Your Project Is Excellent, but the Communication Isn’t: Why That’s Now a Real Problem

By /

One of the most common paradoxes in today’s European-funded projects goes something like this: the idea is strong, the results are tangible, the team is competent—yet the communication falls short. The project formally meets its objectives, the reports are in order, the indicators are achieved—but there’s still a lingering feeling that “no one really understood what we did.”

Until recently, that could slide under the radar. Today—it no longer can. Communication is not an optional extra. It’s not just “a poster and a press conference.” It’s not a box to tick at the end. It is an integral part of the project itself—with its own logic, goals, and, not least, penalties for failure.

From “Nice to Communicate” to “Legally Obliged to Communicate”

Projects are no longer assessed solely on what they deliver, but also on how well society understands what they deliver. Visibility is no longer just a matter of PR—it’s about democratic accountability: citizens have the right to know where public money goes, what it achieves, and why it matters.

That’s why the rules are legally binding, not just recommendations. They are embedded in financial regulations, grant agreements, and national legislation. In Bulgaria, this is clearly reflected in the Law on the Management of EU Funds under Shared Management, which explicitly recognises visibility and transparency as core principles of governance.

Communication Now Has a Cost—And So Does the Lack of It

One of the most underestimated aspects is that poor communication can lead to financial corrections. Not because “the logo is crooked,” but because a contractual obligation has been breached.

The Beneficiary’s Handbook for 2021–2027 makes this crystal clear: systematic failure to meet communication and visibility requirements can result in a financial correction of up to 3% of the operation’s total value.

This shifts communication from a “soft” component of the project to a real financial risk. And we’re no longer just talking about signs and posters. Risk areas include:

  • No or tokenistic project description on the official website;
  • Lack of clear messaging on the European added value;
  • Communication that is out of proportion with the scale of the project;
  • No engagement with media, communities, or stakeholders.

Communication Methods: Not Just a Checklist

The rules set out specific communication and visibility activities—but they are often misunderstood as a simple checklist. That’s a serious mistake.

In fact, these items describe the core of a strategic communication approach:

  • Clear recognition of the funding source;
  • Connecting the project to EU priorities;
  • Purposeful communication activities;
  • Consistent and correct visual identity;
  • Accurate and verifiable information;
  • Involvement of the managing authority;
  • Sustainable and reusable content.

When these elements are carried out mechanically, the result is formulaic. But when they are thought through strategically, the project begins to live beyond the reports—in public discourse, in professional networks, and in a broader understanding of the value of EU funding.

Science Says It Clearly: “Communicate or Disappear”

This is especially true for research and innovation projects. The document “Are you communicating your Horizon Europe project?” from the European Research Executive Agency leaves no room for doubt: communication is a contractual obligation under Article 17 of the Grant Agreement.

But the reasons go beyond legal compliance. They’re also strategic:

  • Communication attracts new partners and experts;
  • It amplifies the impact of results;
  • It builds trust and legitimacy;
  • It shows why public investment matters.

This same logic underpins the EU’s social media communication guidelines for research projects, which stress the need for plain language, human storytelling, and consistency—not technical jargon and one-off posts.

The Real Issue: Communication Isn’t Integrated

Ultimately, the problem is rarely a lack of rules. The real issue is that communication is often treated as an afterthought—not as an integral part of the project from the start.

It’s delegated at the last moment, with a minimal budget, unclear goals, and no link to real outcomes. And then we wonder why the project is excellent—but invisible.

The new EU framework makes it clear: if your project isn’t understood by the public, it isn’t fully implemented.

Not because the results don’t exist—but because they haven’t become socially meaningful.

Communication Is Now Part of Quality

In the 2021–2027 programming period, communication has become a criterion for project maturity. It reveals whether the team sees itself not just as an implementer, but as a bridge between EU policy and society.

A project may be excellent.
But if its communication is weak, it’s no longer a minor oversight—it’s a systemic flaw.

Sources and Further Reading: