Corporate Communications Editing and Proofreading Services

"We do not comment on speculation" went out from the press office at four in the afternoon. By six, an investor relations director had told an analyst something more specific, and an engineer had posted a fuller version on a public forum. Each was speaking in good faith for the same company. A journalist, an investor, an employee, a regulator, and a competitor read all three statements that week, each looking for a different thing. Consistency is what the function is judged on, and it does not survive eleven people improvising under deadline.

The documents we edit for Corporate Communications

Corporate narrative and message house documents, boilerplate and company descriptions, press releases and announcements, executive quotes and the approval trail behind them, and position statements on contested issues form the core of what we edit here. Media question-and-answer documents, lines-to-take papers, spokesperson briefing material, website and about copy, annual review narrative, employee-facing versions of external announcements, partner and stakeholder communications, awards material, and communications policy and approval workflows account for the rest. Our editors work on the documents that hold many voices to one account.

What the editing involves

The message house is the document meant to do that work, and most organizations own one nobody opens. It fails by being built as a hierarchy of approved phrases rather than as an argument: a roof of aspirational language over a rank of capability pillars, with proof points stacked underneath, all in a register no person uses aloud. The core statement is the first part to fix, and the test is whether a spokesperson could say it in an interview without sounding briefed. "We are a trusted partner delivering excellence across the customer journey" fails that test; "We handle payroll for 40,000 small employers, and we have never missed a payment run" passes it.

Each pillar then needs facts under it rather than adjectives, with a number, a named customer, or a date attached. "Market-leading service" is not a proof point. An average first response of eleven minutes, audited quarterly, is one, and a spokesperson can repeat it under pressure. A claim that cannot be put in that form is usually one the organization has never tested on itself.

The questions an organization would rather not be asked belong in the same document, each with an answer that is true. An entry answering "Are you planning layoffs?" with "We keep our structure under continuous review" equips nobody for the second question, which arrives within seconds. A message house built only for friendly questions is abandoned during the first difficult one, which is the moment consistency is measured. What the organization will not claim should be written down as flatly as what it will, and a document tested by having someone hostile read it aloud is worth ten approved in a workshop.

Confidentiality and the limits of our role

Everything you send us is treated in confidence, including unannounced material, positions in development, and executive correspondence. We are editors, not communications strategists or legal advisors, and we offer no opinion on positioning, disclosure obligations, or reputational risk. What we can do is make the language consistent and usable by everyone who speaks for the organization.