average unique open rate in PoliteMail's 2026 benchmark.
of surveyed non-desk employees said they were not informed about why their company changes what it changes.
An older estimate placed roughly this share of the global workforce in deskless roles.
Sources: PoliteMail 2026, Staffbase/YouGov 2025 and an Emergence Capital 2018 estimate repeated in 2020. Full citations and limitations at the end.
What is in this report
- Introduction — the measurement problem
- Chapter 1 — the invisible 80%
- Chapter 2 — why the metrics say everything is fine
- Chapter 3 — why it matters
- Chapter 4 — the channel that doesn't ask you to stop
- What this report does not say
- Coverage audit — a practical framework
- About this report — sources and how to cite it
The measurement problem
Internal communication has never been better measured than it is today. Platforms report open rates, attention time, click-throughs, reach. The numbers, on the whole, look good.
That is the problem.
We measure the channel that is easy to measure. Email leaves a trail: it can be opened, timed, counted. And when you count it, internal email performs better than dismissal claims suggest. In PoliteMail's benchmark, the recorded unique open rate is 66.2%, and 83.7% of recorded opens meet its attention-rate threshold.
Meanwhile, 45% of surveyed non-desk employees said they were not really, or not at all, informed about the reasons behind the changes their company makes.
Both things are true at once. That is the finding this report is about — and it turns on a distinction internal communication rarely makes explicit. Channel performance is not workforce coverage. A dashboard measures channel performance: what happened to a message among the people a particular channel actually reached. It says nothing about workforce coverage — what share of the people an organisation needed to reach ever had a realistic opportunity to receive it, through that channel or any other. Non-desk employees report measurably worse communication outcomes than desk-based respondents within the same survey. And the working world is not mostly desk-based to begin with: an older structural estimate placed roughly 80% of the global workforce in deskless roles. It is not a current census or a measure of email access. None of that proves internal communication has failed those employees — the evidence here does not establish that. It does establish this: many of the metrics organisations rely on are generated by digital traces — logins, opens, clicks — left behind by behaviours that are easiest to capture where work is already organised around a screen. The measurement risk is greatest where those digital traces are weakest.
This report brings together the primary research that maps that gap: Gallup's State of the Global Workplace 2026, the Staffbase/YouGov 2025 survey of 3,574 employees across six countries, PoliteMail's benchmark of more than two billion internal emails, Emergence Capital's count of the deskless workforce, and Edison Research's Infinite Dial 2026 and Share of Ear.
We have added no data of our own. Where a widely repeated figure could not be traced to an original study, we left it out — including several that would have suited our argument.
The invisible 80%
The size of the gap
A 2018 Emergence Capital estimate placed around 2.7 billion people, roughly 80% of the global workforce, in work without a desk. That includes roles on production lines, in wards, in delivery vans, on shop floors, in kitchens, on construction sites, in warehouses, on the road between client visits and behind hotel and restaurant counters. The estimate comes from Emergence Capital's State of Technology for the Deskless Workforce, published in 2018 and repeated in its 2020 edition. The figure is dated and should be read as a structural estimate rather than a current census — the shape of the world's labour force does not shift quickly, but the number itself is not fresh.
What has been measured recently is what those people experience. In February 2025, Staffbase and YouGov surveyed 3,574 employees across Australia, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, the UK and the US. The survey sorted respondents by how much of their work happens at a computer: 51% work exclusively or mainly on one (“desk-based”), 26% mostly or entirely without one (“non-desk”), and 23% do both about equally.
That 26% sits well below the global 80% above, and it should. This is a six-country survey of advanced economies, where desk work is heavily over-represented compared with the world as a whole. It is not a census of the deskless workforce and is not offered as one. What it is is a within-study comparison between desk-based and non-desk respondents, surveyed using the same methodology — and the comparison is the finding.
Two workforces, two experiences
| Desk-based | Non-desk | |
|---|---|---|
| Satisfied with internal communication | 47% | 29% |
| Very satisfied | 14% | 9% |
| Do not feel informed about company changes | 36% | 45% |
| Feel well informed by their manager | 65% | 48% |
Read the second row again. In this survey, nine per cent of non-desk participants were very satisfied with how their employer communicates with them. Not dissatisfied-but-coping. Nine per cent at the top of the scale — and 14% among surveyed desk-based colleagues, which is its own verdict within this sample.
