How to plan communication for a startup

A startup can have a working product and still struggle to explain it. The pitch deck calls it a platform. The website calls it an integrated solution. Twenty minutes into a conversation, a much more useful sentence emerges: “We help teams stop chasing every approval over email.”

That is where I would start. There is a person, a task and a recognizable difficulty. Communication begins to take shape when we can name what changes for someone.

Before opening new channels or commissioning a campaign, I would work through a few decisions. They are just as useful for an established business launching a product or reconsidering its offer.

Choose a buying situation

“Businesses of all sizes” might describe the potential market, but it gives a writer very little to work with. Start with a situation in which your offer makes particular sense: who has the problem, what happened to make it matter now, and how they handle it today.

Imagine approval software for design studios. A studio has grown, several projects are running at once, and client feedback is scattered across emails and messages. The alternative to the product is manually hunting down the latest version. That context is more useful than a list of ages, job titles and countries.

The person using the product may also be different from the person paying for it. A project coordinator wants to find the feedback. The studio owner needs to understand the effort involved in changing how the team works. Both questions deserve an answer, although they do not need to share a headline.

Make a promise you can keep

A value proposition connects what you offer to something the customer cares about. “Keep feedback and approvals together for each project” suggests an actual use. “Revolutionize your productivity” leaves the reader to fill in almost everything.

As an internal exercise, write: for this person, in this situation, we offer this, so they can do that. Then remove the scaffolding. The final sentence should sound like something you would say in conversation.

Keep the product’s current capabilities distinct from the company’s vision. Presenting a feature under development as available might secure a meeting and undo the trust in the next one. There is room for ambition, provided people can tell what they can use today.

Put evidence beside the claim

Each important claim should have visible support. That could be a walkthrough, a screenshot with context, an explanation of the process, or a real case you have permission to publish. The evidence should address the promise: a row of logos does not explain how an approval works.

If there are no customers yet, a demonstration using clearly identified sample data is an honest option. For our imaginary software, we could follow a project from submitting a design to approving it. That gives someone something concrete to assess without invented testimonials or numbers.

I would also explain relevant limits. Supported files, setup requirements and what happens to existing projects all help someone decide whether to take the next step.

Agree on the message before spreading it

For a first version, I would use a shared page for the people selling, designing and building the product. It would answer these questions:

• Who are we trying to help first, and in what situation?
• What do we offer today, in one sentence?
• What changes compared with the alternative they already use?
• What can we show to support that claim?
• What questions come up before a trial or purchase?
• What next step are we proposing, and what happens afterward?

If the team’s answers conflict, a business decision is still unresolved. Adjusting the adjectives will not settle it. The point of the shared page is to uncover that disagreement before it becomes five different pieces of communication.

Choose channels you can support

Once the message is clear, choosing channels becomes more concrete. For the design studio example, I would first test the explanation in conversations with people who coordinate projects. A short page and a demonstration might be enough to support those conversations. That is a working hypothesis, to be revised in light of what happens.

Publishing also creates work: someone has to answer questions, keep information current and record what people misunderstand. I would rather maintain one useful channel than promise a close relationship across several and leave questions unanswered.

When reviewing the response, I would look at who gets in touch, what they understood and where they hesitate. If people expect a different product, revisit the message and how it reaches them. If they understand the offer but do not want to switch, the obstacle may be adoption effort or the offer itself.

What to resolve first

A useful first deliverable can be small: an audience definition, a supported promise, a page, and a next step the team can actually deliver. That is enough to put in front of real people and improve with a clear purpose.

The next task is keeping that decision consistent across touchpoints. I explore that in what branding contributes to a business. If the website is the immediate priority, continue with how to explain a product on its website.

If your team keeps circling around the explanation, we can work on that definition together. It is a useful place to start before producing more communication.