This is a typical example why rigorous top-down thinking will always beat frameworks!
Essentially, a strategy is the method to reach an objective. So, as always, clarifying the objective is the precondition for coming up with an approach/strucutre. No objective, no structure. It is as simple as that!
Let's say the objective is profit generation (the more the better). Then the question translates to:
What should the client do in terms of distribution and communication to increase profits?
Hence, we take our focus metric (profit) and idsaggregate it into its conceptual drivers (segments, revenue, cost, and deeper down). Then, we develop ideas how (1) distribution and (2) communication* can influence each driver into the desired direction.
That is how you adress problems from first principles and LOGIC. Unlike frameworks, this way of thinking can be applied to ANY PROBLEM in the world. It is a bullet-proof way of thinking that only extremely few candidates (far less than 1%) are able to show in interviews, and therefore those who do almost always receive offers.
*: Please check whether "communication strategy" comprises both external and internal communication or just one of the two