How much has ineffective communication cost your company?

ARTEMIA Communications — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 15:15:00 +0000

The Cost of Poor Communication in the Workplace: What the Latest Data Shows

Insight Read time

The Cost of Poor Communication in the Workplace: What Data Shows

Have you ever left a meeting thinking everyone was on the same page, only to discover a few days later that three people walked away with three different interpretations? Now the team has to stop and realign. A manager gets pulled in to sort out the confusion, and somebody stays late to get the project back on track.

At face value, miscommunication seems like a mild inconvenience. The reality, though, is that every conversation comes with a price and for enterprises, confusion adds up in the form of decreased productivity, faltering morale and bottom-line hits.

Multiply small breakdowns across hundreds or thousands of employees and poor communication becomes expensive. And new research suggests that cost may be much higher than most organizations realize.

How Much Does Poor Communication Cost a Company?

There is no single number that applies to every business. Workforce size, compensation, organizational structure and the quality of existing communication all affect the financial impact. However, Axios HQ's 2026 State of Workplace Communication provides one of the clearest recent estimates our team has come across.

Axios surveyed 475 U.S. leaders and 814 employees across industries, company sizes and roles. Respondents were asked how much time they spend dealing with the effects of ineffective communication, including searching for information, chasing responses and clarifying context.

Across every salary band, employees reported losing at least 25 working days per year to these activities. For employees earning more than $200,000, that figure exceeded 60 working days.

Annual salary	Average work time affected annually	Estimated salary value
$10,000–$50,000	25+ days	$2,875
$50,000–$100,000	25+ days	$7,290
$100,000–$150,000	40+ days	$19,253
$150,000–$200,000	43+ days	$28,603
$200,000+	60+ days	$51,790

Axios estimates that ineffective communication can consume roughly 10% to 30% of an employee's working year, depending on salary level.

10%–30%

of an employee's working year can be consumed by ineffective communication.

For a large organization, that can represent millions of dollars in employee time before considering missed business, turnover, project delays or other downstream effects.

Communication Friction Cost Calculator

Estimate how much employee time and salary value may be tied up in communication friction across your organization. Enter the approximate number of employees in each salary range to see your estimated annual exposure.

Approximately how many employees at your organization fall into each salary range?

Leave any field blank or enter 0. No payroll details, names or email required.

$10,000–$50,00025+ workdays affected · $2,875 per employee

$50,000–$100,00025+ workdays affected · $7,290 per employee

$100,000–$150,00040+ workdays affected · $19,253 per employee

$150,000–$200,00043+ workdays affected · $28,603 per employee

$200,000+60+ workdays affected · $51,790 per employee

Your Estimated Annual Communication Cost Exposure

Based on the workforce information you entered, this is the estimated annual salary value of employee time potentially spent dealing with ineffective communication, including searching for information, chasing responses and clarifying context.

Employees included

Estimated work time affected

At least 0 workdays annually

What this estimate means: This calculation estimates the salary value of employee time potentially affected by communication problems based on findings from Axios HQ's 2026 State of Workplace Communication. It does not represent guaranteed recoverable savings, total productivity loss or the organization's total financial cost of poor communication.

Actual costs will vary based on organizational structure, compensation, communication practices and other factors.

The Cost May Extend Further

Current research also links poor communication and internal misalignment with:

missed deadlines
lost customers or missed revenue
employee turnover
declining morale
management time spent clarifying objectives
project delays and rework

The calculator does not attempt to quantify these additional impacts.

The Number Is Only Part of the Story

Understanding how much employee time may be affected is the first step. The next is identifying where communication is breaking down and what can realistically be improved.

ARTÉMIA Communications works with organizations on internal communications strategy, organizational communication assessments, leadership alignment, change communications, executive communications, manager enablement and customized communication training.

Get in touch

Source: Axios HQ, 2026 State of Workplace Communication.
Axios reports that ineffective communication can consume approximately 10%–30% of the work year depending on salary level. The calculator uses Axios' salary-band estimates rather than applying a generic percentage across an organization's entire payroll.

What Leads to Ineffective Communication?

Poor workplace communication is not limited to badly written emails or employees who need better presentation skills. Friction occurs whenever the way information moves through an organization makes work unnecessarily harder.

Some common indicators that communication isn't effective include:

Employees searching multiple systems to find the latest information
Teams repeatedly asking for clarification
Different leaders giving inconsistent direction
Unclear priorities or responsibilities
Important updates getting buried in high volumes of communication
Too many channels without a clear purpose
Decisions being communicated without enough context
Manager repeatedly translating or correcting leadership messages
Work being redone because expectations were misunderstood
More customer complaints and elevated churn rates

More Communication Isn't Necessarily Better Communication

The problem is not always a lack of communication; sometimes there is too much information and not enough clarity. Only 33% of employees in Axios HQ's 2026 study said it was "very easy" to distinguish important information from unnecessary noise. Just 31% said communication from leaders at different levels was very consistent.

33%

of employees say it is "very easy" to distinguish important information from unnecessary noise.

31%

say communication from leaders at different levels is very consistent.

Other research points to the same problem. Gallagher's 2026 Employee Communications Report, based on more than 1,300 communications and HR professionals across 40 countries, found that 83% believe information overload is a growing problem.

Microsoft's 2025 Work Trend Index analyzed aggregated Microsoft 365 activity and found that its most highly interrupted users received an average of 275 meetings, emails or chat notifications per day. During core working hours, that works out to an interruption roughly every two minutes. Among Microsoft's heaviest meeting users, 60% of meetings were unscheduled or ad hoc.

275

meetings, emails or chat notifications per day among the most highly interrupted users.

≈ 1 interruption every 2 minutes during core working hours

That doesn't mean every email or Teams message is a problem, but volume has a cost when employees have to constantly determine:

Does this matter to me? What am I supposed to do with it? Is this the latest information? Does this conflict with what I heard yesterday?

Gallagher's 2026 research found that high volumes of change communication were associated with a 30% increase in reported leadership-trust risk and a 24% increase in burnout risk compared with medium-volume environments. Importantly, organizations using stronger audience segmentation and more human-centered communication practices reported lower information-overload and leadership-trust risks.

Poor Communication Creates Costs Beyond Lost Time

The salary value of lost time gives organizations one way to quantify communication friction, but it does not capture the full business impact.

Axios asked leaders whether poor communication or internal misalignment had contributed to negative outcomes during the previous year. Respondents reported consequences including:

Time spent clarifying objectives
Missed deadlines
Lost customers or revenue
Declining morale
Higher employee turnover

In 2026, reports of missed deadlines more than doubled year over year while reports of missed revenue rose by almost 10 percentage points.

▲Missed deadlines more than doubled year over year

▲Missed revenue rose by almost 10 percentage points

Effective communication showed the reverse pattern. Leaders reported seeing:

Better employee engagement
Stronger collaboration
Improved on-time project completion
Greater productivity
Stronger alignment
Revenue or profit growth

as direct results of effective internal communication.

These findings do not mean communication alone causes every missed deadline or determines whether a company grows. Businesses are more complicated than that. They do show why communication should be treated as an operational variable, not a soft skill.

Misalignment Has a Ripple Effect

Consider what happens when an employee does not understand an organizational goal. First, they may need clarification. If they don't get it, they may make a decision based on an incorrect assumption. That decision can affect a project, another employee or a customer. Eventually, a manager or senior leader may need to intervene.

The initial communication problem was small. The operational consequences were not.

Axios' 2026 research illustrates this relationship:

79% of employees said the quality of leadership communication affects how well they understand their goals
77% said understanding organizational goals affects how engaged they can be at work
76% of leaders said higher employee engagement improves individual performance
82% of leaders said stronger individual performance translates into better business performance

79%

Communication quality → goal understanding

→

77%

Goal understanding → engagement

→

76%

Engagement → individual performance

→

82%

Individual performance → business performance

The same study found that just 16% of employees believed they were entirely aligned with organization-wide business goals. When goals are clear and teams are engaged, 53% said their productivity improves. Workers also reported benefits to satisfaction, motivation, collaboration, problem-solving and their ability to meet deadlines.

Poor Communication Can Also Contribute to Turnover

Employees rarely leave a job for one reason, so organizations should be cautious about attributing turnover directly to communication. Still, recent research suggests it can be an important contributing factor.

A 2025 Staffbase study conducted by YouGov surveyed 3,574 employees across six countries, including 1,044 in the United States. Among employees who were already considering leaving their jobs, 33% identified poor internal communication as a major factor and another 30% identified it as a minor factor.

The relationship with retention was also significant. Among respondents who rated internal communication as "excellent," 76% said they were very likely to stay with their employer. Among those who rated communication as "poor," only 20% said the same.

Of course, correlation is not causation. Salary, management, career opportunities, culture and many other factors influence retention, but communication shapes how employees experience nearly all of them.

Organizational Change Raises the Stakes

Communication becomes especially important when an organization is asking people to do something differently.

The Institute of Internal Communication's 2026 IC Index surveyed 5,000 UK employees and found that only 49% agreed that the reasons behind organizational changes were clearly communicated. Most employees also reported having 10 minutes or less each day to engage with corporate communication.

Meanwhile, Gallagher found that 61% of organizations do not have a formal approach to change communication, despite change management ranking as the most valued communications skill among the communications and HR professionals it surveyed.

49%

say the reasons behind organizational changes are clearly communicated.

61%

of organizations do not have a formal approach to change communication.

A new strategy, technology rollout, restructuring or operational change cannot deliver its intended value if employees do not understand why it is happening, what it means for them or what they need to do next.

Effective Communication Is Associated With Better Business Performance

If communication friction creates a drag on performance, reducing it should create room for better outcomes. Axios found that organizations that had increased their investment in both communication tools and employee communication training during the previous 18 months were substantially more likely to report improvement across measures including:

Revenue
Reputation
Customer retention
Market share
Organizational alignment
Engagement
Employee retention

How Can Companies Reduce Communication Friction?

There is no universal fix because communication problems rarely come from a single source.

Training can help employees and managers communicate more effectively, but it won't overcome inconsistent messaging, unclear approval processes or seven different channels competing for attention. As communication experts, we know that reducing friction often requires a combination of:

Leadership alignment: ensuring leaders share consistent priorities, terminology and expectations
Communication standards: establishing how important information should be developed, reviewed and distributed
Channel strategy: defining which channels are used for which types of communication
Audience segmentation: giving employees the information relevant to their roles without burying them in unnecessary volume
Manager enablement: equipping managers to provide context, answer questions and reinforce organizational priorities
Communication training: strengthening writing, presentation, listening and interpersonal communication skills
Change communication: building communication into transformation planning rather than introducing it after decisions have already been made
Measurement: evaluating whether employees received, understood and acted on important information rather than relying solely on opens, clicks or message volume

It is also increasingly important to examine how AI changes the equation.

Axios reports 30% of leaders said communication volume was increasing while organization-wide clarity was declining. As AI makes it faster and cheaper to create content, summaries and updates, organizations need stronger judgment about what actually needs to be conveyed in the first place.

What Is Communication Friction Costing Your Organization?

The first step is understanding the size of the problem. Use ARTÉMIA's Communication Friction Cost Calculator to estimate how much employee time and salary value may currently be tied up in avoidable communication friction across your organization.

From there, the more important question becomes:

Where is that friction coming from and what would it take to reduce it?

ARTÉMIA Communications helps organizations identify communication gaps, strengthen internal systems and equip leaders and employees with the strategies and skills they need to communicate more effectively. From organizational assessments and strategic communications planning to executive coaching, change communications and customized training, our work is designed around the specific needs of each organization.

If ineffective communication is costing your company, we can help identify where the friction is coming from.

Get in touch

Frequently Asked Questions

How much does poor communication cost a company?

Why Every Startup Needs a Crisis Communications Plan

ARTEMIA Communications — Thu, 20 Aug 2026 02:46:27 +0000

Why Every Startup Needs a Crisis Communications Plan

Crisis ReadinessRead time

Why Every Startup Needs a Crisis Communications Plan

An alarming number of founders overlook the need for a crisis communications plan. It’s understandable – when you are building a business, the last thing you want to think about is disaster, but if you truly want your startup to thrive, it is essential that you consider the “what ifs.”

Taking time to ensure you are truly prepared for anything can be the difference between a manageable setback and lasting reputational damage.

What Founders Get Wrong About Crisis Comms

Startups run on ambition, agility and optimism. Spending time pondering what could go wrong may feel counterproductive, but that mindset leads to blind spots and the consequences can be dire. Here are a few of the most common misconceptions — and the realities that follow:

Misconception

“We don’t need a crisis communications plan; we aren’t having a crisis.”

Reality

The entire point of a crisis communications plan is to plan ahead. Just because everything is smooth sailing now does not mean you won’t get hit with a tidal wave later. The cost of going unprepared and opting for a reactionary approach is significantly higher than that of being proactive.

Misconception

“We are not far enough along/big enough to need a crisis communications plan.”

Reality

Unlike established corporations, startups rarely have the cushion of brand loyalty or deep reserves of capital. Their leadership is often inseparable from the company’s identity. A founder’s misstep can instantly ripple across headlines, social media, and investor calls.

Startups also tend to operate in fast-moving industries where innovation outpaces regulation. That speed is a competitive advantage, but it comes with risk. Customers and investors are less forgiving when they sense instability. Without the credibility that established players enjoy, a single mishandled incident can sink confidence.

Misconception

“We will be transparent and people will understand.”

Reality

You should not ever assume you will be given the benefit of the doubt. Transparency is important, but how you approach it is more important.

Without the right tone, timing, or framing, even honest updates can come off as defensive or dismissive. A proactive crisis communications plan helps you get the message right when pressure is high.

Misconception

“If something happens, we’ll figure it out. We will cross that bridge when we come to it.”

Reality

In the midst of a crisis, you have hours — and in some cases, mere minutes — to act. Without structure, teams hesitate, contradict each other or go silent. That creates a vacuum where rumors spread and trust erodes.

Having a plan that enables an effective, rapid response makes a significant difference. In fact, research has shown that companies that take action within the first hour of a crisis maintain trust at 2.5x the rate of those with slower reaction times.

2.5x the rate of trust maintained when companies act within the first hour.

Misconception

“Legal can handle it.”

Reality

Having a great legal team is invaluable for shielding your company from liability. This is not the same as protecting your reputation. Many attorneys are excellent communicators, but they speak a different language (that is why people hire them, after all) and legalese is unlikely to appease unhappy customers or anxious investors.

That is where messaging and positioning come into play. They serve a different goal; however, they should not be isolated. A good communications plan coordinates legal and messaging without letting either take over the entire response.

Misconception

“A crisis communications plan feels like overkill.”

Reality

You do not need a 100-page document. You need a framework that can be put into action quickly — a simple, stage-appropriate playbook with clear roles, holding statements and decision triggers.

Having these items in place before a crisis enables you to take control of the narrative sooner, minimizing both short and long-term impacts.

How prepared are you if something goes wrong?Benchmark your current crisis readiness in a few minutes.

Take the free assessment

Common Crises That Startups Face

What could go wrong? Well, a lot of things. For example:

Product or service failure

A buggy launch or critical flaw can spread through customer communities overnight.

Negative press or social backlash

One viral post can spark thousands of comments before a company is even aware of it.

Cybersecurity breaches

Investors and customers alike lose confidence when sensitive data is exposed.

Regulatory hurdles

Startups moving into new markets often stumble into compliance risks they did not anticipate.

Culture and leadership crises

Internal disputes, allegations or high-profile resignations can damage credibility with both talent and investors.

Operational disruptions and natural disasters

Floods, fires, power outages or extreme weather events can halt operations, delay shipments or impact customer access — with little warning.

External conflicts and geopolitical instability

For global teams or supply chains, political unrest, sanctions or regional instability can trigger sudden reputational or logistical challenges.

Of course, this is not an exhaustive list and not every scenario will apply to every company. Likewise, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to reputation management but there is a common thread: having a plan in place helps you minimize the fallout and move forward faster.

Getting Started: Foundational Questions for Founders

Before you build your plan, make sure your team is aligned on the basics. These questions are designed to uncover gaps, clarify expectations and set the groundwork for a crisis response that actually works.

01Which external stakeholders would need to hear from you first?

Think beyond customers. Who would feel blindsided if they heard about the situation secondhand? What are their expectations for timing and tone?

02What types of incidents would trigger a coordinated response?

You need to define the boundary between a problem and a crisis. Setting internal thresholds early — things like legal exposure, negative press or revenue loss — prevents you from wasting time arguing about severity when you should be making a statement.

03What specific risks keep your team up at night?

Product bugs, investor scrutiny, compliance issues, employee tension — whatever they are, write them down. Use those concerns to prioritize what your plan needs to cover first.

04Who should be the voice of your company in a crisis?

It might be your CEO, product lead or external spokesperson. The point is to decide in advance and ensure they are prepared.

05How will your team stay aligned?

Choose a single internal channel for crisis communication. Make it clear who updates whom, where to check for the latest info and how often people should expect to hear something.

Benchmark your crisis readinessSee where your current plan is strong and where gaps may exist.

Take the free assessment

Five Simple Steps for Moving From Insight to Implementation

Assign internal owners

Decide now who is responsible for each part of the response. Who drafts the first message? Who approves it? Who talks to the board or the press? Write it down, even if it is just one name per role.

Draft one holding statement

Choose a realistic scenario and write two sentences your team could use to acknowledge the issue while gathering details. Keep it calm, clear and adaptable.

Organize your contact lists

You already know who your key external audiences are. Now pull their info into one place. Make it easy to reach them quickly — especially customers, investors, key media and regulators.

