Podcasts about 20x

B2B doesn't get a lot of mascot love. Sett went all in on one anyway — and grew ARR by 20X without spending a dollar on ads.Before their rebrand, Sett was still finding its voice: a placeholder logo, one landing page, and little to differentiate them in a market where every brand looks the same. A meerkat changed that.In this episode of The Debrief, Focus Lab CEO Bill Kenney sits down with Jonathan Fishman, Head of Marketing at Sett, and Daniela Szwarc, Brand & Content Lead at Sett, to unpack how a bold rebrand became their biggest growth lever.Tune in to hear:✅ Why Jonathan ran an internal brand sprint to get alignment before ever contacting an agency✅ How a Duolingo-inspired mascot became Sett's most effective (and most maintainable) differentiator✅ Why founders should stop polling opinions ✅ How Sett measured brand ROI in real numbers — not vibesIf you're a B2B marketing leader trying to prove brand's ROI — or wondering whether a little personality could be your best differentiator — this one's for you.Episode Resources:

Get your MTM Vegas merch! https://mtmvegas.shop Spiegelworld reportedly spent $40 million turning the old IP sportsbook into some of the coolest spaces in Vegas, and almost nobody knew they existed. With Diner Ross, the 99 Prince bar, and the Glitter Loft closing, we get into what went wrong with the most hidden door on the Strip. Then the review we owed you: Shawn's Crockfords West suite, the hotel within a hotel within Resorts World, from the miracle elevator situation and a birthday cake surprise to a lounge server who treated a VIP perk like a squatting problem, and a bed that has no business in a luxury property. Plus a $17.50 bet that turned into $200,000, Carin Leon's same-day Sphere cancellation, the Boring Company's first big tunnel stretch just weeks from opening, Tape Face's pay-to-win Best of Vegas awards (we won one), a new reality show at Golden Nugget, and St. Thomas, the ghost town that spent decades under Lake Mead. Have you stayed at Crockfords or Crockfords West? Let us know in the comments. Episode Guide: 0:00 A $200,000 Ultimate X Hand 0:35 Diner Ross & the DiscoShow Spaces Are Closing 3:40 Carin Leon's Same-Day Sphere Cancellation 5:16 The Boring Company's Big Tunnel Is Weeks Away 6:47 Win Tape Face's Best of the Best of Vegas Award 8:48 A New Reality Show at Golden Nugget 10:55 Are Casino Board Games Catching On? 12:30 That Capital One Venture Offer Again 13:33 St. Thomas: The Town Under Lake Mead 15:37 Inside a Crockfords West Suite - Review 19:12 A VIP Lounge With Very Un-VIP Service 21:45 Final Thoughts Want more MTM Vegas? Get our exclusive weekly aftershow and join the community.

Don Durrett is making one of his strongest warnings yet about the next financial crisis. He explains why he believes the bond market is the key, how the U.S. debt bubble could move toward a financial reset, and why he thinks the next recession could be worse than 2008. Don has also raised his long-term gold target to $15,000 and sees $200–$500 silver as possible. He explains why he believes precious-metals mining stocks could offer extraordinary asymmetric upside, why he sees opportunities for 5–20X returns, and how investors and families can prepare for what he believes is coming. _ Sign up for my free weekly newsletter. _ WHERE TO FIND BEN MUMME

