losing ground, whether they know it or not. 

The skills required have changed. The profession has not fully caught up. 

Five years ago, I was not using AI for content production. I am doubtful many people in defence communications were. Now I use it every day: as a sense-checking tool, a drafting aid, a way of working through structure before committing to a piece of work. It has not replaced judgement or expertise. It has fundamentally changed what is possible in a working day though, and any professional not engaging with it is choosing to be less effective than their peers. 

Comms professionals within the MOD are making the same adjustment, using AI to manage the sheer volume of material they need to hold in mind: strategy documents, ministerial announcements, historical briefings, procurement reports, and the full range of ongoing communications activity. The Government Communication Service has developed GCS Assist specifically to support government communicators in working more efficiently across exactly this kind of material. That is not a small thing. It signals a genuine institutional shift, and it sets a new baseline expectation. 

On measurement, AI has really transformed the art of the possible. It can build a sophisticated picture of how a narrative is landing, which voices are shaping a conversation, and where communications are gaining or losing traction. That beats the old method of counting clicks and calling it a coverage report. But the same capabilities available to legitimate organisations are available to adversaries. AI is being used to generate disinformation at scale, to fabricate credible content, and to flood information spaces in ways that are increasingly difficult to detect. Understanding that threat and building it into communications planning is now a core professional competency, not an advanced specialism, not something to worry about later. 

The single biggest gap I encounter in defence communications, however, is not about AI. It is the gap between the people who understand the technology and the people who communicate it. Professionals who can genuinely engage with what a capability does, and well enough to ask the right questions and translate the answers, are exceptionally valuable and exceptionally rare. This is precisely why the team we have built at Canny draws from experience across government organisations and industry, in addition to their significant communications and design backgrounds. Technical literacy is not a nice-to-have. It is the difference between communications that informs and communications that convinces. 

Thought leadership has matured. Which means average content is now a liability. 

LinkedIn has become a serious venue for professional discourse in this sector. It is where credible voices build audiences, where thought leadership reaches procurement decision-makers and policy influencers, and where reputations are built (or quietly damaged) over time. For SMEs in particular, a founder or technical lead demonstrating genuine knowledge through consistent, substantive content is one of the most cost-effective communications tools available. We have seen it work, repeatedly, for the founders and technical leads we support – Team Hydra we salute you. But the corollary is also true: vague, performative, or undifferentiated content now actively undermines credibility in a way it did not when the bar was lower. 

Long-form audio and video have grown significantly. Think tanks including RUSI, IISS, CSIS, and Chatham House have expanded their podcast output considerably, creating platforms through which credible voices can reach engaged, informed audiences. Defence institutions have followed: the Centre for Army Leadership launched two podcasts in 2023, The Human Advantage and The CAL Podcast. Placing spokespeople on well-regarded long-form programmes is increasingly part of the earned media mix. But again, this only works if you have something worth saying, and the confidence and clarity to say it well. 

What good looks like now — and how to get there 

Good defence communications in 2026 looks like a function that understands both the technology and the people being communicated with. It looks like professionals who are genuinely curious about the sector, not just technically competent at their craft. It looks like organisations that have recognised communications as a strategic function and resourced it accordingly. 

The sector is more communicative than it has ever been. That raises the bar for everyone. Being present is no longer enough. Being credible, consistent, and genuinely useful to the people you are trying to reach - that is what good looks like now. 

The problem is that most organisations know this in theory and struggle to execute it in practice. Knowing that your communications needs to be sharper is not the same as knowing how to make it sharper, and training and development in this sector has historically lagged behind the pace of change. That is exactly the gap that Reputation Labs exists to close. These are focused, CIPR-accredited training sessions for communications, marketing, and reputation professionals working in or with the defence and security sector - small groups, expert-led, with no more than 24 people in the room. You do not sit in an audience. You work on a real challenge from your own organisation, with direct expert support, and you leave with something built, tested, refined, and ready to use. In a sector where the cost of getting communications wrong is higher than ever, that distinction matters. 

Not inspiration. Implementation. 

Learn how to do it: 

If any of this resonates, Reputation Labs might be worth a look. We run focused, CIPR-accredited half and full-day sessions for defence and security communicators; small groups, expert-led, working on real challenges from your own organisation.  

The sessions most relevant to what we have covered here are Technical Storytelling, Thought Leadership and Profile Building, and Media and Reputation Readiness. Half-day sessions start from £395 + VAT for ADS Group and Make UK Defence members, and £495 + VAT standard rate. Find out more and book at canny-comms.co.uk/reputation-labs