Digital communication of municipalities

Municipal communication, a more complex topic than it seems

At first glance, communicating with the residents of a municipality seems simple: just post on the website, the Facebook page, maybe the citizen app, and the job is done. The reality is more nuanced. Town halls, especially those of rural and peri-urban municipalities, juggle daily with a multitude of channels, strong time constraints, and audiences with very different habits.

As part of our work supporting local authorities, we wanted to better understand this reality. Not by imagining what municipalities might need, but by directly asking those who handle municipal communication every day: town hall secretaries, communication officers, general managers, elected officials.

Between late April and late May 2026, we sent a questionnaire to about fifty town halls in Morbihan, followed by a reminder. 16 municipalities responded, a return rate of 32% - significant for this type of study, but with statistical limits we readily acknowledge.

This article presents our main findings and the recommendations we draw for municipalities wishing to improve their digital presence. It is aimed at town hall secretaries as well as elected officials in charge of communication, and more broadly at anyone interested in the digital transformation of local public services.

First finding: a saturated but not optimised landscape

The most striking observation from our study comes down to one figure: more than 80% of responding municipalities (13 out of 16) already use a citizen app, in addition to their website and their presence on social networks. The market is not untapped - it is mature.

Several solutions share the Morbihan territory. Mon Village appears as the most widespread app among respondents (6 municipalities), followed by PanneauPocket (3 municipalities, one of which is being rolled out). IntraMuros, CityAll (Lumiplan) and Centoaccess each equip one municipality in our sample. This diversity is not trivial: it reflects the absence of a market standard, and therefore a certain heterogeneity in practices from one municipality to another.

But having an app does not mean everything is solved. Far from it. Several equipped municipalities express aspirations showing that the tool alone is not enough: expanding the base of subscribed residents, improving the editorial quality of publications, better aligning the app with other channels.

Our reading at CoMi. The issue for municipalities is no longer so much acquiring new tools as making better use of those they already have. Where ten years ago it was about 'going digital', the challenge in 2026 is to make the most of an ecosystem that is already in place. This is an important paradigm shift for those who support local authorities.

Time: the real bottleneck

Beyond the tools used, our study sheds light on the real human cost of municipal digital communication. The figures speak for themselves.

In responding municipalities of more than 1,500 inhabitants, digital communication takes more than 10 hours per week in 38% of cases. Adding those that spend more than five hours a week, we reach 43% of the sample. These are not trivial figures: in a small municipal team, this represents more than a fifth of a full-time employee's time.

And that's not all: half of the municipalities entrust this task to several people - communication officer, elected official in charge of communication, general manager, sometimes the secretary as well. This distribution shows that communication is not a peripheral task but a job in its own right, whose quality depends on the time that can be devoted to it. The verbatim comments collected in the questionnaire shed light on what lies behind these hours:

« Having time to communicate according to profiles across the different channels, improving interaction with residents and producing more structured posts on Facebook. » — Communication officer, municipality of 3,500-10,000 inhabitants

« A single interface to communicate across multiple media. » — Communication officer, municipality of 1,500-3,500 inhabitants

The lack of time is not perceived as a lack of time to publish - publications get done. It is perceived as a lack of time to publish better: adapting the message to each channel, to each resident profile, producing more interactive, more structured content. This is an important nuance.

Our reading at CoMi. Supporting municipalities no longer means 'you'll save time by simplifying your communication'. That promise has become hollow - the tools have already made it possible. What creates value today is help to reinvest the time saved into editorial quality: structuring messages, adapting tone, varying formats, aligning channels.

Perception on the residents' side: an almost universal challenge

Whatever effort municipal teams make, perception on the residents' side remains imperfect. This is one of the most universal findings of our study.

To the question « Does it happen that a resident tells you they were not aware, even though the information had been published? », 15 municipalities out of 16 indicate that this happens at least a few times a year, and nearly a third (31%) that it happens about once a month. Only one municipality answers 'rarely', none answers 'never'.

This data deserves a pause. It reveals something structural: however well organised it is, municipal communication cannot reach 100% of residents. Digital habits are too fragmented, attention too captured by other feeds, the dispersion of channels too great. It is also a message to convey to elected officials: perfect communication does not exist.

Our reading at CoMi. Rather than seeking exhaustiveness (publishing everywhere, all the time), we recommend that municipalities focus on two axes: consistency (so that the same information is reliable and accessible on the main channels) and controlled redundancy (so that important information is actually repeated across several channels, several times, in a suitable format).

The pain points expressed: three recurring themes

The study included several open-ended questions to give respondents a voice. Three themes emerge strongly.

1. Consistency and readability of information

Several verbatim comments point to a difficulty that goes beyond the mere question of tools: ensuring that the information delivered is consistent, readable, accessible and up to date across all channels. With several contributors, several media, several levels of updating, this consistency becomes a job in its own right.

« Sometimes a lack of readability and accessibility, even, for some residents, difficulty in quickly obtaining reliable and up-to-date information. » — Town hall secretary, municipality of 1,500-3,500 inhabitants

2. Editorial quality and the institutional dimension

Other respondents raise less the question of what to publish than how: how to guarantee an institutional tone, how to produce quality publications on Facebook, how to always ensure that information of public interest is relayed without drifting.

« Always making sure to create or relay institutional communication of public interest. » — Communication officer, municipality of 1,500-3,500 inhabitants

3. The website, a living showcase in need of modernisation

Several municipalities cite their municipal website as a priority for improvement. For those without one (a municipality of fewer than 500 inhabitants), creating it appears as the obvious step. For those that have one, it is its overhaul or modernisation that comes up.