The Storm Skiing Journal and Podcast supports bears, quadrangles, and liberal interpretations of The Iliad. Sign up for the free or paid newsletter to get updates on none of these things. Thank you for supporting independent ski journalism.Welcome to the Storm's short-form, news-focused podcast. Don't worry, I will still write newsletters too. Paid subscribers can leave a comment in the article below, or by joining The Storm's chat (also below). I'll respond to some comments in the next episode, which is scheduled for Monday, Sept. 14.The Zoom transcript (click “transcript” above for the Substack transcript, which will zoom to any point in the video when you click on the associated text block; timestamps below DO NOT MATCH THE VIDEO)Stuart Winchester: Welcome to The Storm! I'm your host, Stuart Winchester. It is September 10th, 2026, and we have some big, big news in Ski World today.00:06:07.000 --> 00:06:14.000Stuart Winchester: So one of the things that I focused on since launching the storm in 2019 is the rapid.00:06:14.000 --> 00:06:30.000Stuart Winchester: Exponential growth in US based multi mountain ski passes and one of the biggest icon pass today released five new partners for the 2026 to 27 season. So I'm gonna break those down for you.00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:46.000Stuart Winchester: I am going to talk a little bit more about IndyPass and some of their partner shuffles. Then we are going to be joined by IndyPass owner, Eric Mogenson, who will give us a breakdown on all things happening with Indy, Black Mountain, and Entebeni Systems.00:06:46.000 --> 00:07:01.000Stuart Winchester: reader reaction, but I want to jump right into Icon Pass. Icon hits us today with, as I said, 5 new ski areas, 3 are full partners, and those… which means 7 days on the Icon Pass.00:07:01.000 --> 00:07:06.000Stuart Winchester: 5 days on the Icon Base Pass. All 3 are in Asia.00:07:06.000 --> 00:07:13.000Stuart Winchester: The first is Matarau, Japan. That will be ICON's 10th ski resort in Japan.00:07:13.000 --> 00:07:28.000Stuart Winchester: And then, Icon, last year, was the first U.S.-based pass to add a ski area in China, and Icon adds two more today, though they're nowhere near the ski area that it added last year. They are sort of close.00:07:28.000 --> 00:07:47.000Stuart Winchester: to each other. So, we're gonna break those down first, and then ICON added two mountains to its two-day tier, uh, which it calls Bonus Mountains, which ICON insists are not ICON Pass members, uh, but I insist they are, because you can access them with your ICON Pass. Therefore, they are on.00:07:47.000 --> 00:07:53.000Stuart Winchester: the Icon Pass, no matter what Altera tells us. So, let's start with Montreal, Japan, and if you're on…00:07:53.000 --> 00:07:55.000Stuart Winchester: The…00:07:56.000 --> 00:08:04.000Stuart Winchester: If you're on the video, I'm going to share my screen here because we're going to do a little visual helping.00:08:04.000 --> 00:08:10.000Stuart Winchester: All right, so let's take this away. All right, so the first one I want to break down.00:08:10.000 --> 00:08:12.000Stuart Winchester: is…00:08:12.000 --> 00:08:26.000Stuart Winchester: Madarao, Japan, and I've actually written about this ski area before, because they were an IndiePass member, and this is the article that I wrote back in 2023, when Madarao joined IndiePass, and Indie's been a big leader in.00:08:26.000 --> 00:08:27.000Stuart Winchester: Bye.00:08:28.000 --> 00:08:40.000Stuart Winchester: building out a network in Japan. So, the ski resorts in Japan are interesting. I've not skied there, but I've been there in the summer and ridden the lifts around.00:08:40.000 --> 00:08:45.000Stuart Winchester: And the skiing is very much like a mix of…00:08:46.000 --> 00:08:58.000Stuart Winchester: The Cottonwoods and New England. And what I mean by that is, if you're looking at the screen here, you can see the stats on Mattarau. 512 inches of average annual snowfall.00:08:58.000 --> 00:09:12.000Stuart Winchester: Uh, but not a lot of vert, 1,444 feet, and as you can see from the trail map, if you're looking here, it's not a big trail footprint. So, what I mean when I say Cottonwoods is the snowfall, and when I say…00:09:12.000 --> 00:09:29.000Stuart Winchester: New England, I mean the size. They tend to be not huge vert, sort of compact. If they do have a lot of vert, like the Jacuba Valley ski resorts that are on Vail, they tend to go, uh, kind of straight up and be side by side. You don't have a lot of the mega resorts as you would have.00:09:29.000 --> 00:09:40.000Stuart Winchester: in North America, or especially in Europe. So, it's good that the passes are all building density in Japan, because the ski areas are not…00:09:40.000 --> 00:09:43.000Stuart Winchester: This is not a place that you would go to necessarily.00:09:43.000 --> 00:10:02.000Stuart Winchester: like Vail Mountain and spend a week, or like Whistler. Another thing I want to note about Japan, you can see here that Matarau has some glade zones marked. In a lot of cases, skiing off-piste or in the trees, even though that's what Japan is known for, in a lot of cases, my understanding is that that's pretty heavily policed and forbidden.00:10:02.000 --> 00:10:17.000Stuart Winchester: So you really have to research your ski areas before you go over to figure out which ones will actually allow you to go off-piste, which is what most of us want to do, right? If we're coming from North America, we're going there for the big powder. Japan is a little more of an on-piste tradition.00:10:17.000 --> 00:10:21.000Stuart Winchester: a little bit more like Europe. So, I…00:10:21.000 --> 00:10:33.000Stuart Winchester: there's… to underscore the scope of what we have now available to us in Japan as U.S.-based pass holders. So, with the addition of Madarao today.00:10:33.000 --> 00:10:49.000Stuart Winchester: Now, 53 ski areas in Japan have joined the Epic, Icon, Indy, or Mountain Collective Passes. And I actually, I want to show you something I have that's really cool. So, I have this gigantic chart, and it's kind of…00:10:49.000 --> 00:11:04.000Stuart Winchester: it's kind of hard to navigate, but I'm slowly making it a little bit better. And so this is a chart that's variously called a bunch of different things. Right now, I'm calling it the Encyclopedia Britannica. Sometimes it's been the Passmaster.00:11:04.000 --> 00:11:17.000Stuart Winchester: 5,000. And I just kind of change the name whenever I want, but the link is always the same. And what I've… it's a really slow Google Sheet, and I definitely need a better platform, but if you go, there's all these tabs.00:11:17.000 --> 00:11:33.000Stuart Winchester: Down at the bottom, and again, this is where it's nice to have the video, so you can see what I'm showing you here. So I have all these tabs. One of the tabs is all MegaPass ski areas. So I have this divided up, and these are just little tables that pivot off the main table, so all the stats are up to date.00:11:33.000 --> 00:11:35.000Stuart Winchester: So first, I have this…00:11:35.000 --> 00:11:42.000Stuart Winchester: chart here with all ski areas that are on any U.S.-based pass, and we'll talk about that a little bit more in a second.00:11:42.000 --> 00:11:43.000Stuart Winchester: Then I have…00:11:43.000 --> 00:11:59.000Stuart Winchester: all U.S. ski areas, then I have New England, I have Japan, so let's pause on Japan for a moment. 53 ski areas, 11 Epic, 10 Icon, 32 Indy, 1 Mountain Collective. You can see all the stats down here. Again, not big.00:12:00.000 --> 00:12:16.000Stuart Winchester: skiable acre footprints, and really, Japan measures things differently than North America. They tend to measure snowpack rather than inches of snowfall. I did find a good average annual snowfall chart on Powderhounds, which is a great site that I'll talk more about.00:12:16.000 --> 00:12:25.000Stuart Winchester: for international research of ski areas. But if you see these acreage totals, you know, there's really nothing much.00:12:25.000 --> 00:12:35.000Stuart Winchester: Here's Niseko United, it's 2,100 acres, that's 5 ski resorts combined, right next to each other. Rasutsu is, uh, is 2,000, but most of these are under…00:12:35.000 --> 00:12:51.000Stuart Winchester: 500, so you really prepare yourself for that. It's one place, I think, Japan, where it would help to get a guide. Everything tends to be pretty cheap once you get on the ground. In Japan, the lift tickets are nothing, so having someone to show you around and show you where you can go under the ropes.00:12:51.000 --> 00:12:57.000Stuart Winchester: is a good idea. And, you know, I want to jump ahead to reader feedback for a moment. So I had…00:12:58.000 --> 00:13:14.000Stuart Winchester: this comment from Allison Wood. She said, I look forward to seeing your future efforts. I know there's enough in American skiing to discuss, but I'd be curious if you would further discuss European Alps destinations. It seems to be growing in popularity due to competitive pricing versus U.S.00:13:14.000 --> 00:13:28.000Stuart Winchester: Western resorts. A week at Big Sky appears to be the same price as a week in Switzerland for those in the Eastern USA. The answer is absolutely yes. I do want to cover the Alps and Japan and all of these international destinations more.00:13:28.000 --> 00:13:43.000Stuart Winchester: I don't have the personal on-the-ground knowledge base with those ski areas that I do with the U.S. ski areas, so I'm reaching out to my contacts in Europe, in Japan, who know these resorts intimately, and I'm gonna bring them on the show to try to help us make sense, because if you go back.00:13:43.000 --> 00:13:47.000Stuart Winchester: We go back to the Encyclopedia Britannica for a second.00:13:47.000 --> 00:13:49.000Stuart Winchester: You'll see that…00:13:49.000 --> 00:13:52.000Stuart Winchester: The, uh… if I can get to it…00:13:52.000 --> 00:14:05.000Stuart Winchester: Okay, so Japan has 53 ski areas, Canada has another 55, and most of us can sort those out easily enough. The harder ones is Europe. I mean, Europe, there's 61 ski areas, and sometimes a ski area in Europe is, you know.00:14:05.000 --> 00:14:21.000Stuart Winchester: 10 ski areas that put together are as big as all the ski areas in Utah. So I really need some help to break those down. But that's the great thing about this new format is that it will allow me to bring in more voices more frequently since there's more frequent shows. All right.00:14:21.000 --> 00:14:38.000Stuart Winchester: Icon also today added two ski areas in China, and the best site to just get the basics of any ski area in the world is, I've found, skiresort.com. They have a profile of every ski area. They tend to keep it up to date. I don't know who runs the site.00:14:38.000 --> 00:14:54.000Stuart Winchester: I would like to connect with them at some point, but this is really my go-to for… so this is Betahu, I'm sure I'm pronouncing that wrong, one of the ski areas that ICON added in China, and they have all the basic information, the elevation, which is not high, it's all in meters, obviously, out of the U.S.00:14:54.000 --> 00:15:01.000Stuart Winchester: Uh, what I really like is the lift breakdown and the trail map. So, the… the thing about the ski areas in China.00:15:01.000 --> 00:15:07.000Stuart Winchester: is just like everything else in China, they're pretty much brand new. I read this really interesting.00:15:07.000 --> 00:15:13.000Stuart Winchester: quote in the New York Times several years ago, and the notion.00:15:13.000 --> 00:15:16.000Stuart Winchester: was basically China…00:15:16.000 --> 00:15:31.000Stuart Winchester: stayed pretty much in the 19th century for all of the 20th century, and then it got to the 21st century in about 10 years. So, you go there, there's high-speed rail, everything's new, there's new buildings. The ski resorts are new as well, and you can see this in their lift fleet. I mean, this…00:15:31.000 --> 00:15:34.000Stuart Winchester: You know, they have a…00:15:34.000 --> 00:15:49.000Stuart Winchester: six eight-person gondolas, one six-person gondola, two high-speed six-packs, three high-speed detached quads, no fixed grip lifts at all, and then you take a look at the trail map, and again, this is probably a little more like Japan, where these are.00:15:49.000 --> 00:16:03.000Stuart Winchester: a little bit smaller ski areas than what we're used to, uh, as far as the Mountain West. But, you know, it's all very well interconnected. I would expect a lot of on-piste skiing. You know, with a… with a immature ski culture, I wouldn't expect a lot of glade stuff.00:16:03.000 --> 00:16:19.000Stuart Winchester: to be developed. Kind of talking on my rear end, to be honest, because I've not skied in China or even been to China, but these are my perceptions with the different ski cultures I know. I'll try to track down someone who knows better. Here's the other Icon Pass resort, Lake Songwa Resort, and I want to make…00:16:19.000 --> 00:16:30.000Stuart Winchester: that we kind of have an Aspen-Crested Butte situation going on here, so Sangua and, uh, this other one they added, uh…00:16:30.000 --> 00:16:49.000Stuart Winchester: Beidou, there, as you can see on this Google map, they're 24 miles apart in the mountains, but it looks like about a 4-hour drive, so there's not really a road through the city. It's the same kind of deal with Aspen and Crested Butte, where they're pretty close, but it's a long drive around. These are seasonal roads that Google doesn't know about, so it's about a 5-hour drive in the winter.00:16:49.000 --> 00:16:51.000Stuart Winchester: I believe. So…00:16:51.000 --> 00:17:03.000Stuart Winchester: We have these, and then, if you want to go to China to experience skiing, Icon gives you the means to do so. And then, Icon added…00:17:04.000 --> 00:17:16.000Stuart Winchester: to their 2-day tier, which again, they're saying is not IconPass. I want to talk about the 2-day tier a little bit in general. So, Icon started this 2-day tier.00:17:16.000 --> 00:17:23.000Stuart Winchester: last year, and I think what they were trying to do is mirror what Vail did.00:17:23.000 --> 00:17:37.000Stuart Winchester: with its feeder ski areas and all these little places that are bought all over the country, Mount Brighton in Michigan, and Afton Alps in Minnesota, and Wilmot in Wisconsin, and all the resorts around Cleveland.00:17:37.000 --> 00:17:49.000Stuart Winchester: and you know, Alpine Valley. And then there's the names escaping me. Boston Mills, Brandywine. I just skied there and did a write-up on it. So so yeah, they're.00:17:49.000 --> 00:18:04.000Stuart Winchester: Vail bought up all these ski areas. Well, Icon, instead of doing that and buying, has added two days only on the full Icon Pass, which is currently $1,449, uh, two days to 11 different ski areas around the country.00:18:04.000 --> 00:18:19.000Stuart Winchester: It's been growing that list. Silver Star was one last year, and it converted to full Icon, but right now, if you're on the screen share, you can see the 11 that are currently on the Icon Pass two-day roster. So we…00:18:19.000 --> 00:18:23.000Stuart Winchester: had today the additions of Cabarfay Peaks in Michigan.00:18:23.000 --> 00:18:25.000Stuart Winchester: And…00:18:26.000 --> 00:18:37.000Stuart Winchester: In Wyoming, we had snowy range. So Caberfay Peaks is actually, it's an awesome ski area. It's one of my favorite ski areas. I grew up about an hour and 15 minutes from there.00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:40.000Stuart Winchester: And with Cabot Fay, it…00:18:40.000 --> 00:18:55.000Stuart Winchester: It's a really fun place. They're constantly building it up. And what the cabaret you see today is very different than the cabaret that existed a long time ago. It basically used to be a two mile sprawl of rope tows and starting in the 1980s.00:18:55.000 --> 00:18:59.000Stuart Winchester: Uh, the families that owned it dug up from the bottom here.00:18:59.000 --> 00:19:07.000Stuart Winchester: and added to the top. So they went from a couple hundred vertical feet to 485 vertical feet, and it continued to…00:19:07.000 --> 00:19:18.000Stuart Winchester: expand, and they have another expansion in the works over here on Green Mountain. Should be coming 27-28, and I'm gonna have Tim and Pete Meyer from Calgary Fay Peaks on next week to talk about that a little more.00:19:18.000 --> 00:19:20.000Stuart Winchester: And then we have…00:19:20.000 --> 00:19:36.000Stuart Winchester: Uh, it's Snowy Range, Wyoming, and Snowy Range might seem like a little bit of a weird one, but Snowy Range is actually very logical. They've had a long-standing relationship that's in southern Wyoming. It's not, it's only a couple hours from Steamboat. They have a long-standing relationship with Steamboat.00:19:36.000 --> 00:19:51.000Stuart Winchester: to a snowy range season pass for 300 and some dollars this year. They changed that to half off in a 3 day icon session pass, which is good at Steamboat and several other mountains. And now, if you have a full icon, you would also get 2 more days at Steamboat.00:19:51.000 --> 00:19:54.000Stuart Winchester: Uh, or you would actually get 2 days at Snowy Range.00:19:54.000 --> 00:20:00.000Stuart Winchester: if you were, you know, wanted to escape the crowds at Steamboat one day. So, we are gonna…00:20:00.000 --> 00:20:03.000Stuart Winchester: Come back to…00:20:04.000 --> 00:20:16.000Stuart Winchester: IndyPass in a moment. Actually, I have one more IndyPass update, then I'm gonna go to Eric. So, Mission Ridge and Blacktail in Washington have left IndyPass.00:20:16.000 --> 00:20:17.000Stuart Winchester: And…00:20:18.000 --> 00:20:19.000Stuart Winchester: Hold on, let me just…00:20:23.000 --> 00:20:25.000Stuart Winchester: So Eric, I'll be right there.00:20:26.000 --> 00:20:30.000Stuart Winchester: We'll get to Mission to Blacktail in a minute. I'm gonna bring Eric in.00:20:30.000 --> 00:20:34.000Stuart Winchester: And I'm going to stop my screen share.00:20:40.000 --> 00:20:42.000Stuart Winchester: Uh, Eric?00:20:42.000 --> 00:20:43.000Erik Mogensen: What's up, man?00:20:43.000 --> 00:20:57.000Stuart Winchester: How you doing? Joining us now is the director of IndyPass, the founder of Entebeni Systems, and the operator of Black Mountain, New Hampshire. Eric Mogenson is a good friend of the storm, and he joins us now from where? Where are you, Eric?00:20:57.000 --> 00:21:05.000Erik Mogensen: I am, uh, calling in from Black Mountain, New Hampshire, our new home, and I'm up at the Alpine Cabin.00:21:04.000 --> 00:21:18.000Stuart Winchester: I want to start on the Alpine Cabin. Tell us what the Alpine Cabin was when you arrived at Black Mountain and what it has turned into from what it is and from a revenue standpoint.00:21:06.000 --> 00:21:07.000Erik Mogensen: Yep.00:21:19.000 --> 00:21:34.000Erik Mogensen: Yeah, so, um, I spend the first 8 to 10 hours of my day working with our engineering and product teams, and most of it is in front of a computer or on the phone, but by 5 PM I try to be up here on the mountain every.00:21:34.000 --> 00:21:52.000Erik Mogensen: night. Like, doing trail work, on the excavator, snowmaking, lift work. But I keep a desk up here in the summer. Couldn't keep a desk here in the winter. Um, but I do keep a desk up here so that when I have an idea, or I want to come write something down, or I want to watch a YouTube video, or do something, this place is super productive for me.00:21:53.000 --> 00:22:11.000Erik Mogensen: It's like my peaceful, happy place in the summer. In the winter, there is nothing peaceful about this place. This, this place rages, uh, European style. So, when we took over Black Mountain, the Alpine cabin, the credit card receipts from the Alpine cabin the year before.00:22:11.000 --> 00:22:22.000Erik Mogensen: were $38,000, uh, for the season in sales. Um, and the year after, our first year that we took it over, it was over $300,000.00:22:22.000 --> 00:22:29.000Erik Mogensen: Um, and then our second year, it was over $600,000, and most of that comes down to champagne.00:22:29.000 --> 00:22:38.000Erik Mogensen: But don't look at champagne as something you drink. Champagne is something that you use to celebrate. And so I think.00:22:38.000 --> 00:22:50.000Erik Mogensen: The long-winded answer to your question is, is the Alpine cabin is truly a place to celebrate the sport and culture of skiing, and people are definitely holding on to that.00:22:50.000 --> 00:23:03.000Stuart Winchester: It's an amazing space, and if folks aren't familiar with Black Mountain, that's the main double chair to the summit right behind you, and it goes right over the alpine cabin. It's a party scene, and it's a lot of fun.00:22:59.000 --> 00:23:00.000Erik Mogensen: Oh, yeah.00:23:03.000 --> 00:23:20.000Stuart Winchester: Going from $38,000 to $600,000, 20X in revenue, I mean, Eric, that's the kind of revenue stream that could change the path of a lot of small ski areas. Is that replicable, do you think, at some of these smaller family-owned ski areas around the country that.00:23:20.000 --> 00:23:25.000Stuart Winchester: are really tied to old revenue models and just need a little spark.00:23:24.000 --> 00:23:32.000Erik Mogensen: Yeah, I don't know if you can scale the champagne necessarily, but you can definitely scale.00:23:32.000 --> 00:23:51.000Erik Mogensen: the focus on the culture of skiing. And I think that's really what the independents do so well, is that, you know, the wood fireplaces smell authentic, the people are very authentic, the ski trails are authentic, they're weird, they're quirky, the lifts are slow, right?00:23:51.000 --> 00:24:06.000Erik Mogensen: Those a lot of people look at those things. We've been programed as skiers to see those things as liabilities. They're actually our biggest assets. And so, yeah, the Alpine, you know, the Alpine cabin was a little 200 square foot patrol shack.00:24:06.000 --> 00:24:11.000Erik Mogensen: that sold some, you know, beer and hot dogs.00:24:11.000 --> 00:24:21.000Erik Mogensen: But we never looked at that as a liability. We never looked at that as, hey, we need to go build a 20,000 square foot mid-mountain lodge, take on a ton of debt.00:24:21.000 --> 00:24:32.000Erik Mogensen: Um, we really looked at it as an opportunity, and I think every single small ski area has that exact same opportunity to focus on the authenticity of the product that they deliver.00:24:32.000 --> 00:24:48.000Stuart Winchester: There's been a ripple effect, too. I mean, what can you tell us about skier visits before and after you purchased it? Because Black, for background, for people who are not familiar with Black, the reason you own Black is because they announced they were closing on Facebook. They said, we're done. The skier has been open since 1930, whatever.00:24:48.000 --> 00:24:57.000Stuart Winchester: said, we're done, this was 3 years ago, and you said, no. And you tried to find a buyer, looked for a year, uh, and decided to buy it yourself. So, so…00:24:57.000 --> 00:25:03.000Stuart Winchester: You took a dying skier, what did the skier visits revenue look like when you got it, and what do they look like today?00:25:03.000 --> 00:25:15.000Erik Mogensen: It was about $700,000, $750,000 in top line revenue when we bought the whole ski area. Yeah, including the $32,000 in hot dogs and beer at this cabin.00:25:08.000 --> 00:25:11.000Stuart Winchester: That's the whole ski area.00:25:11.000 --> 00:25:12.000Stuart Winchester: Okay.00:25:15.000 --> 00:25:16.000Stuart Winchester: Mmhm.00:25:15.000 --> 00:25:27.000Erik Mogensen: Um, so it was the entire ski area. I don't quite know what the skier visits were. Um, we know what the ticketed visits were, but I would guesstimate that the skier visits were somewhere between, you know, 10 and 15,000.00:25:19.000 --> 00:25:20.000Stuart Winchester: Mm-hmm.00:25:27.000 --> 00:25:43.000Erik Mogensen: Um, in our second year, we took it to $2.5 million in top line revenue. Um, we've surpassed $5 million, uh, here in our 25th or 26th month. And skier visits, you know, all in, including employees and the whole thing, right about 55,000.00:25:43.000 --> 00:25:48.000Erik Mogensen: So it's been a big turnaround. It's been interesting, learned a lot.00:25:48.000 --> 00:25:50.000Erik Mogensen: And.00:25:50.000 --> 00:25:56.000Erik Mogensen: I think this is 100% doable by most of the smallest areas on the planet.00:25:56.000 --> 00:26:02.000Erik Mogensen: You just have to realize that if you want a different and better result, you have to take different and better action.00:26:02.000 --> 00:26:05.000Stuart Winchester: Yeah, I mean, you proved me wrong, because I, you know…00:26:05.000 --> 00:26:16.000Stuart Winchester: I thought Black had maybe just had its time, because it's surrounded by two Vail Own Mountains and Cranmore, which is a high-speed lift. Sunday River is right down the road. Uh, you have intense competition from Epic.00:26:16.000 --> 00:26:26.000Stuart Winchester: and… and Black Mountain is not an especially snowy mountain, like, say, Smuggler's Notch, we'll talk about in a minute. I… I didn't know if… if it had enough aura.00:26:26.000 --> 00:26:38.000Stuart Winchester: But it seems like you've either tapped the aura or created it, and really turned it around, and really given me a lot of hope that a lot of the ski areas that we see around the country, that…00:26:38.000 --> 00:26:45.000Stuart Winchester: Seem to be up against this modernization curve, they can't quite get ahead, might be able to take other routes to get there.00:26:45.000 --> 00:27:00.000Erik Mogensen: Yeah, and I think, too, Stu, it's worth noting, like, yeah, I'm proud of what we've done here, but there's a lot of really good operators out there that have done this, too. You know, having grown up in Buffalo, which I'll call, like, the Eastern Midwest of the Midwest.00:26:59.000 --> 00:27:00.000Stuart Winchester: Yeah.00:27:00.000 --> 00:27:10.000Erik Mogensen: Right? There's really well-managed ski areas that focus on the food and beverage, that focus on the authenticity, um, that drive a ton of other revenue.00:27:10.000 --> 00:27:23.000Erik Mogensen: Um, that are creative, uh, in that way, and I think we just have to be accepting of those things. We have to be accepting of them, we have to share what works, uh, share what doesn't work, and collaborate, um.00:27:23.000 --> 00:27:29.000Erik Mogensen: And and then we'll be fine. We'll be fine. These little skier is have a huge advantage.00:27:29.000 --> 00:27:39.000Erik Mogensen: in the fact that they are… they are run by authentic and passionate people. That… they… they are… they are run…00:27:39.000 --> 00:27:46.000Erik Mogensen: not as a profit center. Um, and yes, they need to be profitable to be sustainable and have reinvestment, right? But…00:27:46.000 --> 00:27:51.000Erik Mogensen: These little ski areas have such a remarkable advantage over some of the big areas.00:27:51.000 --> 00:27:57.000Erik Mogensen: and and how they're managed and what their direction looks like. We just have to take advantage of it and talk about it more.00:27:57.000 --> 00:28:06.000Stuart Winchester: this is just the beginning of the story, too. All right, let's switch over to Andy Pass, and, you know, my questions around Black, when you were initially taking it over, were…00:28:06.000 --> 00:28:24.000Stuart Winchester: how many retro ski areas does New England have room for in a market? Like, Mad River Glen has crafted its whole image around being this retro ski area. You know, they groom, they make snow up to 2,000 whatever feet, the single chair is a 1940 whatever, but they rebuilt it in 2007, so…00:28:24.000 --> 00:28:27.000Stuart Winchester: It is a well-maintained place.00:28:27.000 --> 00:28:42.000Stuart Winchester: as sort of like a museum. It's… it's… it's… the facade is old school, and it skis that way, but really, it's… it's been well tended to. Smuggler's Notch is another one of those that feels like 1960s, around 1960s haul lifts, including.00:28:42.000 --> 00:28:57.000Stuart Winchester: One of the longest in the country, the Madonna lift. Uh, and I saw black in that same mold and said, okay, how many of these do we have room for? But Smuggs is, at the end of the day, a awesome ski area, and you added it to IndyPass. I mean, how big of a victory is that for New England skiers?00:28:57.000 --> 00:29:03.000Stuart Winchester: to now have Smuggs, Jay, Waterville, all these ski areas on the one pass.00:29:02.000 --> 00:29:11.000Erik Mogensen: I mean, look, you've got… you've got Smogs, you've got Jay, you've got Bolton, you've got Cannon, you've got Waterville, um.00:29:11.000 --> 00:29:28.000Erik Mogensen: we've really leveled the playing field in the East, and it's exactly what we intend to do in other places of the country, and also around the world. Uh, and I think what we're proving here in New England, there's been a lot of focus with IndyPass in New England over the last two years, and a lot of that has to do.00:29:28.000 --> 00:29:44.000Erik Mogensen: With Black Mountain and our move and our things there. But what we're proving we can do here, we are going to replicate in other markets. There's no question in my mind. And I think what we're going to replicate is the fact that you don't have to be epic. You don't have to be iconic.00:29:44.000 --> 00:29:50.000Erik Mogensen: to be a really stable, well-earning business. You can be part of an independent group.00:29:50.000 --> 00:30:09.000Erik Mogensen: and still push and plow forward, and compete. So, you know, and I… look, I don't judge a ski area by its vertical. Don't judge a ski area by how many high-speed lifts it has. I think that's the mistake that we keep getting pulled into in skiing. And our… it's the mistake that we make as well as operators, and we…00:29:53.000 --> 00:29:54.000Stuart Winchester: Yeah. Okay.00:30:09.000 --> 00:30:16.000Erik Mogensen: we pass that mistake on to the consumers, right? Bigger is not better, it's just bigger.00:30:16.000 --> 00:30:33.000Erik Mogensen: Faster is not better. It's just faster, right? More lifts. Sure, that sounds great, but you have to pay for those lifts as well. And so that is going to there's that money doesn't just come from the sky that that money is going to be passed on to the consumer.00:30:33.000 --> 00:30:41.000Erik Mogensen: And the more and more we continue to do that, the more and more expensive and exclusive skiing's gonna become. So, again, I'll bring it back to…00:30:42.000 --> 00:30:51.000Erik Mogensen: One of the greatest advantages these places have are being small, are having slow lifts, are being independent, are being authentic. And that's exactly what Smugs is.00:30:51.000 --> 00:31:01.000Stuart Winchester: However, SMUGS also has 2,600 feet of vertical, 1,000 acres of skiing, and 322 inches of average snowfall. The numbers do help.00:31:01.000 --> 00:31:08.000Erik Mogensen: They do, but I'll leave the numbers to your spreadsheets that I can barely understand at this point.00:31:01.000 --> 00:31:03.000Stuart Winchester: The numbers do help, though, it's offline.00:31:06.000 --> 00:31:10.000Stuart Winchester: Well, that makes two of us and probably everyone else.00:31:08.000 --> 00:31:11.000Erik Mogensen: Those will speak for themselves.00:31:10.000 --> 00:31:16.000Stuart Winchester: Yeah, so having Jay and Smugs on there is an awesome combo. You know, I think that…00:31:16.000 --> 00:31:28.000Stuart Winchester: Indy and Doug before you, when Doug… I know Doug's still heavily involved, but the founder of the Indy Pass, Doug Fish. I think you have done a great job of building these little nodes of skiing.00:31:28.000 --> 00:31:44.000Stuart Winchester: around the country, and now around the world. So the… the donut hole has always kind of been Colorado, Utah, Tahoe, and that's because that's where Epic and Icon logically went. Those are the three biggest ski markets. But I want to talk a little bit first about the Midwest, where.00:31:44.000 --> 00:31:59.000Stuart Winchester: Indy built a really nice network, and you have a lot of ski areas in the Midwest. You have… 37. Uh, you've had some big departures this year. Lutzen, Granite Peak, and Snow River, run by Midwest Family Ski Resorts.00:31:59.000 --> 00:32:16.000Stuart Winchester: Went over to Icon, and Lutzen is, for the listeners, biggest ski area in Minnesota. It skis like a New England ski area. Granite Peak, you know, lots of high-speed lifts. Charles Skinner really turned that place from a dump into something nice. And the Snow River's on the come up. It's in a nice snow belt in Michigan.00:32:16.000 --> 00:32:19.000Stuart Winchester: Uh, you know, how much…00:32:19.000 --> 00:32:27.000Stuart Winchester: Did you see those as drivers of IndyPass sales in the Midwest? And how concerned, if at all, are you that they departed?00:32:26.000 --> 00:32:41.000Erik Mogensen: Well, look, let's… let's talk… I mean, the moose in the room here is that that… that loss sucks for us. Like, there's no way around it. Um, it… it… it's a bummer. It stings. Uh, I really like Charles Skinner. I really like Charlotte. I think they're both.00:32:32.000 --> 00:32:34.000Stuart Winchester: Yeah. Okay.00:32:41.000 --> 00:32:57.000Erik Mogensen: really great operators. They're very, very smart. They're very, very sharp. We had a we had a great call around when we kind of showed them what the revenue was in their last season, and we talked through it, and very, very amicable. I've always relied. Have some great, you know, dinner conversations with Charles.00:32:57.000 --> 00:33:12.000Erik Mogensen: And and I think they're great. They they have to make a move. They made a business decision to go to Icon and Icon makes that very, very, very attractive. You know whether or not that initial sales pitch.00:33:12.000 --> 00:33:29.000Erik Mogensen: translates into the long-term vision? I don't know. I firmly believe that, you know, Midwest skiers are some of the most authentic and purposeful, you know, skiers on the continent, and they'll figure it out. I think we have lots of options, there's no question.00:33:29.000 --> 00:33:38.000Erik Mogensen: But none of them are going to be quite like those Midwest family resorts. And so we'll have to see what happens. It stings, but I don't.00:33:38.000 --> 00:33:42.000Erik Mogensen: What I've really learned about Indy is that.00:33:42.000 --> 00:33:47.000Erik Mogensen: Our our strength is in the diversity of of.00:33:47.000 --> 00:33:56.000Erik Mogensen: the resorts that we've put together. It's not on a… it's not on a single one resort, or a single resort operator. Um, so…00:33:56.000 --> 00:34:01.000Erik Mogensen: I hate losing resorts, but I'm never afraid to lose them and/or replace them if necessary.00:34:01.000 --> 00:34:12.000Stuart Winchester: So, when they go to ICON, there's a couple different tiers for ICON. So, Midwest family went to the traditional 7-5 tier of 7 on full ICON, 5 on ICON base. Today.00:34:12.000 --> 00:34:19.000Stuart Winchester: I kind of announced that Cabaret, a former IndyPass partner that actually just left Indy, was a founding member in 2019.00:34:19.000 --> 00:34:32.000Stuart Winchester: left for Icon. That news just broke. I don't know if you have any thoughts on that. Buck Hill similarly left Indy for Icon today, a couple of years ago. Is that too new to process, or what are your thoughts on Cabra Fact?00:34:31.000 --> 00:34:48.000Erik Mogensen: Yeah, I think it's exactly the same where, you know, we, we, you know, Cabrifay is a great ski area. Um, we're sad to see them go. We, you know, look, they're independent for a reason. They get to make their choice. They've made their choice. They're going to go to Icon. The consumers can make their choice of where they go and where they want to.00:34:48.000 --> 00:35:05.000Erik Mogensen: they want to spend their time and money. You know, we're going to fight as hard as we can to drive as much value for the operators and the consumers as possible. I can tell you, we had some people that had left for that icon two day product that now want to come back because of the payout.00:35:02.000 --> 00:35:04.000Stuart Winchester: Okay.00:35:05.000 --> 00:35:22.000Erik Mogensen: Or lack thereof. So, look, none of this is static. One thing I can absolutely guarantee everybody on the pass and everyone listening to this is, is this is going to happen every single year forever. You're going to have people come, you're going to have people go. And we're all going to think it's way more consequential.00:35:10.000 --> 00:35:11.000Stuart Winchester: Mmhm.00:35:22.000 --> 00:35:33.000Erik Mogensen: than it actually is. The reality is, is that indie sales for the last 7 seasons continue to go like this, and we're directing more and more.00:35:33.000 --> 00:35:39.000Erik Mogensen: revenue, meaningful revenue to these independent resorts. And that's not going to stop.00:35:39.000 --> 00:35:43.000Stuart Winchester: Yeah. The, uh… another place you have…00:35:43.000 --> 00:35:45.000Stuart Winchester: Good.00:35:46.000 --> 00:35:55.000Stuart Winchester: cluster is the Pacific Northwest. Mission Ridge and Blacktail, which are jointly owned, recently announced that they left, and I reached out.00:35:55.000 --> 00:35:57.000Stuart Winchester: to…00:35:57.000 --> 00:35:59.000Stuart Winchester: Mission Ridge.00:35:59.000 --> 00:36:06.000Stuart Winchester: COO and GM Matt Neubauer, and I just asked him, you know, what's going on, and this was his email, this is a quote.00:36:06.000 --> 00:36:15.000Stuart Winchester: Mission Ridge's agreement ran through the end of the 25-26 season, and we declined to seek a new one. Being independent means making the calls we think are right for the mountain long term.00:36:15.000 --> 00:36:32.000Stuart Winchester: So, that's basically echoing what you just said, the mountains will make the right decision. Uh, Blacktail's situation is different. This is a continuation of the email. Uh, they reached out to establish a new agreement before the old one ended and did not get engagement on it. Indy did reach out after passes, went back on sale September 1st, but by then, Blacktail had moved on.00:36:32.000 --> 00:36:42.000Stuart Winchester: and was preparing for the season ahead. So that was the rationale that I have for Matt. He didn't want to talk about it further publicly, but that was his on-the-record statement.00:36:43.000 --> 00:36:59.000Erik Mogensen: Yeah, I, I, you know, look, Stu, I, I think as good as it is for your ratings, you know, I, we're not gonna hang out every, every scary as, you know, laundry and every single conversation. Um, I would disagree with how that was had. I think, I think one of the greatest things about India is we have.00:36:53.000 --> 00:36:55.000Stuart Winchester: Mmhm.00:36:59.000 --> 00:37:09.000Erik Mogensen: 300-plus resorts around the world. One of the hard things about Indy is that we have 300-plus resorts around the world. It's a lot of contracts to manage, it's a lot of things.00:37:06.000 --> 00:37:07.000Stuart Winchester: Okay.00:37:09.000 --> 00:37:19.000Erik Mogensen: I could, like, tell you from the ski area operating, um, perspective, like, I feel everything's nice and chill all summer, and we're doing really good, and then all of a sudden it's, you know.00:37:19.000 --> 00:37:35.000Erik Mogensen: September 1st, and it's like, wow, we got a lot to do in the next 60 days before we make snow. And I think every single ski area operator runs through that. Uh, and there's a lot going back. Stu, sometimes I have to go look at your spreadsheets to understand who's on the pass.00:37:35.000 --> 00:37:52.000Erik Mogensen: That's why we usually give everything to you ahead of time so that you can, like, count them up and do the math and do everything. So it's hard. But I would say, that team at Blacktail is world class. Jesse is and is incredible. We've I've always had a great relationship with Jesse.00:37:52.000 --> 00:38:08.000Erik Mogensen: We'd welcome them on the pass. I don't think that that's changed. And I think that Blacktail and Mission Ridge are two very different ski areas. And I'm really fascinated and hopeful that they figure out a way.00:38:08.000 --> 00:38:10.000Erik Mogensen: how to make the whole thing work between the two of them.00:38:10.000 --> 00:38:28.000Stuart Winchester: Yeah, you still have a really nice set of resorts out there with White Pass, and 49 Degrees North, and Mount Hood Meadows, and Bluewood, and Brundage, and Tamarack. And Tamarack's interesting, because so Tamarack, and I want to clarify this, I've actually gotten a lot of inquiries about this, people emailing me telling me my charts are wrong.00:38:28.000 --> 00:38:43.000Stuart Winchester: Uh, which… which happens, you know, they're… they're big and… and, uh, unwieldy, so I get things wrong, but that's… they're always a work in progress. But, uh, they're telling me Tamarack's not in the past because they joined Icon today, which… which obviously they did. Uh…00:38:43.000 --> 00:38:46.000Stuart Winchester: So what's going on with Tamarack? Are they on Indy?00:38:46.000 --> 00:38:59.000Erik Mogensen: Tamarack's on Indy, um, you know, we're excited about Tamarack, we've always been excited about Tamarack. Again, Scott, really great operator, um, super smart guy, great ownership group.00:38:59.000 --> 00:39:13.000Erik Mogensen: You know, I think we could probably comment on that a little bit further. But you know my job is not to speak for these resorts, Stu. My my job is to support them, and there's a difference between supporting them and speaking for them.00:39:07.000 --> 00:39:08.000Stuart Winchester: Yeah. Okay.00:39:13.000 --> 00:39:20.000Erik Mogensen: So, I'll always support them, and what Tamarack decides to do and where they decide to sit is good, but.00:39:20.000 --> 00:39:23.000Erik Mogensen: I'm comfortable saying that Tamarack's on Indy.00:39:23.000 --> 00:39:37.000Stuart Winchester: Yeah, in general, you know, when Buck Hill joined the Icon 2 Day last year, you said adios. I think that's what was my understanding from a distance, correct me if I'm wrong. What was different about the Tamarack situation? Why are you making the exception for Tamarack?00:39:37.000 --> 00:39:52.000Erik Mogensen: Look, I think, look, Icon's aggressive. They're aggressive. They're trying to add as many people as they possibly can to that two-day pass. You know, I think that there's a lot of promises on that, and I think they have a very aggressive sales team.00:39:52.000 --> 00:40:08.000Erik Mogensen: Which is which is good. They're they're, you know, trying to replicate what Indy has done. So we'll just have to see what happens. But I would say that I would I would say that, you know, I have a I have a good relationship with a couple people over in that organization.00:40:08.000 --> 00:40:15.000Erik Mogensen: And I think they're trying to figure out what they're going to do. But there's no question that we're in, you know, pretty intense competition right now.00:40:08.000 --> 00:40:09.000Stuart Winchester: Mmhm.00:40:16.000 --> 00:40:18.000Stuart Winchester: All right, let's…00:40:18.000 --> 00:40:32.000Stuart Winchester: wrap up on that. Let's talk about Snow King, because the Indy Pass, you know, part of the reason the Indy Pass is able to grow so fast, from my point of view, was Doug had this great insight that the ski areas that Epic and Icon were overlooking.00:40:32.000 --> 00:40:38.000Stuart Winchester: Did have value collected onto a pass, and when you put them all together as a dynamite product.00:40:38.000 --> 00:40:47.000Stuart Winchester: and now I think, as you said, ICON's going for that, and then you have the Snow Pass, and the Snow Pass, uh…00:40:47.000 --> 00:41:02.000Stuart Winchester: has signed Snow King as a partner, and that's a long-time Indy Pass partner, and I can read these emails if you'd like, or you can just talk through it yourself on how you see the Snow King.00:41:02.000 --> 00:41:03.000Stuart Winchester: um…00:41:03.000 --> 00:41:05.000Stuart Winchester: conflict here.00:41:05.000 --> 00:41:20.000Erik Mogensen: Yeah, look, I wouldn't really say that there is any controversy here. I think Snow King is staying on Indy. Um, you know, Ryan and I never discussed any sort of litigation, and I connected him directly with you so that he could, you know, explain the situation for himself.00:41:21.000 --> 00:41:36.000Erik Mogensen: Look, again, it's not my job to get out in front and speak for these resorts. These are really great resorts with phenomenal and sophisticated operators, and they can speak for themselves. So, what I can do, Stu, is, you know, say, hey, Ryan.00:41:36.000 --> 00:41:43.000Erik Mogensen: you know, you're on Indy, and you're not on the snow pass, copy you on that email, and then you can read the email to the group.00:41:43.000 --> 00:41:46.000Stuart Winchester: Yeah, the email…00:41:47.000 --> 00:41:50.000Stuart Winchester: from Ryan said.00:41:51.000 --> 00:42:06.000Stuart Winchester: Stuart, hi Stuart, this is Ryan Stanley, General Manager of Snow King. That is correct, we're going to remain on the Indy Pass this upcoming season and also offer two free tickets to the Snow Pass holders without receiving compensation, meaning Snow King will not receive compensation.00:42:06.000 --> 00:42:16.000Stuart Winchester: We are fairly desperate for some skier visits and are working on an offer for free and or $20 tickets to other pass holders as well. You know, I…00:42:16.000 --> 00:42:18.000Stuart Winchester: Ran this…00:42:18.000 --> 00:42:20.000Stuart Winchester: Bye.00:42:20.000 --> 00:42:22.000Stuart Winchester: Snow pass and.00:42:22.000 --> 00:42:26.000Stuart Winchester: I can read this email from Joe Heschen that he sent me today.00:42:26.000 --> 00:42:33.000Stuart Winchester: Uh, he said, Hi Stuart, I'm a bit confused by how this has become so complex. As stated, we have signed a signed agreement with Snow King.00:42:33.000 --> 00:42:43.000Stuart Winchester: While I would like to keep their details confidential, you are welcome to share ours. Our goal with this is not to profit, but rather to gather a group to work together for the betterment of the industry.00:42:43.000 --> 00:42:56.000Stuart Winchester: And then, it sounds like Snow King will be working with Indy and Snow Pass this season, which is great news for them. Thank you. Go Hessian. So, from Snow Pass's point of view, Snow King is still on both passes.00:42:57.000 --> 00:43:16.000Erik Mogensen: I don't know, Stu's starting to sound like a big old, you know, fun high school group text message here. I don't, I, you know, I don't know what to tell you. Um, again, I think Ryan's email's pretty clear. I'm not gonna speak for Ryan, not gonna speak for Joe. Um, they're definitely, you know, Snow King is definitely on the Indy Pass. We're definitely gonna pay them, just like we have.00:43:16.000 --> 00:43:21.000Erik Mogensen: every year. We're definitely gonna push a lot of visits to them. Um, you know, I'm not…00:43:21.000 --> 00:43:33.000Erik Mogensen: entirely sure, uh, beyond that. Uh, and, and, you know, Ryan, again, Ryan's a really smart guy. I've enjoyed talking to him. Um, I've spent a…00:43:33.000 --> 00:43:49.000Erik Mogensen: few, you know, longer phone calls, and he is desperate for skier visits, and I get that. He's a small skier area in the shadow of Jackson Hole, and doesn't have a ton of population to pull from. Most of the population that's coming through is destination visits.00:43:49.000 --> 00:43:57.000Erik Mogensen: And he needs more skier visits. We… we want Snow King to get skier visits. We… we… and if Ryan wants to comp…00:43:57.000 --> 00:44:07.000Erik Mogensen: you know, snow pass holders, or icon pass holders, or epic pass holders, then that's fine. I think that's great. But just because Ryan is going to comp.00:44:03.000 --> 00:44:04.000Stuart Winchester: Mmhm.00:44:07.000 --> 00:44:18.000Erik Mogensen: the Snow Pass doesn't mean that he's on the Snow Pass, and just because Ryan is going to comp Icon Pass holders, that doesn't mean that he's joined the Icon Pass. Um, all I can come down to, again.00:44:18.000 --> 00:44:27.000Erik Mogensen: is that Snow King's on the Indy Pass, um, and from our perspective, they're giving some free tickets to some of the other passes.00:44:27.000 --> 00:44:35.000Erik Mogensen: Hopefully, that checks everyone's box for early September ski area drama.00:44:35.000 --> 00:44:43.000Stuart Winchester: All right, it is an ongoing story. I just have a lot of conflicting information from…00:44:42.000 --> 00:44:56.000Erik Mogensen: What we should do is just, you know, get Uncle Joe on the call, and get Ryan on the call, and you on the call, and we all talk about it, right? Like, I think it's… I don't think it's that complicated, and frankly, it's not that big of a deal.00:44:56.000 --> 00:45:12.000Erik Mogensen: And I question the intentions behind making it a big deal. I think that, you know, Snowpass is definitely looking for us to bite into a controversy, and we're just not going to.00:45:12.000 --> 00:45:22.000Erik Mogensen: We're just not going to. We… our job is to focus on the independent resorts and make sure that we drive more visits to more independent resorts.00:45:22.000 --> 00:45:23.000Erik Mogensen: more often.00:45:23.000 --> 00:45:31.000Erik Mogensen: It's really simple, you know, and I think, I think in general too, Stu, like, you know.00:45:24.000 --> 00:45:26.000Stuart Winchester: Do you? Yeah.00:45:31.000 --> 00:45:46.000Erik Mogensen: What I've gotten from a lot of our operators and partners and people in skiing is they're just very confused by this. And again, it might be good for ratings or listeners, but there is no litigation here.00:45:46.000 --> 00:45:56.000Erik Mogensen: there is no problem with Snow King. They're a great, valued partner. You know, this comment, you know, an idea around democratizing skiing, right? Like.00:45:56.000 --> 00:46:08.000Erik Mogensen: you know, let's let every resort build their own reciprocal deal with, you know, Jersey Joe's commission-based software pitch, right? That's cute, that sounds nice, but in practice, IndiePass exists for a reason.00:46:08.000 --> 00:46:12.000Erik Mogensen: It's a lot more work for skier is and most importantly.00:46:12.000 --> 00:46:20.000Erik Mogensen: It's much more fragmented and a confusing product for the consumer. A single pass with a single price point.00:46:20.000 --> 00:46:22.000Erik Mogensen: And a lot of partners.00:46:22.000 --> 00:46:28.000Erik Mogensen: you know, mitigates the patchwork of one-off deals, and that's the whole reason IndyPass exists.00:46:28.000 --> 00:46:37.000Erik Mogensen: More people skiing more often at independent resorts, right? Like, we redirect tens of millions of dollars a year to independent operators.00:46:38.000 --> 00:46:48.000Erik Mogensen: Arguing that somehow the absence of the IndyPass is better for the industry is nonsensical at best. It would just give Icon and Epic a more…00:46:48.000 --> 00:46:51.000Erik Mogensen: More opportunity to eat our lunch. So…00:46:51.000 --> 00:47:02.000Erik Mogensen: you know, we can… we can dive into all the muddy details all day long, but I don't see any controversy here. We're super excited to have snowpack… I mean…00:47:02.000 --> 00:47:04.000Erik Mogensen: Snow King.00:47:04.000 --> 00:47:15.000Erik Mogensen: on the Indy Pass. Um, and, you know, maybe you just have to come up with a different color for it on your spreadsheet, like some sort of gradient between the two. Whatever you want to do, we trust you.00:47:15.000 --> 00:47:32.000Stuart Winchester: Let me zoom out a little and make this a little more conceptual, because you've told me before that IndyPass doesn't make money, and I believe you're still sticking to Doug's original ratio of 15% for admin, which I doubt covers admin. So 85% traditionally was paid out to the resorts, correct?00:47:33.000 --> 00:47:49.000Erik Mogensen: Correct. Oh, yeah. Still the case. Yeah. No, I mean, look, we, we, you know, 85% of every passport just goes back to the independents. And remember, look, we, we take 100% of our money in on credit cards. We pay the ski resorts in check cash. Right. So we're also eating that credit card fee.00:47:33.000 --> 00:47:36.000Stuart Winchester: Is that still it? Okay.00:47:40.000 --> 00:47:41.000Stuart Winchester: Mmhm.00:47:49.000 --> 00:47:59.000Erik Mogensen: So now you're down to, you know, 12% in change. Running a pass like this, it's not profitable. We never looked at this as being profitable.00:47:52.000 --> 00:47:53.000Stuart Winchester: Right.00:47:59.000 --> 00:48:10.000Erik Mogensen: I really bought IndyPass because I knew that Doug was going to exit and needed to exit, and I thought some of the other people that would buy the pass.00:48:10.000 --> 00:48:21.000Erik Mogensen: would view it more as a media company or a marketing opportunity, and less of something that I think is very important for the independents. So…00:48:21.000 --> 00:48:39.000Erik Mogensen: Uh, you know, Snowpass has committed to giving 80% back, um, to the resorts in their first year, and then something else beyond that, right? And the difference between 80% and 5%, right? You know, it sounds like 5%, but if you actually do the math, that's a 25% difference.00:48:39.000 --> 00:48:49.000Erik Mogensen: Uh, and so we pay every resort the same percentage back of their, you know, top ticket price. We've always done that, um, so…00:48:50.000 --> 00:48:55.000Erik Mogensen: That's what we do, that's what we've done, that's what worked, and that's what we.00:48:54.000 --> 00:48:59.000Stuart Winchester: So to zoom out to the conceptual level a little bit here, I want to look at…00:48:59.000 --> 00:49:09.000Stuart Winchester: Snow King's neighbor, Jackson Hole. Okay, so Jackson Hole is on Icon. They're also on Mountain Collective. You've taken a pretty firm stand that Indy.00:49:09.000 --> 00:49:16.000Stuart Winchester: partners should be exclusive with Indy. If you're looking at a ski area like Snow King that is desperate for.00:49:16.000 --> 00:49:18.000Stuart Winchester: for visits.00:49:18.000 --> 00:49:24.000Stuart Winchester: why cut that pathway off? Why is it important to make indie exclusive and not say, okay.00:49:24.000 --> 00:49:39.000Stuart Winchester: case by case, if you're, uh, you know, certain resorts, if we don't have an exclusivity agreement with you, like, maybe you want to give, you know, Brundage a higher payout because they're a destination and… and to be exclusive, but maybe some of these other ones, you give them all the tools in the toolbox. What…00:49:39.000 --> 00:49:42.000Stuart Winchester: Why is that not an option? Or is it an option?00:49:40.000 --> 00:49:48.000Erik Mogensen: Yeah, I just, I think it complicates things, number one. Number two, I just don't find it very equitable. The great thing about IndyPass, look, I get…00:49:48.000 --> 00:49:58.000Erik Mogensen: There's a lot of conversations all the time when we have a larger resort wanting to join, or has joined, or wants to renew about getting a bigger payout.00:49:58.000 --> 00:50:08.000Erik Mogensen: What I can tell you for as long as I own and run IndyPass, I'm going to treat every single resort the same. I'm not going to make special side deals.00:50:08.000 --> 00:50:14.000Erik Mogensen: That's just what we're going to do. I think it's a mistake to do that.00:50:14.000 --> 00:50:20.000Erik Mogensen: Everyone's going to get the same. Everyone's going to be the same. Everyone's going to get the same percentage payout.00:50:14.000 --> 00:50:15.000Stuart Winchester: It.00:50:15.000 --> 00:50:17.000Stuart Winchester: Mmhm.00:50:20.000 --> 00:50:23.000Erik Mogensen: No special deals.00:50:23.000 --> 00:50:37.000Stuart Winchester: So let me wrap on that point. So you added Smugs, your New England network is lights out. You know, like I said, Jay, Smugs, Cannon, Waterville, Saddleback, and a bunch of smaller places, including Black Mountain. Doug was concerned when he started the pass.00:50:37.000 --> 00:50:48.000Stuart Winchester: About dilution in the marketplace, and if you put too many ski areas in a market, you would both cannibalize their season pass, and drive down their yield, or their eventual payout.00:50:49.000 --> 00:51:04.000Stuart Winchester: you have filled in a lot more density, and when I've asked you about it in the past, you said that's a data-driven decision, so can you break that down for us, and what gives you confidence that adding smugs is not going to take away from.00:51:04.000 --> 00:51:08.000Stuart Winchester: Fulton Valley, or Jay Peak, or Cannon, or Titus.00:51:08.000 --> 00:51:23.000Erik Mogensen: Well, we know exactly how many pass holders we're adding every single year, right? We, we have a unique control over how many passes we sell, right? So we have, we know the data that comes in on one lever and we 100% control the amount.00:51:11.000 --> 00:51:12.000Stuart Winchester: Yeah.00:51:23.000 --> 00:51:43.000Erik Mogensen: of passes in that lever that we sell. So it's just simple math, right? It isn't even that complex of a spreadsheet. Uh, you wouldn't even have to have it in a spreadsheet. So we need to add enough customers to make sure that we don't over dilute Bolton's payout or those things. And what's remarkable is the data shows us this is, I think now our fourth season.00:51:43.000 --> 00:51:49.000Erik Mogensen: of owning and operating the IndyPass is that we just keep going in the right direction.00:51:49.000 --> 00:52:04.000Erik Mogensen: And that's the reality. Like, JPEAK and Bolton's payout, the check that they get from IndyPass and take to the bank to pay their bills and buy more chairlifts and more snowmaking pipe and pay their employees, is only getting bigger and bigger.00:52:04.000 --> 00:52:08.000Erik Mogensen: With smugs on the pass. And again, I cannot.00:52:08.000 --> 00:52:23.000Erik Mogensen: reiterate enough how sophisticated of an operator these guys are. Like, the DeLauriers are smart. They see the numbers, you know? Christian Knapp at PGRI, he sees the numbers. Steve Wright, these are smart guys. John Schaefer, the…00:52:23.000 --> 00:52:27.000Erik Mogensen: Really smart. You know, if they figure it out.00:52:27.000 --> 00:52:30.000Erik Mogensen: I think that that itself.00:52:29.000 --> 00:52:38.000Stuart Winchester: Yeah, Jay has been, uh, has recommitted to Indy several times, uh, through one-year contracts. All right, Eric, IndyPass is still on sale?00:52:38.000 --> 00:52:56.000Erik Mogensen: Uh, 80 Pass is on sale right now, yes. I think what we've announced is we've said tomorrow's the day. I think we could go into midday Saturday. Um, it's… it's hard to tell, right? We look at a couple numbers, we look at people that have put things in their cart, and what the potential conversion rate is, and where things go, and…00:52:56.000 --> 00:53:01.000Erik Mogensen: the geography around them. We definitely have a very firm ceiling on what we're gonna sell.00:53:02.000 --> 00:53:10.000Erik Mogensen: When we're going to sell that through, that's the hard part. But yeah, we've identified that tomorrow's the day.00:53:08.000 --> 00:53:16.000Stuart Winchester: And this will be the end of 26-27 IndyPass sales guaranteed, or is there a chance for a flash December sale or something?00:53:15.000 --> 00:53:30.000Erik Mogensen: There is never a guarantee of anything in this thing. We are talking to some pretty major additions as well that I think would be meaningful, and we'll have to decide if that's a this year thing or a next year thing with them.00:53:19.000 --> 00:53:20.000Stuart Winchester: Okay.00:53:30.000 --> 00:53:46.000Stuart Winchester: I mean, you've already added over 40 new partners. India has more partners than Epic, Icon, Mountain Collective, Snowpass, and Mountain Collective Capital's Powerpass combined around the world. So you're saying we should expect or could expect more partners?00:53:31.000 --> 00:53:32.000Erik Mogensen: Alright.00:53:46.000 --> 00:53:49.000Stuart Winchester: In advance of the 26-27 winter?00:53:48.000 --> 00:54:02.000Erik Mogensen: Yeah, for sure. I mean, I can tell you that there will definitely be some more. And I think, Stu, it's actually about 60 new additions. And I know you don't like to count the cross-country ski areas, but we should maybe find a separate tab for them on the spreadsheet.00:54:02.000 --> 00:54:04.000Stuart Winchester: Yeah.00:54:02.000 --> 00:54:12.000Erik Mogensen: Every ski area matters to us here, whether it's cross country or downhill or big or small. I think that's what makes us different.00:54:11.000 --> 00:54:27.000Stuart Winchester: Yeah, you know, I didn't start stop counting them out of malice. I stopped because I couldn't really understand them, and the maps kind of looked like a brain scan, and some would leave, and it was just a lot. I was already trying to track too much.00:54:27.000 --> 00:54:44.000Stuart Winchester: I will take that piece of advice, though, and I will see if I can find a place where they make sense. Eric, really appreciate everything today, appreciate everything you're doing with Indy and Black Mountain, and look forward to catching up with you again really soon.00:54:44.000 --> 00:54:49.000Erik Mogensen: Yeah. Thanks so much, Stu. Keep those spreadsheets going, dude.00:54:46.000 --> 00:54:47.000Stuart Winchester: Alright.00:54:48.000 --> 00:54:51.000Stuart Winchester: That's all I do.00:54:49.000 --> 00:54:52.000Erik Mogensen: Yeah, I know. See ya.00:54:51.000 --> 00:54:53.000Stuart Winchester: All right, take care.00:54:52.000 --> 00:54:53.000Erik Mogensen: Bye.00:54:55.000 --> 00:55:05.000Stuart Winchester: All right, that was Eric Mogensen, director of IndyPass, owner of Black Mountain, responding to some of the questions.00:55:06.000 --> 00:55:21.000Stuart Winchester: initial conversation I had with Joe Heschen the other day. So, uh, that's great. We have no more clarity on Snow King, and this episode went a little off the rails, because I need to… there's gonna be a lot of experimentation here, guys.00:55:21.000 --> 00:55:35.000Stuart Winchester: Uh, the… the opening take, I'm realizing, I don't know if I should be recording that before the guest. I think maybe I need to start with the guest, because otherwise, I end up having to cut myself short. So…00:55:35.000 --> 00:55:39.000Stuart Winchester: I want to get to some reader reaction.00:55:39.000 --> 00:55:42.000Stuart Winchester: To close us out today.00:55:42.000 --> 00:55:44.000Stuart Winchester: And…00:55:44.000 --> 00:55:47.000Stuart Winchester: The first comes from…00:55:47.000 --> 00:55:49.000Stuart Winchester: Matt Hart.00:55:49.000 --> 00:56:03.000Stuart Winchester: He said, really, this is in reaction to Brian Norton's interview yesterday about Loon Mountain's expansion. Matt Hart, really good, loved Brian's description of the expansion and how they will make it work from an operations point of view.00:56:03.000 --> 00:56:06.000Stuart Winchester: Catcher's mitt for snow, love it.00:56:06.000 --> 00:56:21.000Stuart Winchester: And then, and then Matt asks, did he give you grief for calling the Timbertown expansion that little one LOL? I, no, he didn't, but, but it is, I mean, it was a 30 acre expansion on a huge ski area. So, uh, I don't know, maybe, I think they, uh.00:56:22.000 --> 00:56:36.000Stuart Winchester: you know, I'm always the tourist, so anytime I'm asking these guys anything, they… I think that it sounds a little ridiculous, because they live it every day of their life. It would be like them asking me a question about my cats, you know, it's something that I'm around every day.00:56:36.000 --> 00:56:46.000Stuart Winchester: All right, this is a comment from Robert, a paid subscriber, which is the way you can interact with the show is to be a paid subscriber to the Storm Skiing Podcast.00:56:46.000 --> 00:57:00.000Stuart Winchester: Robert says, again, of the Brian Norton pod yesterday, great second effort. Are you planning to stick to a drop time of about 4 p.m. Eastern time? What is your anticipated schedule? Daily, four days a week, three?00:57:00.000 --> 00:57:07.000Stuart Winchester: 4pm drop makes for a nice way to wrap up the day, at least for those in a compatible time zone.00:57:07.000 --> 00:57:22.000Stuart Winchester: And then Brian Bench, paid subscriber, says, ditto on sharing the anticipated schedule. We humans are creatures of habit, and so would be great to know when we can generally expect these to land. Excited for your chat with Eric today. Well…00:57:22.000 --> 00:57:23.000Stuart Winchester: Brian.00:57:23.000 --> 00:57:26.000Stuart Winchester: I have an amazing guest.00:57:26.000 --> 00:57:29.000Stuart Winchester: scheduled for…00:57:29.000 --> 00:57:46.000Stuart Winchester: Sep

