The best founders can explain their company to a Nobel laureate and a high school student. The ones closest to the problem forget there’s a difference.

In software, technical debt is the cost of shortcuts taken early that compound into bigger problems later. Fluency works the same way.

Every time a company skips the explanation or assumes shared understanding, it borrows against future clarity.

Three Ways This Breaks

• Anthropic’s 2026 Super Bowl ad satirised OpenAI's ad strategy. Inside tech, it landed well. Outside, 125 million viewers watched drama between two companies they'd never heard of, about a product they'd never used, with a punchline requiring context they didn't have. It ranked in the bottom 3% of Super Bowl ads for likeability and received heavy backlash on social media, particularly from OpenAI.
• After raising $230 million for their smart pin, Humane’s launch video assumed viewers would understand why you'd pin a screenless device to your chest, talk to it in public, and trust it to replace your phone. They never demonstrated the actual use case. They assumed fluency in a technology that didn't exist outside Silicon Valley. They built for an audience of 2,000 tech insiders, not 200 million consumers.
• Figma dominated designer mindshare so completely that they assumed Fortune 500 procurement teams understood why "collaborative design" mattered. Procurement officers compared Figma to basic PDF annotation tools. Figma had built designer fluency without translating value to the people signing the cheques. The fix was rebuilding their enterprise narrative, which cost 18 months of velocity while Adobe circled.

The Macro Shift 

Tech companies used to build first and explain later. Now they're doing both at the same time, under pressure, in public. They’re sprinting to build breakthrough technology, shape public narratives, establish enterprise credibility and navigate regulatory frameworks all at once. 

The people building these tools have spent two years being told they're working on the most important technology in human history. That becomes the water they swim in. 

For most people, however, this technology is still abstract, vaguely threatening, and not something they follow week to week.

The audience hasn't kept up. The companies assume they have. That’s the gap.

If you ignore fluency the debt compounds in the gaps between what you meant and what your audience heard. For example:

Scenario A:

You raise a Series B. The lead partner understands the technology. The rest don't.

In IC, someone asks, “How is this different from X?” The answer isn’t simple.

The round closes. But when growth slows, the room doesn’t have the language to defend you.

The capital was raised. The conviction wasn’t.

Scenario B:

Your champion loves the product. Procurement compares it to a cheaper adjacent tool.

The CFO asks, “Isn’t this just X with better UX?”

The sales cycle stretches. A competitor who defined the category more clearly wins the expansion.

You built depth. They built clarity.

Scenario C:

You launch with strong anticipation inside your community.

The top public comment reads, “Why wouldn’t I just use what I already have?”

The conversation becomes about what it doesn’t replace, not the problem it solves.

You spend the next quarter explaining what should have been obvious on day one.

The cost of fluency debt compounds over years, not just months. Meanwhile the competitor who explained themselves clearly is already two funding rounds ahead, defining the terms you now have to argue against.

The Takeaway

To revisit Anthropic, they had the capital to take a jab at the competition. The resulting Sam Altman twitter feud generated coverage no $20M media buy could purchase, and daily active users hit their biggest post-Super Bowl bump of any AI company.

But there is a caveat, most companies don't have the balance sheet to miss a room that size. 

Instead, before your next narrative bet try to answer the following:

1. Who in the room doesn't know what we do? (If the answer is "everyone knows," you're already trapped).
2. What would we explain differently if our next round depended on someone outside tech understanding us in 30 seconds?
3. Are we building fluency for the audience we have, or the audience we need? (Designer fluency ≠ consumer fluency ≠ enterprise fluency).

A gap in fluency is more than a communication problem. It's a velocity problem, a timing problem, and increasingly, a survival problem.

-

Written by Alex Tatoulis and Joumana Elomar