<aside> <img src="notion://custom_emoji/3c35a317-d438-469f-a88e-a21523d2b515/356011d7-387b-8007-b573-007a75f83db8" alt="notion://custom_emoji/3c35a317-d438-469f-a88e-a21523d2b515/356011d7-387b-8007-b573-007a75f83db8" width="40px" />
Story99.com is a Branding & Storytelling Consultancy for B2B, Tech & Deeptech
</aside>
Good research explained badly still fails to land. Treat this playbook more like a working reference than a rigid guideline. You will have to pull the right pieces that you need before your specific talk, poster session, interview, or grant pitch.
There is a term for it - curse of knowledge.

It's why experts default to chronological explanations ("first we did X, then Y, then Z"), over-qualify every claim, and forget to explain the one term that unlocks everything else.
A quick self-diagnostic — see if you recognize yourself in these:
Most of this playbook is about undoing one of these four habits. Let’s roll.
<aside> 🔔
Subscribe to https://learnstory99.substack.com/ where we notify you when we update our existing frameworks and insights around storytelling, marketing and brand-building.
</aside>
"General audience" isn't specific enough to write for. Before you draft anything, answer: What do they already know? What do they care about? Why are they in the room (curiosity, funding decision, personal stake, obligation)?
A talk for donors, a talk for policymakers, and a talk for undergrads share a topic but should barely share a script.
Separately from the content, decide the emotional register: wonder, urgency, hope, curiosity, trust. Then do a pass over your outline and ask of each section - does this build the feeling, or dilute it?