Storytelling structures that work for organisations

Most organisations have more stories than they can tell well. The difference between a story that is read and one that is skipped is often not the writing but the structure: the order in which information reaches the reader. A clear storytelling structure tells the reader why they should keep going, and it tells the writer what to leave out.

There is no single correct narrative framework. A press update, a human interest story, a donor success story and a short documentary each ask something different of their audience. The four structures below cover most of what communications teams in NGOs, UN agencies and ministries produce. Each one is a tool, and the skill lies in picking the right one for the job.

The inverted pyramid comes from journalism. Nielsen Norman Group describes it as presenting the most important information, or even the conclusion, first, followed by supporting details and background.¹ Because readers can stop at any point and still get the main point, it suits impatient online readers and makes editing easier: the end can be trimmed without losing the message.¹

The Australian Government Style Manual recommends using the inverted pyramid for most content, putting the most important idea first and organising the rest in order of importance.² It notes that this structure helps users scan content on any device.² Use it for news items, web pages, press releases and executive summaries, anywhere the reader needs the facts quickly.

When the goal is to help a reader understand change in someone's life, a story arc works better than a list of facts. Catholic Relief Services' guide to writing human interest stories for monitoring and evaluation advises opening with an anecdote about the subject where possible, while still answering who, what, where, when, why and how.³ The body then focuses on the change the person describes in their own words, with enough background for readers to understand the local context.³

The same guide recommends centring each story on a single individual or household, contrasting their situation before the project with their situation now, and keeping the story to between 500 and 750 words.³ It also reminds writers that one person's story does not have to represent the wider population, and that this limitation should be stated.³

Donors and partners often ask for success stories in a fixed format. USAID's guidelines for partners describe a human interest lead that shows the challenge and context, followed by what was done and what changed for the person or community.⁴ They ask for beneficiary quotes, warn against a mere programme description, and ask writers to place the individual's experience in the context of the community or country.⁴

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests a similar framework in seven parts: title, summary, issue or challenge, intervention or solution, results or impact, sustainable success and a specific ask.⁵ It advises using data to describe the problem and numbers to quantify results, with quotes and personal stories to show impact.⁵ This is the most useful structure for reports, newsletters and funding proposals.

Short documentaries usually follow a three-part narrative: a beginning that introduces a person and their world, a middle where a problem or decision drives the story forward, and an end that shows what has changed or what is still at stake. The story arc gives viewers a reason to keep watching, which a sequence of talking heads rarely does.

In our own practice, we build the structure before filming, not in the edit. We identify the central character, the tension in their story and the moment of change, then plan the scenes that show each stage. Interviews provide the voice; observational footage provides the evidence. A strong ending does not have to be a happy one, but it should leave the viewer knowing what the story asks of them.

Structure carries values. A challenge, action, result story can easily make an organisation the hero and the community the problem. The Dóchas Guide to Ethical Communications asks organisations to regard people as active, valuable and capable agents of change in their own lives, and to avoid suggesting that aid is the solution to every development or crisis situation.⁶

It encourages enabling individuals and communities to tell their own stories and to give their own analysis and ideas for solutions, and notes that first-person narratives shift the focus to the person in the frame.⁶ It also asks communicators to show nuance and complexity, including underlying causes and effects.⁶ In practice, that means making the person, not the project, the subject of the sentence, and letting their words carry the turning point.

Start with the reader and the action you want them to take, then pick the structure that serves it. If you are unsure, write a one-sentence summary of the story first. If the summary is a fact, use the inverted pyramid. If it is a change in someone's life, use an arc. If it is evidence of results, use challenge, action, result.

• News, web pages and press releases: inverted pyramid.
• Human interest stories and profiles: story arc with one central person.
• Donor reports and success stories: challenge, action, result with data and quotes.
• Short documentaries: three-part narrative arc planned before filming.
• Executive summaries: inverted pyramid, with a short story only as illustration.

• One-sentence summary written before drafting
• Structure chosen to match the reader and the channel
• Most important information first in news and summaries
• One central person in each human interest story
• Before and after shown, in the person's own words
• Results supported by data and context
• People presented as agents of change, with their consent
• A clear ending that tells the reader what is next