Start with a baseline phishing simulation, confirm the reporting channel works, and assign one executive sponsor and one communications owner. That gives the October programme a measurable before-and-after comparison and prevents the campaign from becoming a set of disconnected messages.
Start with evidence, not slogans
The first job is to create a baseline that shows whether October actually changes behaviour. A phishing simulation gives you that before-and-after comparison, but it only works if the reporting path is live and the campaign has clear owners. Without those two pieces, awareness activity becomes hard to measure and easier to ignore.
Use the baseline to answer a practical question: are people noticing, reporting, and escalating suspicious messages in the way you want? If the reporting channel is broken or inconsistent, the month becomes a communications exercise instead of a control test. If no executive sponsor is named, the programme often loses priority when other work competes for attention.
That is why a basic awareness month plan should start with one measurable behaviour, one working reporting route, and one accountable business sponsor. Once those exist, the rest of the content calendar can be built around a real control objective rather than around isolated posts or reminders.
What the first week should establish
The earliest planning work should settle three things: what success looks like, who owns the message, and how staff will report suspicious activity. The baseline simulation defines the success measure. The communications owner keeps the campaign coherent. The executive sponsor gives the programme visible authority and helps remove blockers when participation or resourcing becomes an issue.
From a delivery standpoint, keep the first week focused on operational readiness rather than volume. Test the reporting button or mailbox, confirm who receives reports, and make sure escalation paths are clear enough that a suspicious message is handled the same day it is reported. Then confirm the simulation method is repeatable so later results can be compared fairly.
If the organisation already has training content, resist the urge to start by writing new slides or slogans. The more useful first step is to prove the current process works, then use the baseline result to decide which audience segments need targeted follow-up, such as repeat clickers, low reporting rates, or teams that receive more impersonation attempts.
How to turn the month into a control, not a campaign
Security awareness month works best when it is treated as a behaviour-change test. A single simulation, a functioning reporting channel, and clear accountability let you see whether the organisation can detect and route suspicious email before an attacker benefits from delay. That is more valuable than a large amount of general awareness messaging with no measurement behind it.
Teams should also decide early how they will handle the results. If the baseline is weak, the next step is usually not blame, it is segmentation: which groups need coaching, which messages are being missed, and whether the reporting workflow is too hard to use. If the baseline is already strong, the programme can focus on sustaining good reporting and reducing complacency.
For a practical guide to programme design, measurement, and human risk follow-up, NHIMG’s Security Awareness and Human Risk Management Guide covers the behaviour-change and metrics side in more depth. For a broader view of how real-world compromise often starts with stolen access or leaked secrets, see The State of NHI & AI Agent Breach Report 2026, which is useful context when you are trying to show why phishing reporting matters operationally.
Risk and Threat Considerations
When awareness month is not planned in advance, the main risk is not wasted messaging, it is lost momentum and weak observability. A campaign that begins without a baseline or a working reporting route can look active while still leaving the organisation unable to spot, count, or respond to suspicious messages consistently.
Failure mechanism: If the reporting channel is untested, users may assume alerts are being handled when they are not. If ownership is unclear, no one tracks outcomes, so the programme cannot prove improvement or correct poor reporting behaviour.
Impact: The organisation loses a low-cost opportunity to measure employee response, spot phishing weakness early, and reinforce escalation habits before an actual intrusion path is used against it.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
CIS Controls v8, NIST CSF 2.0 and NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 set the governance and control requirements practitioners need to meet.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| CIS Controls v8 | CIS-14 — Security Awareness and Skills Training | This question is about starting an awareness programme with measurable behaviour change. |
| Recommendation — Baseline user reporting behaviour and run targeted awareness training tied to observed phishing results. | ||
| NIST CSF 2.0 | PR.AT-01 — All users are informed and trained | Awareness month planning centers on user training and communication readiness. |
| DE.CM-08 — Vulnerabilities in assets are monitored to verify effectiveness of mitigation measures | A baseline simulation and reporting test measure whether controls are working in practice. | |
| Recommendation — Set clear awareness objectives and verify users are informed before campaign rollout. Measure reporting and response outcomes before and after the awareness campaign. | ||
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | AT-2 — Awareness Training | The subject is the launch of an awareness programme and its first measurable activities. |
| AU-6 — Audit Review, Analysis, and Reporting | The reporting channel and baseline results need review and follow-up to be useful. | |
| Recommendation — Deliver awareness training that reflects current threat patterns and user roles. Review phishing reports and programme results so trends can drive follow-up action. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
What to prioritise: Start with the smallest set of proof points that make the programme real, one simulation, one tested reporting route, and one accountable sponsor. If you cannot show a baseline and a response path, later content has little operational value.
What to verify: Confirm who receives reports, how quickly they are triaged, and whether the same process works across email, chat, and local reporting tools if your organisation uses more than one intake path. A “working” channel is one that produces an observable response, not just a button on a page.
Practitioner takeaway: Treat the first step as programme instrumentation, not messaging production, because awareness month only becomes useful when it can measure behaviour and route suspicious activity into action.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- How should security teams turn cybersecurity awareness month into a year-round human risk program?
- How should security teams use Cybersecurity Awareness Month to strengthen identity and access controls?
- What should teams include in Cybersecurity Awareness Month to cover the highest-value risks?
- How should security teams prioritise NHI remediation in cloud environments?
Deepen Your Knowledge
Free weekly newsletter
Subscribe to the NHI & AI Identity Journal
The latest on NHI and Agentic AI security – articles, research, breaches, news and events every week.
Bonus 33% off our NHI Course when you subscribe.
Reviewed and updated by the NHIMG editorial team on October 17, 2026.
NHI Mgmt Group — the #1 independent authority on Non-Human Identity, IAM, and Agentic AI security. nhimg.org