The 7 Cs of Communication
A pre-send checklist for written messages: clear, concise, concrete, correct, coherent, complete, courteous.
Originator: Commonly credited to Scott M. Cutlip and Allen H. Center, 1952
A widely taught convention. The wording of the seven varies between sources.
What it is
The 7 Cs is a checklist of seven qualities a message should have: Clear, Concise, Concrete, Correct, Coherent, Complete and Courteous.
It is worth being precise about what kind of thing this is. It is not a conversation technique and it is not a psychological model. It is an editing checklist, most useful for writing, and most useful when the message matters — a request to someone senior, an escalation, a complaint, anything that will be forwarded or read out of context.
The value is in the second pass. Nobody drafts well and checks at the same time. The 7 Cs give you a fixed list to run a finished draft against, which is a different activity from writing it.
One honest caveat sits underneath the whole framework: there is no single authoritative version. Different textbooks use different seven, swapping in considerate or credible or conversational. It is a teaching convention that has been passed down and adapted, not a tested model with a canonical source.
Where it comes from
The seven Cs are commonly credited to Scott M. Cutlip and Allen H. Center's Effective Public Relations, first published in 1952, where they were set out as principles for public relations writing. Cutlip and Center were both academics — Cutlip at the University of Wisconsin — and their textbook became a standard text in the field, running through many editions.
From there the list spread through business communication teaching, appearing in textbooks, professional courses and training programmes, usually with the wording adjusted to suit the subject. Because it was transmitted through teaching rather than through a single publication with a fixed list, the seven items vary from source to source.
The attribution to Cutlip and Center is widely repeated in the field. It should be described as a convention rather than a documented fact — the list has no verified origin study behind it, and no one has established that it improves outcomes.
Say It Better uses the version documented in our own Communication Guide, and we credit Cutlip and Center as the commonly cited source.
What problem it addresses
Messages that fail for mechanical reasons rather than relationship reasons.
The reader cannot tell what you want, because the request is in the fourth paragraph and phrased as a musing. There are three separate requests in one email, so two of them will be missed. The key fact is buried in the middle of a long context section. The reader has to re-read a sentence twice to work out what it means, which in practice means they skim the rest.
These are not failures of feeling. They are failures of construction, and they are the ones most likely to occur when the message matters most — because that is when people write longest, hedge most, and add context that obscures rather than supports.
The 7 Cs catch those before you send. They also solve a specific problem for difficult messages: they give you something to do with a draft you have written while angry, other than send it.
When to use it
- Writing an email that contains a request.
- Any message going to someone senior, or outside your team or organisation.
- Escalations, complaints and formal correspondence.
- Editing your own draft — the checklist works as a deliberate second pass, not as a drafting aid.
- Anything likely to be forwarded, quoted or read without you in the room.
- When you have written something in anger and want a reason to wait.
When not to use it
- Live conversation, where a seven-item checklist is unusable in real time.
- Emotional or grief-related messages, where concise is the wrong instinct and warmth is the entire point. A tightly edited three-line message to a friend who has been bereaved is a failure of the tool, not a success of it.
- When the relationship needs more than efficiency. Some messages should be longer than they need to be, because the length is the message.
- As a substitute for knowing what you want to say. The 7 Cs improve a message; they do not generate one.
- As a scoring system. Applying all seven to every message, including a two-line reply, is a way to never send anything.
Step by step
- 1
Clear
One main idea per message. If there are two, split them into two messages. This single rule prevents more lost requests than the other six combined.
- 2
Concise
Cut anything that does not carry meaning. Respect the reader's time. Concise is not the same as terse — cut the padding, keep the warmth.
- 3
Concrete
Specific facts, dates, figures. By Friday at 3pm rather than soon. The number, not the ballpark.
- 4
Correct
Check the facts, the names, the figures, the spelling, and the tone. An error in a message that is asking for something gives the reader a reason to discount it.
- 5
Coherent
Points in a logical order, so the reader can follow without re-reading. Usually: what this is about, what happened, what you want.
- 6
Complete
Everything they need to act, including what you are asking them to do and by when. Completeness is about the reader's needs, not the length of the message.
- 7
Courteous
A respectful tone, especially when the content is a complaint. Courtesy here is not the sign-off — it is whether the body of the message treats the reader as a person.
- 8
Then read it as the recipient
What is the one thing you would take away from this? If it is not the thing you meant, the checklist has done its job.
Real-world examples
A message that buries three requests in a paragraph of context.
Hey, just circling back on the thing from last week — also did you see the deck, and can you send the numbers, and by the way are you free Thursday? Rewritten: one email asking for the numbers by Thursday 3pm, with the deck question as a separate line and the Thursday question as a separate message. Clear and Complete, applied.
A complaint that has been written while angry.
State the problem, the facts, and the specific resolution you want, in that order, without sarcasm. Courteous applies most to the messages where you have the strongest case for being rude.
A handover note before annual leave.
The test is whether the reader can act without asking you a follow-up question. If they would have to, the note is not Complete, however long it is.
A request to someone senior.
Put the ask in the subject line, the decision you need in the first sentence, and the context underneath. Coherent ordering matters more the busier the reader is.
Example scripts
Opening: I am writing about [one thing].
Request: Could you [specific action] by [specific date]?
Close: If that is not workable, tell me what is.
Subject line: put the ask in the subject.
When you need a decision: I need a yes or no by Thursday. Here is what happens either way.
When you are escalating: Here is what I have already tried, and here is what I am asking for.
These lines show the shape of the pattern. They are examples to adapt, not scripts to repeat word for word.
Common mistakes
Applying concise to the point of curtness
A message stripped of warmth reads as cold, and in a difficult exchange the coldness is what the reader remembers.
Using the list as a scorecard
Rewriting a message four times to satisfy seven criteria delays messages that needed to be sent an hour ago.
Treating courteous as a sign-off
Adding please and kind regards to a passive-aggressive body does not make the message courteous. The reader notices the gap.
Confusing complete with long
Completeness is about what the reader needs in order to act, not about how much you can tell them.
Assuming the list is fixed
Different sources use different seven. Treating one version as the standard, and correcting others against it, is a misunderstanding of what this is.
Applying it to every message
A two-line confirmation to a colleague does not need a pass against seven criteria. The checklist is for messages where the cost of being misread is high.
Limitations and considerations
- There is no single authoritative version. The seven words vary by source, and the list has no verified origin research behind it — it is a teaching convention, not a tested model.
- The attribution to Cutlip and Center is widely repeated in the field but is best described as a convention rather than a documented fact.
- It is a writing checklist, not a communication framework. It says nothing about listening, emotion, tone in conversation, or conflict — the areas where most communication actually breaks down.
- Some of the items are obvious to the point of not needing a framework. Correct does not require a mnemonic.
- It can encourage over-editing, which produces a particular kind of flat, over-managed message that reads as corporate and says less than a plainer draft would.
- The framework is oriented toward efficiency. Applied without judgement, it optimises for the sender's clarity and the reader's time, and can miss the cases where a message needs to do something else.
Sources and further reading
Effective Public Relations
Scott M. Cutlip and Allen H. Center, Prentice-Hall, first published 1952
Effective Public Relations (later editions)
Scott M. Cutlip, Allen H. Center and Glen M. Broom, Prentice-Hall
The 7 Cs of Effective Communication
Documented in the Say It Better Communication Guide
/communication-guide
These are the published works behind this page. Where a framework has a named originator, that person or organisation is credited above.