Define your escalation process

You have outlined what qualifies as a crisis. Now map what happens next. What is the first 30-minute response? Who gets looped in when? A simple trigger-to-action outline helps avoid confusion when the pressure hits.

Test your response flow

Choose a basic “what if” scenario and talk through it with your team. You are not trying to catch people off guard — you are gauging how well your plan actually fits into their workflow.

Helping Startups Plan Ahead

At ARTÉMIA Communications, we have three decades of experience enabling startups to maintain momentum, mitigate risks, and safeguard their reputation.

We know that you cannot control everything, but you can ensure you are prepared for anything.

Prepare your team before the pressure hits

Contact us to learn more about how we can help you develop a lean, stage-appropriate crisis communications plan and equip your team with the tools they need to survive — and thrive — under extreme pressure.

You cannot control everything, but you can ensure you are prepared for anything.

Get in touch Explore crisis communications support

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do startups need a crisis plan?

Medtech Commercialization: What it Takes to Beat the Odds

ARTEMIA Communications — Sat, 15 Aug 2026 14:54:00 +0000

Medtech Commercialization: What it Takes to Beat the Odds

MedTech · Commercialization 8 min read

Medtech Commercialization: What it Takes to Beat the Odds

The vast majority of medtech companies never achieve commercial success, not because their products are flawed, but because their launch strategy and communications planning fall short.

Failure Rates Among Medtech Startups

Medical devices

75%

fail to commercialize effectively

Digital health

98%

of startups fail

You can build a clinically brilliant device, pass regulatory reviews with flying colors and still struggle to get it into the hands of users. Research shows that over 75 percent of medtech companies fail to commercialize effectively. The same goes for 98 percent of digital health startups.

The problem? Often, it comes down to a weak go-to-market strategy and inadequate communications.

FDA approval or CE marking does not guarantee market traction. Hospitals, clinics and payers make decisions based on workflow fit, cost savings, outcomes data and alignment with their operational priorities. If your launch plan does not address these needs, you risk joining the majority.

Regulatory clearance gets a product to market. Commercialization planning determines whether the market is ready to adopt it.

Why do Promising Medtech Products Still Fail?

Late-Stage Planning

If you wait for clearance before developing a market entry plan, you may find yourself fighting for attention because budgets have already been allocated and competitors are rapidly expanding their market share. The startups that excel engage the market in tandem with the regulatory process, lining up advocates, forming an economic case and sharing their value story well before approval. In doing so, they ensure momentum is already in motion when it is time to launch.

Generic Messaging

Some teams build one set of talking points and use it for every audience, which dilutes impact across the board. Providers, finance teams, administrators and patients all weigh different risks and benefits. A surgeon may focus on clinical efficacy while a CFO is interested in cost efficiency and ROI — failing to adapt your messaging could alienate both of them.

Proof Gaps

The proof that moves a procurement committee is rarely the same proof used for FDA submission. Comparative cost savings, training time, workflow disruption estimates and integration compatibility with hospital systems often matter as much as clinical outcomes.

Successful teams gather these operational and financial proof points in parallel with clinical data, sometimes through small pilot studies or simple in-house tests that show how the device performs in a real-world workflow, so they are ready before the first sales meeting.

Overlooked Stakeholders

Founders often focus on clinicians and procurement, but other players can block or accelerate a deal — and their influence is easy to underestimate.

Inside the account

The influence chain is wider than it looks

Nursing leadershipMay push back if adoption disrupts staffing models or patient care routines.

Allied health professionalsRespiratory therapists, imaging techs and others can become critical advocates or opponents.

Biomedical engineersMay raise concerns about maintenance and serviceability.

Infection controlScrutinizes protocols, especially for devices used in sterile environments.

IT securityReviews cybersecurity posture for connected devices.

ASC administratorsEvaluate the impact on outpatient procedure flow.

Supply chain + contractingAssess vendor reliability, stocking requirements and alignment with GPO or IDN contracts.

Risk managementEvaluates liability exposure and insurance considerations before approval.

Create a needs map for each group before drafting launch messaging so their priorities are addressed from the start.

Misaligned Pricing and Contracting Strategy

A product can check every clinical and operational box and still lose momentum if pricing and contract terms do not match how buyers make purchasing decisions. Capital equipment, consumables and service fees need to fit within existing procurement models, whether it is a multi-year capital plan, per-use agreements or bundled service contracts. A model that works for a private network might be impractical for a public system, or vice versa. Understanding these nuances early and offering flexible structures can remove a major barrier to entry.

Weak Post-Launch Follow-Through

Initial traction will not sustain itself. Without consistent engagement, such as training, troubleshooting and sharing fresh data, enthusiasm fades. Strong follow-through keeps champions active, builds fresh proof for prospects and helps momentum grow instead of stalling.

What the Top 25% of Medtech Companies Do Differently?

Run market simulations before approval

Top performers stress-test their commercialization plan months before launch. This includes validating pricing, contracting terms and messaging with select target buyers under NDA, then refining based on real feedback — not assumptions.

Map the influence chain inside target accounts

Instead of focusing on one or two primary decision-makers, they map the full journey a purchase decision takes inside a hospital or health system. This includes every committee, reviewer and approver, with tailored materials for each stage.

Build market readiness and clinical demand early

Campaigns are sequenced to raise visibility across professional networks, conferences, trade media and digital channels, so prospective buyers are already familiar with the solution before the official launch.

Turn early pilots into proof multipliers

Initial users are treated as both customers and marketing partners. Operational wins, cost savings and workflow improvements from these pilots are packaged into proof that accelerates uptake in the broader market.

Beating the Odds in Medtech Commercialization

The majority of medtech commercialization failures are preventable. By investing in strategic communications and launch planning early, you can avoid common pitfalls, accelerate adoption and maximize the return on your innovation.

If you are planning a launch or struggling to gain traction, now is the time to rethink your communications strategy — before the market makes that decision for you. Partner with us to bring the experience, structure and foresight needed to turn your innovation into a sustainable market success.

Turn innovation into market traction

ARTÉMIA helps medtech teams align market strategy, stakeholder communications and launch planning around the realities of adoption.

A strong product is only one part of commercialization. The market has to understand, trust and be ready to adopt it.

Get in touch Explore strategic consulting

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the biggest reason medtech companies fail to commercialize?

When should you start preparing for CES? Now.

ARTEMIA Communications — Fri, 14 Aug 2026 14:54:53 +0000

When Should You Start Preparing for CES 2027? A Planning Guide for Startups

CES 2027 · Planning Guide 6 min read

When Should You Start Preparing for CES 2027?A Planning Guide for Startups

Every January, thousands of companies converge on Las Vegas to showcase their products, and more than 1,200 of them are in Eureka Park alone. Only a fraction of startups leave with new partnerships and positive press. The difference is often the planning, not the product.

At a glance

A CES 2027 planning timeline

Late summer / early fall

Define your objectives, audiences, messaging and internal leads.

Fall

Begin media and investor outreach, and secure meetings before calendars fill.

By November

Book booth space and lock in reporter and investor schedules.

Jan 6–9, 2027

CES opens in Las Vegas.

Why Is It Important to Prepare for CES Early?

Location, Location, Location

Your physical location affects everything: visibility, traffic, who you're surrounded by and how you are perceived. High-traffic areas and curated zones like Eureka Park are competitive and booked months in advance. If you wait until November, you may still get a space, but you will not get the one that supports your goals.

Download the Ultimate CES Checklist Get the checklist →

Schedules fill up fast

Reporters and investors CES are not wandering around hoping to discover you. Their schedules are locked by November (sometimes even earlier). If you want to be on their radar, you need to start outreach in the fall and secure those meetings before the floor gets crowded.

Messaging takes longer than you think

Reporters, partners and investors want to know:

Why now?
What makes this different?
Why should anyone care?

Clear, confident messaging is not developed overnight and alignment can take time, especially across teams that are moving fast. CES forces focus. Teams that rush (or skip) messaging development tend to spend the week stumbling through inconsistent or vague explanations.

Create an experience, not just signage

Your booth should invite people in. Interactive demos and live storytelling help visitors engage directly with your product. Capture content through photos, short interviews or live clips. These assets extend your visibility well beyond the show floor and fuel post-event campaigns.

International and regulated startups face added complexity

If you are using CES as a U.S. market entry point, or you are in a regulated space like healthtech or fintech, preparation is even more involved. Localization, compliance narratives, stakeholder alignment, travel arrangements and legal review all lengthen the runway.

The ROI of CES depends on your follow-through, which should be scoped now

Press hits are not the end goal. Strategic CES planning includes post-show engagement: lead nurture, investor updates, international amplification and content that extends your visibility well beyond Vegas. If that system is not in place ahead of time, you will lose momentum post-show.

Your competition is already in planning mode

Understanding the landscape around you is part of CES preparation. Review the exhibitor list early to identify nearby companies and refine how you stand apart. Track upcoming launches in your category so you are ready for comparisons or questions. This awareness sharpens your positioning and prepares you for tougher conversations.

The Advantages of Planning Ahead

When you plan early, you create space to:

Coordinate with legal, ops and comms so nothing gets held up
Decide what success looks like, and how you will measure it
Refine your messaging across audiences
Get valuable feedback from trusted advisors before launch
Book key meetings with media, investors and partners
Design creative that reinforces your strategy, not just fills space
Train internal spokespeople to stay on message under pressure

Not sure where to start with CES planning? Focus here first.

We get it, prepping for a trade show can be overwhelming, but it's essential you get started now. Here are the first few steps you should take:

1Clarify your objective

Before locking in a booth or building a demo, get aligned on why you are going. Are you focused on launching a new product, raising capital, attracting media attention, hiring talent or closing deals? Each of these goals requires a different approach, timeline and messaging strategy. Without a clear objective, you risk spreading your resources too thin.

2Define your audiences

Once your goal is set, identify who you need to reach to make it successful. Investors, reporters, potential partners, buyers and talent all engage differently at CES. Know where they spend time, what they are looking for and how to engage them on the floor, at events or in follow-up conversations.

3Assemble your internal leads

CES planning cuts across departments. Designate a small, cross-functional team to lead the charge. Often, this is someone from marketing, product, operations and leadership. Assign clear areas of ownership early (e.g. media outreach, booth logistics, lead capture) so decisions get made quickly and nothing falls through the cracks.

You don't have to do it all on your own.

We have worked with early-stage startups and growth-stage leaders alike to support CES and other high-visibility moments. Our role varies; sometimes we are brought in to refine messaging and shape media strategy, other times to lead the full go-to-market rollout.

But in every case, the difference is the same: teams that plan early move more confidently. They leave CES with traction, not just foot traffic. And those that don't tend to see very little ROI.

Make the most of your time at CES 2027

Whether you need full strategic support, PR or a second opinion on your booth design, our experts can help.

Frequently Asked Questions About Preparing for CES 2027

When is CES 2027?

Thought Leadership Opportunities: What Expertise is Most In-Demand

WEBDEV — Thu, 06 Aug 2026 14:56:16 +0000

What 850 Journalist Requests Reveal About the Experts the Media Wants

Original research 7 min read Data from July & early August 2026

The Experts the Media Actually Wants, According to 850 Journalist Requests

Every day, reporters publish calls for expert sources. We gathered and sorted 850 of them by field to see where media demand truly concentrates, and where a founder with the right expertise has the best chance of being heard.

Requests for expert sources provide insight into what journalists are working on and the kinds of expertise they cannot find easily enough on deadline.

Demand leans heavily toward a handful of fields, health above all, and at the same time it spreads across an enormous range of niches. The opening for a well-positioned expert is wider than most people assume, and it is more specific than a general PR push tends to recognize.

21.8%

of all requests were for a health, wellness, or medical expert, the single largest field by far.

2 in 3

technology requests named artificial intelligence specifically, rather than software in general.

1 in 5

requests fit no major category at all, proof of how broad the appetite for expertise runs.

Where the demand sits

Here is how the 850 unique requests broke down by field. Select any category to see the specialities within it and a few real examples of what journalists asked for.

Health, Wellness & Medicine21.8%

10 Common Mistakes Founders Make After Closing a Seed Round

WEBDEV — Fri, 31 Jul 2026 19:32:32 +0000

10 Common Mistakes Founders Make After Closing a Seed Round

A Guide for Startups 7 min read

10 Common Mistakes Founders Make After Closing a Seed Round

Congratulations, you just closed your seed round! It is a milestone worth celebrating, and it likely feels as though an enormous weight has been lifted off your shoulders. Unfortunately, it won't be long until the pressure is on and heavier than ever.

Investors expect you to deliver on the dream you presented in your deck, but the odds are stacked against you. Only about 10-15% of Seed companies make it to Series A. For those who don't, failure is often unknowingly self-inflicted.

10–15%reach Series A

Reach Series A Do not make it

Rarely is it the product that becomes the problem. Instead, it boils down to a handful of avoidable mistakes that are made when ambition overcomes strategic discipline and alignment.

Here are 10 common mistakes that lead to startup failure:

Not Knowing Your Real Runway

You know your bank balance. That is not the same as knowing your runway.

Most founders can recite the number in their account to the dollar but freeze when asked a harder question:

How many months do you have if you miss your Q3 revenue target by 30 percent, or if your next raise slips two quarters?

When you have not modeled the downside, you do not discover the cliff until you are already falling off it. The consequence is a cash crunch that arrives as a surprise rather than a warning, and surprise is the worst possible position from which to negotiate. Investors can smell desperation, and a founder raising with ten weeks of cash left is a liability.

Spending Without a Post-Funding Narrative

Capital is not a strategy. It is fuel for one.

Plenty of founders leave the closing without a clear story of how this specific money turns into specific milestones, whether that is a product release, a revenue threshold, a retention curve, or a regulatory clearance. The spending starts anyway. The problem surfaces later, in two places at once. Internally, the team pulls in different directions because no one agreed on what this round was supposed to buy.

Externally, when it is time to raise again, you are left explaining where the money went instead of what it produced. A round with no narrative does not just waste capital. It manufactures the exact credibility gap that sinks the next raise.

Going Quiet on Your Investors

The founders who only call when they need money are the ones who struggle to get it.

Investor relationships decay in silence. When updates are sporadic, or worse, only appear when the ask is imminent, trust erodes long before you notice. Your investors are not just a source of capital; they are your bridge to the next round, your reference to other funds, and your early-warning system when something looks wrong.

Founders who treat updates as an afterthought forfeit all of that. By the time you need your cap table to lean in, whether that is a bridge, an introduction, or a vote of confidence to a new lead, you have spent the goodwill you never built to begin with. Inconsistent communication does not read as busy. It reads as something to hide.

Ignoring the Cap Table and Compliance Until It Is Too Late

Nothing kills deal momentum like a messy cap table.

SAFE and note conversions that were never properly tracked, missing board consents, option grants approved over text message, a Form D that no one remembered to file. Each of these feels invisible right up until a Series A diligence process drags them into the light. Then they surface all at once, at the exact moment you have the least time and the most to lose. What should be a clean raise becomes weeks of legal cleanup, renegotiated terms, and a lead investor quietly recalculating how much they trust your operational judgment. In the worst cases, a securities filing you skipped becomes a liability that follows the company for years. The tidiness of your cap table is read as a proxy for how you run everything else.

Hiring Ahead of the Evidence

A full bank account makes over-hiring feel responsible. It rarely is.

The momentum of a raise pushes teams to staff up fast, usually in sales and engineering, and usually before the unit economics or product-market fit can support the headcount. The damage is slow and then sudden.

Every premature hire is a burn you cannot easily reverse, culture you have to actively manage, and a payroll number that shortens your runway while the revenue to justify it has not materialized.

When the money tightens, and it will, layoffs land on people you hired for a plan that had not been validated yet. Few things demoralize an early team faster than watching colleagues let go because leadership scaled on optimism instead of proof.

Chasing Shiny Pennies

The core wedge got you funded. Abandoning it is how you become forgettable.

With capital in the bank, the temptation to expand is enormous: a new vertical, a new geography, a feature set for a customer you have never actually served. The founder mistakes motion for progress. The result is a team spread thin across bets with zero traction, while the one thing that was working, the wedge that earned the round in the first place, quietly stalls from neglect. Focus is the scarcest resource a seed-stage company has, and every dollar spent chasing adjacent opportunities is a dollar not spent deepening the advantage you already proved. Diffusion does not diversify your risk. It multiplies it.

Optimizing Before You Have Product-Market Fit

Polishing a product no one has validated is expensive procrastination.

Premature scaling wears the costume of diligence. Teams run UI focus groups, performance-tune infrastructure for load they do not have, and build enterprise-grade systems for an enterprise customer base that does not yet exist. It feels like real work because it is hard and technical, but every hour spent optimizing before demand is proven is an hour stolen from proving the demand, and the burn adds up fast.

The cruelest version of this mistake is the company that builds something beautiful, scalable, and thoroughly unwanted, then runs out of money discovering the market was never there.

Running a Go-to-Market Motion With No Center of Gravity

Trying every channel at once is the fastest way to learn nothing from any of them.

Founders often refuse to decide whether the company leads with sales or with marketing, then hedge by spreading a thin budget across every channel available. The metrics that come back are muddy by design. You cannot tell what is working because nothing ran long enough or hard enough to produce a signal. Learning slows to a crawl at the precise stage when velocity is your only real advantage.

Months later, you have spent the marketing budget and still cannot answer the one question that matters: how do we reliably acquire a customer? An unfocused go-to-market motion does not just waste money. It burns the calendar you cannot get back.

Chasing Broad Press Before You Can Convert It

Visibility you cannot capitalize on is not a win. It is a missed opportunity you paid for.

There is a persistent belief that more coverage is automatically better, so founders push for broad press without defining the goal, the audience, or the capacity to convert the attention it generates. The result is a spike of visibility that arrives before the company is ready to do anything with it. Inbound interest lands and goes unanswered. A hard-won feature story reaches people who have no reason to remember you a week later. Worse, you have spent your best narrative moment, the one you only get to use once, on an audience that was never going to buy, leaving nothing in reserve for the launch or raise where it would have moved the needle. Attention is a resource you spend, not a trophy you collect, and spending it early and unfocused is a quiet, expensive loss.

Staying in Stealth, or Bureaucratizing Too Soon

Two opposite instincts, one shared result: they strangle the momentum a raise is supposed to create.

Some founders stay heads-down in stealth long past the point it serves them, convinced secrecy is protecting an edge. What it actually does is starve recruiting and inbound interest, keeping the company invisible to the engineers and customers who would have come running if they had known it existed.

Others swing the opposite way and import heavy processes, approval layers, and rigid structures that belong to a company ten times their size. That kills the speed and morale that made the company worth funding in the first place. Both mistakes drain the same thing.

A raise is supposed to buy you momentum, and these instincts spend it before it compounds.

The Pattern Behind All Ten

Read them together and a single thread runs through every one of these mistakes. Each is what happens when the confidence of a closed round outruns the discipline the round actually demands. None of them announce themselves. They compound under the surface, in the ordinary decisions of a busy quarter, and by the time the consequences are visible, the cheapest window to correct course has usually closed.

That is precisely why these mistakes are so common, and so costly. For decades, our seasoned strategic advisors have helped founders avoid making them and we can do the same for you.

Schedule an intro call

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the most common mistake founders make after a seed round?

Lead times: What are they and why do they matter?

ARTEMIA Communications — Tue, 09 Jun 2026 15:37:05 +0000

What Are PR Lead Times and Why Do They Matter?

PR Planning Guide 5 min read

What Are PR Lead Times and Why Do They Matter?

A strong story can still miss its moment if the pitch arrives too late. Understanding how different media timelines work helps founders plan announcements, commentary and thought leadership around the windows when journalists are actually making decisions.

Timing is crucial in public relations, and that means founders need to be aware of lead times. Consider this: journalists receive hundreds of pitches in their inbox every week, yet less than half are opened, and a mere 3% are responded to.

Getting the timing right, however, will increase the odds of landing coverage, as most reporters say they are more likely to respond to a pitch if it aligns with their deadlines and content schedules.

At a glance

Typical media lead-time windows

Long lead

2–6+ months

Print magazines, gift guides, seasonal packages and annual features

Medium lead

4–8 weeks

Trade features, expert interviews, podcasts and thought leadership

Short lead

Same day–2 weeks

Breaking news, reactive commentary, digital media and broadcast

What Does “Lead Time” Mean?

Lead time is the amount of time between when journalists start working on a story and when it is published. Journalists operate on tight schedules and require sufficient time to fact-check, research and compile the story. By strategically aligning PR efforts and media outreach with lead times, the greater the chance of securing media coverage.

Why Lead Times Matter

Understanding PR lead times allows you to:

Plan around key milestones

Product launches, funding announcements, partnerships and major company updates often require outreach well in advance to secure meaningful coverage.

Access higher-value opportunities

Many of the most competitive opportunities, including trend features and editorial roundups, are planned months in advance.

Set realistic expectations

Not all news moves at the same pace. A reactive comment tied to breaking news may happen within hours, while a feature story or thought leadership placement can take weeks or months.

Avoid last-minute scrambling

PR requires preparation, from messaging and spokesperson training to visuals and supporting data.

Different Outlets Have Different Lead Times

Long-Lead Media

2–6+ months

Long-lead opportunities need to be pitched far in advance and can take months to result in coverage.

Print magazines
Holiday gift guides
Seasonal trend stories
Annual features or “best of” lists

Medium-Lead Media

4–8 weeks

Many earned media opportunities fall into this range, particularly for feature coverage and planned editorial content. This timeline gives journalists enough room to research, schedule interviews and build out their stories.

Trade publications
Industry features
Expert interviews
Podcast guest appearances
Thought leadership articles
Trend stories not tied to breaking news

Short-Lead Media

Same day–2 weeks

Fast-moving stories require quick response times. Journalists may be working on deadlines measured in hours rather than days, and often favor organizations with prepared spokespeople and clear messaging.

Breaking news commentary
Reactive thought leadership
Newsjacking opportunities
Digital-first publications
Broadcast interviews

Other Factors to Keep in Mind

Lead times are not the only factor that influences PR timelines. There are several things our media relations experts take into consideration before sending a pitch, such as:

TopicIs the topic evergreen, limited to a season or tied to breaking news?

IndustryHow quickly does the industry move?

Reporter beatDo they mainly focus on breaking news or evergreen topics, or a combination?

One topic, two timelines

Tax season can be a six-month pitch or a same-day opportunity

Let’s say a fintech founder wants to comment on tax season trends, such as how AI-powered financial tools are changing tax preparation or common filing mistakes consumers make.

A consumer print magazine may begin planning tax season content in late fall or early winter for publication in February or March. If the goal is inclusion in a feature package or expert roundup, outreach needs to begin three to six months in advance.

Meanwhile, a digital news outlet covering personal finance may only need a few days or even hours between pitch and publication, especially if new IRS guidance or consumer behavior trends create a timely news hook. Strategic PR means understanding those differences and planning outreach accordingly.

Get the Timing Right

It can be tough to keep track of lead times, seasonal trends, editorial calendars and breaking news when you are trying to scale a company. At ARTÉMIA Communications, we help founders identify opportunities early, tell their stories effectively and maximize their odds of earned media coverage.

Plan for the opportunity before the window opens

We help founders align media outreach with the timelines, milestones and editorial moments that give a strong story the best chance of being heard.

Schedule an intro call

Frequently Asked Questions

What does lead time mean in PR?

Why Founders Need Media Training

WEBDEV — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 15:06:03 +0000

Why Founders Need Media Training

Founder Media Guide 8 min read

Why Founders Need Media Training

A media interview is not just a conversation. The way you answer one question can shape a headline, influence how people understand your company and follow you long after the interview ends.

TL;DR

Media training, or spokesperson coaching, helps you make the most of every press interaction by teaching you to communicate confidently under pressure.

We have all seen a bad interview — an opportunity lost to poorly worded answers, emotionally driven responses and that infamous “deer in the headlights” look. It gets saved, shared and replayed out of context, and soon, instead of being known as a founder, you’re recognized as a viral meme. It’s rough.

The worst part is that most of the time, subpar interviews are completely preventable with the right preparation. Despite this, many founders forgo media training and risk turning a great opportunity into a bad headline.

FYI: If you’re leading a company, you are already a spokesperson, whether you like it or not.

What Is Media Training?

Media training helps spokespeople navigate interviews and press interactions more effectively. It teaches them how to stay calm under pressure, answer tough questions, adapt their approach to different formats and tailor their talking points to various audiences.

Do I Need Media Training?

We always tell founders, “yes,” and it isn’t uncommon for them to push back with statements like:

I’ve done panels before. I’m good.

Panels are fairly controlled. You’re rarely quoted and you’re not steering the narrative. A high-stakes interview or live segment is a different beast and winging it doesn’t scale.

We’re too early-stage for this.

You’re never too early to be misunderstood. First impressions stick. A careless sound bite from a niche podcast can resurface long after Series A. Media training now prevents cleanup later.

That’s for CEOs at big companies.

You’re right, but it is also for the startup founder quoted in TechCrunch tomorrow.

I don’t need help being myself.

True, but you do need help being your most effective self under pressure.

It’s just PR spin.

Incorrect. You’re confusing “spin” with “strategy.” Spin falls apart very quickly. Your PR strategy, on the other hand, is the glue that holds everything together.

It’s important to understand that the goal of media training is not to make you seem overly rehearsed. Quite the opposite, in fact — the aim is to enable you to stay authentic and on message.

Does PR make sense for your company?

Find out with our free 3-minute assessment.

Take the assessment

Does Media Training Make a Difference?

To answer that, let’s look at what happens when a founder heads into a high-stakes interview unprepared.

A hypothetical interview

Meet Jane

Jane is a fictional founder whose startup uses AI-enabled waste-sorting systems to help cities divert more material from landfills and just closed a $14M Series A. Investors are pushing her to do PR and although the idea of talking to the press makes her nervous, she knew she couldn’t turn down an interview with Fast Company.

Let’s see how untrained Jane navigates the reporter’s questions.

Question 01Tell me about your company — what is it you’re working to accomplish?

Untrained Jane

“We’re operating in a $90 billion market with clear first-mover advantage, and our pipeline shows strong municipal demand across three major verticals.”

A stronger answer

“Cities are under pressure to reduce landfill waste, but most don’t have the budget or infrastructure to overhaul their entire system. We help them get more value out of what they already have, by increasing diversion rates without forcing a costly retrofit.”