The gap is not a rounding error at the margins of an otherwise healthy picture. On every measure above, the non-desk workforce sits behind — by five points at the top of the satisfaction scale, nine on feeling informed about change, seventeen on being well informed by a manager, eighteen on overall satisfaction. The size varies; the direction never does. Not one measure runs the other way.
And one figure in the survey is not a matter of degree at all.
of surveyed non-desk employees said they never receive any communication from senior leadership. Not rarely, not too little, not badly timed. Never.
Whatever the people running these organisations say about strategy, values or where the company is going, one in eight surveyed non-desk participants said they had never been on the receiving end of it.
Where they are told to look
Staffbase and YouGov also asked the whole sample — desk-based, non-desk and mixed employees together — one direct question: where do you actually get your news and information about your employer? In order, they named:
Three of the top four are commonly visual formats that require a moment to read. The second — the supervisor — is the one channel that travels to where the work is, which is likely why it carries so much of the load. It is also the least controllable: it depends on whether a particular manager remembered, understood and had time. Only 48% of surveyed non-desk employees felt well informed by their manager, against 65% of surveyed desk-based employees.
Employees who use an employee app report notably stronger crisis-communication ratings: 68% rate their organisation's crisis communication as good or excellent, against 52% overall. Yet only 15% of respondents name an employee app as their main source of company information. Employee apps are often deployed precisely to improve access for frontline and non-desk employees — which makes the gap between those two figures worth noting, not explaining away.
The point
None of this shows that the intranet, newsletters or email are inherently poor channels. Email, as chapter 2 shows, performs better than almost anyone assumes. Their usefulness depends, in part, on whether employees have a practical opportunity to consume them.
The gap cannot be explained by channel-performance metrics alone. Coverage is the part those metrics cannot answer.
Nearly every channel a company owns is good at telling you how it performed among the people it reached. None of them, on its own, tells you who it never reached at all — and that distinction is where the rest of this report lives.
Why the metrics say everything is fine
The number nobody quotes
PoliteMail's 2026 benchmark covers more than two billion internal emails sent to nearly eleven million employees across ten S&P sectors. It is one of the few datasets of any size that measures what actually happens to corporate email after it is sent, rather than what the people sending it assume happens.
recorded unique open rate — the provider's headline metric. It can include non-human opens, as explained below.
Internal email is not marketing email, and benchmarking the two as though they were the same behaviour is not especially useful — the two get compared anyway, and the comparison flatters nobody. The relationship, context and reason for receiving an internal email are fundamentally different from those of a marketing email.
The intuition that internal email is broadly ignored is not supported by the benchmark.
So if the channel works, why does the previous chapter look the way it does?
What an open rate is not
Three things, and PoliteMail names the first one itself.
First, the number is generous.The people who publish this benchmark are explicit that open rates flatter: automated security scans, outdated distribution lists and passive opens all register as opens without a human reading anything. Their words, not ours — “open rates can be misleading… giving a false sense of success”. We are citing 66.2% as the best available measure of internal email performance, and the organisation that produced it is explicit that these effects can inflate it — the true human-open figure may be lower. Hold that thought; it makes the rest of this chapter worse, not better.
Second, an open is not a read.PoliteMail also reports an attention rate: 83.7% of recorded opens met its provider-defined threshold of more than three seconds without immediate deletion. That is not independent confirmation of attentive human reading. Separately, 14% of recorded openers skim, spending less than 30% of the message's predicted reading time with it. Roughly a third of all recipients never get past the subject line at all.
The average corporate email contains about 500 words, which PoliteMail calculates as a two-minute read. Employees receive around 14 a month, and the time actually measured on them totals 33 minutes — slightly more than the reading time those messages were predicted to need.
a month — the measured reading time on the corporate emails in PoliteMail's benchmark. Not a total for internal communication: PoliteMail measures email, not meetings, managers, apps, intranets, chat or anything else.
That total is easy to overstate in a specific direction. It is not evidence that employees ignore internal email: the measured time is, in aggregate, roughly what the messages ask for. Nor is it evidence that everyone read carefully: an average sitting close to the predicted time is also consistent with wide variation underneath it — some people skimming, others opening nothing at all, others spending far longer. And it is not a measure of internal communication as a whole, however often it gets quoted as one — it is a measure of one channel, corporate email, produced by a benchmark built to measure exactly that channel and nothing else. What happens in meetings, with a manager, in an employee app, on an intranet or in a team chat is outside what these thirty-three minutes can tell us, in either direction.
For messages containing links, click rate is 7% of recipients and 10% of openers.
