Cyber security has a communications problem, and more noise isn’t the answer
Cyber security has plenty of voices. What it lacks is a steady supply of clear, credible ones that people outside the industry can understand and trust.
Open any security news site and the volume is striking. Vulnerabilities, threat actors, product launches, surveys and predictions arrive daily. Much of it is accurate and useful to specialists. Almost none of it reaches a general audience, and what does is often framed as fear.
That is the communications problem. The industry talks constantly, but largely to itself, and in language that makes sense only to people already inside it.
The usual response is to produce more: another report, another statistic, another press release. But volume does not create authority. A journalist at a national newspaper, a business editor or a broadcaster receives a great deal of this material and has little reason to trust any of it over the rest.
What cuts through is different.
A clear point of view. Not “threats are rising”, but a specific, defensible view on what is changing and what organisations should do about it.
Plain language. The ability to explain a technical risk in terms a chief executive, a finance director or a member of the public can follow.
Proportion. Credibility comes from calibrated judgement. Experts who are willing to say what is not a crisis are trusted far more when they say that something is.
A named, accessible person. Journalists build relationships with individuals, not logos.
This is why, for cyber security and technology businesses, the most effective communications are often quieter than expected. A few well-chosen subjects, owned consistently by the right specialists, will do more than a constant stream of announcements.
It is also where substantive technical understanding matters. Communications built on a real grasp of the subject is easier to get right, and much harder to dismiss.
The industry does not need to be louder. It needs to be clearer.