You’ve found the perfect internal communication platform. It’s engaging, mobile-first, and finally connects your entire workforce — from the C-suite to the warehouse floor.

But then leadership hits you with the same reply: “We already have Teams.” IT is loyal to Microsoft. Finance doesn’t want another tool. And leadership doesn’t see the difference. So how do you convince them? Start by dropping the features comparison.  This isn’t a story about software. It’s a story about risk, ROI, and the millions you're already losing.

Here’s your tactical guide to flipping the conversation — and finally getting the green light.

Convince leadership your comms platform is worth it by following these 3 steps

Step 1: stop comparing features, start quantifying the cost of doing nothing

Your first mistake is comparing your proposed tool to Microsoft Teams on a feature-by-feature basis. It’s a battle you’ll lose. Teams is a fantastic collaboration tool.

The key is to show that collaboration is not the same as communication.

• Collaboration (Teams): A decentralized, many-to-many conversation. It’s for teamwork, project updates, and organic discussion. Its strength is its democratic nature.
• Strategic Communication (Purpose built IC platform): A centralized, one-to-many or few-to-many channel. It’s for leadership messages, critical policy updates, and crisis alerts. Its strength is its authority, governance, and guaranteed reach.

The most powerful way to illustrate this difference is to calculate the cost of the status quo. Poor internal communication is a primary driver of employee disengagement, and disengagement has a staggering, quantifiable cost.

Use this simple formula, based on extensive Gallup research, to get your CFO’s attention:

(Total Employees) × (% Actively Disengaged) × (Average Salary) × 34% = Annual Cost of Disengagement

Don’t have an internal disengagement figure? Use the conservative industry benchmark of 18%.

For a 1,000-person company with an average salary of $80,000, the calculation looks like this:

1,000 employees × 0.18 × $80,000 × 0.34 = $4,896,000

That’s nearly $5 million in lost productivity, every single year.

Suddenly, you’re not asking for a new budget line item. You’re presenting a plan to recapture a fraction of the millions your company is already losing. The platform isn’t a cost; it’s an investment with a clear ROI.

Step 2: Systematically deconstruct the "teams is enough" argument

Once you have their financial attention, you can address the practical failures of a Teams-only approach. Don’t attack Teams; respectfully point out the gaps it leaves—gaps your proposed platform is purpose-built to fill.

Myth 1: The Frontline Communication Chasm

This is the most critical failure. Microsoft Teams requires a full M365 license, which is cost-prohibitive for most frontline, hourly, or field-based workers. Your most essential employees—the ones closest to your customers—are often completely disconnected from corporate communications. A dedicated, mobile-first platform that doesn’t require a corporate email to log in is the only way to bridge this divide.

Myth 2: information overload and zero cut-through

In Teams, a critical CEO announcement has the same visual weight as a debate about the best lunch spot. There is no information hierarchy. The constant "noise" of collaboration channels means important, need-to-know messages are inevitably lost. A dedicated platform provides a clean, authoritative channel where official news gets the attention it deserves.

Myth 3: the analytics blind spot

How do you prove your communications are working? With Teams, you can’t. It’s impossible to answer fundamental questions like:

• Did all managers read the new compliance policy?
• What was the open rate for the CEO’s quarterly update?
• Which employee segments are most engaged with our content?

A dedicated platform provides robust analytics that transform communication from guesswork into a data-driven strategy. It allows you to measure reach and engagement, prove your value, and continuously improve.

Myth 4: the governance and culture deficit

Teams is designed to be a free-for-all, leading to "channel sprawl" and information chaos. It offers almost no corporate branding, making it feel like just another piece of software. A dedicated platform is a fully branded, centrally-governed space that reflects your company’s culture and identity, building trust and making it the official source of truth.

Step 3: translate the platform’s value into business outcomes

Once you’ve highlighted the risks of sticking with the current setup, connect the dots for leadership. Show them how a purpose-built internal communication platform directly impacts the metrics they care about — from faster operational execution and higher frontline engagement, to reduced turnover, stronger compliance, and measurable cost savings.

TL;DR for Leadership

We’re not replacing Microsoft. We’re extending it. We’re solving a €4M problem with a tool designed for communication, not collaboration.

You don’t win this argument by shouting louder. You win it by shifting the narrative

From tools → to outcomes
From features → to financial impact
From “just another app” → to “the missing piece”

If Teams was enough, your engagement wouldn’t be a problem.
But it is. So let’s fix it — with the right tool for the job 😉

‍