Third — and this is the one that matters — an open rate is a channel-performance metric, not a workforce-coverage metric. It answers a narrow question with real precision: of the people this email was sent to, what happened? It cannot answer a different, prior question — what share of the people the organisation needed to reach were sent it, or could realistically have received it, at all. Many channel-performance dashboards, PoliteMail's included, begin measuring at or after “sent”. Nothing in it can tell you who never reached that starting line.
A good open rate can tell you that email worked. It cannot tell you whether email was enough.
A conceptual sequence, not a measured funnel — no percentages are attached to it. The coverage problem begins above the line.
The illusion, stated plainly
A communications team looks at a dashboard reporting 66% open, 84% attention and healthy clicks, and concludes that internal communication is working. The dashboard gives them good reason to believe the channel is working — among the population represented in it.
Whether the surveyed non-desk employees who said they were not informed about company changes sit inside or outside that population, the dashboard cannot say. That is not a gap in this particular benchmark; it is what a channel-performance metric is. It is built to describe, with real precision, what happens after a message enters the channel. It was never built to describe who never had the channel open to them in the first place, and nothing in it distinguishes those two situations.
The open rate is also inflated in a specific, documented direction — automated security scans, stale distribution lists and passive opens all count as opens without a human reading anything, by PoliteMail's own account. That may push the true reading number lower, not higher. It does not, on its own, tell us anything about coverage: a channel can be simultaneously over-counted among the people it reaches and silent about the people it does not. Neither fact cancels the other.
The risk comes when strong performance inside a measurable channel is interpreted as evidence that the intended workforce was fully covered.
This helps explain how a desk/non-desk communication gap can persist without ever showing up as a failure in the dashboards used to track it. It is not being ignored. It is not being seen.
Why it matters
What poor communication is associated with
Engagement is not a communication metric, and it would be dishonest to present internal communication as the sole cause of anything as large as global disengagement. What the Staffbase/YouGov survey can show is narrower and still useful: it asked employees directly about their own employer's communication and their own intentions, and the association between the two is not subtle.
63% of surveyed employees who were considering leaving their job named poor internal communication as a contributing factor.
And in the other direction: among surveyed employees who rated organisation's communication as excellent, 76%say they are “very likely” to stay, against 20%of those who rate it as poor. These are employees' own reports of their own communication and their own intentions — an association, not an experiment. It cannot prove that improving communication would, on its own, change someone's mind about leaving. What it shows is that the two move together consistently, at scale, across a sample of more than three thousand employees.
The same survey also asked employees to rate communication's impact directly, rather than inferring it from intentions to leave. Majorities in the survey reported that internal communication has some or a great impact on their productivity at work (63%), their motivation to do their best work (67%), and their understanding of the company's vision and mission (65%). These are still employees reporting on their own experience, not an independent measurement of productivity or motivation — but three separate questions converging on the same answer is a pattern worth taking seriously.
The wider picture
Step back from individual perception to macro, independently tracked data, and a much larger problem comes into view — one internal communication is only a single input to, but sits inside all the same. Gallup's State of the Global Workplace 2026, reporting on 2025, puts global employee engagement at 20%. It was 23% in 2022.
global employee engagement in 2025 — down from 23% in 2022.
Two details make this edition different from previous ones. It is the first time engagement has fallen in two consecutive years, and no region increased. The decline is not simply one region dragging down the global average: Gallup reports that no region increased.
Managers are where it is happening. Gallup is direct about this: lower engagement among managers “accounts for most of the recent downturn” in engagement overall. Manager engagement now stands at 22%, down nine points since 2022, and most of that fall arrived in a single year — from 27% to 22% between 2024 and 2025. Managers used to enjoy what Gallup calls an engagement premium. They are now roughly as disengaged as the people they lead.
That matters here for a specific reason. 47% of the whole survey sample named their direct supervisor as a main source of company information — second only to email. Surveyed non-desk employees were also less likely than surveyed desk-based employees to feel well informed by their manager: 48% against 65%. And manager engagement itself, as above, has just fallen sharply in a single year. None of this tells us that managers are the reason the non-desk gap exists, or that manager disengagement is causing it — the data does not establish that link. It does put two facts uncomfortably close together: managers are an important source of company information, and managers are the group whose own engagement has fallen fastest.
estimated annual cost of low engagement in lost productivity — about 9% of global GDP.
