The literature on the warning-response gap in conflict prevention over-emphasizes political will as the crucial variable, whereas warning is not considered problematic. This article makes the case for distinguishing more clearly signs and indications from actual warnings. Furthermore the article argue that the quality of warnings matters for achieving at least partial persuasive success with decision-makers. The article identify key factors limiting or enhancing warning impact, focusing on source credibility, message content and communication mode. They argue that warning communicators need to take credibility problems more seriously, invest more time in identifying, understanding and building relationships with the most relevant recipients and tailor warnings accordingly in terms of content, timing and communication mode. If organizations lack the capacity to provide credible prescriptions on how to act, they should concentrate on high quality reporting to enhance rather than damage their credibility.