Customers are not the problem when a commercial conversation becomes difficult. Communicating better with clients depends on how value is explained, how well the other person’s needs are listened to, and how the message is adjusted to the commercial context.

When a commercial conversation goes badly, it is rarely just because of the price. Very often, the problem lies in how the proposal is presented, in the lack of clarity around the benefit, and in the difficulty of answering questions without impatience. This is where commercial communication makes a difference.

Customers often ask questions because they are trying to understand value, risk and trust. Those questions are not interruptions. They are part of the decision process.

If I remarried every time I heard this answer, I would have overtaken Zsa Zsa Gabor by now!

It is usually followed by other equally priceless phrases:

“I do not have the patience to discuss price all the time.”

“Clients do not realise they are going to get a very high-quality service.”

“It is very tiring to keep hearing clients’ opinions and having to explain why it is better to do things the way I suggested.”

There are so many professions where you do not have to deal with clients. It is just a matter of choosing one. This is what I feel like saying when I hear those sentences. But I do not say it.

It would not solve the problem either. Those same issues and comments would then be about colleagues from other departments, suppliers and partners.

If you have a commercial role, deal with clients and have never had training in a commercial approach, here are 3 essential ideas to help you succeed more in this area.

1. Start with what customers need

What matters is what “they” need – the clients. What need do they want to solve? How does this service/product help them?

Simple and complex. Simple to understand. Complex to do.

Many commercial conversations fail here. The company knows what it does so well that it stops noticing that the client is not yet following the reasoning. The clearer the link between need, solution and benefit, the easier it becomes to build trust.

I know that you know this is how it works, but you end up explaining everything through your reasons and not through the Other person’s reasons – the client’s.

If you are thinking, “I never do this”, I can interview 2 or 3 of your clients, and we can confirm.

2. Explain price, stages and value clearly

When clients and future clients ask questions, they are showing interest.

If you do not want to have to explain the price, the stages and the reasons to the client, you will often hear “I’ll think about it, and we’ll speak later”. They will not think about it, and they will not speak later.

Anyone who wants to communicate better with clients needs to explain price, stages and value without ambiguity.

3. How to communicate better with clients from the client’s perspective

People are always people. They do not change because they are buying or selling. Their perspective and objectives change, but they are the same people.

So why does someone:

explain things using words that clients do not understand?

present magnificent features of a product/service without showing the value they bring to the client?

think first about their own objectives and only then about the client’s?

Is this how you like to be received by your doctor, your mechanic or your insurance broker?

Looking from the client’s perspective is worth its weight in gold. And it works. In commercial communication, this shift helps create more clarity, more trust and better conversations with clients. Better understanding what clients value also helps show the value of what is being offered more clearly.

This does not require artificial speech or complicated techniques. It requires attention, clarity and the ability to adjust language to what the other person really needs to understand in that moment.

In practice, communicating better with clients consistently involves three simple changes: speaking less about what the company wants to say, listening more to what the client needs to understand, and checking whether the message was clear. Those who work on this skill sell better, generate more trust and reduce unnecessary objections.

What this means for companies

Customers are not usually the problem. The real challenge is often the way companies explain value, answer questions and listen to what people are trying to solve. Looking from the customer’s perspective helps companies communicate with more clarity, empathy and results.

Customers respond better when they understand the value, the process and the reason behind each recommendation.

Zsa Zsa Gabor died in 2016 at the age of 99. She had 9 husbands and used to say she was an excellent housekeeper. Whenever she got divorced, she always kept the house.

Sofia Almeida Bernardo

Survivorship bias shows how we can make poor decisions when we only look at the cases that reached the end. In communication and business, this happens when we only analyse clients won, proposals accepted or successful projects.

Perhaps Hitler would have thought of a plan B if he had known what Wald was going to discover later.

The son of a baker and the grandson of a rabbi, Abraham Wald studied mathematics in Vienna, where he worked as a researcher. With the German occupation and a new Nazi director, emigration became inevitable.