CRO Confidential: 0 to $600M in Under 4 Years. The ElevenLabs GTM Playbook with Carles Reina (Partner @ Baobab Ventures and Former VP of Revenue at ElevenLabs). Hosted by Sam Blond, CEO and Co-Founder of Monaco Carles Reina was the fourth employee and first GTM hire at ElevenLabs. Four years later, the company hit $600M ARR and an $11B valuation. In this episode of CRO Confidential, Carles breaks down exactly how they built it. He covers the distribution-first strategy that drove 0 to $100M in 20 months, the grants program that pulled demand away from every competitor in the market, and the 20X quota model that had reps hitting 300-600% attainment. He also gets into what he'd do differently — why sales enablement and senior sellers should come earlier than most founders think — and how ElevenLabs wired AI into their GTM motion before most companies were even asking the question. If you're building go-to-market from scratch or trying to figure out what "AI-native" revenue looks like in practice, this one is required listening. This episode of the SaaStr podcast is brought to you by Monaco:  If you're using AI in your go-to-market or you wanna get going, then you need to try Monaco. We're on it, SaaStr's on it, we love it. We use it for outbound, but you can use it for everything, actually. It's everything you need all in one place. At Monaco, it's the all-in-one revenue platform and your system of record. It builds your TAM, runs outbound, captures every interaction, and manages pipeline in one place, all in one great unified platform. Go to monaco.com to learn more. 

Send us Fan MailWelcome back to the Joint Dynamics Podcast! In this episode, host Andrew Cox sits down with a global leader in human movement and health architecture: Michol Dalcourt.Michol is the Founder and CEO of the Institute of Motion (IoM), Co-Founder of PTA Global, and the mastermind inventor behind ViPR and ViPR PRO - the revolutionary tools that birthed Loaded Movement Training. Beyond elite athletics, Michol's vast depth of knowledge is leveraged at the state level, where he has consulted with the Singaporean Government on national fitness education, population health resilience, and systemic lifestyle frameworks like Wellcology.In this deep dive, Michol cuts through the noise of modern wellness trends to explore:The Evolution of IoM & ViPR: A frank business discussion of Michol's entrepreneurial journey. National Health Infrastructure: Building population-level resilience with the Singaporean government on the continuum from palliative care to prevention.Fascial Mechanics & "Farm Strength": Moving beyond isolated muscle training and social media soundbites to understand multi-directional vectors, viscoelasticity, and true tissue adaptability.The 4 Dimensions of Health: Why physical and mental health are only half the battle, and how social health ("20X support systems") drives human longevity.The Future of Coaching: Why human trust, empathy, and foundational habits (sleep and nutrition) will always outperform AI, biohacking, and extreme over-optimization.

“The AI data center build-out is already the biggest infrastructure project, inflation-adjusted, that we've ever undertaken as a society.”  That's Sebastian Schaal, co-founder and Managing Director of Luminovo, an AI software company specializing in electronics supply chain management. I wanted to talk to Sebastian about how executives respond when key components are seeing 20X the demand of pre-2022 levels.   What You'll Discover In This Episode  How 20-year old electronics have become a hidden risk for aerospace and defense companies How AI data centers are disrupting your electronics supply chain The model VC's pushed him to build…and what he built instead Leadership lessons from building a team of 100+ Why Sebastian turned down more VC money (and who's funding him now)   About the Guest Sebastian Schaal is the Co-Founder and Managing Director of Luminovo, an AI software company that aims to turn electronics supply chain into a competitive advantage. He is also the Revenue department lead, overseeing and aligning activities across Growth, Sales, Customer Success and Revenue Operations. Connect with Sebastian on LinkedIn or sign up for the Luminovo newsletter.   About Your Host Craig Picken is an Executive Recruiter, writer, speaker, and ICF Trained Executive Coach. He is focused on recruiting senior-level leadership, sales, and operations executives in the aviation and aerospace industry. His clients include premier OEMs, aircraft operators, leasing/financial organizations, and Maintenance/Repair/Overhaul (MRO) providers, and since 2008, he has personally concluded more than 400 executive-level searches in a variety of disciplines. Craig is the ONLY industry executive recruiter who has professionally flown airplanes, sold airplanes, and successfully run a P&L in the aviation industry. His professional career started with a passion for airplanes. After eight years' experience as a decorated Naval Flight Officer – with more than 100 combat missions, 2,000 hours of flight time, and 325 aircraft carrier landings – Craig sought challenges in business aviation, where he spent more than 7 years in sales with both Gulfstream Aircraft and Bombardier Business Aircraft. Craig is also a sought-after industry speaker who has presented at Corporate Jet Investor, International Aviation Women's Association, and SOCAL Aviation Association.    Resources For more aerospace industry news & commentary: https://craigpicken.com/insights/.  To learn more about Craig Picken, visit https://craigpicken.com/.  

NEW FARMCON PODCAST Kevin and Todd cover everything from corn, soybeans and cattle to government policy, investing, selling the family farm, hiring great people, and why some of the biggest lessons in business come down to knowing when to change direction. THIS WEEK’S CONVERSATION 03:00 — What Liquid Death Can Teach AgricultureKevin explains why FARMCON intentionally brings in successful people from outside agriculture—and how producers can borrow ideas from great brands and businesses in completely different industries. 06:00 — Corn: Where Does the Next Move Come From?Kevin breaks down crop variability, exports, yield risk and why the September USDA report could become an important inflection point for corn prices. 14:00 — Soybeans: Is the Bullish Demand Story Already Priced In?China is buying and domestic crush remains strong, but Kevin believes the bigger market surprise may now have to come from the supply side and a smaller U.S. yield. 23:00 — Wheat Still Needs a Demand StoryBlack Sea disruptions continue to provide support, but Kevin explains why plentiful global supplies leave wheat with a very different setup than corn and soybeans. 28:00 — Tyson, Cattle & Knowing When to Change CourseTyson’s recent moves lead to a bigger conversation about capital allocation, taking losses and why strong businesses have to be willing to admit when something isn’t working. 32:00 — Don’t Bet Against the GovernmentKevin explains why one of his core investing rules is to understand where government policy and capital are flowing—and avoid putting yourself directly on the other side. 54:00 — Would You Sell the Family Farm for 20X?If somebody offered $100,000 an acre for ground worth $5,000, would sentiment win—or business? Kevin explains why he believes an extraordinary offer can create an even bigger opportunity for the next generation. 58:00 — The “All-In” Test for Investing & HiringKevin shares the filter he now uses on investment opportunities, why he increasingly bets on people rather than products, and what he looks for when evaluating the people leading a business. KEVIN’S QUOTES “If he can take standard water and create a brand around it and build it into the empire he’s built it into, you could take number two yellow corn.” “I’ve watched more friends go broke in businesses… just because they couldn’t take a loss.” “If nothing changes, nothing changes.” “I don’t wanna take positions or stances that really work against what the government’s trying to do.” “I’m in the business to be in business.” “Good people can take an okay or even a bad idea and make it a great business. Bad people can take a great idea and turn it into a piece of crap.” “Hire great people that tell you what to do. If you’re hiring people that you have to tell what to do, those aren’t great people.”

