"If you build it, they will come." It's a nice idea, but it isn't true. Except in the movies.

This example is illustrative and draws on common issues seen in grant-funded outreach work. It is not intended to describe any single organisation or funder.

A charity working in a dispersed community setting, launched a project aimed at helping people affected by specific and locally prevalent mental health issues. The service was designed to service an area where the population was spread out across small towns, villages and rural communities, and where access to support might be made harder by distance, patchy transport, social stigma and a general lack of visible services.

The project itself had a worthwhile purpose. It aimed to raise awareness among several thousand people and engage a few hundred potential beneficiaries over the life of the programme, offering counselling, practical help and routes into wider support. On paper, the need was clear and the intended outcomes were sensible.

The weakness was that promotion and outreach were not treated as a central part of delivery. A modest budget was included for publicity, but this was not turned into a realistic communications plan. Instead, responsibility for awareness activity largely sat with an existing member of staff with limited communications experience. The promotional approach relied mainly on regular organic social media activity and informal attempts to get information in front of local services and community touchpoints. There was little or no paid outreach budget, and no clear evidence that the proposed activity matched the targets for awareness and engagement.

Unsurprisingly, the project struggled to gain traction. Although the service itself would have been useful, the intended audience either did not hear about it, did not understand what was on offer, or did not feel sufficiently confident to come forward. In work of this kind, that matters enormously. People facing mental health problems do not usually respond simply because support exists. They need to hear about it in the right way, often more than once, and through channels they trust.

The project struggled to continue beyond its first phase. That is unfortunate, but it also highlights an important lesson for both charities and funders.

For funding applicants, the clearest lesson is that publicity should never be treated as a vague add-on. If a service depends on people knowing it exists, understanding its value and taking action, then promotion is part of the service itself. It should be written into the funding application as an integral element of delivery, with realistic costs, a proper, detailed plan and considered targets of different kinds.

It is not enough to say, "awareness will be raised"; there needs to be a credible explanation of how, through which channels, to whom, and with what expected results at each stage.

There is also a lesson for funders. Where a project depends on voluntary uptake, promotional planning should be assessed with the same seriousness as staffing, safeguarding or outcomes measurement. Application guidance should make clear that outreach and communications are not optional extras. Funders may also want to consider offering expert support at application stage, particularly for smaller charities that may have good ideas and strong delivery experience, but less confidence in building practical, costed awareness plans.

The basic point is a simple one: a good service can still fail if its promotion is underpowered. In dispersed communities especially, being useful is not enough. People have to know you are there, trust what you offer, and feel able to take the first step.