In New York, he joined a secret statistical research group that contributed to the war effort. The group’s contribution was made through “equations”.

The problem of survivorship bias

That day, they received a request from the military. They needed to armour aircraft against enemy fighters. They thought a mathematical equation could find the right point.

They were shown aircraft that had returned from missions, covered in bullet holes in some areas. The distribution of those holes was not uniform. There were many holes in the wings and almost none in the engine. The logic was, therefore, to add more armour to the area that had been hit, right?

Armour makes aircraft heavier. Heavy aircraft are harder to fly and use more fuel.

Too much armour is bad. Too little armour is also bad. How could they make the best decision??

Abraham Wald’s solution

Wald disagreed. The reinforcement used to arm the aircraft should be placed where there are no bullet holes.

“Where were the missing bullet holes? They were in the missing aircraft.”

The reason why aircraft returned with a few bullet holes in the engine was simple: those that had been badly hit in the engine did not return.

So they reinforced the armour around the engine. How did Wald see what others did not?

Because the others started from an assumption: that the aircraft that returned were a random sample of all those that had carried out missions. For a mathematician, the bullet hole problem is seen as a phenomenon called “survivorship bias” – a distorted view in the observation and analysis of the facts identified.

“How to apply survivorship bias to communication

When we want to develop a project, a brand or a service, it is common to study the profile we are attracting, the audience we have won over. But what about studying those who do not stay? What information can they give us?

How many ideas were put aside because they did not work straight away? What criteria did we use to conclude that they had not worked?

It is important to look at what goes well, to focus on the clients we attract and on the projects where we have been successful. And it is equally important to ask the questions that help us see our own survivorship bias.

Whenever I send a proposal, I ask for a reply. It may come some time later, but I need to know whether a decision has already been made and, if another option was chosen, what the main reason was. I manage to get one 90% of the time. Every reply helps me understand where I stand and where I need to reinforce the armour. This requires organisation, resilience and a lot of focus. It is easy to leave it forgotten at the bottom of everything else.

Even in the past, during recruitment processes, I always asked for feedback, to understand whether the choice had been financial, based on experience, training or something else. What I received was always useful to help me understand where I stood and guide the strategy I had.

It is common to look at what worked. In phases like the one we are living through, it is important to understand whether, with a different kind of “armour”, other things could have worked too.

What were you able to learn from what did not work? Are you focusing on the right people? Is the strategy aimed at you or at the audience you want to reach? It may seem clear to you, but is the message just as easy for others to understand?

Questions to identify survivorship bias

Before concluding that an idea does not work, it is worth asking: what data was left out? Which people did not reply? Which proposals did not move forward? Which clients did not return?

Survivorship bias is not only useful for analysing aircraft, numbers or statistics. It also helps us understand where communication may be failing and which signals remain invisible because they never reach us.

Now that many of the things that “worked” can no longer “work”, what are you looking at?

Sofia Almeida Bernardo

Journalists receive many proposals, emails and requests every week. To be useful, companies and press officers need to send information that is clear, relevant, accurate and easy to use.

One of the most “astonishing” questions I have ever been asked was about inviting journalists to a press presentation. Whether such a thing existed. And what the investment would be.

In that case, the investment would be the cost of breakfast for the group.

The subject was relevant and innovative. A unique technology, developed by Portuguese people in Portugal, using typically Portuguese materials and exported to leading global clients. It attracted the interest of several areas of the media – business, science and technology.

My interlocutors, experts in this technology but unfamiliar with the world of communication, kept insisting on knowing the total investment. Until I realised that, for them, a presentation to the press had to be paid for in order to have an audience.

It is useful to have different experiences. They allow us to understand the world through other people’s eyes.

Having worked in journalism and business communication makes my life easier when I need to build a bridge between the two. I read the “State of the Media” study recently published by Cision, which identifies important ideas for companies and press officers who want to build better relationships with journalists.

