On this page
Most case studies are not very good. They follow a predictable formula: here is the organisation, here is the challenge they faced, here is what we did, here are the results. The problem is that most of them are too vague to be genuinely useful to anyone reading them, and too carefully managed to be credible.
A case study that reads like a press release tells the reader very little. A case study that’s honest about what was difficult, what didn’t work, and what the organisation had to learn tends to be both more credible and more useful. It’s also, in practice, a harder thing to persuade organisations to let you write.
What makes a case study worth reading
The most useful case studies have a few things in common. They’re specific: they name numbers, timeframes, and decisions rather than talking in generalities. They’re honest: they include something that didn’t go according to plan, or a constraint that shaped the approach. And they give the reader something they can apply: a method, a decision framework, a lesson that transfers to other situations.
Vagueness is the enemy. “We saw a significant increase in engagement” is not a case study. “Organic reach on LinkedIn increased by 34% over six months, driven primarily by a shift from broadcast content to content that asked questions of the audience” is a case study.
Consent, language, and the stories that don’t get told
The practicalities of consent, particularly when case studies involve service users or beneficiaries, are the piece that communications teams most often handle badly, either by being too cautious (and ending up with no case studies at all) or by getting consent in a way that’s technically valid but not really informed.
Good consent means the person understands what they’re agreeing to, including where the story might appear, how long it might be used, and whether they can change their mind later. It also means thinking about language: the words an organisation uses to describe the people it works with say a lot about how it sees them. Case studies that describe people only in terms of their problems rather than their strengths are a common and often unexamined mistake.
The structural question nobody agrees on
There’s no single right structure for a case study. The challenge/action/result format is common because it’s clear and easy to follow, but it can feel mechanical and makes every story read the same way. Sometimes a more narrative approach, following a person or a situation through time, is more compelling. The right structure depends on the story and the audience.
What matters more than structure is that the case study has a point. What do you want the reader to take away? If you can’t answer that question, the structure won’t save you.
A guide to doing it better
The case studies guide covers structure, consent, language, and common mistakes in a single PDF you can use yourself or share with your team. It’s a guide rather than a template, the principles apply, but you still have to do the writing.
Case Studies, Best Practice Guide
PDF guide covering structure, consent, language, and common mistakes.