Why Travellers Tune Out Risk Messages and How Organisations Can Change That. Working in travel risk, you have probably had the experience of sending an important update and wondering whether anyone has actually read it. Perhaps you have prepared destination guidance ahead of a trip, issued an alert about a developing situation, or rolled out a new traveller tracking process that you know could make a genuine difference if something goes wrong. And then… nothing. No questions. No engagement. No evidence that the message has landed in the way you intended. It can be frustrating, particularly when you know the risks are real and the information you are sharing could help people make better decisions. The trap of assuming information equals engagement Sometimes it can be a matter of unfortunate timing. When an employee receives a travel risk update, they may be focused on something else entirely: a client meeting, important presentation, a conference, a project deadline, or a flight that has just been delayed. Travel risk is one consideration among many competing for their attention. That does not make your message less important, but it does means it needs to work harder than we sometimes expect. Another challenge is assuming that because information has been shared, it has been understood. The guidance may have been circulated, and the traveller has ticked a box confirming they have read it. However, has it really gone in? We know that people are often overloaded with information. Most employees receive more emails, alerts and notifications from multiple channels in a day than they can realistically absorb. In that environment, even genuinely important messages can struggle to cut through. The answer is not necessarily to communicate more. If travellers receive a constant stream of warnings, reminders and alerts, they can become desensitised. Everything starts to feel equally important, which often means nothing feels particularly important. That is why a genuinely significant update can end up receiving the same level of attention as the last five routine communications. The issue is not simply volume, it is relevance. Information isn’t enough Consider the travel updates you pay attention to yourself. It is likely information that feels immediately relevant to your plans: a transport strike affecting your route, a security incident near your hotel, or a sudden change to entry requirements for a country you are due to visit. Those updates cut through because the connection between the information and the decision you need to make is obvious. The same principle applies to travellers. Risk messages can struggle when organisations focus on sharing everything people might need to know, rather than identifying the few things they genuinely need to know right now. That does not mean every message needs to be personalised. For most organisations, that is not practical. But it does mean considering what is likely to matter most to a traveller at a particular point in their journey. What questions are they already asking? What decisions are they about to make? What would genuinely help them feel more prepared or confident? In many cases, a short, timely message linked to a specific destination, event or emerging situation will have far more impact than a detailed briefing sent weeks earlier. The challenge is not simply getting information in front of people. It is helping them understand why it matters to them. Trust matters more than many organisations realise One theme that comes up regularly in travel risk programmes is traveller tracking. From a risk management perspective, the rationale is obvious. If an incident occurs, knowing who may be affected allows the organisation to provide support quickly and effectively. Yet travellers do not always see it through that lens. We know that using terms such as “traveller tracking” or “travel tracking” can create an impression that organisations are monitoring an employee’s movements throughout a trip. Unsurprisingly, that can raise concerns about privacy, surveillance and how information is being used. Of course, the purpose is usually very different. Most organisations are not interested in where travellers are on a day-to-day basis. They simply need to understand who may be affected if an incident occurs and how to provide support quickly when it is needed. That’s why we now suggest using the term “location awareness” as it better reflects the purpose of the capability and shifts the focus from monitoring to support. People are more likely to engage with a process when they understand how it benefits them. Explaining how location information helps an organisation contact and support travellers during an emergency is often more persuasive than simply telling employees they must comply with a policy. The process and technology are the same, but the way it is described is different. And that can have a significant impact on how travellers respond. One message will not resonate with everyone Another reason travel risk messages can miss the mark is that “travellers” are not one audience. A senior executive who travels internationally every month may want a concise summary of what has changed and what decisions need to be made. Someone travelling overseas for the first time may need more context and reassurance. A project team going to a higher-risk location may need a proper briefing, not just a link to guidance. The same information is unlikely to resonate equally with everyone – people bring different levels of experience, confidence, knowledge and concern to a trip. They are also likely to be interested in different things. That is where communication becomes more nuanced. It is not simply about making information available but is about considering what is most relevant to a particular audience, what questions they are likely to have and what would help them feel informed and prepared. Communication is more likely to land when it is written with a specific audience in mind, rather than assuming every traveller will engage with the same message in the same way. Language matters Often, the difference between a message that lands and one that is ignored is not the information