What went wrong: This is something we see frequently in our preliminary media readiness assessments. Launching into market size, funding strategy or competitive positioning is great for an investor pitch — but it misses the human stakes journalists care about. They want to know what problem you’re solving, who it impacts and why it matters now.

Question 02Can you walk me through how your solution works?

Untrained Jane

“We deploy multi-spectrum optical scanners paired with real-time edge processing that reclassifies material streams mid-cycle, reducing false positives by over 40% in MRF environments.”

A stronger answer

“Our system scans each item as it moves along the conveyor belt and sorts it automatically. That means less waste goes to landfills, more material gets recovered, and cities hit their sustainability goals without rebuilding their entire operation.”

What went wrong: When you default to hyper-technical explanations, you risk losing the audience. While a trade publication might welcome industry jargon, many reporters are writing for audiences who aren’t as well-versed in the space as you are. Media training helps you adjust your answers to maximize their impact while ensuring your overall messaging stays consistent.

Question 03While I was doing my research, I came across Company B. They’ve been around for a while and have a similar solution that’s very successful. Can you explain what makes yours different?

Untrained Jane

“I’ve seen their work. It’s outdated. Their tech is clunky, and honestly, it’s not nearly as accurate as they claim. They’re coasting on reputation.”

A stronger answer

“They’ve done a lot to move the industry forward, and we’ve definitely learned from what’s worked — and what hasn’t. Where we’re different is in the modularity of our system and its ease of integration into existing infrastructure. That flexibility is a game changer, especially for cities that have little wiggle room in their budgets.”

What went wrong: When you are unprepared, it’s easy to default to defensiveness. But negativity rarely plays well. Media training teaches you how to differentiate without going on the offensive. Remember: Being secure in your story is more effective than discrediting someone else’s.

Question 04You’ve got pilots in three cities — I saw something about a fourth one that fell through. Is that true? What happened?

Untrained Jane

“That’s not really accurate. We’ve been focused on scaling the three successful ones. The fourth one was more of an idea.”

A stronger answer

“We were in early talks with a fourth city, but the timing didn’t line up — budget cycles and permitting processes moved slower than expected. It’s still on our radar, but we decided to double down where we had faster traction.”

What went wrong: Deflection or dismissiveness can raise more red flags than the issue itself. If you’re not prepared for tough or uncomfortable questions, you risk sounding defensive or like you’re hiding something. A media-ready founder knows how to acknowledge the challenge without over-explaining or pointing fingers.

Question 05What are your plans now that you’ve closed your Series A?

Untrained Jane

“We’re hiring aggressively, focusing on scaling GTM, and investing in our predictive modeling infrastructure to improve long-term operating leverage.”

A stronger answer

“This round allows us to expand access. We’re starting with mid-sized cities that have been priced out of smart infrastructure solutions until now. That’s where we think the greatest environmental impact can happen.”

What went wrong: The reporter doesn’t want an operating plan; they want your vision. Media training teaches you how to focus on external outcomes instead of internal operations.

Is Media Training Worth It?

In our experience, absolutely. Founders who lead the narrative don’t just represent their brand more effectively; they open doors that their solution alone can’t. Media training is an investment in your company and yourself — one that can directly contribute to your long-term success.

Beyond helping you make it through an interview unscathed, it equips you with the tools you need to position yourself as not just a founder but an industry voice. It enables you to establish name recognition and credibility across your target audiences, from investors and customers to employees and regulators.

Pro Tip

Instead of asking whether media training is worth it, ask yourself: Is protecting your reputation, standing out from the competition and attracting the right kind of attention worth it?

Don’t Let a Great Opportunity Turn Into a Bad Headline

Show up confident, prepared and ready to tell your story.

We offer personalized media training programs designed around the executive, company, industry and opportunities ahead.

Schedule an intro call

Frequently Asked Questions

What is media training?

What Startups Get Wrong About Comparative Positioning in Advertising

ARTEMIA Communications — Thu, 21 May 2026 11:14:00 +0000

Our team has lost count of how many social media ads we’ve seen recently that all leverage the same comparative positioning structure, despite showcasing completely different products or services from entirely separate startups. The copy in question?

“It’s like ______ but for X.”

Editor’s Note: The vast majority fill in the blank with Duolingo, so we will be using that as an example throughout this blog; however, we have encountered instances where other tools, such as Canva, were used for the setup.

Comparative Positioning Can Be Counterproductive

We completely understand the rationale behind “It’s Duolingo, but for X.” After all, comparative positioning can be a worthwhile strategy and it’s worked well for many companies. Take Slack, for instance. In its early days, it was touted as “email, but better,” when the team spoke to investors and the media. Although never an official tagline, it is a prime example of how to leverage familiarity to define what makes a product valuable effectively.

The Duolingo comparison attempts to do the same, and it may work for some products. Unfortunately, for most of the brands running those ads, results are going to be disappointing at best and, in some cases, downright detrimental.

Overuse and Lack of Differentiation

“Duolingo for coding.” “Duolingo for fitness.” “Duolingo for investing.”

The list goes on and on. We see it everywhere, which means your potential customers probably do too. If they’ve already come across one ad using that comparison and decided they weren’t interested, they are far less likely to stop for another one that looks or sounds the same. With so many companies using this structure, it’s easy for potential customers to assume they’ve already seen (and dismissed) your product before they’ve even given it a real look.

Weak Value Proposition

Another major flaw in the “It’s like Duolingo, but for X” approach is that it fails to establish value. Instead of alluding to what problem a product solves and why people should care, it leans heavily on the language platform’s name recognition.

Slack’s unofficial catchphrase worked because it positioned the platform as something better than what people were familiar with instead of like something they may have used. The difference in messaging becomes very clear when you put the two structures side by side.

“Email, but better.”

“It’s like email but for instant messages.”

Oversimplification of Slack’s features aside, you likely get the point: If the biggest (or only) selling point is that it is like another successful product, why would anyone want it?

Surface-Level Comparison

If a customer is intrigued enough to check out a product based on this comparison, they will do so with certain expectations. Duolingo’s success lies in gamification, and while many things can be gamified, not all lend themselves to the same structure.

The platform incentivises consistency to encourage habit-forming and caters to a variety of learning styles in the process. Unless your product actually delivers on those expectations, the comparison falls apart quickly. Instead of making a brand seem more appealing, it just highlights what’s missing.

It’s also worth noting that while many people know Duolingo, not everyone may love it. If someone in your target audience isn’t a fan and you’re selling your product solely on its similarities, they are not going to become your next customer.

Free Promotion for Someone Else

If the VP of Marketing at a very established, successful and well-resourced company came up to you and said, “Hello, I would like you to use your advertising budget to promote our product. We won’t be reimbursing you or returning the favor,” you’d probably look at them like they have three heads.

Why on earth would you spend your very tight budget on helping them expand their already far-reaching brand? You wouldn’t. Except that’s exactly what will happen if you rely on their name recognition to sell your product.

Want an advertising strategy that works?

Instead of relying on another company’s success to define yours, your marketing should make it immediately clear what sets you apart. If you’re struggling to refine your messaging and position your brand in a way that actually works, let’s talk.

What is comparative positioning in marketing?

Comparative positioning is a messaging strategy that explains a product or service by comparing it to something the audience already understands. When used well, it can create fast recognition and reduce the amount of explanation needed. However, the comparison needs to clarify value, not replace it. If the audience only understands what the product resembles, but not why it is useful or different, the positioning is incomplete.

Why do brands use “It’s like X, but for X” in advertising?

Brands use this structure to associate their product with one that is widely recognized. The comparison is meant to help audiences quickly understand the product category or user experience. The problem is that the phrase has become so overused that it often blends in with similar ads instead of helping a brand stand out.

When does comparative positioning work?

Comparative positioning works when the reference point makes the product easier to understand and highlights a meaningful improvement. For example, a comparison can be effective when it shows that a product is faster, simpler, more accessible, more specialized or better suited to a specific audience than the familiar alternative. The strongest comparisons make the value proposition clearer, not more dependent on another company’s brand recognition.

Why can “It’s like X, but for X” weaken a value proposition?

The phrase can weaken a value proposition because it focuses attention on the comparison rather than the customer problem, product benefit or differentiator. If the message does not explain what the product helps users do, why it matters or why it is better than existing options, the audience is left with a surface-level analogy. That may generate brief curiosity, but it rarely creates strong purchase intent.

What are the risks of using another company’s brand in your advertising?

Using another company’s brand in your advertising can unintentionally promote that company instead of your own. It can also transfer audience perceptions you do not control. If someone dislikes the referenced brand, misunderstands the comparison or has expectations your product does not meet, the positioning can work against you.

How can companies avoid overused positioning in their ads?

Companies can avoid overused positioning by starting with their actual audience, problem and differentiator rather than a familiar brand comparison. A stronger message should answer what the product does, who it is for, what problem it solves and why it is meaningfully different. Familiarity can help, but it should support the positioning instead of carrying the entire message.

What should a strong value proposition include?