Agents are getting more powerful by the day. And most workflows, outputs and human capabilities can't keep up. Is that a problem or opportunity? Before you answer that question, though, keep this in mind. Agents are *literally* about to become 20X faster overnight. Let's unpack what that means. Faster AI Agents, Fewer Human Coworkers: The Overly Productive Future of Managing Agents? -- An Everyday AI Chat with Jordan WilsonNewsletter: Sign up for our free daily newsletterMore on this Episode: Episode PageToday's Episode on LinkedIn: Thoughts on this? Join the convo on LinkedIn and connect with other AI leaders.Upcoming Episodes: Check out the upcoming Everyday AI Livestream lineupWebsite: YourEverydayAI.comEmail The Show: info@youreverydayai.comConnect with Jordan on LinkedInTopics Covered in This Episode:Managing Dozens of Productive AI AgentsOpenAI Cerebras: 20x Faster Agent ModelsImpact of AI Agents on Human CoworkersAgent-Driven Workflows vs. Human CollaborationIncreasing Agent Reliance and Fading MentorshipAccidental Deskilling and Compression TaxProtecting Human Judgment and Learning HandoffsExpert-Driven Loops in AI WorkflowsMonthly Rebuilding of AI Strategies and ProcessesMiddle Management Evolution in AI Native CompaniesTimestamps:00:00 Future of AI and Work Dynamics05:25 Advancements in AI and productivity tools09:51 Growing your business with AI13:52 AI productivity and collaboration shifts15:08 Improving AI processing speed18:53 Using AI agents for delegation24:46 Discussing AI-related work challenges28:16 Ensuring accountability and communication30:39 Adapting to rapid digital change32:35 Show outro and newsletter sign-upKeywords: AI agents, faster AI models, OpenAI, Cerebras chip, 20x speed increase, automated workflows, agent management, solo agent supervisor, generative AI, knowledge work automation, agent-powered productivity, parallel machine teams, inference speed, productivity acceleration, Codex, Cloud Code, Google Gemini, Cloud Cowork, Copilot, recursive self improvement, expert-driven loops, human handoffs, deskilling, mentorship loss, AI native workplace, workplace automation, transactional work, productivity roadblocks, accidental deskilling, agent bun sandwich, compression tax, human in the loop, expert collaboration, agent trust, AI decision making, domain expertise, rapid workflow rebuilding, unlearning processes, organizational adaptation, enterprise AI adoption, future of work, middle management AI, AI-powered teamwork, human-agent collaboration, manager-agent ratios, personalized agent output, multi-agent coordination, skillset sharing, intentional automation, productivity strategySend Everyday AI and Jordan a text message. (We can't reply back unless you leave contact info) Ready for ROI on GenAI? Go to youreverydayai.com/partner 

FedRAMP has changed before. What makes the Consolidated Rules for 2026 different is that the dates are on the calendar and the fence sitters have run out of runway. Jason Ford, Co-Founder and CEO of Steel Patriot Partners, has been inside the program since Rev 3 in 2013. Michael Parisi, Chief Growth Officer, comes at it from the business side. Together they map what changes and, more usefully, what it means for the decision in front of a provider right now. So what actually changes? The program consolidates into two paths, 20X and Rev 5. FedRAMP Ready moves to legacy status. Class A, B, and C pipelines open across a thirty to sixty day window, mandatory adoption arrives January 1, and new Rev 5 certifications close on June 11, 2027. Authorized becomes certified. Jason Ford also points out where the rules live: fedramp.gov, hosted in GitHub, which means they move with a commit. Reading them once is not tracking them. Why did FedRAMP need to change at all? Michael Parisi frames it as a supply problem. Agencies and primes have been working from a limited and aging set of technologies while better tools sat outside a process that was slow, rudimentary, and expensive. The action was warranted. His follow-up question gets less airtime: if the process moved faster, did responsibility move with it, and does the stakeholder now holding that due diligence know it yet? The engineering shift is real and it is the part most teams see coming. Jason Ford describes RMF thinking giving way to continuous DevSecOps, proving compliance in real time rather than at a point in time. Vulnerability remediation is where the compression bites. CISA's updated guidance drops severity score as the driver in favor of stepped prioritization, and windows that used to run 30, 60, and 90 days now land closer to three to twenty-one. What does this cost a business past the budget line? Time and capacity. 20X is faster than a Rev 5 process that once ran eighteen months, but faster is not instant. Retraining a couple hundred users inside a thousand-person organization is not a small endeavor, and if the transition eats half of the organization's capacity for a year, that is half as much capacity aimed at the business paying for it. Jason Ford is not arguing against the move. He is arguing that disruption belongs inside the decision. Then there is the internal work almost nobody has started. Mapping an existing Rev 5 ATO scope into a new certification level is not clear-cut, and past the mapping, marketing and sales both need re-education. Michael Parisi describes building a translation layer for customers: here is what we provided before, here is what it is now, and this change came from the program rather than from any reduction in assurance. Roughly half the time, Steel Patriot Partners tells organizations not to pursue certification at all. Michael Parisi treats that as one of the more valuable things the firm does. The opposite failure shows up just as often, with companies preparing to spend heavily on 20X because it sounds quicker and cheaper, when the agency or prime they are chasing expects a certification level. A lower bar only helps if the buyer accepts it. Where should a business start? With the business conversation. Michael Parisi notes the answer does not have to be yes or no today; it can be a maybe with defined trigger points. Jason Ford closes on posture: come with an open mind, and do not hand a multi-year commitment to a language model whose guardrails and training are not built for that call. Or, shorter: don't wait, and don't go it alone. Steel Patriot Partners built a three-question starting point for that first conversation at https://www.steelpatriotpartners.com/find-your-path. This is a Brand Story. A Brand Story is a ~35-40 minute in-depth conversation designed to tell the complete story of the guest, their company, and their vision. Learn more: https://www.studioc60.com/creation#full GUESTS Jason Ford, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Steel Patriot Partners On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jason-ford-5ab206/ Michael Parisi, Chief Growth Officer, Steel Patriot Partners On LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-parisi-4009b2261/ RESOURCES Learn more about Steel Patriot Partners: https://www.steelpatriotpartners.com/ FedRAMP's Consolidated Rules for 2026: What It Means for Cloud Providers: https://resources.steelpatriotpartners.com/fedramps-consolidated-rules-for-2026 Find Your Path, a three-question starting point for ISO, CMMC, and FedRAMP decisions: https://www.steelpatriotpartners.com/find-your-path Complimentary ROI Workshop: https://www.steelpatriotpartners.com/roi-workshop Are you interested in telling your story? ▶︎ Full Length Brand Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#full ▶︎ Brand Spotlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#spotlight ▶︎ Brand Highlight Story: https://www.studioc60.com/content-creation#highlight KEYWORDS jason ford, michael parisi, steel patriot partners, sean martin, brand story, brand marketing, marketing podcast, fedramp, fedramp consolidated rules for 2026, fedramp 20x, rev 5, fedramp certification classes, cloud service provider compliance, federal compliance, cisa vulnerability remediation, continuous monitoring, devsecops, ato, 3pao, govramp, cmmc, grc, federal marketplace, compliance roi Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

CEO James Marino speaks to the growth story hiding in plain sight. Quick Bio:James Marino is President and CEO of Jackson's Food Company, the Muskego-based maker of avocado-oil snacks.James is born-and-raised a Milwaukeean and is a Marquette High grad.Connect with him on LinkedIn.Quick Summary:Jackson's has quietly scaled its capacity 20X in just a few years. The reason why comes down to one unusual thing about their factory that most snack companies never get to start with.CEO James Marino walks through how a rare autoimmune diagnosis, a Shark Tank investment, and a shuttered brand all led to the “2.0” company making waves out of SE Wisconsin today.There's a reason nobody touches the product from the cutting table to the end of the line and it says something bigger about where Milwaukee's manufacturing talent fits into the future of food.Experience Milwaukee is sponsored by Secure Compliance Solutions. Learn more at scsprotect.com.

My guest today is Jon McNeill — a man who grew up mowing lawns in a small farm town in Nebraska and went on to become the President of Tesla, working alongside Elon Musk during one of the most intense growth periods in the company's history. Before Tesla, Jon built and sold six companies, cutting his teeth at Bain & Company and Bain Capital Ventures, where he learned the fundamentals of business from some of the sharpest operators in the world — including a young partner named Mitt Romney. At Tesla, he helped scale the company from a niche EV maker into a global powerhouse, spearheading the push to 20X online sales and negotiating Tesla's landmark deal to build the first wholly-owned foreign auto factory in China. Today, Jon sits on the boards of both Lululemon and General Motors — two companies with a combined revenue approaching $50 billion — where he's known for an obsessive focus on product. He's also the author of The Algorithm, a book that distills the lessons from his career into a simple, repeatable framework for questioning assumptions, hiring for curiosity over IQ, and finding the two or three leverage points that actually move a business forward. In this conversation, we talk about growing up without a business household, what it was like getting case-interviewed by Elon Musk at 11 o'clock at night, the hardest decision of his career, and the career advice that took him from mowing ditches in Nebraska to the boardrooms of some of the biggest companies in the world.