This finding may seem counter-intuitive in a landscape dominated by mobile apps, but it makes sense. The website remains perceived as the official and lasting showcase of the municipality. It is what appears in Google results when a new resident arrives, it is what hosts downloadable official documents (council minutes, decrees, forms), it is what serves as a reference when information is complex.

« Creating the website. » — Mayor of a municipality of fewer than 500 inhabitants

Our reading at CoMi. Modernising municipal websites remains an active project in 2026. Many municipal sites were created 8 to 15 years ago, sometimes more, with technologies that are now obsolete. Beyond aesthetics, what is at stake is mobile ergonomics, accessibility (a legal obligation reinforced by the RGAA), local SEO and technical performance.

Digital sovereignty: a non-issue (really)

Our questionnaire asked an explicit question about the weight given to digital sovereignty: is the fact that Facebook, Instagram or WhatsApp are American platforms hosting residents' data a topic discussed internally (municipal council, meetings of elected officials, feedback from residents)?

The result is unequivocal. 11 municipalities out of 16 reply that it is never discussed. Three indicate that the topic was 'mentioned once or twice'. None describes it as a regular topic. This finding contrasts sharply with the place digital sovereignty occupies in the national media debate, in institutional conferences, in reports from the CNIL or ANSSI.

Should we conclude that municipalities are blind or irresponsible? Not at all. Operational pragmatism dominates, and that is understandable. A municipality choosing a channel does so based on concrete criteria: it reaches residents, it takes little time to manage, it fits the budget, it does not create unmanageable moderation problems. The location of data does not appear among the selection criteria - simply because no resident complains about it, no councillor puts it on the agenda.

Our reading at CoMi. This does not mean the topic will not emerge. As regulatory requirements tighten (on personal data, on accessibility, on digital sobriety), these criteria will likely rise in municipal choices. But in 2026, it is still perceived effectiveness that guides decisions. Any sales pitch relying mainly on digital sovereignty misses the reality of local decision-makers.

Alert management: an open topic without being critical

Our study also asked municipalities about their ability to quickly warn residents in an emergency: bad weather, road closures, water cuts, health alerts.

Average satisfaction stands at 3.6 out of 5, with notable dispersion. Half of the responding municipalities rate their alert system at 3 out of 5 or less. Only one, conversely, declares itself fully satisfied (5 out of 5). The channels used vary: citizen app for most, Facebook and digital signage as a complement, sometimes SMS.

This is a topic open to improvement in the Morbihan territory. Without being perceived as critical, it reveals clear room for progress, particularly on the reliability of the alert chain: how to ensure that information sent at 7pm on a Friday evening will actually reach the residents concerned in time? The question remains largely open.

Our reading at CoMi. Alerting is not a topic to be solved by a new tool added to the ecosystem, but by reflecting on processes: who decides to send an alert, on which channels, within what timeframe, and how to verify that the information got through. It is a matter of organisation as much as of tools.

What digital can do for municipalities in 2026

At the end of this study, several courses of action emerge for municipalities wishing to improve their digital communication - without necessarily investing in new tools.

1. Audit what exists before adding more

The first step is to take an honest look at what is in place. Which channels are actually used? How many residents are reached by each? What is the time cost of each medium? What is the perceived return on investment? This exercise, which takes a well-run half-day, often reveals that one of the channels is no longer of much use - or, conversely, that an under-invested channel deserves more attention.

2. Define a clear editorial line

What information does the municipality publish systematically? In what tone? With what level of personalisation? What is said, and what is not? An editorial charter, even a short one (2-3 pages), allows several contributors to produce consistent publications without having to consult each other for every post.

3. Modernise the website when it is outdated

An ageing website is not just an aesthetic problem: it penalises local SEO, complicates updating, may pose accessibility problems (the RGAA is now binding on local authorities), and gives an outdated image of the municipality. A modern, mobile-first website, optimised for local SEO and compliant with accessibility, remains a relevant investment in 2026.

4. Train teams rather than acquire new tools

When you have a citizen app, a website and a Facebook page, the gap no longer comes from the tools but from mastering them. Training teams to make better use of what exists - writing adapted to channels, using artificial intelligence to save time on first drafts, editorial structuring - often brings more than acquiring new software.

5. Pool resources between neighbouring municipalities

Several small municipalities will never be able to fund a full-time communication officer. But at the inter-municipal level, a shared position, or support shared between 3 to 5 municipalities, becomes economically viable. This is a path to explore with your inter-municipal authority (EPCI).

In conclusion: what CoMi takes away

This study taught us as much about what not to do as about what to do.

What not to do: arrive at a municipality with a new miracle tool that would solve all its problems. Municipalities already have plenty. They need help making them work better.

What to do, on the other hand: support municipal teams to structure their communication, clarify their editorial line, modernise their websites when they are outdated, and train their officers and elected officials in useful digital tools. It is less spectacular than the promise of a revolutionary platform, but it is what municipalities truly need in 2026.

It is in this spirit that CoMi develops its offer for local authorities: communication audit, municipal website redesign, editorial support, training in digital tools and generative AI for officers and elected officials. Not yet another platform to learn, but human support that values the choices already made by the municipality.

Methodology

Study conducted by CoMi between late April and late May 2026. An online questionnaire of 19 questions sent by email to about fifty town halls in Morbihan, followed by a reminder after 10 days. 16 usable responses were collected, representing municipalities of fewer than 500 to 10,000 inhabitants. The study does not aim to be statistically representative and presents exploratory trends. The verbatim comments are anonymised.