Gallup puts the annual cost of low engagement at approximately $10 trillion in lost productivity, or 9% of global GDP. This is the cost of low engagement broadly, not a cost attributed to poor communication specifically — Gallup does not isolate communication as a cause anywhere in this figure.
The estimate is built by applying meta-analyses of the engagement–productivity link to GDP per worker and scaling globally. It should be read as an order of magnitude, not an invoice — and it measures the cost of low engagement across the whole economy, not a return on any single organisation's communication programme.
The regional picture
| World region | Engaged |
|---|---|
| United States and Canada | 31% |
| Europe | 12% |
| Country (Europe) | Engaged |
|---|---|
| Spain | 10% |
| France | 8% |
| Poland | 7% |
| Croatia | 7% |
Regional engagement in 2025 ran from 31% in the United States and Canada down to 12% in Europe — and Europe has been the lowest region in the world for years running. Beneath that average, single-digit engagement is ordinary: France at 8%, Poland and Croatia at 7%. Spain sits at 10%, down from 18% in 2012.
Two honest qualifications. Gallup's country figures are three-year rolling averages rather than snapshots of a single year, so they move slowly by construction. And the European picture is not uniformly deteriorating: Spain fell as low as 6% in 2016 and 2017, recovered to 7% in 2018 and 2019, and has climbed roughly a point at a time since. What is stable is the distance: at regional level, Europe's 12% engagement rate is less than half the 31% recorded in the United States and Canada.
Gallup also shows how far this is from inevitable. In organisations it classes as best practice, 79% of managers are engaged — close to four times the global average of 22%. Those organisations are spread across every region and industry in the study, so this is not a story about one rich market or one forgiving sector. The comparison does not tell us which interventions caused the difference. It does show that low manager engagement is not inevitable.
What chapter 4 has to answer
Non-desk employees report weaker communication outcomes than their desk-based colleagues, consistently, across every measure in chapter 1. At the same time, the metrics organisations commonly use describe what happens inside individual channels, not whether the intended workforce was ever fully covered by them. The evidence in this report does not tell us how much of that gap is caused by insufficient coverage. It tells us that the dashboards organisations already have cannot answer the question — and that not knowing is itself worth acting on, at a moment when engagement has fallen for two years running and the cost of disengagement is measured in trillions.
Which leaves a specific question, and it is not “which channel performs best”. Email should not be replaced; it works for the people it reaches. The question is about coverage, not performance, and it is narrower and harder:
What can carry a company's message to someone whose hands and eyes are already busy, without asking them to stop?
The channel that doesn't ask you to stop
Blocking and non-blocking
Many of the dominant channels described in the first three chapters share one constraint. Email, intranets, newsletters and slide decks require a moment to read; all-hands meetings require synchronous attention. We use blocking here as shorthand for channels that require sustained visual or synchronous attention — not a claim that email is literally always blocking, or that every email demands the same focus. They are not worse for being blocking — a document you can re-read, search and forward is often exactly what a message needs. But blocking is a precondition, and for many non-desk roles that precondition is harder to meet during significant parts of the working day.
Audio is one of the few asynchronous formats that does not require sustained visual attention. It can arrive alongside an activity rather than interrupting it, which is why it is one of the few channels a company owns that can open a consumption window for someone whose hands and eyes are already committed to something else.
That is not a claim about audio being more persuasive, more memorable or more modern, and it is not a claim that everyone can listen while they work — plenty of roles cannot, safely or otherwise. It is a narrower claim about when it can be consumed. Audio can create additional consumption windows. That addresses one constraint among several that screen-dependent channels cannot always solve.
Audio is already a mass habit
One objection to internal audio is that it asks employees to adopt something unfamiliar. US consumption data can test two parts of that assumption: whether digital audio is niche behaviour and whether podcasting is unfamiliar. It cannot establish familiarity for every workforce or region.
Edison Research's Infinite Dial 2026 (n=2,050, fielded January 2026 on a probability-based SSRS panel) finds that among Americans aged 12 and over, 81% listened to online audio of any kind — streaming music and radio included, not only podcasts — in the past month. Digital audio was mainstream in this US sample, not universal.
Podcasting specifically is also familiar, though it is worth being precise about what Edison is now measuring: its 2026 figures track people who have listened to or watched a podcast, since a growing share of podcast consumption happens on video platforms. Among Americans 12+:
have listened to or watched a podcast at some point — 230 million people
did so in the past month — 167 million
did so in the past week — 130 million
The video question matters less for our purposes than it sounds. What it establishes is not that Americans specifically listen with their eyes closed — it is that podcasting is already a familiar format to a majority of Americans, with monthly consumption reaching 68% among 35–54-year-olds, ten points above the all-ages average. That makes podcast familiarity a reasonable hypothesis for many people in this US age group, not an assumption to impose on every pilot audience.