A Special Industry Update, With Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond Jason and Mindy Diamond revisit how advisor due diligence is evolving—from AI and enterprise value to firm stability, ownership, and optionality—and why those questions matter more than ever. In Summary Due diligence has always been about finding the right fit. But what advisors are evaluating has expanded considerably. In this replay of an Industry Update, Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond revisit The Advisor Transition Playbook to explore how advisor priorities continue to evolve. Beyond the traditional reasons advisors consider change, they discuss newer factors shaping decisions today—from artificial intelligence and enterprise value to ownership structure, firm stability, and long-term optionality. The conversation reinforces that while every advisor's motivations are personal, the evaluation process has become far more strategic. Today's advisors aren't simply comparing recruiting deals or platforms. They're considering how today's decisions may influence the value, flexibility, and future of the businesses they're building. The Storyline For years, advisor movement was largely driven by familiar themes: bureaucracy, management changes, technology frustrations, and the desire for greater independence. Those factors remain important. But the conversations Diamond Consultants has with advisors today increasingly include questions that rarely surfaced just a few years ago. How should AI factor into firm selection? What is the long-term value of building enterprise value instead of simply maximizing a recruiting package? How important is a firm's ownership structure? And how should advisors think about stability in a marketplace where acquisitions, recapitalizations, and private equity investment have become commonplace? Jason and Mindy revisit the transition framework introduced in Part 1, focusing less on the mechanics of making a move and more on the evolving criteria advisors are using to evaluate their options. The result is a broader discussion about due diligence—not simply as a transition exercise, but as an ongoing strategic process for advisors seeking to build their best business life. Topics Covered Advisor due diligence Traditional vs. emerging drivers of advisor movement Artificial intelligence in wealth management Enterprise value and advisor ownership Recruiting deals versus long-term economics Reverse due diligence Firm ownership and stability Private equity in wealth management Advisor optionality Building a long-term advisory business Blubrry Player > Download a transcript of this episode… Listen and Learn Highlights for Advisors Why are the traditional drivers of advisor movement still relevant? (4:00) Jason and Mindy revisit the longstanding push-and-pull factors that continue to influence advisor decisions, from bureaucracy and management frustrations to the desire for greater ownership and control. How has AI become part of the due diligence process? (13:50) The discussion explores why advisors increasingly expect firms to demonstrate a clear AI strategy—and why investment, integration, and vision may become meaningful competitive advantages. Why should advisors care about enterprise value, even if they don't technically own their business? (24:30) Jason and Mindy explain why more advisors are evaluating decisions through the lens of long-term business value rather than solely short-term economics. What does reverse due diligence really involve? (37:15) The conversation highlights why advisors should evaluate prospective firms with the same rigor firms use when evaluating advisors. How does firm ownership affect advisor optionality? (38:00) Private equity, acquisitions, and changing ownership structures have made it increasingly important to understand what happens if a firm's strategy changes after an advisor joins. Why has due diligence become more strategic than ever? (45:30) The episode concludes with a broader discussion about defining one's “best business life” and making decisions that align with long-term goals rather than reacting to short-term frustrations. Key Takeaways The reasons advisors evaluate change have expanded well beyond traditional frustrations such as bureaucracy and compensation. AI has become an increasingly important component of firm evaluation, not because it replaces advisors, but because it can enhance productivity and client service. Enterprise value is becoming a consideration even for advisors who currently work within employee models. Reverse due diligence is just as important as a firm's evaluation of an advisor, particularly when assessing ownership structure, capitalization, and long-term stability. The most effective transition decisions balance immediate economics with long-term flexibility, ownership, and optionality. Every advisor's definition of success is different, making clarity around personal goals the foundation of any due diligence process. https://youtu.be/WZbUZJZK1yc Quotable Moments “Every advisor deserves to live their best business life.” “Just because you're frustrated doesn't mean you should move. You need something worth moving toward.” “The question isn't simply what you're paid today. It's what you're building over time.” “Knowledge is power. Understanding what your business is worth should be part of every advisor's decision-making process.” FAQs Why are more advisors expanding their due diligence beyond compensation? While transition economics remain important, advisors are increasingly evaluating technology, AI capabilities, enterprise value, ownership opportunities, and long-term flexibility as part of the decision-making process. How should advisors evaluate a firm's AI strategy? Rather than looking for finished products, advisors should assess whether a firm has a clear vision, meaningful investment, and an integrated approach to using AI to improve advisor productivity and client experience. What is reverse due diligence? Reverse due diligence is the process of evaluating a prospective firm as thoroughly as the firm evaluates the advisor. It includes understanding ownership structure, financial stability, culture, technology, leadership, and long-term strategy. Why does enterprise value matter for employee advisors? Even advisors who do not currently own their businesses may benefit from understanding how different business models create opportunities for ownership, long-term value creation, and future monetization. How has private equity changed advisor due diligence? Private equity has introduced new opportunities for growth and capital, but it has also made it more important for advisors to understand ownership structures, investment horizons, and what future transactions could mean for their business. What does Diamond Consultants mean by an advisor's “best business life”? It refers to aligning an advisor's business model, goals, client experience, compensation, flexibility, and long-term vision in a way that best supports both the advisor and the clients they serve. While transition economics remain important, advisors are increasingly evaluating technology, AI capabilities, enterprise value, ownership opportunities, and long-term flexibility as part of the decision-making process. Rather than looking for finished products, advisors should assess whether a firm has a clear vision, meaningful investment, and an integrated approach to using AI to improve advisor productivity and client experience. Reverse due diligence is the process of evaluating a prospective firm as thoroughly as the firm evaluates the advisor. It includes understanding ownership structure, financial stability, culture, technology, leadership, and long-term strategy. Even advisors who do not currently own their businesses may benefit from understanding how different business models create opportunities for ownership, long-term value creation, and future monetization. Private equity has introduced new opportunities for growth and capital, but it has also made it more important for advisors to understand ownership structures, investment horizons, and what future transactions could mean for their business. It refers to aligning an advisor's business model, goals, client experience, compensation, flexibility, and long-term vision in a way that best supports both the advisor and the clients they serve. NOTE: The views and opinions expressed by the guests on this podcast are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Diamond Consultants. Neither Diamond Consultants nor the guests on this podcast are compensated in any way for their participation. Related Resources The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between – Part 1 Annual Advisor Transition Report Top 10 Tips for a Strategic Due Diligence Process Should I Stay or Should I Go? View the transcript of this episode… The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between – Part 2 A Special Industry Update with Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond. Jason Diamond: Welcome to a replay of one of the most popular episodes from our podcast series for financial advisors, The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between. It's Part 2 of a 2-Part Industry Update with Mindy Diamond. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner, well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our Annual Advisor Transition Report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: There’s been a noticeable shift in how advisors are approaching decisions about their business, not necessarily in whether they’re exploring change, but in what they’re focused on when they do. Mindy is back with me for a continuation of our earlier conversation on the Advisor Transition Playbook. Last time, we spent time on the mechanics, how due diligence works, what a move actually entails, and how to think through the process. What’s become more apparent since then is that the inputs into that process are evolving. The traditional drivers are still there, but layered on top are a set of considerations that didn’t carry the same weight before. AI is one of them, and not just as a tool, but as a differentiator that advisors are starting to diligence more seriously. Enterprise value is another. Showing up in conversations, even for advisors who don’t technically own their business, but are thinking more critically about what they’re building over time. And then there are questions around stability, ownership, and flexibility. What happens to the firm itself and whether advisors retain the ability to adapt again if circumstances change. None of this is theoretical. It’s showing up in real time conversations. What we want to do here is unpack those new triggers of advisor movement and what they suggest about how decisions are being made today. So let’s get to it. Mindy, the legend, thank you for joining me. So glad to have you on. Mindy Diamond: Thank you. I’m so happy to be here. Jason Diamond: Great. Let’s dive right in. I’ll set the stage really quickly one more time. When we spoke about this topic last, we talked about the drivers of movement, what we’ll call in this conversation as the old or the legacy drivers of movement, and we spoke about the mechanics of the move. Before we get into the new drivers of movement, which I want to be the meat of the conversation, remind us, when we talk about the legacy drivers of movement …. And by the way, by saying legacy, I by no means want to suggest that they’re not valid today, because they’re equally valid, if not more so today than they were then. But when you think of the classic drivers of movement in our industry, what are they? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I would say, first of all, let’s start by saying that for every advisor, they’ve got a unique set of needs. So the first thing to say is that while you and I can talk about the categories of frustrations or things that might bother an advisor, they show up differently in each advisor’s life. So it’s important to note that everyone is unique. But generally speaking, if I had to package them, I’d say it’s number one that shows up most of the time is too much bureaucracy. A feeling that a firm or a model is just too hypervigilant in terms of compliance and it’s too bureaucratic and too hard to get things done. Number two would be some sort of change in or frustration with management. Something is going on that the person or persons that are responsible for managing the business are just not … They’re not the wind at their back. They’re obstreperous. They’re causing difficulty and frustration. And probably the third one would be less about a pain point and more about the desire to be something that they couldn’t where they were. The notion that they want to be more independent, they want to be a business owner and they just can’t do that. That doesn’t exist within the model where they work. Those probably have been the three ones top of mind, but I bet you’ll have some … You’ll add to that. Jason Diamond: I’ll add a couple. But before I do, I’ve heard you talk about this topic, maybe said another way as pushes and pulls. Can you explain what you mean by that? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I think that we think about the pushes, the frustrations, the things pushing somebody out the door, the factors that make it less easy or less fluid to do business. And there’s almost always pushes that exist when somebody comes to us, where they’re frustrated to some degree or another about certain things. But we tell people all the time that just to be frustrated should never be enough, because if all you’re doing is running from one set of problems, you’re very likely to run into maybe a different set, but still problems elsewhere. So a move needs to be driven in equal part, if not more, by pulls. Being pulled toward an opportunity that can be needle moving enough or better enough than where you are now. Pushes and pull. Jason Diamond: I love it. So let me ask you a little bit of a pointed question. Is a recruiting deal a valid pull factor? Mindy Diamond: So look, it’s different for every person. We’ve had advisors come and say, “I just went through a divorce and the most important thing to me is to recapitalize. And so a recruiting deal is really important.” And while I would never be one to say that’s not valid, it can be … And by the way, any advisor should want to and expect to better their financial situation. There should be economic gain. But it shouldn’t be the only or the primary reason for the move. So you want to monetize. The notion of wanting to monetize in the short term should be a factor in what model you pick, but it shouldn’t be the primary driver for a move. Jason Diamond: I agree with that wholeheartedly. I was going to say something I think maybe would’ve surprised you a little, which is like, yeah, I think recruiting deal is a very valid pull factor because what we’re saying is, it shouldn’t be the only pull factor. And sometimes it is and it makes us a little bit sad, I think, when that’s the case. But all of these factors you mentioned, and the ones I would add, I think that maybe technology would be another kind of factor that drives movement, all of these factors are not one specific reason. If you did the exit interview, either actually conducted the exit interview with advisors or thought exercise exit interview, I think they would point to a confluence of all of these factors. Compliance was a headache. I wanted to launch a podcast. I wanted to be able to send a timely communication to my clients. We used to hear that one during COVID a lot, right? By the time compliance approved something to send to clients, it was already stale. So do you agree with that, that it’s generally a confluence or a combination of these? Or in your experience, is it advisors are like, “No, compliance or the tech is so bad, I’m out”? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So most often there’s a straw that breaks the camel’s back incident or thing where they’re willing to put up with a series of minor paper cuts, if you will. And then almost always there’s something that happens. You and I got a call the other day from a team that said that they had split from their partner and the management of the firm was favoring the ex-partner, making it harder for them to stay or making it less fun or feel good for them to stay. So while they gave me a laundry list of things that were imperfect, I don’t know that any one of the things that were imperfect up until then would’ve been enough to drive them out. But when that one thing, that feeling that they were a second class citizen came up, that was the straw that breaks the camel’s back and went from a minorly frustrated to, “I’m out of here.” Jason Diamond: Yeah. And there’s probably a hundred examples you could walk us through. And I wanted to just highlight too, this concept is not limited to the wirehouse or employee or captive firm world, this is equally relevant for independent advisors. Granted, some of the pushes and pull factors, some of the triggers are not necessarily the same, but the idea that advisors outgrow a broker dealer or an RIA or either need or want or desire in some way, shape or form, greater autonomy, flexibility, freedom, control is certainly not limited to the employee space. I just wanted to make that point. Mindy Diamond: And I think that’s absolutely right. I think the notion of that frustrations or limitations or bureaucracy only existed if you were a W2 employee at a bulge bracket firm. That went out the window. As the industry landscape has expanded and there’s more and more valid ways to be a financial advisor, there’s more and more ways for a firm or a model or an infrastructure to frustrate an advisor. And that’s not being overly negative. It’s just to say there is no perfection anywhere. Jason Diamond: Yeah, 100%. And by the way, to play a little bit of devil’s advocate on that, and then we’ll move on, I would just say there are pain points that might come from a firm being small and subscale as well. My firm doesn’t have efficient technology. They don’t invest enough in the business. They don’t provide a lead mechanism. They don’t have a robust banking and lending or investment solutions platform. So this stuff cuts both ways. An advisor can be frustrated or limited and an advisor can be excited. Pushes and pulls I think touch on, we’ve heard from advisors in every single pocket of the market, this is a relevant concept. Mindy Diamond: The theme of this is that every advisor deserves to live their best business life. That’s what people are in search of when they reach out to us or when they engage with us. What they’re looking for more than anything, and this is irrespective of where they work or how long they’ve worked or how much they manage, every advisor is in search of their best business life. And what defines their best business life is having the best quality of work life, but also the best ability to do what they want to do with their business, to serve their clients without limitations, to grow the way they want, to be paid a fair wage, and ultimately set up to maximize the value of the business they’ve built. Those are the definitions of one’s best business life. Jason Diamond: I used an even simpler definition of best business life and I stole it from you, which is the true north concept, which is if your true north is maximizing enterprise value and chasing the dollar and trying to build something that’s scalable and saleable, then great. If your true north is to build a lifestyle practice, there’s plenty of advisors who are successful and happy and content in that regard as well. And I think that’s what we’re talking about, is finding your true north and then it’s possible. I mean, that’s the beauty of the landscape. We’re talking about this, a lot of this is pain points or things that advisors experience. The exciting part of this is there’s never been a better time to be an advisor because of the breadth of choice they have and the ecosystem that’s been born to support advisors, to your point, across the spectrum. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. And it’s also, I think, worth saying that it starts with really good crystal clear clarity around not only what’s frustrating you, but what you want ideal to look like. Because I can’t tell you, or I can tell you because … I can’t tell our listeners, I can’t stress enough how often we get calls from advisors that tell us where they think they want to be or tell us they want to move. They have clarity about what’s frustrating them or what they want to change, but they don’t really have clarity about what they want it to look like. And the less clarity you have, the less likely you are to be successful in finding the exact right solution. So our work, the thing we probably do best is really work with advisors to help them. It doesn’t take long. In an hour conversation, we can help them to really get crystal clear on what they’re looking to solve for. Jason Diamond: Absolutely. All right. Great appetizer. We set the table. Let’s dive into the main course now. I want to talk now about what I’m calling the 2.0 triggers or the new triggers of movement. And to be clear, it’s not that these are more important or better or more significant drivers of movement. In fact, you could argue they’re probably at present less significant than the ones we just listed. But I think what we’re saying is these are triggers that are starting to come up more and more in conversations and we expect them to only proliferate further. And in that regard, they’re noteworthy and important for advisors because advisors should be reconciling not just what are the things I need to be worrying about today, but also what are the things I need to be potentially worrying about five years from now. So with that in mind, let’s dive in. I think the first one we have to start with is AI. And I always chuckle a tiny bit when we mention AI, we used to have to specify what are we talking about. Are we talking about artificial intelligence or alternative investments? And now it’s very clear. Everybody knows we’re talking about artificial intelligence. So the direction of the industry, no over-dramatization to say is at stake here. It’s that important of a topic. Let me ask you just very simply first, is this coming up in conversations with advisors? Mindy Diamond: Oh, all the time, but it’s almost table stakes. So I think the way it comes up is that people assume, advisors assume, and by the way, have the right to assume that AI is part of the tech stack. The notion that if I’m evaluating a firm and part of what frustrates me or part of what’s really important to me is cutting edge, really robust technology, part of what I am expecting is that a new firm is going to have really robust technology. And part of that is really robust access to AI. And has honed the AI in a way that’s user-friendly, that really answers or delivers on making me a better … Not replacing me as an advisor, but making me a better, more efficient advisor. Jason Diamond: 100%. And I would also add, so as I think about this AI topic, I don’t want this to become a conversation around, is AI going to replace advisors, because I think we both agree that’s not going to be the case. Especially at the top end of the market for quality advisors, I think they’re not going anywhere. But in my view, when we think about the trigger of movement, AI has the potential to be transformative because a couple kind of use cases or trigger cases come to mind, and I’d love to hear your thoughts. One is, do you think advisors will potentially consider a move because they’re worried about this? So in other words, play this logic out with me. I’m 55 years old and I’m like, “Oh man, AI might be coming from my job.” And there’s firms offering 400% of revenue to move my book. Maybe I should take that check and kind of de-risk and monetize while I can. What are your thoughts on that? Mindy Diamond: I absolutely think we’re already working with that fall into that category, but to say that is the only reason for the move would be wrong. I’m grateful that people trust us enough to be transparent with us. So they let us know that underneath the notion that they want to better serve clients, they ultimately want better access to A, B, and C, they want to be able to do D, E and F with less restriction, is really the main reason for the move. But underneath it, the notion that my book, I want to protect myself. My book may well be the biggest it’s ever going to be. It is going to be worth more today than it could be in the future if things don’t go my way. And if I know I’m going to move and one of my goals is to monetize, I might want to do that now. Jason Diamond: I agree. And that’s where the top deal story comes in also. Firms paying a top deal is a part of that story. It’s what you just said, plus advisors know firms are willing to pay incredible multiples. I mean, as we speak, UBS is in market with one of the largest deals in history. So those two narratives side by side, I agree. I think this becomes more of a kind of catalyst or driver movement. It’s come up in my conversations on both sides of the spectrum. It’s the tech savvy, AI savvy advisors who are excited about this, who are like, “I want to be the most AI enabled version of myself I can be. It’s going to make me a rockstar and it’s going to widen the gap with my peers,” but it’s also come up with the people who are, I think, rightly scared and fearful about what this might mean for their job. Mindy Diamond: Let me ask you, what are examples of the way you’ve seen some of the best firms who have embraced AI? What is their narrative? What is it that they’re saying to advisors that if you come here from a tech or AI perspective, you’ll be better because we’re able to do … Fill in the blank. Jason Diamond: Yeah. So a couple that come up. First of all, I want to make the important point. Advisors do not expect that firms, either their current firm or firms that they are diligencing prospectively, have this figured out or solved. Everybody understands this is a fairly new area that firms are still very much kind of developing their strategies in. What advisors want to see is a few things. They want to see though leadership, they want to see investment, and they want to see a strategy, right? Effectively, they want to see a step in the right direction, really. So I’ll give you a couple examples. There are a number of tech savvy RIAs, very tech-enabled, AI-focused RIAs, because I think this is easier to be nimble. I think where you’ll see this quicker probably is in the independent space. That what they’re doing is things like this. An advisor logs on to their workstation in the morning and their system queues them proactively, Mr. and Mrs. Smith may be good candidates for a Roth IRA conversion. And then if the advisor decides to contact the client in some way about it, the system will of course help them draft the communication, but then it’ll take it a step further and actually help them to process and transact that conversion. So soup to nuts, ultimately driving efficiency. That’s the name of the game. That’s why firms, I think, are excited about AI, at least the good firms. Because what I think they realize it will do is, the stuff that’s a waste of time that could be automated that advisors, and probably even more so their associates, client associates are spending time on, that should be a massive time saver for advisors. And I think if you play that story out, what does that mean? It should mean bigger books of business and therefore more productive advisors because they have more time to prospect and focus on their clients. Thoughts? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I think you said it perfectly, but it raises the question then. You say that the RIAs can be more nimble. You’re right. I mean, the big story around the biggest firms was like moving a battleship, it takes a long time to turn it. It’s not as nimble. So what and how are the bigger firms competing against the RIAs with respect to AI? And second question, we still always get questions, and rightly so, about Morgan Stanley has more money to invest… Jason Diamond: That was going to be part of my answer. Mindy Diamond: … than fill in the blank RIA. So how does that all work? Jason Diamond: That is absolutely going to be part of my answer, is that I have heard this question posed almost presumptively both ways. “Oh, it’s got to be that the RIAs are going to be the clear winners in this.” And I’ve also heard, “Oh, it’s got to be that the wirehouses are going to be the clear winners in this.” I don’t think it’s going to be channel specific like that. I think it is going to be firm specific. I think there’s going to be firms that are going to do this well and firms that are going to not do this well. But there’s going to be winners in the wirehouse space. There’s going to be winners in the regional firm space, with firms like Raymond James who are clearly trying to be on the cutting edge of this. There’s certainly going to be winners in the broker-dealer space. LPL is investing heavily in this, as are many of their broker-dealer competitors. And then of course the RIA space, where sometimes they may not have the budgets, but they have a couple things. They have private equity backing, sometimes. They have the custodians that they’re built on, right, or the tech vendors that they’re built on. So Schwab and Fidelity or Orion and Addepar. They have other ways to access these innovations. One of the things that comes up with this that your question I think gets at is, a similar question that was raised around technology stacks, which is strength of offering versus integration. And that’s where I think a firm like Morgan Stanley really will shine, is they should … Because they don’t put anything out that’s not well integrated. The big firms have generally done a pretty good job of that. Versus the RIAs. Sometimes we’ve heard feedback where, yes, you have access to you name it, right? You dream it up, you can go and buy it. But the left hand may not speak to the right hand quite as well. Mindy Diamond: Yeah, that’s actually a really good point. And integration is probably one of the biggest … If you ask an advisor when they talk about technology as either being one of their pushes or pulls, probably what they’re referring to more than anything is not only having the capability, but having the integrated capability. So that’s a great point. And I think your point is right, that the final chapter on this has not been written. Nobody thinks that it has. And so whatever answers you and I can talk about today about who’s winning this race, or this tech race or this AI race, will be totally different tomorrow. We all know that. But I think for purposes of this conversation, to say that an advisor having an expectation that their technology be outstanding and that AI be on the table, that a firm is embracing it and heading in the right direction, if you will, has the right thought leadership and the right willingness to invest in it is what advisors are really looking for right now. Jason Diamond: Absolutely. And this is a question too from the firm’s perspective, if you are a firm of any size, you must be able to answer that. This has become question 1A. And again, I don’t mean to suggest that I think AI is the number one most important factor driving advisor movement today. It very well might be at some point down the road. I don’t think we’re there yet. But I do think it’s the topic du jour or the hot topic, where every advisor is asking about this. So that means if you’re a firm, you need to be prepared to tell the story or at least have the vision. And I think what we’re hearing from both advisors and from firms is this, AI is going to … What is right now a gap between the good and the bad, the quality and the non, is going to become an absolute chasm, right? An absolutely mountainous gap between the best firms and the firms who are able to adapt this technology or this AI. And the same thing at the advisor level, between the AI-enabled superpowered advisor versus those who are in the dinosaur ages, for lack of a better term. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. And we’ll move on, but it is worth saying that the day of the standalone independent, the one man or one woman band who hangs out a shingle, and to use your term, running a lifestyle practice, nothing wrong with that, but it would be near impossible to imagine a world where a standalone independent can compete with a private-equity-backed RIA or an RIA that has a big pool of capital behind them or to compete with the major firms. And our point is the ability to compete is probably more important with respect to this topic than just about any other. Jason Diamond: Totally agree. Thank you for tying a bow on that because I think that’s a good place to leave the AI topic, at least for now. I’m certain we’ll have more to say on this one. By the time we release this episode, we’ll probably have more to say on it. So we’ll have to do a follow-up again. But I want to talk now about enterprise value. And this is one where if you’re an RIA or if you’re an advisor at an independent firm, this might sound like a duh, but hear me out on this one. The idea is as follows, if I’m a wirehouse advisor or any sort of captive advisor, I don’t technically own anything. Agree? Mindy Diamond: Agreed. Jason Diamond: Okay. So if that’s true, that I don’t technically own anything, I technically don’t have any sort of enterprise value or ability to monetize. But my premise here and why I would argue that enterprise value has become a driver of movement is even wirehouse advisors know … They see teams like OpenArc, a massive RIA that launched last year. They see their corner office peers breaking away, starting independent firms. They see them selling to asset managers, private-equity-backed RIAs, private equity firms in their own right for these massive multiples. And what I guess I’m getting at, and I’m curious if you agree is, if a wirehouse advisor, let’s say, sees their colleagues sell to a private equity firm for 20X, doesn’t that have to become a little bit of a catalyst for movement in its own right? Mindy Diamond: Without a doubt. Historically … Actually, let me date myself. When I started this business now 32 years ago, there was zero way for an advisor who was a captive employee of a firm, of any firm, to monetize their business. It’s why there was so much movement, because the only way they could monetize was to get paid a big fat transition deal to move from one firm to the other. Jason Diamond: Yep. Mindy Diamond: Obviously, we all know that first it started with the big firms, and then just about every brokerage firm on the street began to offer a retire-in-place program. And that is the big firms or a traditional brokerage firm’s way of allowing advisor to monetize in place from their perspective to stave off attrition. And for an advisor that believes that the status quo serves them well, that finishing their career, that leaving their legacy, that leaving their team at their firm is the best thing to do, then those retire-in-place programs, like Merrill’s CTP or Morgan’s FAP or UBS’s Alpha or a name at every firm has them, is the best gift to advisors there is. But the problem is that the next generation at those firms are buying an asset they don’t own. And so when we talk about enterprise value or the desire to build enterprise value as a real driver of movement, what we’re talking about is not only that advisors want ownership of an asset, because ownership translates into more control and autonomy and agency over building it the way you want to, but it also translates into maximizing the value of the business that you’ve built. So that’s a long-winded way of saying that the OpenArc deal you are referencing, for anybody not familiar, is a Merrill Lynch team, a legacy Merrill Lynch team in Atlanta that was managing more than 120 billion in assets, part retail, ultra high net worth client assets, and part institutional consulting assets. And believe me, I don’t want to make it sound like it was a snap that one day they’re happy and the next day they’re going independent. Over a 10-year period became more and more aware, driven by the pushes and more aware of the pulse. But ultimately, while there was a long list of things they wanted to be able to do that they couldn’t to best serve clients and grow the business, the real driver at the end of the day, or I shouldn’t say the real driver, but a major driver was the notion of building and owning enterprise value. Yes, they could have all gotten very attractive deals and retired with your Merrill CTP, but they wanted to own the business, they wanted cap gains treatment. And so they went through the sweat equity big time of building what they’re calling OpenArc for the ability for probably five, 10, 20 years, because there’s partners with all different ages, so at all different times, to be able to really maximize the value of the business they’ve built. Jason Diamond: Can I push back on that for … It’s a super helpful example, but my one thought is, okay, yeah, of course, 130 billion in assets, they should be concerned with enterprise value at that size. And the delta between caring about enterprise value and not is too great because those guys have, by all accounts, a phenomenal business that is rivaled by very few in the industry. Most of our audience does not fit into that stratosphere. So what about advisors in, let’s call it the million to $10 million space? Should they still care about this concept? Mindy Diamond: Again, it’s an inside job. It’s a personal thing. Some don’t. But the answer is yes. And if I were them, I would. Why? Because whether I am generating a million a year in revenue or $10 million a year in revenue, at the end of the day, I’ve got an asset. I’ve built a valuable asset. And I have the choice at the end of the day or the middle of the day to decide a million things about that asset. How do I want to live my business life? How do I want to serve my clients? Where do I want to work? But one of the biggest factors to determining where and how they want to work is, ultimately, do I want to be able to maximize the value of the business that I’ve built? And while there are few things that are really definitive in this industry, the one thing that is absolutely indisputably definitive is that if you build an independent practice like the ex-Merrill Lynch churned RIA OpenArc team did, you will ultimately build enterprise value exponential multiples greater than any way you could monetize the business as a traditional employee. Jason Diamond: And that math absolutely still holds up even at numbers smaller than we’ve mentioned. I totally agree with that. I’ll give you one other reason why I think you should care. And I’d love your thoughts on this one. I’ll ask it two ways maybe. I’ll tell you my take and then I’ll ask you yours. Morgan Stanley, let’s use as an example. Who are Morgan Stanley’s competitors? In my opinion, the legacy answer to that is, well, of course the wirehouses are Morgan Stanley’s competitors. Merrill, UBS, Wells Fargo, what maybe used to be a longer list, but today those four. I don’t think that’s the answer anymore. I think those are the direct competitors. But because of this enterprise value conversation, I think Morgan Stanley’s competitors are anyone and everyone who recruits financial advisors with books of business. Because if you think about it, an advisor who has a $3 million business at a wirehouse, even if they’re not actually going to do this, they don’t have any entrepreneurial spirit, no desire to go independent, they still know that they could. This is an option and a viable option. And firms are even figuring out ways to cut out the middle step, right? Because this was historically a two-step process. You’re a wirehouse advisor or a W2 advisor. You break away, launch an independent business to establish your enterprise value, begin building it, and then you monetize it. If you could cut out the middle step, or even if you couldn’t, I still think it’s pretty clear that if you’re an advisor, this is important because the firms know … Like when Morgan Stanley’s writing a recruiting deal, they’re kept honest by RIAs and acquirers just the same as their direct peer set. Do you agree with that or do you think I’m reading too far into this? Mindy Diamond: Oh no, I agree a thousand percent. I think that it is naive for anyone recruiting for or on behalf of a traditional firm to think that the only competition is another traditional firm. The days of pomposity for a senior leader at a traditional firm to say, “We’ve got the best technology, the best everything fill in the blank. We have no competitors.” That’s just naive. Because even if it’s true, you’ve got the best platform infrastructure fill in the blank, there is a multitude of advisors that value things different than what you can provide. Beauty is in the eye of beholder is probably a good way to say that. But at the end of the day, what we’re really talking about is when I started the business, because there was no way, no really good way for an advisor to really monetize their life’s work, the only thing they could or were focused on from a personal financial gain perspective was the short-term deal. What are they paying? What’s the transition deal? Now, of course they’re concerned about that. But almost to a person, they’re equally concerned about what I can build and what will this allow me to build in terms of the value of the business I’m building in the long term. So let me ask you, if we’re talking about an advisor that has the ability to monetize in the short term for what could be 4X and in some cases more than that these days, and we’re talking about the ability to maximize enterprise value, and we talk about the concept of moving once and monetizing twice, what kind of numbers are we talking about? Fill in the blanks there. Jason Diamond: It’s such a hard question to answer because I do genuinely believe recruiting deals, when you talk about 300 to 400% revenue deals in the recruiting space, they vary a little bit, but I feel pretty comfortable quoting those types of numbers that most firms are somewhere in the 300 to 400% of T12 realm. There are some outliers, we mentioned UBS. But the multiple or EBITDA based or enterprise value M&A market where we’re doing these legitimate buyout transactions, the valuations do vary quite a bit. But here’s how I think about it. First of all, most firms are not purchased or sold at top line revenue. Most are sold at some sort of adjusted EBITDA number, which factors in local expenses, platform expenses, but also advisor compensation. And then that adjusted number is typically multipled. The multiples are anywhere from 8X for small kind of, let’s say, million dollar revenue businesses up to, we’ve seen deals struck at north of 20X for some of these mega cap RIAs. Typically, just back of the envelope, if I had to quote, I typically estimate around 5X top line at capital gains is a good kind of ballpark valuation. But there is quite a bit of nuance to it, more so than the traditional recruiting space. And I do think, shameless plug, part of the value in working with somebody who’s an expert on the entirety of the industry landscape is just that. It’s the idea that you need to run the horse race across multiple verticals. The good advisors who work with us typically are looking at a wire like a Morgan Stanley or a Merrill. They’re looking at a boutique firm like a Rockefeller, or they’re looking at a regional like an RBC or a Ray J. They’re looking at an independent firm like an LPL or a Sanctuary. They’re looking all across the spectrum. Mindy Diamond: I think that’s exactly right. But the topic of enterprise value, you can see how powerful it is and how wise it is. For an advisor today, when considering their personal economics to consider not just the short term, but to weigh in or add in or factor in, what could I be building and what ultimately will that business be worth at the end of the day? Jason Diamond: Yeah, 100%. Short of going out and selling your business, what can advisors do then? So I’m an advisor, okay, I’m curious about this. Or is it just as simple as, “Yeah, you should know what your business is worth if you’re an advisor”? Mindy Diamond: Definitively yes, because I mean, we always believe that knowledge is power. And just like it’s important for you to understand what your options are within your own firm, how can I ultimately retire out and monetize my business where I am, I think it’s really hard to make a decision in a vacuum without having other perspective. And getting other perspective doesn’t have to be that you have to go out and take 20 meetings. It’s not that hard for you to figure out what your business is worth to make it a data point for whether or not you’re ultimately best to retire in place or go elsewhere. Jason Diamond: Yeah, that I think is the main takeaway. And the education point is so important. I think because these are relatively new concepts for a lot of advisors that haven’t formally shopped a business before, there’s a lot of resources available. And we’ll certainly link some as well on the page for the episode. Let’s shift gears now, our kind of final trigger 2.0, which is stability and ownership structure of the firm. And this has been a little bit of a hot topic. It’s honestly been a hot topic every year because it seems like things pop up every year. And a lot of times advisors don’t reconcile the question of who owns the firm or how stable is the firm until something happens. The firm gets bought, the firm goes bankrupt, like the First Republic scenario. What should a good advisor do proactively about the idea that if you’re a W2 employee or even an employee who’s affiliated with a broker dealer, you saw this with Commonwealth, you just don’t really have control over what the firm decides to do. Give me your thoughts on this. I know it’s a big topic. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. First of all, using Commonwealth an example, it’s a good one. Because for those unfamiliar, Commonwealth is a boutique broker dealer that was privately owned and whose tagline was, “We love our privately owned status and we are never going to sell,” until one day they did. And not only did they sell, but they sold to the biggest independent broker dealer in the country, ala LPL. That’s not good nor bad, it’s just a fact. So if Commonwealth, who had definitively said we’re never up for sale, suddenly sells, any time you’re an employee of a firm, you never know what tomorrow brings in. You’re not in control over whether it’s sold. So that’s one example. But as you’re talking about this, I’m thinking about, I’m probably going back 20 years, so I’m 10 years into my career and I talked to someone who had been a very successful Merrill advisor. So I’m going to say he was probably generating around $5 million in revenue at the time. Going back 20 years, that’s a pretty significant book of business. He was courted for years by what he thought was a top RIA. And in those days, remember 20 years ago, the RIA space wasn’t nearly as mainstream as it is now. But the story the RIA told him was that ultimately, one, he was going to be a partner in the firm, that was very appealing to him. So he was going to have equity in the firm and much more freedom and control. And locally, by the way, the RIA was a really high quality brand. He worked on a lot of the economics, the short term and the long term with them. They did a ton of due diligence on his book of business. But he failed to ask … And I didn’t represent him. I just know this story. He failed to ask or do enough due diligence about the stability of the firm. What we think is really important, we talk about this expanded landscape. If you’re looking at Morgan Stanley, I don’t think you necessarily need to see Morgan Stanley’s balance sheet. If you are talking to a firm that is anything but a bulge bracket or anything but a large firm, it’s really important to do what we call reverse due diligence and to really understand if a firm expects you to open your kimono and show everything about your business to prove your worth, it is equally important that you do the same for them. In this new world order where private equity has come in and there are so many different ways for a firm to be owned and to be capitalized, it’s very important that an advisor understand what’s going on behind the scenes. And one of the questions around stability, if a firm is private equity backed, is it permanent capital? Is it patient capital? Is the private equity firm going to look to sell and monetize in five years? And then who would the likely buyer be and what does that mean for you? So the question is a big question and it’s really important. Jason Diamond: I love everything you just said, except I do think even the wirehouses, wirehouse advisors, honestly, as much as anybody should be asking these questions. And I’ll give you an example right now, UBS. And UBS, it’s not a story of balance sheet stability. I don’t think anybody has concerns that UBS is going to fail. But UBS management has been very publicly, “Oh, we’re cutting costs.” There’s been some rumors, I think for years, probably dating back 30 years to when you started the business about UBS’s commitment to the US wealth management business. I think those questions about stability and ownership structure are still valid. And to me, the implication of it is twofold. One, what you said, reverse due diligence, ask the questions, plan B. But also the concept of the exits or the off-ramps or how many bites of the apple do you get. So if you’re an advisor and you sell your business to somebody and you sign garden leave and non-competes and non-solicits, the question of ownership structure of that firm becomes less relevant because you have no off-ramps and no ability to exit that business anyway. A lot of times that’s how advisors get comfortable with this concept. And that’s what firms will tell them too, frankly, and we’re living through the middle of this, by the way, with Commonwealth and LPL, is vote with your feet, right? To the extent advisors can, the offer … And this is like, you used the example of private-equity-backed firms. This is how Rockefeller addresses the question of their private equity ownership. If we sell to UBS, all of our advisors will leave. They have that built-in put option. So knowing where the off-ramps are or how many bites of the apple an advisor gets, I think is a big concept that ties into that. But we’re absolutely seeing this pop up, probably largely because of those two examples, Commonwealth and UBS this year, more so Commonwealth, to your point. Janney’s another example last year or two years ago now where KKR comes in and buys Janney. So when these examples happen, it seems like it triggers advisors to say, “Is this something that could happen to me and should I be thinking about this?” Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So let me ask you a question. You’re talking, you’ve mentioned UBS offering this outsized deal. So how does the notion of stability and ownership factor in? If an advisor is considering an unprecedented deal from UBS, what are the caveats or concerns with respect to stability and ownership? Jason Diamond: It’s the same list of considerations you should and would ask of any other firm you’re diligencing, except I think amplified even more in the case … If I was counseling an advisor who was looking at UBS, that would be what I would say, is exactly that. You’re seeing all of these departures and defections, and I would want to have conversations with those advisors and understand exactly why and have guarantees or assurances that I’m not going to suffer from those same pain points that force them to leave. Or, and I say this a little bit flippantly, but it’s a little bit true, I understand the devil that I’m getting into bed with, but for 550%, or whatever the deal might be, I can suck it up. And that’s something that some advisors might well say as well. Mindy Diamond: Yeah. Jason Diamond: I don’t want to end on the negative note of overly large transition, not there’s anything wrong with large transition deals, but as you look out, is there anything that’s coming up in your conversation with advisors that you view as the next wave of this? I’ll give you one that maybe you could touch on, and if you have another one, feel free to offer it in conclusion, but do you think age or advisors starting to succeed out of the business will become more of a driver of movement, even though to your point, advisors can access sunset deals? Mindy Diamond: I do actually, because I think the more the average advisor age increases, the more likely that those advisors are going to want to move on to do something else to monetize the business. And so much of the wave of movement we see is driven not so much by the senior advisor, because many seed advisors are happy enough with the ability to monetize their business in place. Even though it may not maximize the value of the business, it’s a close enough approximation and it means I don’t have to disrupt the apple cart. So we support that 100%. But where we get the calls is from the next generation that says, “Yeah, but hold on a minute. It’s a good way for me to take on a book of assets that I not otherwise have access to. And it’s great for my senior partner, my father, my mother, my whatever to monetize the business. But I’m buying an asset again that I don’t own and I ultimately don’t have control over all these things we’re talking about, the AI investment, the ability to create enterprise value, the stability, the cost cutting, all of it.” So I think it’s all of the above. You say, “What else is there?” I think that’s it. It’s all of the above. It’s anything and everything that drives movement. One, it’s personal, it’s highly unique, it’s different for every advisor. There are certainly themes, and we’re talking about them, but there’s a million different things. It’s personal. And while there are an awful lot of pushes, things that can frustrate an advisor, it is the most exciting time in our view to be an advisor, particularly a high quality one, because the options abound, the ecosystem is big, because the ability to monetize both in the short term and the long term is big, mammoth, exponentially bigger than it ever was before. And the true ability to really build an enterprise has never been greater. And I think all of those things, the desire for an advisor to be the best that they can be and live their best business life is probably the biggest driver of all. Jason Diamond: It’s really true these days, if you can dream it, you can probably build it. And we’ve said in the past, if you build it, they will buy it. It’s a great place to end. This was a really fun topic. I think that’s a spot on kind of fourth trigger, by the way, too. This sort of next gen is almost like the force multiplier or the amplifier of like they see all this other stuff and they’re asking these questions even more so. Because if I’m 60 years old, none of this matters all that much. It matters, but I’m out of the business in five to 10 years. Versus the next gen advisors are the ones who often bear the brunt of this. So I think a lot of really smart stuff. Thank you for sharing your wisdom and expertise. In the episode page, we’ll be sure we have our Industry Transition Report. And we’ve also created a tool, the top 10 tips for a strategic due diligence process, which is a great kind of practical hand-in-hand companion for this topic for advisors looking for more pointed tips on the due diligence process. So Mindy, thank you again. This has been a blast. Mindy Diamond: My pleasure. Thank you. Jason Diamond: Thank you for joining us. We'll be back with a new episode next week, so be sure to listen in. Mindy Diamond: As a financial advisor, you hold yourself to the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and credibility. You are successful because you take your professional responsibility seriously and are dedicated to your clients. But are you living your best business life? Are your goals aligned with your firms or could a better option exist? Should I Stay or Should I Go? is a book written with you in mind. It’s a self-guided journey that walks you through the key steps that we take with our advisor clients. This strategic thought process and roadmap to professional self-discovery is designed to help you ask the right questions and think critically and objectively, whether you’re considering change or not. Learn how to get your copy at diamond-consultants.com/thebook. The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between – Part 2 A Special Industry Update with Jason Diamond and Mindy Diamond. Jason Diamond: Welcome to a replay of one of the most popular episodes from our podcast series for financial advisors, The Advisor Transition Playbook: The Latest on Due Diligence, the Move, and Everything In Between. It's Part 2 of a 2-Part Industry Update with Mindy Diamond. I’m Jason Diamond and this is the Diamond Podcast for Financial Advisors. Mindy Diamond: At Diamond Consultants, we help elite advisors identify the right environment for their businesses to thrive, whether that’s at a wirehouse, boutique, or independent firm. With nearly three decades of experience, we’ve guided thousands of advisors and represented more than a quarter of a trillion dollars in assets transitioned. And each year, one in four advisors managing a billion dollars or more who change firms are our clients. Our process is education driven and based on building relationships, starting as your strategic partner, well before you’re even thinking of a move. To schedule a confidential conversation, call us at 908-879-1002. Wondering why advisors change firms and where they’re headed? Are transition deals going up or down? Those very questions and more inspired us to create our Annual Advisor Transition Report. It’s the award-winning data-driven resource designed for advisors that connects the dots between the motivations around movement and the firm’s appetite for top talent. Arm yourself with the knowledge you need to make smart decisions. Download your copy at diamond-consultants.com/transitionreport. Jason Diamond: There’s been a noticeable shift in how advisors are approaching decisions about their business, not necessarily in whether they’re exploring change, but in what they’re focused on when they do. Mindy is back with me for a continuation of our earlier conversation on the Advisor Transition Playbook. Last time, we spent time on the mechanics, how due diligence works, what a move actually entails, and how to think through the process. What’s become more apparent since then is that the inputs into that process are evolving. The traditional drivers are still there, but layered on top are a set of considerations that didn’t carry the same weight before. AI is one of them, and not just as a tool, but as a differentiator that advisors are starting to diligence more seriously. Enterprise value is another. Showing up in conversations, even for advisors who don’t technically own their business, but are thinking more critically about what they’re building over time. And then there are questions around stability, ownership, and flexibility. What happens to the firm itself and whether advisors retain the ability to adapt again if circumstances change. None of this is theoretical. It’s showing up in real time conversations. What we want to do here is unpack those new triggers of advisor movement and what they suggest about how decisions are being made today. So let’s get to it. Mindy, the legend, thank you for joining me. So glad to have you on. Mindy Diamond: Thank you. I’m so happy to be here. Jason Diamond: Great. Let’s dive right in. I’ll set the stage really quickly one more time. When we spoke about this topic last, we talked about the drivers of movement, what we’ll call in this conversation as the old or the legacy drivers of movement, and we spoke about the mechanics of the move. Before we get into the new drivers of movement, which I want to be the meat of the conversation, remind us, when we talk about the legacy drivers of movement …. And by the way, by saying legacy, I by no means want to suggest that they’re not valid today, because they’re equally valid, if not more so today than they were then. But when you think of the classic drivers of movement in our industry, what are they? Mindy Diamond: Yeah. So I would say, first of all, let’s start by saying that for every advisor, they’ve got a unique set of needs. So the first thing to say is that while you and I can talk about the categories of frustrations or things that might bother an advisor, they show up differently in each advisor’s life. So it’s important to note that everyone is unique. But generally speaking, if I had to package them, I’d say it’s number one that shows up most of the time is too much bureaucracy. A feeling that a firm or a model is just too hypervigilant in terms of compliance and it’s too bureaucratic and too hard to get things done.