A strong value proposition should clearly identify the audience, the problem being solved, the benefit delivered and the reason the product is different from other options. It should help potential customers understand why they should care quickly. The best value propositions are specific enough to create relevance and clear enough to be understood without additional explanation.

Is it always a mistake to compare your product to a well-known brand?

No. Comparing your product to another that is well-known can be effective when the comparison is accurate, differentiated and tied to a clear benefit. The mistake is relying on another brand’s name recognition alone. If the comparison creates confusion, raises expectations the product cannot meet or makes the brand sound interchangeable with competitors, it is likely doing more harm than good.

How do you know if your positioning is too generic?

Your positioning may be too generic if competitors could use the same language without changing much, if the message depends heavily on another company’s brand or if it does not make the customer benefit immediately clear. Another warning sign is when the copy explains what the product is “like” but not what makes it valuable, credible or relevant to the target audience.

The post What Startups Get Wrong About Comparative Positioning in Advertising appeared first on ARTEMIA Communications.

Conveying the ROI of Internal Communications

WEBDEV — Fri, 08 May 2026 22:38:44 +0000

Companies with strong internal communication practices have nearly a 50% higher shareholder return. Conveying this, however, is a challenge for most comms professionals, with a staggering 92% reporting they cannot prove their ROI. The inability to assign a dollar amount to their hard work can result in smaller budgets, shrinking teams and eventually, weaker stakeholder relationships.

Traditional KPIs Don’t Provide the Full Picture

A recent study found that 60% of communications pros lack visibility into whether their efforts are reaching or influencing employees, while another found that 46% feel their metrics do not resonate with leadership. These issues stem from overreliance on traditional KPIs such as send volume, opens, clicks or page views. These are easy to count, but they do not tell the whole story.

For example:

KPI	What it tells you	What it does not tell you
Send volume	The message was distributed	Whether it reached the right people or made an impact
Opens	The email was opened	Whether the message was read or understood
Clicks	The employee clicked a link	Whether they engaged with the content meaningfully
Page views	The page was visited	Whether the employee absorbed the information

What Corporate Communications Teams Need to Measure

The most useful metrics are the ones that answer four questions:

Did the right people receive it?
Did they understand it?
Did they act on it?
Did anything change?

In practical terms, that means tracking audience segment reach, message comprehension, action completion, manager effectiveness and business-linked outcomes such as compliance or reduced repeat questions.

Why Outcomes are Hard to Quantify

Communications teams are expected to demonstrate value while operating furthest from the final business outcome. Internal messaging influences adoption, execution, morale, responsiveness and even risk exposure, yet those outcomes are often attributed to other departments once they materialize.

If a compliance initiative succeeds, operations receives credit. If change management runs smoothly, leadership is praised for execution. Communications becomes invisible when it is working effectively. This becomes even more pronounced in enterprises where multiple variables influence employee behavior simultaneously.

There is also the issue of timing. Some communication outcomes appear immediately, while others surface gradually through workforce behavior, decision-making patterns or organizational stability. A message distributed in minutes may influence employee trust for months. Conversely, a campaign that appears successful in the short term may contribute to confusion or skepticism later if messaging lacks consistency or credibility.

Rethinking Measurement and Reporting

As organizations become more complex, the key is understanding how information influences alignment, decision-making, execution and organizational resilience over time.

That requires a broader view of measurement; one that recognizes communications as a business function with enterprise-wide influence rather than a distribution channel measured primarily by engagement statistics. Without that visibility, organizations risk underinvesting in one of the core functions shaping how effectively they operate.

Helping You Communicate Your Value

Just as important as what is measured is how those findings are communicated to leadership. Reporting that focuses heavily on engagement statistics without contextualizing business implications can make communications appear tactical rather than strategic. Executive teams are more likely to respond to insights tied to organizational priorities such as efficiency, adoption, alignment, risk reduction or workforce stability than communications activity alone.

At ARTÉMIA Communications, we help companies evaluate communications through a broader strategic lens, enabling leadership teams to better understand what is driving alignment, trust and operational effectiveness across the enterprise. Contact us to learn more.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do you measure the business impact of internal communications?

Measuring the business impact of internal communications requires looking beyond engagement metrics alone. While opens, clicks and page views can provide visibility into distribution, they do not fully capture whether communication influenced alignment, decision-making, adoption or execution. More meaningful measurement often involves connecting communications to operational outcomes such as reduced confusion, improved compliance, stronger cross-functional alignment, faster adoption of initiatives or decreased escalation volume.

Why do traditional internal communications KPIs fail to resonate with executives?

Traditional KPIs often focus on communications activity rather than organizational impact. Metrics such as send volume, open rates and clicks may demonstrate reach, but they rarely explain how communication affected business performance or workforce behavior. Executive leadership teams are typically more interested in outcomes tied to efficiency, alignment, risk reduction, execution and organizational stability than engagement statistics in isolation.

How can organizations connect employee communications to operational performance?

Internal communications influences how effectively organizations execute priorities, manage change and maintain alignment across teams. Connecting communications to operational performance often involves evaluating broader indicators such as policy adoption, manager consistency, employee responsiveness, workflow efficiency, compliance outcomes and reductions in repeated clarification requests. In complex organizations, communication effectiveness is often reflected indirectly through operational patterns and workforce behavior.

How should communications teams report results to executive leadership?

Executive reporting should contextualize communications performance within broader business objectives rather than focusing exclusively on engagement data. Leadership teams are generally more responsive to reporting that demonstrates how communication supported organizational priorities, reduced friction, improved alignment or strengthened execution during periods of change. Framing communications as a strategic business function rather than a distribution channel can help leadership better understand its enterprise-wide influence.

Why is communications attribution difficult in large organizations?

In large organizations, communications outcomes are rarely isolated from other business variables. Leadership decisions, operational processes, management effectiveness and organizational culture all influence employee behavior simultaneously, making direct attribution challenging. Communications may contribute significantly to adoption, alignment or organizational stability while the resulting outcomes are ultimately attributed to operations, HR or executive leadership instead.

What are the operational risks of poor internal alignment?

Poor internal alignment can create inefficiencies that extend far beyond the communications function itself. Teams may interpret priorities differently, duplicate work, delay execution or make decisions based on incomplete information. Over time, these disconnects can contribute to inconsistent customer experiences, operational friction, slower change adoption and increased organizational risk, particularly during periods of uncertainty or transformation.

Have a different question? Get in touch.

The post Conveying the ROI of Internal Communications appeared first on ARTEMIA Communications.

Understanding the Digital Divide

ARTEMIA Communications — Tue, 05 May 2026 12:12:00 +0000

TL; DR: The digital divide in the United States remains pervasive. As a result, combining online outreach with traditional tactics is essential for effective stakeholder engagement, particularly in rural or under-resourced areas.

When was the last time you had an internet outage? For most of us, it’s a rare inconvenience — a few hours of not sending emails or watching the latest Netflix hit. However, this lack of connection is a full-time reality for millions of Americans impacted by the digital divide.

Because internet access is something many of us take for granted, it’s easy to overlook the gaps when planning stakeholder engagement and marketing efforts. Unfortunately, not taking this into consideration can lead to missed opportunities at best and, at worst, leave entire communities without critical information.

High-Speed Internet Coverage in the United States

A 2025 report from the FCC noted that about 95% of homes and businesses have access to terrestrial broadband. The remaining 5% is concentrated in remote areas, tribal lands and scattered rural pockets throughout the country, where thousands of “unserved” areas remain due to geography and sparse infrastructure.

There is no doubt that progress has been made to increase access to high-speed internet, and, on paper, it gives the impression that the digital divide is nearly closed. In practice, however, infrastructure is only part of the problem.

Broadband availability has outpaced adoption

Widespread availability does not necessarily translate into affordability, device access or confident everyday use, as illustrated by the approximately 24 million Americans who remain “offline.” The sharpest gaps appear among lower-income households, as well as many Black and Hispanic communities, seniors and those in rural areas, including Appalachia and numerous tribal lands.

Rural vs Urban: A Growing Gap

Rural regions, including parts of Central Appalachia, also trail cities on device ownership and subscription rates, which depresses digital usage even as new fiber or fixed wireless arrives. According to the USDA, 22.3% of Americans in rural areas and nearly 28% of those on Tribal lands lack coverage from terrestrial broadband, compared to 1.5% living in urban areas. Concerningly, an analysis by Ookla showed that despite overall increases in broadband availability, the gap between urban and rural internet access grew in 32 states during the second half of 2024.

Cost Prevents Connection

Research from the National Digital Inclusion Alliance indicates that approximately 43% of low-income households struggle with internet affordability. Only 57% of those earning less than $30,000 per year have broadband, compared to 95% of those making over $100,000, according to Pew Research. Similarly, 31% rely on a smartphone for access compared to just 6% of those making $100,000.

In 2021, the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) was established by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to expand internet access. It provided subsidies to more than 23 million households at or below 200% of the federal poverty guidelines, and when the program came to an end in 2024, millions were disconnected.