Because I believe we understand each other better when we understand the world of “others” – in this case, journalists and the media – I have selected the journalists’ responses and the ideas from this study that I consider most relevant.

Communicating with journalists

Email, email, email. Use email to contact journalists. This is what journalists themselves say. Given their workload, this is the only way to manage information and make sure it is not lost.

Send concise information by email, with resources included and links that do not expire – avoid the free version of WeTransfer – and limit your follow-up. Once is enough.

Making sure the content is 100% accurate is more important than feedback, exclusivity or being the first to publish.

The 2025 State of the Media findings also reinforce the importance of trust, relevance and stronger partnerships between journalists and PR professionals.

Having a guest or expert available for a video interview online is more useful than ever.

It is important to step away from the perspective of the brand you are working for and think about whether someone who has never heard of that brand would be interested in the story you are communicating.

Try to read the information you are sending through the eyes of a reporter.

This is also why communication strategy matters: it helps companies turn information into messages
that are useful, relevant and easier to understand.

How can communication be improved? Suggestions from journalists

“The inclusion of data or resources that a writer can investigate for context, and a unique angle that presents a bigger idea behind the story. Do not just tell me about the client.”

“Do not communicate ‘ideas’ that are clearly there to serve your clients. Communicate a trend they fit into or offer your expertise on a subject I might be writing about.”

“Tell me directly, in one or two sentences, why it is important for the public to know this – not just why it is important for the company or client.”

“The most important thing is to get to know me, my publication and my readers, and propose solutions that help us create great content that generates views.”

“Do not bother me with unrelated topics – I hit the ‘trash’ button faster to clear my inbox.”

If you received between 51 and 100 emails a week presenting “new ideas”, how many could you answer within two days? 25% of the journalists who responded to the study receive this kind of email.

8 strategies for sending more effective emails to journalists

• Keep emails brief and to the point.
• Provide all the materials needed for the story, including images and links. Assume the journalist will not reply to your email, but may write a story based on the information included in it.
• Include the press release to provide additional context.
• Be strategic with the links you include.
• Provide timing. Is the news under embargo? Make sure the news is not yet public.
• If it is possible to offer an interview, make that clear.
• Make sure the links work outside your organisation.

What should companies avoid when contacting journalists?

Companies should avoid generic contacts, topics with little relevance, excessive insistence and messages focused only on the brand’s own interests. To capture journalists’ attention, the information should be clear, useful, accurate and suited to the audience of the media outlet.

Practical summary for companies and press officers

To be more useful to journalists, companies and press officers should send information that is relevant, accurate, brief and contextualised. The aim is not just to promote a brand, but to help the journalist understand why that topic matters to their audience.

Of the ideas you have read, which suggestion caught your attention the most? What will you do differently tomorrow?

If this topic is important for your company, find out more about SAB Comunicar’s communication and press office services.

PS: Share this article with a friend, client or colleague who needs to know these strategies.

Sofia Almeida Bernardo

In the context of the 4th Industrial Revolution, entertainment, education and work itself will be completely different, says the author of the book Digital Minds: The Science Redefining Humanity. According to Arlindo Oliveira, this is a reality for which small companies are better prepared than large ones, and where a major investment in training will be necessary.

“Emotions will eventually become a natural development of computational systems, and there will be systems with emotions,” says Arlindo Oliveira.

What do computers, cells and robots have in common?

All the complexity that exists in today’s world came, for millions of years, purely from biological systems and cells.

The world we see now is about 200 years old and would be completely strange to someone who had lived 500 years ago. Cars, televisions, aeroplanes and telephones would have been difficult to imagine.

We are used to the reality created by the Industrial Revolution. The 3rd Industrial Revolution brought computers, information technology, mobile phones and new ways of interacting with the world.

The 4th Industrial Revolution will be the moment when computers begin to behave intelligently. It is likely to bring even deeper changes.

What will this 4th Industrial Revolution be like?