Partner with Jay: https://www.jayschwedelson.com/contactㅤPre-order Jay Schwedelson's new book, Stupider People Have Done It (out June 9, 2026).All net proceeds are donated to The V Foundation for Cancer Research, let's kick cancer's butt: https://www.amazon.com/Stupider-People-Have-Done-Marketing/dp/1637635206ㅤSubscribe to Jay's newsletter for weekly marketing tips and tactics: https://www.jayschwedelson.com/newsletterㅤRegister for Eventastic (FREE + VIRTUAL!) https://www.eventastic.comㅤRegister for GuruConference (FREE + VIRTUAL!) https://www.guruconference.comㅤConnect with Jay on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/schwedelson/Check out Jay's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@schwedelsonCheck out Jay's Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jayschwedelson/Ask Jay anything: https://www.jayschwedelson.com/askㅤLeave a comment and follow the show, it really helps us out!ㅤMASSIVE thank you to our Sponsor, CallRail!CallRail is the AI-powered lead intelligence platform that helps marketers prove exactly what's driving results. With CallRail, you can connect every call, text, chat, and form submission directly to the campaign that generated it so you finally know what's working and where to double down.Plus, with built-in AI conversation intelligence, CallRail analyzes your customer conversations, captures leads 24/7, and gives you deeper insights into what your prospects actually care about.If you're tired of guessing about your marketing ROI and want real data behind your campaigns, CallRail has you covered.Start a Free Trial Here: https://www.callrail.com/dothisㅤPaying for an AI tool and quietly wondering whether you're getting what they promised? That nagging feeling just turned into a class action lawsuit, and Jay Schwedelson thinks it's the first of many in a world where nobody can actually measure what "usage" even means. He also makes a surprisingly convincing case for why dropping the work-email requirement on your forms is a win and not a leak, with detours through LinkedIn GIFs, a Netflix rom-com, and a bestseller list nobody saw coming.ㅤBest Moments:(00:35) LinkedIn is rolling out GIFs in comments, and why that matters more than it sounds(02:45) The Claude Max buyer who expected 20X more usage and found he was getting closer to 6X(02:56) Why "am I actually getting the AI usage I'm paying for" is about to become a recurring legal fight(04:00) Year over year, 27% fewer companies are forcing a work email on their forms(04:54) The case for letting job seekers use a personal email, and why your brand wins when they get hired(08:16) "Stupider People Have Done It" lands at #87 on the USA Today list, with $130,000 raised for cancer research

Most women think the answer to making more money is working harder, longer, or squeezing more into an already packed schedule. In this episode, I break down why that is one of the biggest wealth traps I see, and how the real game is learning to create more output with the exact same input. I'm sharing the identity shift that helped me turn a $54K cash week into over $1M in long-term wealth, why Tony Robbins earns hundreds of millions in the same 24 hours we all have, and how to stop optimizing for cash… and start optimizing for true wealth. Tune in to learn: The one reason people like Tony Robbins make millions with the exact same hours you have The difference between optimizing for cash versus optimizing for wealth The identity shift that can help you create 20X more wealth with the exact same time and money you have right now What leverage actually is + how to create more output for the same input in your business, money, and life Why working harder is not what creates the biggest financial results + what high-net-worth women do instead

How to Make £80,000 in ONE DAY? My Top 5 Life-Changing Books!In this episode, I'm sharing the 5 most powerful books that completely shifted my mindset, built my property empire, and even helped me generate £80,000 in a single day. If you feel stuck in the corporate layout or want to scale your UK property investment journey, these books are your blueprint for success.In this deep dive, you will learn the specific lessons from each book that can transform your financial future:Rich Dad Poor Dad: How to stop working for money and start making money work for you by understanding assets vs. liabilities.Multiple Streams of Income: Why relying on one strategy is slow and how to diversify within the UK property market using BRRR and Serviced Accommodation.Millionaire Success Habits: The daily routines and mindset shifts that separate the wealthy from the rest.Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion: The critical skill of communicating with investors and partners to get them to say "Yes."$100M Offers: The secret to crafting property deals and business offers so good that people feel stupid saying no.Investing in your personal development is the highest return on investment you will ever get. These aren't just books; they are the tools I used to 20X my business revenue.About Rahim Bah: Rahim Bah is a public speaker, entrepreneur, property investor, property educator, business mentor, and content creator. The Rahim Bah Channel is focused on educating people to invest in UK property, personal development, business, and how to become an entrepreneur. Whether you're a young entrepreneur, property entrepreneur, have a business idea, or are just thinking about how to start a business, you'll get the value and business motivation you need to succeed from these episodes.