A Demographic Disconnect

In 2024, home broadband adoption was 83% among white adults compared to 73% among Black and Hispanic adults. Overall, approximately 15% of Americans are reliant on mobile devices for internet access. For 19% of Black and 22% of Hispanic adults, a smartphone is the only window into the digital space, compared to 12% of white adults. Additionally, tribal communities face the deepest adoption shortfalls due to distance, affordability, device scarcity and limited in‑building infrastructure.

The Day-to-Day Impacts of the Digital Divide

People who lack reliable access to high-speed internet face daily challenges that impact all aspects of their lives. These obstacles limit their ability to engage and reinforce cycles of disadvantage.

Work and employment challenges

Remote work is inaccessible without high-speed internet. Jobs that rely on video calls, cloud collaboration or file sharing become out of reach. Limited access also blocks digital upskilling, online applications and even basic email use, restricting both hiring and advancement.

School and learning barriers

Students without broadband fall behind on coursework, virtual classes and digital resources. Teachers see persistent gaps in homework and digital skills, leaving children underprepared for a tech-driven workforce. During pandemic learning, families reported academic setbacks and lost peer interaction, widening achievement gaps.

Health and telehealth impacts

Telemedicine and online health portals depend on reliable internet. Without it, people cannot book appointments, attend virtual visits, refill prescriptions or access health records. Rural residents, older adults and those with chronic conditions are especially affected, often forced to travel for care that could be delivered remotely. This inequity is now recognized as a social determinant of health.

Financial, social and civic limitations

Banking and bill payment are simpler online but those without broadband rely on costly, time-consuming in-person errands that increase financial strain. Seniors miss video calls and online support groups, deepening isolation. Low-income families face barriers to benefits applications, often missing deadlines or losing support. Civic engagement also suffers as voter registration and community participation increasingly happen online.

Hidden challenges and persistent risks

Households relying only on mobile data face caps, unreliable speeds and small-screen limitations. In multi-family or rural settings, outdated wiring and infrastructure mean even paid broadband may not deliver a stable connection, prolonging digital exclusion.

Intergenerational and long-term effects

When parents cannot access online job training or financial tools and children lack digital homework support, the divide compounds across generations. Furthermore, those with limited connectivity are left without a reliable way to stay informed on community resources, local news and even emergency alerts. As a result, they are left behind, unable to catch up with an increasingly online world, deepening existing socioeconomic inequalities and limiting upward mobility.

Developing Stakeholder Engagement Strategies that Bridge the Gap

The digital divide directly undermines equitable outreach by filtering participation toward people with fast connections, devices and higher digital skills, so online‑first engagement alone will systematically miss lower‑income, older, rural, tribal and limited‑English residents whose input is crucial to legitimacy and better decisions.

Effective stakeholder engagement strategies must blend online and offline channels, prioritize inclusion and partner with trusted organizations to reach people who are otherwise excluded by access, affordability, skills and design barriers.At ARTÉMIA, we leverage a multi-channel approach to ensure residents with limited connectivity can still engage. This includes combining digital tactics with traditional ones, such as in-person outreach, mailers, radio PSAs, town halls or community events. Rural contexts especially require multi-channel approaches that fit local schedules and venues.

Recognizing the reliance on smartphones, we aim to make participation mobile-friendly but not mobile-only. This involves low-bandwidth pages, call-in numbers, transcripts and video alternatives, as well as plain-language, multilingual and accessible content to further lower participation barriers.

We work closely with community organizations, faith groups, libraries and coalitions that residents already trust to co-host events and share materials. In rural areas, local leaders are key allies in bridging both connectivity and trust gaps.

On tribal lands, equitable engagement requires early consultation, respect for sovereignty and tailored strategies that address remoteness, affordability and device gaps. In these instances, we coordinate with federal, state, tribal and private partners to ensure outreach matches residents’ ability to participate.

Ensure participation reflects the full community — not just the most connected

When engagement strategies account for affordability, access, skills and trust, communities that are often left out gain a voice in decisions that shape their lives. The strategic consultants at ARTÉMIA understand that true connection goes beyond digital boundaries and we can help you ensure that connectivity isn’t a barrier to engaging with your target audiences. Get in touch to schedule a free consultation.

FAQs

What is the Digital Divide in the United States?

The digital divide refers to the gap between people who have reliable, affordable internet access and those who do not. In the U.S., millions of households in rural areas, tribal lands, and low-income communities still lack broadband access or rely only on smartphones, limiting their ability to work, learn, access healthcare and participate fully in civic life.

How many Americans still lack access to high-speed internet?

According to the FCC, about 5% of households and businesses remain without terrestrial broadband. Beyond coverage, roughly 24 million Americans remain “offline” due to affordability, device shortages or limited digital skills, despite the availability of infrastructure in many areas.

Who is most affected by the digital divide?

The divide disproportionately impacts rural residents, tribal communities, lower-income households, seniors, and many Black and Hispanic families. These groups often face compounded challenges such as higher costs, reliance on mobile devices, or lack of digital skills and support systems.

Why is the digital divide a stakeholder engagement issue?

Online-only engagement excludes residents who cannot easily access digital platforms. This skews input toward more connected groups, leaving behind communities whose perspectives are essential. Effective stakeholder engagement requires multi-channel strategies that combine digital tools with offline outreach like community events, mailers, or radio.

How can organizations bridge the digital divide in outreach?

Organizations can bridge gaps by designing mobile-friendly but not mobile-only participation methods, offering low-bandwidth alternatives, providing multilingual materials, and partnering with trusted local organizations. On tribal lands, early consultation and respect for sovereignty are essential for inclusive engagement.

How can ARTÉMIA help organizations address the digital divide in engagement?

ARTÉMIA designs stakeholder engagement strategies that reach both connected and disconnected communities. We combine digital outreach with traditional methods like mailers, community events, and radio, while ensuring materials are mobile-friendly, multilingual, and accessible. Our approach ensures every voice is heard. Get in touch to learn more.

The post Understanding the Digital Divide appeared first on ARTEMIA Communications.

ARTEMIA Communications

Expert Analysis: Utilities Stakeholder Risk Index

How much has ineffective communication cost your company?

How Much Does Poor Communication Cost a Company?

Communication Friction Cost Calculator

The Cost May Extend Further

The Number Is Only Part of the Story

What Leads to Ineffective Communication?

More Communication Isn't Necessarily Better Communication

Poor Communication Creates Costs Beyond Lost Time

Misalignment Has a Ripple Effect

Poor Communication Can Also Contribute to Turnover

Organizational Change Raises the Stakes

Effective Communication Is Associated With Better Business Performance

How Can Companies Reduce Communication Friction?

What Is Communication Friction Costing Your Organization?

Frequently Asked Questions

Why Every Startup Needs a Crisis Communications Plan

What Founders Get Wrong About Crisis Comms

“We don’t need a crisis communications plan; we aren’t having a crisis.”

“We are not far enough along/big enough to need a crisis communications plan.”

“We will be transparent and people will understand.”

“If something happens, we’ll figure it out. We will cross that bridge when we come to it.”

“Legal can handle it.”

“A crisis communications plan feels like overkill.”

Common Crises That Startups Face

Product or service failure

Negative press or social backlash

Cybersecurity breaches

Regulatory hurdles

Culture and leadership crises

Operational disruptions and natural disasters

External conflicts and geopolitical instability

Getting Started: Foundational Questions for Founders

01Which external stakeholders would need to hear from you first?

02What types of incidents would trigger a coordinated response?

03What specific risks keep your team up at night?

04Who should be the voice of your company in a crisis?

05How will your team stay aligned?

Five Simple Steps for Moving From Insight to Implementation

Assign internal owners

Draft one holding statement

Organize your contact lists

Define your escalation process

Test your response flow

Helping Startups Plan Ahead

Prepare your team before the pressure hits

Frequently Asked Questions

Medtech Commercialization: What it Takes to Beat the Odds

Failure Rates Among Medtech Startups

Why do Promising Medtech Products Still Fail?

Late-Stage Planning

Generic Messaging

Proof Gaps

Overlooked Stakeholders

Misaligned Pricing and Contracting Strategy

Weak Post-Launch Follow-Through

What the Top 25% of Medtech Companies Do Differently?

Run market simulations before approval

Map the influence chain inside target accounts

Build market readiness and clinical demand early

Turn early pilots into proof multipliers

Beating the Odds in Medtech Commercialization

Turn innovation into market traction

Frequently Asked Questions

When should you start preparing for CES? Now.

Why Is It Important to Prepare for CES Early?

Location, Location, Location

Schedules fill up fast

Messaging takes longer than you think

Create an experience, not just signage

International and regulated startups face added complexity

The ROI of CES depends on your follow-through, which should be scoped now

Your competition is already in planning mode

The Advantages of Planning Ahead

Not sure where to start with CES planning? Focus here first.

1Clarify your objective

2Define your audiences

3Assemble your internal leads

You don't have to do it all on your own.