It will happen when we talk to computers as we talk to people, and computers begin to take care of parts of our lives for us, such as shopping or tidying the house.

When the Industrial Revolution happened and we began to build skyscrapers, railway lines, airports and aeroplanes, we changed the nature of the planet.

Now, with these 3rd and 4th Industrial Revolutions, we are going to make an even deeper change.

What examples do you see of technology supporting humanity’s evolution to the next stage?

That is a longer-term question. This environment, in which people are constantly interconnected through their mobile phones, is something that will become increasingly intense.

It will increasingly affect every area of activity, from education to leisure, shows and entertainment. All these areas will change a great deal.

Technologies will probably evolve, although we cannot predict what they will become.

What is the role of emotions?

They are very important in the human species. They are not there by chance, but because they developed through the evolutionary process, creating a series of actions and reactions in human beings. Fear, for example, leads us to run away from dangerous things; love leads us to reproduce. Emotions evolved because they give human beings a competitive advantage. Some people say emotions are the most advanced form of intelligence because they are the hardest to automate.

“Although I am not anticipating that one of these ‘assistants’ might wake up one day in a bad mood and answer rudely, it seems reasonable to me that if we shout at it, it may react with surprise.”

Can they exist in these computational systems?

At the moment, we tend not to associate emotions with computational systems. However, there are already many systems capable of detecting people’s emotions.

As we seek to improve the interface of these systems, it is natural that they may be able to have basic reactions and emotions. For example: “I can see that you are tired” or “I can see that you are upset”.

The second step is to empathise with those emotions. I am not anticipating that one of these assistants might wake up one day in a bad mood and answer rudely. That does not seem reasonable to me. But it does seem reasonable that, if we shout at it, it may react with surprise. That would make the interaction more natural.

It would be strange to have a system that, for almost all practical purposes, is human, but then does not get upset, does not get angry and always answers in the same tone. Emotions will eventually also exist in these systems.

How will they be programmed?

Current systems learn through interaction, rather than being programmed in detail, and many may be trained to display emotions that make human interaction easier.

Very often, emotions are on the side of the person perceiving the emotion. For example: animals do not speak, we do not know what they think, but it is very easy to attribute emotions to them – angry, hungry.

Although emotions are perceived by the person observing them, experiments show that robots can be trained to relate to humans in a way similar to animals, leading people to attribute emotions to robots and empathise with them. It is believed that these systems will have emotions that are more controlled and less variable than those of human beings.

Will we be partners or rivals of computational systems?

I hope we will be partners. It makes no sense for us to be rivals. If we reach that situation, it means we have done something wrong. But it is not impossible that, when designing systems, we give them goals that conflict with our own. For example, we might ask a system to prevent global warming, but the best way to prevent it may be for us to walk everywhere and, in that case, there may be a conflict of goals. I hope that, when very complex systems are designed, it is guaranteed that humanity’s interests always come first.

What examples do you see of this alignment of goals?

In autonomous cars, the highest priority must be the protection of human lives, although choices will still have to be made. That is where we need to guarantee alignment. Imagine a car worth 100 thousand euros, programmed to avoid destroying itself. It may have to decide between destroying itself in a ravine or running someone over. Those decisions have to be made.

These problems also exist when we are drivers, but we normally do not have time, and our reactions are instinctive. Computers, because they are much faster, will almost always be able to decide and make the choice of whether or not to run someone over. We need to guarantee that the decisions made by the computer are aligned with human interests and values.

Why does this topic matter to companies?

The evolution of computers and artificial intelligence is not just a technological topic. It also changes the way we work, communicate, learn and make decisions. For companies, this reinforces the importance of training, adaptation and clear communication in contexts of change.

Excerpt from an interview published in ISQ Tecnologia & Qualidade 5 magazine, in January 2018.

Sofia Almeida Bernardo

Table of Contents

Assertive communication in companies is often what sets aligned teams apart from teams under strain. In many companies, the problem is not a lack of competence or commitment. It is a lack of clarity in communication.