The SaaS multiples run was long, but it had to come to an end. Or Had it? Navigation: Intro Setting The Scene The Roots — This Didn’t Happen Overnight The Structural Thesis — Why This Isn’t Just A Sell-Off The Private Market Fallout The Bull Case — Is The Market Wrong? Separating The Wheat From The Chaff — Who Survives? Wrap-Up & Key Takeaways Conclusion Our co-hosts: Bertrand Schmitt, Entrepreneur in Residence at Red River West, co-founder of App Annie / Data.ai, business angel, advisor to startups and VC funds, @bschmitt Nuno Goncalves Pedro, Investor, Managing Partner, Founder at Chamaeleon, @ngpedro Our show: Tech DECIPHERED brings you the Entrepreneur and Investor views on Big Tech, VC and Start-up news, opinion pieces and research. We decipher their meaning, and add inside knowledge and context. Being nerds, we also discuss the latest gadgets and pop culture news Subscribe To Our Podcast Introduction Nuno Goncalves PedroWelcome to Episode 75 of Tech DECIPHERED, the SaaS Apocalypse: Why AI Breaks or has Broken or Broke the Software Business Model. In today’s episode, we will talk about what’s been going on in SaaS. SaaS, also known as Software as a Service, as a sector, has just had its worst month since the 2008 financial crisis. Give or take, around 1 trillion in software stock market cap has evaporated this year, and it was triggered in many ways by the rise of a lot of the things we’re seeing, in particular, agentic AI. We’ll talk about it later.One of the key triggers seems to have been the launch of Claude or Claude Cowork. There’s a lot of fears that the model that is taken as SaaS to be the darling of investors, both VCs, private equity funds, and also retail investors, has now evaporated. The sweetheart industry no longer works. Bertrand, what happened to SaaS? What’s happening? Bertrand SchmittSetting The SceneWe are in the middle of what some are calling the SaaSpocalypse. I think that was a coined term early this year. It’s pretty bad. We are recording that March 13th. Definitely January, February of this year, 2026, were really terrible. There is no question about it. Strangely enough, since the start of the war with Iran, there has been a small rebound, so we will see how it goes. But also to give some context, we are still not worse than what happened in 2022. We are still in a better place so far. I would say the difference, there is clearly a focus in terms of SaaS versus tech in general for that down term. Nuno Goncalves PedroWe’ve seen obviously a lot of things happening, right? A lot of announcements. The iShares expanded Tech-Software ETF down 25% year-to-date. Everyone seems to be running into panic, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs. Basically, Jefferies, I think, as you said, originally termed this the SaaSpocalypse. But definitely, it seems like everyone’s trying to sell stock and saying, “Hey, SaaS is going to die.” We’ve seen a lot of interesting elements to this, we’ll talk about it later, around AI eats software. Software eats the world. AI now eats software. I guess AI eats the world.But the reality is, we’ll discuss it later in the episode, it might be just a lot of stuff that’s reacting to what’s actually happening in the market, that there was a couple of misses in terms of numbers, that the growth of some of the key SaaS players that are driving a lot of the public stock wasn’t that great recently. That adding to some launches like we mentioned, the Claude Cowork launch, et cetera, has led people to say, “Hey, maybe some entire spaces of SaaS don’t make much sense going forward.” Bertrand SchmittActually, I don’t know if you noticed, but I think it was yesterday, it was announced that the CEO of Adobe just resigned. I was shocked how bad they managed the transition to AI. I guess it’s one of the first victims of what has been happening. From my perspective, and I will go deeper, but there is a bit of an overreaction. Claude is amazing as a tool, but the launch of Claude Cowork, a few plugins decimating the market, I think that’s an overreaction in the sense that many of these SaaS companies will be able to actually benefit from AI as well. Or some of the new AI tools really, really depend on the existence of an underlying SaaS layer that’s controlling some processes, some data. So I think we have to be careful about the extremes.At the same time, what is true, the growth rate has been going down for SaaS. If you look in the 2021 to these days, we move maybe from 30-11%, 12% average growth rate. It’s a dramatic difference in growth rate, and you cannot keep the same valuation when your growth rate has been divided by three. I mean, that’s just not possible.I think that there might be some overreaction about what company like Claude can truly achieve. At the same time, the reality is there that while SaaS companies are usually relatively strong companies, the growth rate has diminished, and as a result, so should the valuation.The Roots — This Didn’t Happen OvernightBut maybe we can move deeper about what happened the past 2 years about SaaS. Nuno Goncalves PedroIndeed. Some things going back as much as 2024 when Salesforce had its worst trading day. By then, in 2 decades, and went down by 20% on a rare revenue miss. So some early people, a lot of analysts, see this as an early warning of what was to come. Late last year, a huge shift as the different labs of a bunch of different players started launching agentic solutions, which in some ways started eating into a lot of the functionality, not just of vertical SaaS, but also of horizontal SaaS. As a distinction for some of our listeners who are not familiar with that distinction, vertical SaaS is normally SaaS that’s very specific to a specific industry or sub-industry or specific arena, whereas horizontal SaaS is normally SaaS that doesn’t require much adaptation to work across industries. A good example of that might be HR management systems.But basically, because of some of the early developments in those labs and a lot of the solutions that we started seeing around agentic tools, the market started being less positive on SaaS players and trying to readjust it. Those are the historic moments, 2024, 2025. Then all of a sudden, we see the growth rates of SaaS companies coming down, because obviously this doesn’t only have manifestations in the public equity markets. This has manifestations in clients.People, at this moment in time, we’ll talk about it later, are reconsidering their options. They’re like, “Why should I have a SaaS tool? Should I buy it from another player? Should I have a more holistic solution or an integration with Claude, for example? Should I develop in-house?” We’ll talk at length on what’s in customers’ minds, but customers started changing their views and stop buying some solutions that were out there from the large players that are public equities today. Bertrand SchmittYeah, it’s clear that there has been also just overall industry-wide tendency to try to cut on the SaaS subscriptions. Maybe there was too much interest buying too many software solutions, not rationalizing enough, not being careful about the spend. It makes sense that this has hurt overall SaaS growth rate. At the same time, there has been a transfer from IT spending from SaaS tools to AI, so we create a smaller budget for buying SaaS software.But going back, when you look at the change in revenue multiples, it’s crazy. In 2021, we were close to 20X EV, enterprise value to revenues. Now we are talking about 6-7X entering 2026, and we will see later on it does crunch even more. Right now, we are at 4X revenues. So from 20 to 6 to 4, and that’s the lowest in terms of multiples since 2016. That’s 10 years ago. P/E multiple for what multiples also comprise from close to 40 to close to 20.Talking about Adobe, Adobe trades at 5-year average of 30X, now at 12X. No wonder the CEO resigned. I don’t want to be mean, but I think it’s clear some CEO were very strong leading their companies into a SaaS paradigm, but were not as strong leading their company to a new AI paradigm. I think the markets are going to be brutal. If you are good at showing that you can transition to AI, you’re an important piece of the puzzle for AI, that’s one thing. But if the markets believe your products have not kept up, then it’s truly big trouble.I mean, they are not the only one. Intuit 34% decline in a month. Atlassian, minus 35 in a week. ServiceNow also down a third. They are not the only one, but definitely companies have to show some proof of either the lack of vulnerability in an AI world or their capacity to really move strong to a brand-new AI world. Nuno Goncalves PedroThe Structural Thesis — Why This Isn’t Just A Sell-OffWhat are the structural issues? Why wasn’t this just a sell-off? Why is this structurally a problem? The first thing is really around monetization and business model. SaaS 1.0 or 2.0, however we want to call it, was based on seat-based licensing. Seat-based licensing was the notion that with more employees and more users on the platform, there would be more revenue for the SaaS company. Very simple, very clear, very lucrative.Now, obviously, AI agents don’t occupy seats. An agent can do the work of 10 people, can do the work of 20 people, 30 people, 100 people, whatever it is. Therefore, if I’m a company, and I’m using agents, and not necessarily a human user, I’m not going to buy 10 licenses for the work of 10. I have one license, and it’s used by an agent that basically has access to that tool. That’s the first issue. The first issue is that the seat-based pricing, assuming humans, assuming a certain degree of productivity, et cetera, all of a sudden is under stress. Bertrand SchmittMaybe to highlight some point, not every SaaS company was focused on per-seat pricing. Me, when I led App Annie, we didn’t have a per-seat licensing or pricing at all, so we were focused on value-based pricing. But that’s true that around us, we have seen that quite a lot of your typical SaaS business was run on a per-seat pricing. Anytime there is a market downturn, you pay a dear price for your per-seat pricing. On top of it, these days, as you said, we have AI. In an AI world, the per-seat pricing model breaks down. Nuno Goncalves PedroIndeed. Now people are asking for other kinds of pricing schema, right? Either flat pricing based on certain usage patterns or, for example, outcome-based pricing. So depending on the outcome of what I’m trying to achieve, is it a booking of a sales call, is it something else? Whatever it is, I pay for that. But I do not pay for seats because that doesn’t work anymore.There have been a lot of movements around these licensing agreements and these basic elements. Some have actually now tried to create agentic licensing agreements. It’s like, “Okay, I have licensing agreements now for your agents, not for your end users.” It used to be end user licensing agreements. It’s now agentic licensing agreements. Obviously, there’s a shift.Part of the shift is, I believe people want to be in a measurement scale that is different. They don’t want just to pay for a seat. They want to pay for either specific outcomes that are very clearly measurable or have flat fees across the board on a variety of things. I think we’ll see the emergence of a couple of these business models and these monetization models more significantly. I do think we’re still to see some innovation around some of these monetization models, which will occur over the next probably few years as people are getting used to it. Okay, now it makes more sense for me to pay by this rather than by that.Again, because it’s a disruption, we’re still getting and nailing down what effectively the new monetization models and business models will look like for some of these players, but it still will be served as a service. We’ll come back to that later as well. Agents can do a lot of stuff and whatever, but it’s like agents and AI are software. AI is software, whatever you want to call it. AI is software at its base and its profound meaning and what it does, et cetera. Bertrand SchmittSeat-based pricing, usage-based pricing, yes, it’s too simple. Yes, it has its flaw. But at the same time, when the industry started, it made a lot of sense. That’s easy to manage, easy to control, at least from the SaaS company perspective. But definitely now that the industry is maturing, I can see that rise and the benefit and value of moving to an outcome-based pricing or to a value-based pricing. What I like with that also, it’s more truly win-win for both sides, for the SaaS companies as well as for the customer of the SaaS company. If you are more win-win, more aligned, I think it’s a better situation, more frictionless. I think it would be a big change.Another interesting piece of the puzzle, obviously, of all the changes we’re seeing is that one of the best assumptions in SaaS was you have 80% to 90% gross margin. If you are below 80%, there were serious questions coming your way in terms of what’s wrong with your business model as a SaaS business. Below 80% was blinking yellow light, below 70, blinking red lights. But now, it’s very different because AI-native companies, you’re expecting more a 50-60% gross margin.Obviously, if you’re SaaS companies, you better move fast to more AI-native tools and services. That will impact your margin. When you decrease so much your margins, of course, it will impact your valuation. There is no other way around that. You cannot value the same way a 90% gross margin business and a 50% gross margin business. That’s simply not reasonable. I think that one is part of the change and part of a different way to value companies. It’s very reasonable. Nuno Goncalves PedroThe first two structural issues is, one, obviously the per-seat pricing piece is potentially dying or at least becoming less pervasive in the market, added to these emerging pricing and monetization models that we just discussed, value-based, outcome-based, some usage-based pricing, some hybrid models that are also out there with some base subscriptions and then other kinds of things and tiers on top of it, either usage or outcome-based.The third big structural shift that we are seeing is, and I already alluded to it earlier, this notion of build-versus-buy. In the past, I think the market went fully into buy. In some ways, even beyond the, “I will buy one” solution that solves all the problems, we went into best in class. We went to unbundled buying: I’ll buy the best solutions for what I need in my corporation and enterprise needs.Now we’re getting a shift back into building: I’ll build my own stuff. I think a lot of it is relating to two things. One, there’s coding agents out there like Claude Code, Codex from OpenAI, and a bunch of other coding agents that have emerged. There’s a lot of solutions out there, like we mentioned already, Claude Cowork, that really managed to have agentic solutions into workflows that are deeply embedded into some of the enterprises.At the end of the day, I think there’s a lot more of this notion of, I have all my data in-house. I want to really leverage all the data I have. I don’t want to just use a third-party solution that has generic data. I want to use my data set, I want to use my stuff, and I want to basically fit that into ongoing improvements in terms of workflow.The other piece, I think, what’s happening with IT departments in some large corporations that’s leading to this build mindset rather than this buy mindset is also the notion of maybe we have too many people. How do we really express our productivity if we don’t have solutions that are at the core of our processes? If we have solutions at the core of the processes that we develop ourselves or that we develop in partnership with integrators, et cetera, but using some of these new AI platforms, we also have more visibility on the people that we can let go.Now, I know this is quite negative, but I think this has also been leading to all the layoffs that we’ve been seeing across industries recently, where people are like, “Well, I can just extract productivity.” We’ve seen some of those very visible ones. We were talking about Amazon and what’s happening at Amazon with the layoffs recently. A significant amount of layoffs recently announced.Then some other issues on the other side where apparently the junior engineers that were still working on stuff using Claude and other tools that they were using internally started breaking platforms and breaking systems. Anyway, definitely there’s a lot of that going into this build mindset. I want to have control. I want to make sure I understand where the productivity enhancements are, and that will give me more visibility on the people that I need to keep and the people that I need to let go. Bertrand SchmittI’m not so convinced about this part of the puzzle. I think that for many, AI is a convenient demand, but I’m more thinking that some companies, Amazon included, Microsoft, truly, truly over-hired in 2020, 2021. Yes, they scaled back a bit, 2022, 2023. But I don’t think they ever scaled back to what was reasonable given their needs. So it’s quite convenient to say, “No, it’s not management mistake of efficiency, it’s something new AI, and we have to adjust to that.”What I believe is true, however, is that you cannot fund both at the same time in the sense of you cannot finance an over-bloated workforce, and two, significant extremely large AI investment. At some point, these companies were faced with a choice, and they took a reasonable decision on this to be more efficient with their workforce.But personally, I think that actually the ability to do so much more with AI will make more companies think more about their teams and building things because when suddenly your engineers can be way more efficient, can build way more, the value increases. So you could argue that there is an opportunity for companies to deliver more, and as a result, I can see if you’re a good engineer, then there will be opportunities to build more value, potentially across more companies.So we might see a shift where you have more growth in software-related jobs outside the core top 10 bigger software companies, but growing more widely across your typical S&P 500 and even SMBs who could never afford to really deliver value with typical software engineering. But now suddenly, software engineering equipped with AI can be more dramatic in terms of value for them. Nuno Goncalves PedroI agree this is a scapegoat. I agreed that there’s a lot of posturing as well. If someone can lay off a significant percentage of their… It’s almost like the percentage of people you can lay off becomes your new pattern as a CEO, your new, “Basically, I’m saying right now to the market, I can cut…” I mean, Block, I think, cut off 40% of their workforce.At this point in time, seems a bit dehumanized. I think the tech companies are the worst cases, in particular because AI also does disrupt them a lot in their own processes internally. But it feels to me right now, it’s a little bit this one-upmanship of, “Okay, I can lay off more people than you can, kind of thing.” It’s precisely all the fears that a lot of people have around AI. It’s like you’re dehumanizing work. It’s like at the end of the day, people are still needed to work, et cetera. Bertrand SchmittBut I think Block might be one of these companies that completely over-hired over the past few years and never took the pill to reoptimize the business. Nuno Goncalves PedroI think we mentioned it at a previous episode that there was an estimate at some point in time that… For example, even Google had more than double the number of engineers they needed at any given point in time. So obviously, they did hoard engineering resources in other capacities. But at this point in time, it feels a little bit like up to you since being a software engineer right now is a kiss of death kind of thing. Which is weird because at the same time, we are seeing tremendous reallocation of capital overall in the industry towards infrastructure and platforms, where hyperscalers are at 660-690 billion in infrastructure CapEx for this year alone, and 75% of that being AI, where we are seeing a lot of movements around how do I budget accordingly if I’m a corporation.To your point, I think you made that point earlier, Bertrand, how if I’m the CIO of a company, do I allocate my resources more clearly, in particular, if I’m taking into account that I need to spend more money on AI and AI tooling and AI platforms. Obviously, at the end of the day, the CFOs are still there, and the CFOs are basically saying, “Hey, guys, we went into an unbundled world. We had all these agreements with all these people. I want more concentration.” At the same time, the CEO is telling me we need AI, “So whatever it is, you guys tell me what it is, but we can’t increase our budget for this stuff. We need to decrease it, and there needs to be AI in it.” Obviously, there’s a lot of reallocation also at a micro level within the corporate world. Bertrand SchmittYes, you cannot say it will be more built versus buy. At the same time, we are going to need less engineers to do the build. You see what I mean? Even with AI helping you, building which still cost you more, require more software engineering than just a buy decision. For me, what’s interesting is that not so many of these stories can be true at the same time. You require a next workforce, but at the same time, you’re going to rebuild your whole software stack from zero just because of the AI God that you just brought in from cloud. This is not reasonable, simply not reasonable. Nuno Goncalves PedroI think the thesis is that your top engineer is I think, in particular, the more senior engineers, can now do the job of 10. Therefore, what I am switching in terms of cost, I’m not saying I’m agreeing with the thesis, but the thesis is that. What I’m reallocating in terms of budget is, I’m reallocating towards spend at infrastructure platform level, on tokens, et cetera. That’s basically, I think, the thesis of what we’re seeing happening right now. Bertrand SchmittYes, but if you were just, quote, unquote, buying software, you’re not building software. You didn’t need software engineering to just buy software. Your software engineer that becomes as valuable as 10, yeah, but you had zero if you were just buying software. You see what I mean? Nuno Goncalves PedroNo, IT departments have always had engineers, the larger corporations. Yeah, for sure. Bertrand SchmittIt’s a very different game if you are moving from buying to building. It’s my point, I guess. Nuno Goncalves PedroIt is. Just to be clear, Bertrand, this whole build-versus-buy, the build is going to be done with a lot of use of outsourcing and a lot of use of service providers and a lot of use of integrators, et cetera. This whole bullshit of build-versus-buy, in effect, it’s a misnomer because at the same time, you’re going to have to hire, to your point, you’re going to have to hire companies, et cetera, to help you do this. It’s not magically that you can do it off the existing IT departments that you have. Bertrand SchmittExactly. The question will also be, is your first priority of business to rebuild Salesforce from scratch so that it better fits your internal need as a corporation because you have rebuilt from scratch with AI? I don’t think so. That for me is total overhyped bullshit. Klarna was big on that, this is total BS, quite frankly. Not only it didn’t work, but it makes zero business sense. Zero business sense. You’re not going to rebuild a CRM just for the fun of it while your software engineering could be focused on your core value proposition as a business. If you’re a company just starting, you have processes from scratch, you still don’t have solution, yeah, maybe you could consider that.But even then, is it really your priority versus building your core value proposition? For me, that’s a big question. But what I would expect, however, is that this overall trend mindset and stuff is going to keep the pressure on two software companies in terms of reducing tiers of cost, in terms of delivering more value, in terms of being more aligned to the business, and in terms of overall growth rates that are simply not the same as they used to be. Nuno Goncalves PedroBefore maybe we move to another topic, I think it’s clear, we’ll come back to that later, that there are a lot of overblown elements in this. You can never disregard a couple of very, very core elements. A lot of these software companies have very deep tooling into significant enterprise customers. You can’t just rebuild it from scratch yourself to your point. Not only does it make sense, but you can’t. It would take you years to do it. Good luck to you.Secondly, they have also distribution. They are pervasive in the market. They have sales forces. They have people that are selling out there. They have go-to-market teams. Again, we’ll talk about that in maybe one of our penultimate sections today. But maybe to move forward, we talked a lot about the public equity markets and how there’s been a reckoning by institutional and retail investors, et cetera.The Private Market FalloutBut also there’s been a private market fallout. The first one is very obvious to understand. Private equity firms loaded themselves with SaaS. Some even went after roll-up strategies in SaaS, like bringing a bunch of companies together and trying to attack a market and really getting a significant part of that. Software accounts for roughly 25% of the private credit market, which is incredible. Just that’s private credit alone, significant again. They’re loaded with a bunch of companies that have nowhere to go. They can’t IPO, nobody else is interested in buying them unless it’s for a huge write-off or write-down. That’s the first problem right now that we’re seeing in this fallout, which is the private equity market itself. Not only the buyout market, but also we saw a lot of growth funds loading themselves with private equity stock, with a rather SaaS stock, private SaaS stock.Right now, there’s nowhere for that to go. They’re stuck between rock and a hard place with a lot of solutions that are not growing at the rates they were growing before, with a public market that’s not really interesting right now to IPO in, because as we were mentioning earlier, the multiples have gone downhill dramatically, so it’s not interesting. Basically, it’s a chicken-and-egg issue. I would love to sell this now, but I can’t because I have awful market. I can’t IPO it either, so what do I do with all these assets? That’s the first issue here. Bertrand SchmittIt’s clear that you have to be pretty delusional to think that what’s happening in the software public markets is not impacting the private markets. We don’t know why it will be in six months. In six months, it could keep getting worse in the public markets. Six months, at some point, maybe there is a recognition it went too far in terms of adjustment. It’s always tough. But at the same time, you have to be prudent. For sure, what it means is that if I’m a private equity investor in a SaaS business, you have to be a very, very, very special SaaS company to get more financing these days at good terms.Sometimes it’s a very simple math. If you fundraise at 20X, even 10X, how do you go to get to another round of financing if now your multiples are at 4X? That simply makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Or you need to have grown into your valuation enough that it’s not crazy anymore. If you raise at 20X, and now you’re in 4X multiple, then you need to have grown 5X in your revenues so that you simply stay at the same valuation, or maybe you have to accept a different valuation. But again, quite frankly, the tough part would be convincing investors that it make any sense to put money in a SaaS business. Nuno Goncalves PedroJust to rub it in, just to make it even worse, the secondary market, which was a great market for exits or partial liquidations, et cetera, is demanding now huge discounts. There’s no way I’m going to buy into a stock if it’s not growing at the same pace. I’m like, “I’m sorry.” I will buy your stock at a significant discount. In some cases, it might be what would be a lesser price per share than your last round or your last two rounds. Not just, I want a discount on what you think you’re worth, but it’s like, I want a discount on your last round.Because there’s liquidity issues also in some parts of the market, we were talking just about the private equity firms, some of these deals will go through. If all of this wasn’t quite enough, we have what’s happening in venture capital, which is very close to my heart, of course, because that’s where I play. If you come to me, it’s like I’m a SaaS player immediately off the game. I’m like, “Really? You’re a SaaS, tell me more.” I was just talking to a player recently, SaaS play, there was nothing around AI in their pitch.It’s not just because you have AI in your pitch that I’m going to give you money, clear, but if you’re doing a SaaS play and there’s no AI in your pitch, I’m like, “Am I missing something?” If it looks very classic, I’m like, “Oh.” There’s been a huge, huge reduction in confidence in the VC space in investing in SaaS. There’s a tremendous hyper focus on AI, and in AI investing, AI apps, platforms, infrastructure by most VC firms at this moment in time. And so at this point in time, if you’re a non-AI SaaS player trying to raise money, where’s your AI play? I think that’s the question you’re going to get. It’s going to be very difficult to raise, very difficult to raise. Bertrand SchmittI agree with you. Myself, I saw that SaaS startups with absolutely no AI in their deck, and I was so shocked. I was like, “Guys, where are you living? Are you living in a parallel universe? Are you living under a rock? What’s going on?” Then they are like, “Yeah, but we’re preparing something like that, I come back and prepare.”But even then, as you say, it’s not just leaving AI in your deck. It’s what are your proof points? What have you delivered? How do you make sure that it’s truly differentiator? And how does it make sense versus a pure AI native companies? How are you going to find the new cloud tools that are going to get out in a few weeks and more or ChatGPT or whatever? You have to have a very different proof point. There is nothing new in the past. It’s how are you going to survive against Google? How are you going to survive against Salesforce? How are you going to survive against Microsoft? So nothing is new.Software universe is changing. There’s always that big guys that can destroy you in a matter of weeks. So the question is more, how are you going to be smart enough not to be killed too easily and to find your way in a space that’s probably moving faster than ever? That is probably the difference is that it’s weeks after weeks, you have big change. I’m pretty sure it didn’t happen in that space before because I’ve seen there, I’ve seen that, and it’s moving faster than ever. But it’s nothing new that there is this big company potentially destroying your business. You have to be smart.I feel in some ways, maybe it’s the 2020s, but people stopped being smart, quite frankly. They just raised easy at very large valuation and think that you just do something sometimes pretty basic in terms of software development and that’s good enough. Your GTM is traditional, and you think you made it, and you deserve some investment. I think you must have seen some of this. I have seen a lot of this. In some ways, it’s good. The market is becoming more discerning. Nuno Goncalves PedroThe Bull Case — Is The Market Wrong?But is the market wrong? Maybe shifting to that, at least my perspective is it’s wrong. It’s not fully wrong, but it’s wrong. There’s a right sizing of multiples, but maybe 4X is not the right multiple either. This whole 20X on actuals and 40X on forward stuff didn’t make any sense. There is an argumentation to say that the market is oversold. All the banks have come forward. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Jeffries, Morgan Stanley. Everyone’s come forward and said there’s been definitely, Bank of America, whatever, there’s been an overselling of stock, a dramatic overselling of stock. There’s been a panic that wasn’t warranted. The price has gone down too dramatically for some of these key players.I think part of it, in some ways, is what we were alluding to earlier, the fact that some of these players have built really important stacks that are fitting their customers in a significant on core processes. You can’t just rip it off and put something new. Magically, it will work. It will be around building things around it rather than building things that replace it. Will there be over the long term potential disruption of some of these players around CRM and other solutions? For sure, we’ll see it.But definitely, some of the existing players, public companies that are large, are here to stay, and they themselves will buy into these markets. They’ll acquire positions into other service providers into toolmakers, into other platforms that allow them to be fully AI-enabled and to make their platforms more AI-enabled. I do think there was a huge amount of overselling. The second thing we already alluded to as well as go-to-market. If I’m selling something to someone, there’s a salesperson involved or there are a couple of salespeople involved, they’re not going anywhere. So in some ways, that relationship building with CIOs, with their teams, with procurement teams, all of that is still there.And a lot of the large SaaS players have been doing this for decades. So they have the surface of attack and go-to-market that will take a long time to build for even some of these startups that are disrupting, so to speak, the market. My view is there has been too much panic and the modes of the large players that are already public, in some cases, haven’t been considered at all. Bertrand SchmittThere’s definitely some truth in that. Another piece of the puzzle is that if SaaS is not growing as fast as it used to be, it’s still growing. Many companies are still very good cash generation machines. Many of these companies are moving to AI full speed, improving their tools, changing how you can search their data, how you can leverage their data. They are very close to the data, so they know best how to deliver value on this data. They can integrate existing AI tools. There are a lot of ways for them to capture part of the value that native AI companies are claiming they will get. I think it’s definitely going to, and we’ll talk more later on. I think there will be a question around how do you differentiate the best SaaS companies from the worst SaaS companies in that context.But maybe I just felt we moved a bit quickly on one big event that’s shaping the software industry, it’s the current crash in private credit. Do you have some thoughts about that? Because what’s happening there is pretty crazy, to be frank. Nuno Goncalves PedroYeah, we’ve seen a lot of these players like KKR and Apollo getting slaughtered. Basically, Blue Owl, TPG, Ares, KKR all fell double this in one day on private credit exposure fears. Overall, Apollo has fell 7% as the date of as we were recording BlackRock, 5%. These guys were walking on water and all of a sudden, there was like, “What happened?” And what happened was private credit exposure. A lot of the concerns in the market is private credit is super sexy, and for those who don’t understand what it means is I’m giving credit to a private company in exchange for something, either warrants in the company or revenue sharing in the future, or I’ll get your revenues in advance from you, or I’ll take, whatever it is. There’s over exposure.There’s this potential logic that all these guys are scaling, all the companies that they give private credit to are scaling. And now there are concerns that there might be some dramatic credit in the market, that some of these companies are actually going to die, they’re going to implode, or they’re not going to really fulfill their covenants in their private credit agreements. Bertrand SchmittIt was hidden in plain sight, but that some of these private credit funds at 25, 35% exposure to software, IT, and SaaS, so a huge chunk in an industry where you bet on the long term revenues and cash flow to pay back your loans, while at the same time there is a discovery that this business may be at risk in the next three, five years or even one year because of AI.I think that was the first big chink in the armor that suddenly the creditworthiness of these companies might not have been evaluated properly. But two, it looks like there is also fraud that has been happening. I was reading stories how three, four people, accounting companies, were valuing and estimating loans for hundreds of SaaS business. Good luck, this is crazy. It looks like there is another layer to that story. Nuno Goncalves PedroWhen there are industries building a lot of wealth or apparent wealth that’s coming a little bit from out of nowhere, the likelihood that there’s fraud and things that were not properly done is, it sadly increases dramatically or exponentially. I think we’re seeing just maybe the first effects of that. Bertrand SchmittI was reading, for instance, that one of these big funds was no haircut across the portfolio, ever seen value that was 100%, whatever. One quarter after that, one of their clients going out of business and they lost everything. In three months, you move from no haircut to 100% haircut, decent enough part of your portfolio. This is crazy for a credit business. Nuno Goncalves PedroIt’s ostrich syndrome. You just put your head under the ground, and you’re like, “Hey, whatever.” I don’t know. Bertrand SchmittYeah, it’s zero mark-to-market in an industry that should be relatively conservative. This is private credit. This is not VC, this is not startup, this is not equity, this is credit, so pretty scary. Another piece was like, some of them were supposedly senior on the debt, but they were not so senior after all, this is insane. You claim seniority, but you don’t have it.My point, I think what’s happening in private credit is maybe it all started with that what’s going on, a lot of software exposure. It’s risky because of AI, but the more investor dig into it, that’s when they started to realize that maybe there is more than just that software issue. I guess, all of this is going to be an issue for software business because if suddenly you cannot get loans anymore or the loans you add, you have to pay them back or when it’s time to pay them off, you cannot renew the loan. There is nobody else to turn yourself to get another loan to replace it. That’s not going to be fun and that’s going to impact your growth rates. That could potentially also even be worse than that, be dramatic for your own business survival. Nuno Goncalves PedroMaybe now switching back to the positive part for the bull case. We think the market’s wrong, not fully, but wrong. The other side is still things move on. We’ve also had the same issues in credits in several industries in the past when markets imploded and credit came back. In some cases, it took a while. In other cases, it came back relatively quickly. One great analogy on making a bull case on why all of this stock that was sold was oversold, there’s too much stock being sold on SaaS and at prices that don’t make any sense is an analogy, precisely, for example, with retail. Amazon was going to destroy everyone their mother in 2010, and it did not. It was going to destroy Walmart. Walmart passed the $1 trillion market cap. Bertrand SchmittNot too bad. Nuno Goncalves PedroSo what happened? They adapted. They had huge advantages. They had huge advantages in terms of their customer base, presence, relationship with their suppliers, with the offerings they had, et cetera. They had huge advantages of economies of scale, and they leverage those advantages. And those advantages ultimately materialized in tremendous increase in revenue, tremendous increase in market capital as well.Amazon has done really well as well. It’s not like Amazon didn’t do well. Again, I think this notion, people sometimes have this difficulty in separating the notion of disruption from the notion of replacement. Disruption doesn’t mean necessarily full replacement. You can disrupt industries, disrupt players in that industry, and still those players will exist 10, 20 years later, and they’ll be much bigger because they adapted. The ones that don’t adapt may be killed.But the disruption doesn’t necessarily mean replacement or killing. It means just that effectively the rules of the game, the business model, which we already talked about, monetization models, the way that capital flows in that industry, et cetera, all of that shifts. It doesn’t mean that necessarily the existing players are not going to exist tomorrow. In some cases, they will exist and they’ll be even stronger tomorrow. Bertrand SchmittI think what’s happening is truly a disruption of the SaaS business model, of the SaaS valuations, of the SaaS analysis, because now you need a new prism to analyze it. What are the markets doing in the meantime? They are just dumping it, waiting for, “Okay, how do we look at it in a different way? Who are going to be the winners and the losers?” For now, we don’t care, they’re all losers. But I think that the next piece of the puzzle for us in this episode, but for the market is, how are we going to separate the wheat from the chaff? Who is going to survive? Who is going to more than just survive? Who is going to thrive in that new industry. Nuno Goncalves PedroThere I feel the ones that survive, there’s a couple of obvious ones we can go into. Two that immediately come to my mind are data infrastructure, the Snowflakes, Databricks of the world, because this is the underpinning of everything that’s happening around AI. I don’t see the data infrastructure fundamentally shifting right now. It might in the future, but right now I don’t see it fundamentally shift. Those guys have, if anything, tailwinds rather than headwinds.Then the other one that’s very obvious to me is cybersecurity, where I think AI is very additive to it rather than just necessarily replacing everything that exists. In some ways, that already been used for a while, certainly by the top players. Definitely, those are two immediate categories and areas that come to mind that have maybe more headwinds and tailwinds where really AI is adding rather than subtracting to it. Bertrand SchmittNo, I totally agree with you concerning data infrastructure, cybersecurity. You could argue if you take cybersecurity, that with the rise of AI attacks, with AI making it easier than ever to generate attacks, you better build up your security. Nuno Goncalves PedroWith AI? No, but you have to have AI on your side defending as well. The only way to defend AI is AI. Bertrand SchmittThat’s my point. Your cybersecurity vendors will become AI-enabled, will leverage AI at scale in order to defend you, else they won’t be able to defend you, just quite frankly. Nuno Goncalves PedroCorrect. Bertrand SchmittThat’s part of the game. Data infrastructure, no questions. Again, I don’t think you want to redo your infrastructure with brand-new tools, brand-new stuff is the current tools are working great and doing the job. Maybe another piece of the puzzle is that vertical SaaS, domain-specific tools, healthcare, manufacturing, if you have proprietary data, regulatory modes, it will be much harder for AI to disrupt quickly. If you are not disrupted quickly, you have more time to readjust your business model, to adjust your business model, to leverage AI to improve your business model.Again, of course, some companies, we have seen with Adobe, for instance, have not proven great skills at adjusting to AI. Not everyone is going to get out as a winner. I think some categories have better chance to actually not just survive, but potentially thrive. Another piece are systems of record. If you are holding proprietary non-scrapable data that AI needs to function, that you have deep switching costs protecting you, you are not going to disappear right away. I think you will probably survive. If you are smart enough, you might be able to even adjust and leverage AI.But I can see some might just stick to their revenues and hold companies hostage and might not innovate a lot. I guess we’ll do well on the short run, but on the medium to long I would definitely more worried. Nuno Goncalves PedroOne point I would like to make is at the end of the day, there’s more than that. The algorithmic methodologies you should use for specific industries, for specific verticals, for specific use cases could vary. We’re still very early in a lot of the application of some of these AI methodologies. We’re not early in the development of the research around them. They’ve been around for decades, but the application of them is still relatively early. I think that’s one of the advantages why vertical SaaS companies and vertical SaaS solutions right now might have an advantage, because the domain in which you’re operating, even algorithmically, is actually different, and you need to really right purpose it for those environments and for those domains.For me, that’s an important point to make. It’s not just any vertical SaaS. I think vertical SaaS, where there’s algorithmic distinctiveness, definitely has a shot at it. Other might not. We just saw a lot of discussions around legal tech and how legal tech got slaughtered with the launch of Claude Cowork, for example. Definitely, it will depend a little bit on the verticals. Bertrand SchmittTake the legal side. There has been some interesting decision recently where basically, if you use AI for legal advice, then this data, this discussion is not privileged. You are at big risk of discovery. There is a lot of issues that if you are working with real lawyers, will not be there. Your data is not discoverable, your discussion stay private, so it cannot be used against you. I think companies have to be very careful and very worried about how some of these tools are being used because it’s creating new risk. Some of these tools are not going to get privileged in the coming few months, I don’t think so.You could argue most of these companies in the first place claim a right to access your data and leverage it. I think that even in legal, it would be interesting to see how it evolved. AI will be able to claim some privilege at some point? Maybe, I don’t know. But on the short run, I can imagine how the legal profession, for instance, will not let it happen too quickly, and how you have to be very careful. It’s great to move fast, but you have to be careful with what is it that you are getting into. Nuno Goncalves PedroLet me guess, the last company you’re going to say or the last type of companies that you’re going to say are like the survive, thrive are AI-first or AI-native companies. Is that correct? Bertrand SchmittYeah, I guess. Yes. They are going to be less disrupted by AI, given that they’re already AI native. Nuno Goncalves PedroThey are AI. Bertrand SchmittWe are going into another territory. Even if you are AI-native, are you going to still get killed by Claude because you don’t have enough technology or ChatGPT because you don’t have enough technology? You are just that basic rapper around another AI tools. Here my perspective and what I share more and more with some entrepreneurs is you have to be careful if you are just an AI native company, but ultimately you are a very AI light in the sense that, yes, you are a native, but you are just reusing other LLMs and stuff, and you have not built any proprietary tech or moat with your data or in your industry. That’s going to be trouble. That’s going to be trouble.I’m not sure the market discriminated well enough at this stage, but I think there will be quickly some premium around, have you built a real technology mode? Are you really in such a situation that you are not going to get killed by a Claude or ChatGPT in a few weeks? I think there will be some discrimination that’s going to happen. Ai native won’t be enough to save you, basically. Nuno Goncalves PedroI think there’s one thing. One is what you’re saying. Is there fundamental technology differentiation and/or product differentiation that will sustain itself as a moat? The second thing is, even if it’s an AI app at a higher level, the reality is the guys that are in the market today, the OpenAIs, the Googles, the Anthropics, etc., they’re not going to address all use cases. There are places where some use cases will still exist. We saw that in the mobile app economy.In some of these use cases, you’d be like, why hasn’t, for example, Apple addressed the need for this kind of solution, whatever, and maybe it took them a decade to do it. Then, when they did it, they almost killed the market. But you have some of these AI apps that I think will still be in the market that will emerge and will address use cases that for some time, for some reason, OpenAI, Anthropic, etc., won’t go after. To Bertrand’s point, and I think importantly, if you’re an entrepreneur, if you’re writing on a very specific use case, and there’s seemingly a high likelihood that any of these players are going to address at some point, you’re not in a sustainable place. You’re not going to be around very long. Bertrand SchmittOr you have to take that initial leadership position and transform it into a deeper technology mode, a business mode. You have to leverage that first mover advantage, maybe, to something deeper than that, something more defensible. Maybe you pivot also in term of industry. You started in industry A, but you realize industry B is really the good one. You have to really optimize your way and not take anything for granted. Nuno Goncalves PedroBertrand, do you remember when it’s like every release of iOS and whatever, we were like, what industry is Apple going to kill now? What are they integrating? There was a period of time where it was literally like every big release, every major release, the yearly one, you’d be like, what industry are they going to kill now? Bertrand SchmittTotally. Totally. I think the same is happening. Definitely, we say AI, but I think some players have been smart enough to zigzag around that onslaught from Apple, from Google. But some will stay put. We think it’s not going to happen to them. Yes, they got into trouble pretty quickly. I think also what we have seen is that a lot of value could be from players who are simply more neutral and independent vis-à-vis a platform. If you need someone in the middle, your three or four mobile platform, or now your three or four LLMs or AI platforms, there might be value you can extract because companies are not… That’s another piece of the puzzle.You don’t want to just depend on Claude. You don’t know in three months, ChatGPT has a better model. You will want to make sure that whatever you are running can adjust to a change of LLM providers, for instance, or tool providers. I think, for instance, one position could be that mutual player, the one gives you the ability to adjust quickly to different technical AI development. We will see. But I think there are different strategies you can go through to make sure you end up not being killed, and that will require smart entrepreneurs. Nuno Goncalves PedroSeparating The Wheat From The Chaff — Who Survives?We talked about who survives, who doesn’t survive. Let me start with one. Or where I think will be categories that will be incredibly under attack, so a lot of players, I think, will disappear or will become very, very small. One obvious for me is anything that relates to the small, medium business markets, so very SMB-focused SaaS, a lot of regional SaaS stuff that has emerged, copycatting in certain markets because the larger players didn’t want to expand in some of those markets.I think a lot of that stuff gets just replaced because a lot of the SMB markets are price sensitive. A lot of these markets are also best effort-driven. It’s like it doesn’t need to be perfect, it just needs to do the basic stuff. Therefore, I see that market as a market that’s going to get, in all honesty, over the next 3-5 years, slaughtered. It’s not going to be rapid death, but some of them are just going to be totally replaced. Bertrand SchmittI agree with you. If you don’t have a big enough moat, if it’s very shallow, if your clients are moving quickly, you can easily switch based on a small price difference. That’s definitely trouble. Nuno Goncalves PedroI’ll let an anecdote just so people I don’t understand. Because people say, but these regional SaaS solutions normally because of their specificities to the markets and stuff like that, whatever. I literally drafted the other day an agreement, a semi-agreement relating to Portuguese law on Claude in Portuguese, from Portugal, not Brazil and Portuguese. It drafted an agreement from scratch based on my prompting, and it took into account specificities of the Portuguese legal system and taxation. Guys, it’s like, this is a freaking consumer tool. Localization of what? The tax regime and whatever? Who gives a shit? It’s like, again, I think that’s the market that definitely will get a pretty significant beating. Bertrand SchmittAnother market for me, we talk about Adobe, but content creation tools. Here, I think there is a dramatic shift in how you use them. Before you use another Photoshop to replace something in a picture, change a slightly picture stuff. Now, you just say, hey, remove this guy from the picture. Hey, replace. Hey, create that picture from scratch. I have five photo IDs, put these guys in context, put them in your meeting room, and go for it. This is such transformational versus how you used to work before that I think some of this industry is getting destroyed.There will be simply no point of using these tools anymore because something else is just 10X better. That is not even a question. You could argue there is still a niche of professionals doing stuff in an always because it guarantees a bit more higher quality or this or that. Sure. But overall, this is getting disrupted big time and the much bigger business might be totally new and totally AI native. Nuno Goncalves PedroI will do a parochial comment. We have two investments in the content creation space, one more on the marketing side and the other one more on the hardcore content creation side. They’re both AI from inception, so they’re both AI native. One of them is called LetsEnhance, the other one is called blaze.ai. I feel it’s true that there’s going to be a lot of replacement of some of the content creation tools in certain markets like consumer and prosumer, driven by the Nano Bananas of the world and all that stuff.But on the top end and in enterprise and all that stuff, we feel that AI native content creation tools are there to be. It’s actually one of the areas of what I would call use cases or AI apps/platforms where I feel being AI native will give you an advantage. Just being a cross-cut play around the market being Anthropic or OpenAI, whatever, actually won’t solve the problem for some of the markets that need to be served in. Bertrand SchmittMakes sense. I agree with you. Maybe more quickly, some point solutions, relatively high risk. If you have a single function tool, then could be easily replaced potentially by an AI agent. We already talk about it. If you are too SMB-focused, that’s not the best segment of the market, typically. Maybe you can have a single test to check if that company is at risk. If you were to replace that tool, can a $20 a month AI agent do this task? If switch it cost are low, then maybe that’s not a good business opportunity. Maybe you should not invest, or you should sell the stock.Again, maybe you have to focus more on regulated niches, hardware dependent, critical private data, solutions where there is already outcome or value-based pricing in place. You have to put some rules and analysis to help you understand, is this business at risk of significant disruption or not? Not all business are the same. As an investor, that might mean that there would be some good opportunities. SaaS businesses that are going to emerge even stronger right now are at a cheap discount. Nuno Goncalves PedroAbsolutely. I think at the end of the day, certain basic workflow tools that are out there to simplify CRM, some very basic ERP modules, anything that’s very, very simple in terms of if this then that, all those tools are also going to be slaughtered relatively soon, sadly. If you’re in that space, maybe time, as Bertrand was saying earlier, to pivot, to go after some fundamental differentiation, or to do something else. You want to conclude, Bertrand? Bertrand SchmittConclusionSure. I guess we could see that from a trade perspective, from an investor perspective. I think it’s creating quite genuinely some opportunities. Some stocks are in the bargain, some of those are value traps, so you better get your investment skills in order. PE, private credit, definitely a lot of risk, not just from AI, I think from basic fraud as well.Secondary market, as you just say, it’s not an easy one. It’s a canary in the coal mine. I think you will agree, but this is before getting between AI native versus everything else these days, especially if you are more early stage. A more established business, it’s a different thing. But right now, just starting a regular SaaS company, that’s a tough one. From an investor perspective, you need to pivot as fast as you can from seed-based pricing, hybrid, outcome-based, value-based pricing. You have to do the move quickly. You don’t want to be pushed when it’s too late.Build-versus-buy is real, and that will only accelerate as coding agents mature. Vertical specialization, proprietary data are strong moat. They were before as well, so it’s nothing new. But I think the importance of having a true moat is more critical than ever. Lots of companies have received investment with not enough moat, and that’s the one getting destroyed in the private and public market. If you have strong matrix, there is a question of when is a good time to exit? I don’t know if the relations will ever come back. I think it truly depends as well on your business, a strategic fit with acquisition opportunities.Anecdotally, I have seen some businesses who look at exit opportunities and now are finding attractive options. It’s not all that dark, I would say. Maybe to answer to the question, do we have a SaaS apocalypse? Yes and no. Some companies are going to end badly, some companies are going to emerge stronger. I think that’s it for today. Thank you, Nino. Nuno Goncalves PedroThank you, Bertrand.

