Research communication agency

An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.

1. Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will research institutions explaining new findings publicly use it to solve "public explanations overstate results or lose essential context"?
2. Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
3. Run a paid pilot. Complete one existing brief using the customer’s actual sources.
4. Measure, then decide. Track scientist corrections and audience comprehension. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.

MVP scope for this solution. 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. 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.

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

Pricing to test

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.

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.

Where to find buyers

University communication departments

Lead magnet

A paper translated into an accurate public explainer

The first 30 days

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

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 solution, 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.

Why clients would pick it

Customer-approved terminology, reusable structures, source libraries and editorial feedback tied to a specific audience and recurring publishing workflow. For this solution, 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.

Main delivery costs

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