Skilled teams, experienced leaders and strong products can lose effectiveness when the message is unclear, when difficult conversations are postponed, or when each person interprets guidance in their own way. The result manifests as conflict, misalignment, rework, and internal strain.

In our work with companies, this is a recurring pattern: when communication improves, results tend to improve as well.

What assertive communication in companies is – and is not

Assertive communication does not mean speaking more loudly, nor saying everything that comes to mind without a filter. It also does not mean being rigid or lacking empathy.

Communicating assertively means being able to say what needs to be said, with clarity and respect, while taking responsibility for the impact of the message.

In a business context, this means:

• Clear messages aligned with objectives
• Respect for people and roles
• The ability to address difficult issues without creating unnecessary conflict
• Consistency between what is said and what is done

When communication is assertive, teams know what is expected of them and feel more confident in taking action.

Why assertive communication fails in companies

When delivering training in different organisations, we see the same reasons come up repeatedly:

• Leaders who avoid difficult conversations so as not to “create problems”
• Vague messages designed to please everyone
• Misalignment between leadership and middle management
• Overreliance on written communication to deal with matters that require conversation
• Lack of preparation before important meetings

What we see is that people often know what they want to say, but they do not organise their message or consider the impact it will have. Without that preparation, misunderstandings, resistance and avoidable conflict arise.

A model for assertive communication in companies

To help companies structure their communication more effectively, we work with a simple and practical model that can be applied across different organisational contexts.

1. Clarity of message

Before communicating, it is essential to answer one simple question:
What is truly important for this person or team to understand?
Many messages fail because they mix objectives, justifications and emotions into a single speech.

2. Adapting to the context and the people involved

The same message can – and should – be adapted depending on:

• the timing
• the role of the other person
• the expected impact

Adapting a message does not mean “softening” it. It means making it understandable and effective.

3. Responsibility for impact

Communicating assertively means accepting that the way we say something influences the other person’s reaction. We do not control the response, but we are responsible for the clarity and intention behind our communication.

Critical situations where assertive communication makes a difference

Difficult feedback

Common mistake: postponing it or softening it too much.
Assertive approach: prepare concrete examples, focus on behaviours and impact, and clarify expectations.

Conflict between teams

Common mistake: avoiding the conversation or taking sides without hearing everyone.
Assertive approach: create space for dialogue, clarify interests and align shared goals.

Aligning expectations

Common mistake: assuming that “it was clear”.
Assertive approach: confirm understanding and responsibilities explicitly.

Internal changes

Common mistake: communicating only the “what” without including the “why”.
Assertive approach: explain the context, the impact and the next steps.

Frequent mistakes in assertive communication in companies

• Trying to solve everything by email
• Speaking in terms that are too general
• Postponing uncomfortable conversations
• Confusing empathy with permissiveness
• Failing to align communication between leadership and teams

These mistakes do not happen because people lack good intentions, but because they lack method and preparation.

How can a company start improving its communication?

1. Identify conversations that have been avoided
2. Prepare key messages before important meetings
3. Align leaders on both the form and the content of communication
4. Develop communication skills across teams
5. Create a shared language for feedback and alignment

When communication is handled strategically, a company gains better alignment, greater clarity in leadership and a stronger ability to mobilise teams around shared goals. McKinsey highlights communication precisely as a lever for engaging and mobilising teams.

When does it make sense to seek external support?

There are times when communication does not improve through goodwill alone. An external perspective helps to:

• Identify patterns that have gone unnoticed
• Structure messages and processes
• Train teams in real contexts
• Create alignment between strategy and practice

When communication is treated strategically, it no longer depends solely on individual goodwill. It creates more clarity, greater consistency and a stronger ability to align people, decisions and results. That is the work that helps companies communicate better internally, so they can perform better externally.

Por

Sofia Almeida Bernardo