Research Summary Research suggests that ventures benefit from framing to gain audience support, yet how they utilize framing when exogenous shocks redirect attention remains unclear. Drawing on a longitudinal multiple‐case study of six biotechnology ventures following the COVID‐19 pandemic, we show how ventures balance coherence and resonance through framing pathways. Persevering ventures, committed to pre‐shock opportunities, maintained a “Blockbuster” framing, highlighting business viability to engage commercial investors. Flexible ventures, in contrast, adopted an “Emergency” framing, signaling responsiveness to societal threats to attract public investors, before transitioning to a “Preparedness” framing, emphasizing long‐term potential. Across both pathways, ventures anchored framings in a scientific perspective, signaling expertise and rigor. We theorize how ventures balance coherence and resonance through an anchoring frame that provides continuity and complementing frames that enable adaptation to shifting audience expectations. Managerial Summary Our study of six biotechnology ventures shows how high‐technology entrepreneurs communicate with investors during industry shocks, such as pandemics. We identify two distinct pathways. Ventures that pivot toward shock‐related opportunities benefit from adopting an “Emergency” framing, positioning themselves as addressing urgent societal threats to attract public investors. To sustain investor support over time, they subsequently shift to a “Preparedness” framing, highlighting their solutions' long‐term potential. Conversely, ventures that maintain their original strategies gain traction by consistently employing a “Blockbuster” framing, emphasizing their business case to attract commercial investors. Across both pathways, ventures reinforce credibility by anchoring their framings in scientific expertise, rigor, and the ability to address unmet medical needs. Pivoting ventures also leverage new applications to identify and capitalize on additional shock‐related opportunities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dreymann et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: