The zombie stat that won’t die: why “a bad intranet costs $16 million” is the wrong argument

Every so often, the same claim lurches back into view: a bad intranet costs an organisation millions every year. The exact number varies, but the logic is the same. Employees spend a huge chunk of time searching for information. Multiply that by salary costs and headcount, and suddenly you have a dramatic number that appears to justify investment.

It’s catchy. It’s easy to repeat. And it sounds impressively commercial. It’s also, in most cases, a terrible way to make the case for internal comms.

Not because poor digital experiences are harmless. They’re not. They create risk, delay, duplication, frustration and avoidable cost. But the familiar “time spent searching equals millions lost” argument is too flimsy to survive serious scrutiny. In short, it’s a zombie stat: dramatic, persistent and much harder to kill than it should be.

Why the maths feels convincing

The attraction is obvious. Comms teams are under pressure to prove value in hard business terms. A giant number seems to solve that problem. It translates everyday frustration into something that sounds boardroom-ready.

And on the surface, the logic feels neat. If thousands of people are wasting time searching, then improving search must create savings. But this is where the argument starts to wobble. Not all time saved becomes money saved. And that distinction matters.

Time saved is not the same as cash saved

This is the first problem: most of the ‘saving’ is non-cashable. If someone saves a few minutes here and there, that doesn’t reduce payroll or remove a budget line. The organisation doesn’t get a cheque back because someone found a document faster.

Those minutes still matter – operationally and cumulatively. But unless you can show how they translate into something concrete – fewer support tickets, faster onboarding, fewer errors, reduced overtime – they remain theoretical gains, not financial ones. Finance teams understand this difference. A case that blurs it doesn’t look commercial. It looks careless.

The benchmarks are often shaky

The second problem is the evidence behind the number. These stats are often based on generic, outdated or poorly attributed benchmarks. They may come from a different industry, a vendor deck or a self-reported survey that has little to do with your organisation.

Then they get repeated so often they start to feel like fact. That’s risky. The moment someone in finance or procurement questions the source, the whole case can start to unravel. And once your headline number is dismissed, everything else becomes less credible too. Inflated numbers aren’t just weak. They’re reputationally dangerous.

The real problem isn’t searching. It’s what searching causes

The bigger issue is that the stat focuses on the wrong thing. Time spent searching is usually a symptom, not the business problem. The real question is what happens because people can’t find what they need.

If a frontline worker can’t access safety guidance, that’s not just inefficiency – it’s a compliance risk. If new joiners struggle to navigate information, that slows onboarding and delays productivity. If managers answer the same questions repeatedly, that adds support burden and creates inconsistency. If employees rely on outdated information, the consequences can include poor decisions, missed deadlines and service failures.

These are the issues leaders recognise. Not “people are searching a lot.”

What decision-makers actually care about

When people ask for a stronger business case, they usually mean one that stands up outside the comms function. That means speaking in terms decision-makers already use: cost avoidance, risk reduction, revenue protection, support deflection, onboarding speed, retention, compliance and operational resilience.

These aren’t just nicer labels. They connect communication problems to business outcomes. That’s the shift many internal comms teams still need to make.

Instead of saying, “People waste time searching,” say, “Critical policy information is hard to find, increasing service desk demand and compliance risk.” Instead of “The intranet is frustrating,” say, “New starters struggle to complete core tasks, slowing time to productivity.” Instead of “Engagement is low,” say, “Important updates aren’t reaching the right audiences, undermining change adoption.”

Same issue. Much stronger case.

What to use instead of zombie maths

So what should you do instead? Start with discovery, not a headline number. Look at where the experience is breaking down. Use interviews, analytics, search logs, helpdesk data and real examples. Map the problem before jumping to a solution.

Then build the case around benefits you can reasonably evidence. That might include retiring duplicate systems or licences, reducing IT or HR support demand, speeding up onboarding, reducing errors or repeat work, improving access to policy and compliance content, or strengthening reach to frontline teams.

Some of these are financial. Some are non-financial. Both matter. The key is to stay close to outcomes leaders can recognise and measure.

Use one meaningful stat and one real story

You don’t need a blizzard of numbers. Often one meaningful stat, paired with one clear example, is more persuasive than a huge theoretical saving.

For example: a measurable spike in HR queries, paired with a real story about a manager struggling to find the right policy. Or a support deflection target, paired with a frontline team missing critical information. The stat gives scale. The story gives reality. Together, they land far better than a generic productivity figure.

Build the proof plan before you ask for the money

A credible case includes a measurement plan from the start. If you can’t explain how success will be tracked, decision-makers will assume the benefits are vague.

That doesn’t mean measuring everything. It means choosing the metrics that connect most clearly to your case: reach, engagement, satisfaction, efficiency and effectiveness. Set a baseline. Define success. Agree how and when you’ll report.

Without a before-state, there’s no after-state. Without a proof plan, the case remains an aspiration rather than an accountable proposal.

Raise the standard of the argument

The wider issue isn’t just one stat. It’s what that stat represents. When internal comms relies on dramatic but weak calculations, it reinforces the idea that the function is soft or non-strategic. Then we wonder why budgets are hard to secure.

The answer isn’t to abandon measurement. It’s to measure better. Use numbers you can defend. Use stories that show real consequences. Connect communication problems to organisational priorities.

Poor digital experiences do cost organisations – in risk, delay, duplication, support demand and missed opportunities. But if we want to be taken seriously, we need to describe those costs properly. Not as zombie maths. As real business impact.

Digital Communications at Work explores this in more detail in Chapter 3, where we look at how to build a case that balances evidence and judgement, and connects comms to measurable outcomes.

Because the goal isn’t to produce the biggest number in the room. It’s to make the most credible case for change.