Research communication agency

Buyer

Research institutions explaining new findings publicly

Problem

Public explanations overstate results or lose essential context.

Format

Source-based content workspace with editorial delivery

Also fits

Education; Executives and Strategy; Writers

USP

Accessible explanations that keep uncertainty and study scope intact.

The product

Key screens: Research brief, audience drafts, scientist approval. Use a project list and editorial calendar beside a document editor. Keep original material and supporting passages in a collapsible side panel. Show outline, draft, review and approved stages. Provide tracked edits, comments, version comparisons and an export preview that reflects the final delivery format. In this product, the first view is research brief, followed by audience drafts and scientist approval.

Core functionality

1. Extract central findings.
2. Explain methods plainly.
3. Preserve limitations.
4. Develop visual stories.
5. Adapt audience formats.
6. Coordinate researcher review.

Customer workflow

Collect a structured brief and source material, identify unanswered questions, approve an outline, generate a draft, verify claims, gather reviewer edits, approve a final version and export the agreed formats. Start with original papers and researcher interviews and finish with reviewed research communication package.

AI and human review

Extract and organize information, propose structure, draft prose and adapt approved content to audiences. Attach evidence to factual claims. Keep names, dates, amounts and quoted wording linked to their source. Editors resolve ambiguity and approve publication.

What the customer puts in

Original papers and researcher interviews

What the customer gets

Reviewed research communication package

Accounts and administration

Client workspaces, source permissions, editorial assignments, change history, reviewer comments, approval gates, revision allowances and export templates.

MVP scope

Begin with research institutions explaining new findings publicly and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: extract central findings; explain methods plainly. Provide operator assistance for the third module: preserve limitations. Deliver reviewed research communication package through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.

After the MVP is validated

After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: develop visual stories; adapt audience formats; coordinate researcher review. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.

Build dependencies

Document parsing, a source-linked editor, tracked revisions, reviewer workflow and reliable document export. Rich presentation or print output needs format-specific QA.

Integrations and data access

Authorized datasets, papers, protocols, code and research records. Document storage, word processor export, content management systems and approved publishing channels. Pilot with uploads and downloadable drafts before adding write integrations. These are candidate integration categories, not verified supported connectors.

Defensibility

Customer-approved terminology, reusable structures, source libraries and editorial feedback tied to a specific audience and recurring publishing workflow. For this idea, build around accessible explanations that keep uncertainty and study scope intact. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.

Alternatives and positioning

Writers, editors, agencies, internal document templates and general-purpose chat tools. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: accessible explanations that keep uncertainty and study scope intact. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.

Revenue model and test pricing

Test USD 400-1,500 for a tightly scoped initial content package. Convert repeated work to a monthly retainer with explicit deliverable and revision limits. Specialist review and substantial research are separately scoped. Prices are hypotheses.

Main delivery costs

Research and interview time, transcription, model usage, factual verification, subject-matter review, editing and revisions.

Marketing message to test

Research communication agency for research institutions explaining new findings publicly. Accessible explanations that keep uncertainty and study scope intact. Demonstrate the claim through a paper translated into an accurate public explainer.

Acquisition channels

University communication departments

Lead magnet

A paper translated into an accurate public explainer

The first 30 days of marketing

1. Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: research institutions explaining new findings publicly. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process.
2. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: a paper translated into an accurate public explainer.
3. Week 3: present it through university communication departments and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot.
4. Week 4: review scientist corrections, audience comprehension, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.

Paid pilot and validation

Complete one existing brief using the customer’s actual sources. Record reviewer edits, factual corrections and preparation time. Ask the same buyer to commission a second comparable deliverable. For this idea, use original papers and researcher interviews and evaluate reviewed research communication package. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for scientist corrections, audience comprehension. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.

Success metrics

Scientist corrections, audience comprehension

Retention and expansion

Maintain the approved source and voice library, schedule recurring editorial work, and expand into additional formats only after the core deliverable is repeatedly accepted.

Operating controls and limitations

Preserve original data, methods, citations and research limitations. Use researcher review and document every substantive transformation. Validate source access and reviewer availability during the pilot. Maintain customer-level access, data deletion controls and a record of final approvals.

Investment indication

What it would take to build, from a first MVP to the full product. A planning range to start the conversation, not a quote. Running costs (model usage, hosting, reviewer hours) come on top.

Brand style (concept)