A Q&A with Patience Ogunruku, TRA Mentor Most travel risk support has been built for big corporates with big budgets. NGOs, charities and universities have often been left to fit in around the edges even though their people are frequently the ones going to the high risk countries. I’ve spent a lot of time having that conversation, and I wanted to share where I’ve landed on it. Q1. What problem did you keep seeing that made you feel, “Someone has to fix this for smaller organisations and NGOs”? When we speak with smaller organisations and NGOs, we hear the same thing again and again. When they hear us talk about a Travel Risk Management (TRM) programme, most of them don’t feel their organisation is big enough for this kind of programme, because it sounds and feels built for large corporates with huge budgets. And I understand why they feel that way, much of the travel risk management space has traditionally been aimed at enterprise-level programmes: dedicated security teams with GSOC, complex reporting structures, and expensive platforms. But the reality is, some of the organisations travelling into the most challenging environments are actually the smaller ones – NGOs, research teams, volunteers, and universities doing fieldwork. They still have a duty of care. That gap really stayed with me. I kept thinking, these organisations shouldn’t be the ones with the least support. Q2. Can you share a moment or case that really crystallised why better travel risk management is non-negotiable for these organisations? I have a lot of real-life stories to share. A couple of years ago, my son went on a school trip to the Lake District. By day two, half the kids were sick. By day four, a teacher was unwell as well, and the trip had to be cut short. One of the parents called the hostel afterward and discovered that the same outbreak had happened the week before with a different group. A simple pre-trip assessment would have caught this. When providing a pre-travel assessment, it shouldn’t be generic or based on a template used for everyone. It needs to be bespoke to the individuals, the trip, the group, and the destination. That experience stuck with me, because the principle is the same whether you’re sending young student to the Lake District or staff into Mozambique. You do the homework, and with an organisation like ours, we help you source all relevant risk assessments for your trip or assignment. Q3. How does your own background in TRM shape the way you’ve designed this service? My focus across EMEA at World Travel Protection (WTP) has been to ensure all organisations, regardless of their size, have access to a Travel Risk Management programme. When I’m helping to put a programme together, I always start by asking: Who is travelling? Where are they going? What are they actually doing? The answers to these three questions shape everything about what they need. This tailored approach ensures our service is both relevant and effective for each client. Q4. When you speak to smaller organisations, NGOs or universities, what do they tell you they are struggling with most around travel risk? A few things come up over and over. They’re not always sure where to start, or what “good” even looks like. There’s rarely someone whose actual job is travel risk – it’s usually tucked into someone’s existing role on top of everything else. And it’s often fragmented: an insurance policy here, a country guide there, a WhatsApp group for emergencies, no clear picture of where everyone is. Universities have it more complex still, because they’re managing students, researchers and staff all going to different places at the same time. Q5. What risks do you see these organisations carrying today that they often underestimate or don’t see at all? The big one is assuming travel insurance is travel risk management. It really isn’t. Insurance pays out after something’s gone wrong; travel risk management is the work of stopping it going wrong in the first place. Another important aspect is the legal side. Duty of care now extends to volunteers, contractors, consultants, and students, not just full-time employees. And traveller wellbeing is often the quietest risk. People may return from emotionally challenging trips with no support in place. Depending on the assignment, some travellers might experience or witness life-threatening incidents yet receive little assistance afterwards. Q6. What’s at stake for them if they continue with “good enough” or informal approaches to TRM? Worst case, someone gets hurt and the organisation can’t show what reasonable steps it took to prevent it. This also leave an open space for donors to start asking harder questions, partners want evidence the organisation can’t produce, and the people who actually do the travelling stop trusting anyone has their back. That last one shouldn’t be underestimated. Once you lose trust, it’s very hard to win it back. Q7. In simple, non-technical language, how would you describe what this new service makes possible for a small organisation? It gives smaller organisations the same kind of support other biggest companies rely on: 24/7, 365 days a year access to in-house medical and security assistance by experts. They have access to pre-travel and post-travel assessments, as well as real-time intelligence about what’s happening wherever their people are without needing to build it themselves. They get our app, our portal, our Command Centres, and our medical and security team. There’s no need to hire anyone or purchase separate software. Q8. If you had to sum it up in one sentence, what is the core promise behind this service? In my own words “Real travel risk management, shaped around your organisation so your people can do the work they came to do, and come home safely”. Q9. Rather than features, what experiences do you want your clients to have when they work with you on TRM? I want the head of operations at a small NGO to feel less alone the next time something happens