Why cyber companies should stop communicating only with other cyber people
Most cyber security businesses sell to people who are not cyber security specialists, yet most of their communications are written for people who are.
The pattern is familiar. Content is published on industry sites, quoted in trade titles and shared at security conferences. Those audiences matter, and they are good for credibility within the sector. But they are largely made up of peers and competitors, not buyers.
The people who approve security budgets are often chief executives, finance directors, operations leaders and boards. They read national and business media, listen to the radio and follow the same news as everyone else. They are not scanning threat intelligence blogs.
When those people see a cyber security firm quoted in the national press or business media, explaining a risk in plain terms, it does something specialist coverage cannot. It puts the firm in front of the decision-maker, in a place they already trust.
It also changes how the company is seen. A business known only inside its own industry looks like a vendor. One that is regularly heard explaining what matters to the wider economy starts to look like an authority.
Making that shift does not mean abandoning technical credibility. It means adding a second layer on top of it.
Choose the subjects that matter to a general audience. Resilience, supply chain exposure, AI-enabled fraud, workforce skills and the cost of disruption all connect to stories journalists are already covering.
Put the specialists forward. The people with real experience of incident response, defence or policy are more persuasive than a corporate statement.
Keep the language plain. If a chief executive cannot follow it, it will not travel.
Stay consistent. A few subjects, owned over time, build recognition far faster than scattered announcements.
Speaking to peers will always have a place. But if the people who buy are somewhere else, that is where the conversation needs to happen too.