Where audio already lives
If audio's advantage is that it travels into occupied time, it is worth asking where audio listening actually happens.
According to Edison's Share of Ear Q4 2025 (as reported by Westwood One), 53% of over-the-air AM/FM radio listening now takes place in the car, up from 42% in 2015. More than half of over-the-air AM/FM listening now takes place in the car.
of over-the-air AM/FM radio listening now happens in the car — up from 42% in 2015.
We are presenting this as an analogy, not as proof, and the distinction should be stated plainly rather than buried: these figures describe entertainment and news consumption, not internal communication. They demonstrate that audio is already consumed, at scale, in a context — driving — where sustained visual attention to another medium is not available. They do not demonstrate that employees will listen to a company announcement in that same time.
None of this holds everywhere, and it should not be read as though it does. Audio is not the right channel for every deskless job: a warehouse floor with reversing forklifts, an active construction site, a clinical procedure, a customer-facing conversation, or any moment where listening would compete with a safety-critical sound are not places to route a message through someone's ears. Audio alone is also not accessible to everyone, including some employees with hearing loss, so an equivalent written format or transcript remains necessary. Audio adds a consumption window; it does not remove the need for written and visual channels, and it should never be the only way a message reaches someone.
The benchmark that doesn't exist
Which leads to the most striking gap we found while assembling this report — stated narrowly, because the broad version of this claim is not true.
Internal podcasts already exist, and they have received some academic attention. A 2026 study in Ámbitos, a Spanish communication-research journal, examined corporate podcasts run by Mapfre, Banco Santander and Coca-Cola as tools for internal communication and social engagement. What we searched for and could not find is a large-scale, cross-company benchmark for internal audio comparable to what PoliteMail publishes for internal email — reach, listening time, completion, and how those figures differ between desk-based and non-desk populations, measured across many organisations rather than described in a single case.
Why that benchmark is absent is not something the available research can establish. What we can say is narrower: we could not locate published cross-company data on whether a field engineer listens to a company update between calls, or a sales rep on the drive between accounts, or a nurse on a commute home. PoliteMail's benchmark reflects a mature, high-volume channel with years of measurement behind it. Internal audio does not yet have an equivalent published benchmark.
We would rather name that absence than paper over it with a borrowed statistic. Several of the figures circulating in this space — a podcast completion rate quoted as though it were an internal-communication benchmark, a claim that employees miss half of all internal communications — could not be traced to any original study, and they are not in this report.
There is also a comparison worth refusing even when it is available. Podcast listeners choose what they listen to; employees generally do not self-select internal announcements the way consumers self-select podcasts. Consumer podcast completion rates are shaped by that self-selection and therefore cannot be transferred directly to internal communication. The honest version of the claim is narrower: when someone decides to listen, audio does not require continuous visual attention in order to finish.
Addition, not replacement
The conclusion of this report is not that companies should send fewer emails.
Chapter 2 was unambiguous: internal email works, and works better than the organisations using it are usually told. Replacing a channel that two-thirds of its recipients actually open would be a strange way to respond to the evidence.
The finding is about coverage, so the response should be about coverage.
Send the same message through more than one channel and let people take it in the form that fits the shape of their day. The person at a desk reads it. The person driving between sites may hear it during an appropriate, legal journey. Neither is asked to change how they work, and nobody has to be at a screen at a particular moment to find out what their employer has decided.
That framing also resolves the tension that has made this problem so persistent. Internal communications teams are not going to abandon channels that measure well in favour of one that is unproven. They do not have to. Adding another format does not require sacrificing the reach of the channels already working.
Three conditions
For internal audio to function as a measurable coverage channel, it needs three things that consumer podcasting does not necessarily provide.
It has to support segmentation. Not every internal message needs to be segmented — genuine organisation-wide communication has its place. But a useful internal channel should allow communication to be targeted when only part of the workforce needs it: a production-floor update, field-team information, sales enablement. Without that, the channel risks adding noise and reducing relevance for the people receiving it. This is the one condition we argue rather than cite — none of the research in this report measures it. But it follows from chapter 1: a channel is only worth the time of the person receiving it if what arrives is relevant to them.
It has to be private. Internal communication contains things that are not for public distribution. A channel that requires publishing to a public podcast directory is not a channel for internal communication, whatever else it is good for.
It has to be measured. This is really the answer to chapter 2. If audio is added as an unmeasured channel, it inherits the exact blind spot this report has spent three chapters describing. The value of the Staffbase finding that 45% of surveyed non-desk respondents felt uninformed about the reasons for company changes is that it makes the perceived gap visible in that sample. At organisation level, the equivalent access question has to be measured directly. If you cannot estimate whether the intended group had a realistic opportunity to receive the message, you cannot assess incremental coverage.
Every channel in this report, audio included, can be asked the same two questions, and they are different questions. Did the channel perform well? And, separately: did the intended workforce have a realistic opportunity to receive the message? The first is what most dashboards already answer. The second is the one this report has been about.
What this report does not say
The distinction between channel performance and workforce coverage is useful only if it stays within the limits of the evidence. This report does not claim that:
- Internal email is not read or does not work.
- Audio should replace email, intranets, meetings or written documentation.
- Consumer podcast completion rates predict internal communication performance.
- Low global engagement is caused by internal communication.
- Audio is appropriate for every non-desk role or every moment at work.
- Any channel can guarantee 100% workforce reach.
The report argues for a more complete measurement question, not for abandoning channels that already work.
A simple coverage audit
The argument in this report converts into a short set of questions. They are not a scoring system and they are not research of their own — they are the practical version of the distinction chapter 2 makes: ask about coverage, not only about channel performance.
Some of these questions may be answerable from employee-directory, HRIS and channel data already on hand. Others require asking employees directly. The point is not that organisations already know the answers. It is that channel-performance dashboards, by themselves, do not provide them.
Brandscast builds private, segmented and measurable audio channels for organisations that want to add an eyes-free option to their internal communication mix.
The interactive audit turns these questions into a coverage hypothesis, a pilot recommendation or a clear no-pilot decision.
About this report
The State of Internal Communication 2026 was compiled by Brandscast, which builds private audio channels for internal communication. That is a relevant interest and we would rather declare it than have it noticed.
The report contains no data of our own. Every figure is drawn from published third-party research, cited below. Where a widely repeated statistic could not be traced to an original study, it was excluded — including figures that would have supported our position.
Questions, corrections and requests for the underlying source notes: hello@brandscast.com. If you find an error in here, tell us and we will fix it and say so.
Citing this report
https://brandscast.com/state-of-internal-communication-2026
Figures may be reproduced with attribution, including in commercial publications, without asking us first. A link to the report is the only thing we ask for.
Sources
- Gallup, State of the Global Workplace 2026 (reporting on 2025). gallup.com. Regional and country figures from the same edition's regional data pages; country-level numbers are three-year rolling averages.
- Staffbase and YouGov, 2025 International Employee Communication Impact Study. n=3,574 (Australia 518, Austria 216, Germany 1,067, Switzerland 200, UK 529, US 1,044), YouGov panel, fielded 12–21 February 2025. staffbase.com
- PoliteMail, Internal Email Communications Benchmarks 2026. Over two billion internal emails sent to nearly eleven million employees across ten industry sectors. politemail.com
- Edison Research, The Infinite Dial 2026. n=2,050 Americans 12+, fielded January 2026, probability-based SSRS panel. Its 2026 podcast-consumption figures count listening and watching together, which this report states explicitly where those figures are used. edisonresearch.com
- Edison Research, Share of Ear Q4 2025, as reported by Westwood One. Share of Ear is a subscription study; we have not read the underlying data and cite only the figures Westwood One published with attribution to Edison. westwoodone.com
- Cartes-Barroso, M. & García-Estévez, N., El pódcast corporativo como medio estratégico para la comunicación interna y el compromiso social. Estudio de casos españoles. Ámbitos. Revista Internacional de Comunicación, issue 69 (April 2026). Cited only to establish that internal corporate podcasting exists and has received academic study — not as a cross-company performance benchmark. revistascientificas.us.es
- Emergence Capital, The State of Technology for the Deskless Workforce 2020 (~1,500 deskless workers, 20 industries). emcap.com
Related resources
Give your team another way to receive your updates
Create your Brandscast account and explore private audio for your team. No audit, demo or sales call is required to get started.
The 30-day trial includes 5 minutes shared between text-to-audio and audio enhancement per organisation for the entire trial, with no renewal. See plans and limits.