X: @billyeargin @ileaderssummit @americasrt1776 @NatashaSrdoc @JoelAnandUSA @supertalk @JTitMVirginia Join America's Roundtable radio co-hosts Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy with Bill Yeargin, one of America's top CEOs who took an iconic American boat manufacturing company which was experiencing financial difficulties. By transforming the corporate culture at Correct Craft, Bill took Correct Craft with revenues of $40 million in 2009 and reached its goal of becoming a billion-dollar enterprise in 2023. During Yeargin's tenure, Correct Craft grew by over 20X and won many awards, including Florida's Manufacturer of the Year and the boating industry's Most Innovative Company. It also became an influential voice in the boating industry as well as in Washington, DC. In highlighting the new book titled "Mindset Matters" which he co-authored with Zach Hutcheson, CFO of Correct Craft, Bill Yeargin shares his insights and experiences over the past 20 years at the helm of Correct Craft. The company played a pivotal role in World War II when the leadership of the company in 1945 heeded the call of General Eisenhower who needed over 400 boats in the winter to move over 15,000 US soldiers in the perilous crossing of Germany's River Rhine. The company was then producing less than 20 boats per month, yet did the impossible in what National Geographic called the "Miracle Production" when Correct Craft built over 400 boats in less than 30 days while keeping the Sabbath. The unique story of Correct Craft over the past 101 years reminds us all of the creativity and ingenuity of Americans fueling innovation and achieving ground-breaking results. About Bill Yeargin: Bill Yeargin is a thought leader, CEO, board member, global traveler (110 countries), innovator, and culture evangelist. He has authored six books including the best sellers Education of a CEO and Faith Leap. Bill has shared leadership insights in innumerable articles and columns for over three decades and has been a popular speaker at hundreds of events on six continents. The company Bill leads as CEO, Correct Craft, is a 100-year-old company with global operations. Correct Craft's subsidiaries include multiple boat brands, engine brands, water sports parks, and entities devoted solely to vertical integration and innovation. The company has manufacturing facilities across the U.S. and distributes into about 70 countries. Under Bill's leadership, Correct Craft has developed a unique culture of “Making Life Better.” They have won all their industry's major awards and were recognized as Florida's “Manufacturer of the Year.” Correct Craft has also been recognized as the boating industry's “Most Innovative Company.” A passionate lifelong learner, Bill has earned a bachelor's degree in accounting and an MBA. He has also completed post-graduate studies at Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT, and the London School of Economics. Bill is a certified public accountant and certified Lean Six Sigma black belt. In addition, he is certified in both Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and DISC. Palm Beach State College recognized Bill as an outstanding alum with its Emerald Torch Award. Nova Southeastern University awarded Bill a doctorate of humane letters in recognition of his “contribution to the lives of others and the betterment of humanity.” Bill served on numerous for-profit and non-profit boards and earned a certificate in corporate governance from both Columbia University and Cornell University. He also earned both a certificate in Risk Governance and Qualified Risk Director® credential from the DCRO Risk Governance Institute. Bill currently serves on multiple boards and is board chair of the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA). Bill actively represents his industry on both national and state issues. He served both the Obama and Trump administrations on cabinet-level advisory councils and has been invited to the White House nine times by three different presidents. Bill was appointed by Florida's governor to serve on the University of Central Florida board of trustees. Bill has been recognized with many of the marine industry's top awards including Boating Industry's “Mover and Shaker of the Year.” Florida Trend magazine has recognized Bill as one of “Florida's Most Influential Business Leaders” and he is an Orlando Business Journal “CEO of the Year.” The governor of Florida also presented Bill with the “Governor's Business Ambassador Medal.” About Correct Craft: Celebrating 100 years of excellence in the marine industry, Correct Craft is a Florida-based company with global operations. Focused on “Making Life Better,” the Correct Craft family includes Nautique, Centurion, Supreme, Bass Cat, Yar-Craft, SeaArk, Parker, and Revel boat companies, Pleasurecraft Engine Group, Indmar Marine Engines, Velvet Drive Transmissions, Ingenity Electric, Mach Connections, Merritt Precision, Osmosis, Watershed Innovation, and Aktion Parks. For more information, please visit www.correctcraft.com. americasrt.com https://ileaderssummit.org/ | https://jerusalemleaderssummit.com/ America's Roundtable on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/americas-roundtable/id1518878472 X: @billyeargin @ileaderssummit @americasrt1776 @NatashaSrdoc @JoelAnandUSA @supertalk @JTitMVirginia America's Roundtable is co-hosted by Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy, co-founders of International Leaders Summit and the Jerusalem Leaders Summit. America's Roundtable radio program focuses on America's economy, healthcare reform, rule of law, security and trade, and its strategic partnership with rule of law nations around the world. The radio program features high-ranking US administration officials, cabinet members, members of Congress, state government officials, distinguished diplomats, business and media leaders and influential thinkers from around the world. Tune into America's Roundtable Radio program from Washington, DC via live streaming on Saturday mornings via 68 radio stations at 7:30 A.M. (ET) on Lanser Broadcasting Corporation covering the Michigan and the Midwest market, and at 7:30 A.M. (CT) on SuperTalk Mississippi — SuperTalk.FM reaching listeners in every county within the State of Mississippi, and neighboring states in the South including Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee. Tune into WTON in Central Virginia on Sunday mornings at 9:30 A.M. (ET). Listen to America's Roundtable on digital platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, Google and other key online platforms. Listen live, Saturdays at 7:30 A.M. (CT) on SuperTalk | https://www.supertalk.fm

Most affiliate programs grow by inches. This one grew by miles. In today's episode, I'm breaking down how we grew affiliate revenue 20X in 48 months. No fluff. No "one weird trick". Just the exact moves that changed everything: what we focused on first, what we stopped doing, the leverage points that mattered most, and a few bets that didn't pay off. If you want a clear playbook for scaling an affiliate program without burning trust, relationships, or your sanity... this is it. Links Mentioned in this Episode   Affiliate Training Templates and Scripts Promo Strategy Call Template Resources Page Guide

From rewriting Google's search stack in the early 2000s to reviving sparse trillion-parameter models and co-designing TPUs with frontier ML research, Jeff Dean has quietly shaped nearly every layer of the modern AI stack. As Chief AI Scientist at Google and a driving force behind Gemini, Jeff has lived through multiple scaling revolutions from CPUs and sharded indices to multimodal models that reason across text, video, and code.Jeff joins us to unpack what it really means to “own the Pareto frontier,” why distillation is the engine behind every Flash model breakthrough, how energy (in picojoules) not FLOPs is becoming the true bottleneck, what it was like leading the charge to unify all of Google's AI teams, and why the next leap won't come from bigger context windows alone, but from systems that give the illusion of attending to trillions of tokens.We discuss:* Jeff's early neural net thesis in 1990: parallel training before it was cool, why he believed scaling would win decades early, and the “bigger model, more data, better results” mantra that held for 15 years* The evolution of Google Search: sharding, moving the entire index into memory in 2001, softening query semantics pre-LLMs, and why retrieval pipelines already resemble modern LLM systems* Pareto frontier strategy: why you need both frontier “Pro” models and low-latency “Flash” models, and how distillation lets smaller models surpass prior generations* Distillation deep dive: ensembles → compression → logits as soft supervision, and why you need the biggest model to make the smallest one good* Latency as a first-class objective: why 10–50x lower latency changes UX entirely, and how future reasoning workloads will demand 10,000 tokens/sec* Energy-based thinking: picojoules per bit, why moving data costs 1000x more than a multiply, batching through the lens of energy, and speculative decoding as amortization* TPU co-design: predicting ML workloads 2–6 years out, speculative hardware features, precision reduction, sparsity, and the constant feedback loop between model architecture and silicon* Sparse models and “outrageously large” networks: trillions of parameters with 1–5% activation, and why sparsity was always the right abstraction* Unified vs. specialized models: abandoning symbolic systems, why general multimodal models tend to dominate vertical silos, and when vertical fine-tuning still makes sense* Long context and the illusion of scale: beyond needle-in-a-haystack benchmarks toward systems that narrow trillions of tokens to 117 relevant documents* Personalized AI: attending to your emails, photos, and documents (with permission), and why retrieval + reasoning will unlock deeply personal assistants* Coding agents: 50 AI interns, crisp specifications as a new core skill, and how ultra-low latency will reshape human–agent collaboration* Why ideas still matter: transformers, sparsity, RL, hardware, systems — scaling wasn't blind; the pieces had to multiply togetherShow Notes:* Gemma 3 Paper* Gemma 3* Gemini 2.5 Report* Jeff Dean's “Software Engineering Advice fromBuilding Large-Scale Distributed Systems” Presentation (with Back of the Envelope Calculations)* Latency Numbers Every Programmer Should Know by Jeff Dean* The Jeff Dean Facts* Jeff Dean Google Bio* Jeff Dean on “Important AI Trends” @Stanford AI Club* Jeff Dean & Noam Shazeer — 25 years at Google (Dwarkesh)—Jeff Dean* LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-dean-8b212555* X: https://x.com/jeffdeanGoogle* https://google.com* https://deepmind.googleFull Video EpisodeTimestamps00:00:04 — Introduction: Alessio & Swyx welcome Jeff Dean, chief AI scientist at Google, to the Latent Space podcast00:00:30 — Owning the Pareto Frontier & balancing frontier vs low-latency models00:01:31 — Frontier models vs Flash models + role of distillation00:03:52 — History of distillation and its original motivation00:05:09 — Distillation's role in modern model scaling00:07:02 — Model hierarchy (Flash, Pro, Ultra) and distillation sources00:07:46 — Flash model economics & wide deployment00:08:10 — Latency importance for complex tasks00:09:19 — Saturation of some tasks and future frontier tasks00:11:26 — On benchmarks, public vs internal00:12:53 — Example long-context benchmarks & limitations00:15:01 — Long-context goals: attending to trillions of tokens00:16:26 — Realistic use cases beyond pure language00:18:04 — Multimodal reasoning and non-text modalities00:19:05 — Importance of vision & motion modalities00:20:11 — Video understanding example (extracting structured info)00:20:47 — Search ranking analogy for LLM retrieval00:23:08 — LLM representations vs keyword search00:24:06 — Early Google search evolution & in-memory index00:26:47 — Design principles for scalable systems00:28:55 — Real-time index updates & recrawl strategies00:30:06 — Classic “Latency numbers every programmer should know”00:32:09 — Cost of memory vs compute and energy emphasis00:34:33 — TPUs & hardware trade-offs for serving models00:35:57 — TPU design decisions & co-design with ML00:38:06 — Adapting model architecture to hardware00:39:50 — Alternatives: energy-based models, speculative decoding00:42:21 — Open research directions: complex workflows, RL00:44:56 — Non-verifiable RL domains & model evaluation00:46:13 — Transition away from symbolic systems toward unified LLMs00:47:59 — Unified models vs specialized ones00:50:38 — Knowledge vs reasoning & retrieval + reasoning00:52:24 — Vertical model specialization & modules00:55:21 — Token count considerations for vertical domains00:56:09 — Low resource languages & contextual learning00:59:22 — Origins: Dean's early neural network work01:10:07 — AI for coding & human–model interaction styles01:15:52 — Importance of crisp specification for coding agents01:19:23 — Prediction: personalized models & state retrieval01:22:36 — Token-per-second targets (10k+) and reasoning throughput01:23:20 — Episode conclusion and thanksTranscriptAlessio Fanelli [00:00:04]: Hey everyone, welcome to the Latent Space podcast. This is Alessio, founder of Kernel Labs, and I'm joined by Swyx, editor of Latent Space. Shawn Wang [00:00:11]: Hello, hello. We're here in the studio with Jeff Dean, chief AI scientist at Google. Welcome. Thanks for having me. It's a bit surreal to have you in the studio. I've watched so many of your talks, and obviously your career has been super legendary. So, I mean, congrats. I think the first thing must be said, congrats on owning the Pareto Frontier.Jeff Dean [00:00:30]: Thank you, thank you. Pareto Frontiers are good. It's good to be out there.Shawn Wang [00:00:34]: Yeah, I mean, I think it's a combination of both. You have to own the Pareto Frontier. You have to have like frontier capability, but also efficiency, and then offer that range of models that people like to use. And, you know, some part of this was started because of your hardware work. Some part of that is your model work, and I'm sure there's lots of secret sauce that you guys have worked on cumulatively. But, like, it's really impressive to see it all come together in, like, this slittily advanced.Jeff Dean [00:01:04]: Yeah, yeah. I mean, I think, as you say, it's not just one thing. It's like a whole bunch of things up and down the stack. And, you know, all of those really combine to help make UNOS able to make highly capable large models, as well as, you know, software techniques to get those large model capabilities into much smaller, lighter weight models that are, you know, much more cost effective and lower latency, but still, you know, quite capable for their size. Yeah.Alessio Fanelli [00:01:31]: How much pressure do you have on, like, having the lower bound of the Pareto Frontier, too? I think, like, the new labs are always trying to push the top performance frontier because they need to raise more money and all of that. And you guys have billions of users. And I think initially when you worked on the CPU, you were thinking about, you know, if everybody that used Google, we use the voice model for, like, three minutes a day, they were like, you need to double your CPU number. Like, what's that discussion today at Google? Like, how do you prioritize frontier versus, like, we have to do this? How do we actually need to deploy it if we build it?Jeff Dean [00:02:03]: Yeah, I mean, I think we always want to have models that are at the frontier or pushing the frontier because I think that's where you see what capabilities now exist that didn't exist at the sort of slightly less capable last year's version or last six months ago version. At the same time, you know, we know those are going to be really useful for a bunch of use cases, but they're going to be a bit slower and a bit more expensive than people might like for a bunch of other broader models. So I think what we want to do is always have kind of a highly capable sort of affordable model that enables a whole bunch of, you know, lower latency use cases. People can use them for agentic coding much more readily and then have the high-end, you know, frontier model that is really useful for, you know, deep reasoning, you know, solving really complicated math problems, those kinds of things. And it's not that. One or the other is useful. They're both useful. So I think we'd like to do both. And also, you know, through distillation, which is a key technique for making the smaller models more capable, you know, you have to have the frontier model in order to then distill it into your smaller model. So it's not like an either or choice. You sort of need that in order to actually get a highly capable, more modest size model. Yeah.Alessio Fanelli [00:03:24]: I mean, you and Jeffrey came up with the solution in 2014.Jeff Dean [00:03:28]: Don't forget, L'Oreal Vinyls as well. Yeah, yeah.Alessio Fanelli [00:03:30]: A long time ago. But like, I'm curious how you think about the cycle of these ideas, even like, you know, sparse models and, you know, how do you reevaluate them? How do you think about in the next generation of model, what is worth revisiting? Like, yeah, they're just kind of like, you know, you worked on so many ideas that end up being influential, but like in the moment, they might not feel that way necessarily. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:03:52]: I mean, I think distillation was originally motivated because we were seeing that we had a very large image data set at the time, you know, 300 million images that we could train on. And we were seeing that if you create specialists for different subsets of those image categories, you know, this one's going to be really good at sort of mammals, and this one's going to be really good at sort of indoor room scenes or whatever, and you can cluster those categories and train on an enriched stream of data after you do pre-training on a much broader set of images. You get much better performance. If you then treat that whole set of maybe 50 models you've trained as a large ensemble, but that's not a very practical thing to serve, right? So distillation really came about from the idea of, okay, what if we want to actually serve that and train all these independent sort of expert models and then squish it into something that actually fits in a form factor that you can actually serve? And that's, you know, not that different from what we're doing today. You know, often today we're instead of having an ensemble of 50 models. We're having a much larger scale model that we then distill into a much smaller scale model.Shawn Wang [00:05:09]: Yeah. A part of me also wonders if distillation also has a story with the RL revolution. So let me maybe try to articulate what I mean by that, which is you can, RL basically spikes models in a certain part of the distribution. And then you have to sort of, well, you can spike models, but usually sometimes... It might be lossy in other areas and it's kind of like an uneven technique, but you can probably distill it back and you can, I think that the sort of general dream is to be able to advance capabilities without regressing on anything else. And I think like that, that whole capability merging without loss, I feel like it's like, you know, some part of that should be a distillation process, but I can't quite articulate it. I haven't seen much papers about it.Jeff Dean [00:06:01]: Yeah, I mean, I tend to think of one of the key advantages of distillation is that you can have a much smaller model and you can have a very large, you know, training data set and you can get utility out of making many passes over that data set because you're now getting the logits from the much larger model in order to sort of coax the right behavior out of the smaller model that you wouldn't otherwise get with just the hard labels. And so, you know, I think that's what we've observed. Is you can get, you know, very close to your largest model performance with distillation approaches. And that seems to be, you know, a nice sweet spot for a lot of people because it enables us to kind of, for multiple Gemini generations now, we've been able to make the sort of flash version of the next generation as good or even substantially better than the previous generations pro. And I think we're going to keep trying to do that because that seems like a good trend to follow.Shawn Wang [00:07:02]: So, Dara asked, so it was the original map was Flash Pro and Ultra. Are you just sitting on Ultra and distilling from that? Is that like the mother load?Jeff Dean [00:07:12]: I mean, we have a lot of different kinds of models. Some are internal ones that are not necessarily meant to be released or served. Some are, you know, our pro scale model and we can distill from that as well into our Flash scale model. So I think, you know, it's an important set of capabilities to have and also inference time scaling. It can also be a useful thing to improve the capabilities of the model.Shawn Wang [00:07:35]: And yeah, yeah, cool. Yeah. And obviously, I think the economy of Flash is what led to the total dominance. I think the latest number is like 50 trillion tokens. I don't know. I mean, obviously, it's changing every day.Jeff Dean [00:07:46]: Yeah, yeah. But, you know, by market share, hopefully up.Shawn Wang [00:07:50]: No, I mean, there's no I mean, there's just the economics wise, like because Flash is so economical, like you can use it for everything. Like it's in Gmail now. It's in YouTube. Like it's yeah. It's in everything.Jeff Dean [00:08:02]: We're using it more in our search products of various AI mode reviews.Shawn Wang [00:08:05]: Oh, my God. Flash past the AI mode. Oh, my God. Yeah, that's yeah, I didn't even think about that.Jeff Dean [00:08:10]: I mean, I think one of the things that is quite nice about the Flash model is not only is it more affordable, it's also a lower latency. And I think latency is actually a pretty important characteristic for these models because we're going to want models to do much more complicated things that are going to involve, you know, generating many more tokens from when you ask the model to do so. So, you know, if you're going to ask the model to do something until it actually finishes what you ask it to do, because you're going to ask now, not just write me a for loop, but like write me a whole software package to do X or Y or Z. And so having low latency systems that can do that seems really important. And Flash is one direction, one way of doing that. You know, obviously our hardware platforms enable a bunch of interesting aspects of our, you know, serving stack as well, like TPUs, the interconnect between. Chips on the TPUs is actually quite, quite high performance and quite amenable to, for example, long context kind of attention operations, you know, having sparse models with lots of experts. These kinds of things really, really matter a lot in terms of how do you make them servable at scale.Alessio Fanelli [00:09:19]: Yeah. Does it feel like there's some breaking point for like the proto Flash distillation, kind of like one generation delayed? I almost think about almost like the capability as a. In certain tasks, like the pro model today is a saturated, some sort of task. So next generation, that same task will be saturated at the Flash price point. And I think for most of the things that people use models for at some point, the Flash model in two generation will be able to do basically everything. And how do you make it economical to like keep pushing the pro frontier when a lot of the population will be okay with the Flash model? I'm curious how you think about that.Jeff Dean [00:09:59]: I mean, I think that's true. If your distribution of what people are asking people, the models to do is stationary, right? But I think what often happens is as the models become more capable, people ask them to do more, right? So, I mean, I think this happens in my own usage. Like I used to try our models a year ago for some sort of coding task, and it was okay at some simpler things, but wouldn't do work very well for more complicated things. And since then, we've improved dramatically on the more complicated coding tasks. And now I'll ask it to do much more complicated things. And I think that's true, not just of coding, but of, you know, now, you know, can you analyze all the, you know, renewable energy deployments in the world and give me a report on solar panel deployment or whatever. That's a very complicated, you know, more complicated task than people would have asked a year ago. And so you are going to want more capable models to push the frontier in the absence of what people ask the models to do. And that also then gives us. Insight into, okay, where does the, where do things break down? How can we improve the model in these, these particular areas, uh, in order to sort of, um, make the next generation even better.Alessio Fanelli [00:11:11]: Yeah. Are there any benchmarks or like test sets they use internally? Because it's almost like the same benchmarks get reported every time. And it's like, all right, it's like 99 instead of 97. Like, how do you have to keep pushing the team internally to it? Or like, this is what we're building towards. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:11:26]: I mean, I think. Benchmarks, particularly external ones that are publicly available. Have their utility, but they often kind of have a lifespan of utility where they're introduced and maybe they're quite hard for current models. You know, I, I like to think of the best kinds of benchmarks are ones where the initial scores are like 10 to 20 or 30%, maybe, but not higher. And then you can sort of work on improving that capability for, uh, whatever it is, the benchmark is trying to assess and get it up to like 80, 90%, whatever. I, I think once it hits kind of 95% or something, you get very diminishing returns from really focusing on that benchmark, cuz it's sort of, it's either the case that you've now achieved that capability, or there's also the issue of leakage in public data or very related kind of data being, being in your training data. Um, so we have a bunch of held out internal benchmarks that we really look at where we know that wasn't represented in the training data at all. There are capabilities that we want the model to have. Um, yeah. Yeah. Um, that it doesn't have now, and then we can work on, you know, assessing, you know, how do we make the model better at these kinds of things? Is it, we need different kind of data to train on that's more specialized for this particular kind of task. Do we need, um, you know, a bunch of, uh, you know, architectural improvements or some sort of, uh, model capability improvements, you know, what would help make that better?Shawn Wang [00:12:53]: Is there, is there such an example that you, uh, a benchmark inspired in architectural improvement? Like, uh, I'm just kind of. Jumping on that because you just.Jeff Dean [00:13:02]: Uh, I mean, I think some of the long context capability of the, of the Gemini models that came, I guess, first in 1.5 really were about looking at, okay, we want to have, um, you know,Shawn Wang [00:13:15]: immediately everyone jumped to like completely green charts of like, everyone had, I was like, how did everyone crack this at the same time? Right. Yeah. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:13:23]: I mean, I think, um, and once you're set, I mean, as you say that needed single needle and a half. Hey, stack benchmark is really saturated for at least context links up to 1, 2 and K or something. Don't actually have, you know, much larger than 1, 2 and 8 K these days or two or something. We're trying to push the frontier of 1 million or 2 million context, which is good because I think there are a lot of use cases where. Yeah. You know, putting a thousand pages of text or putting, you know, multiple hour long videos and the context and then actually being able to make use of that as useful. Try to, to explore the über graduation are fairly large. But the single needle in a haystack benchmark is sort of saturated. So you really want more complicated, sort of multi-needle or more realistic, take all this content and produce this kind of answer from a long context that sort of better assesses what it is people really want to do with long context. Which is not just, you know, can you tell me the product number for this particular thing?Shawn Wang [00:14:31]: Yeah, it's retrieval. It's retrieval within machine learning. It's interesting because I think the more meta level I'm trying to operate at here is you have a benchmark. You're like, okay, I see the architectural thing I need to do in order to go fix that. But should you do it? Because sometimes that's an inductive bias, basically. It's what Jason Wei, who used to work at Google, would say. Exactly the kind of thing. Yeah, you're going to win. Short term. Longer term, I don't know if that's going to scale. You might have to undo that.Jeff Dean [00:15:01]: I mean, I like to sort of not focus on exactly what solution we're going to derive, but what capability would you want? And I think we're very convinced that, you know, long context is useful, but it's way too short today. Right? Like, I think what you would really want is, can I attend to the internet while I answer my question? Right? But that's not going to happen. I think that's going to be solved by purely scaling the existing solutions, which are quadratic. So a million tokens kind of pushes what you can do. You're not going to do that to a trillion tokens, let alone, you know, a billion tokens, let alone a trillion. But I think if you could give the illusion that you can attend to trillions of tokens, that would be amazing. You'd find all kinds of uses for that. You would have attend to the internet. You could attend to the pixels of YouTube and the sort of deeper representations that we can find. You could attend to the form for a single video, but across many videos, you know, on a personal Gemini level, you could attend to all of your personal state with your permission. So like your emails, your photos, your docs, your plane tickets you have. I think that would be really, really useful. And the question is, how do you get algorithmic improvements and system level improvements that get you to something where you actually can attend to trillions of tokens? Right. In a meaningful way. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:16:26]: But by the way, I think I did some math and it's like, if you spoke all day, every day for eight hours a day, you only generate a maximum of like a hundred K tokens, which like very comfortably fits.Jeff Dean [00:16:38]: Right. But if you then say, okay, I want to be able to understand everything people are putting on videos.Shawn Wang [00:16:46]: Well, also, I think that the classic example is you start going beyond language into like proteins and whatever else is extremely information dense. Yeah. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:16:55]: I mean, I think one of the things about Gemini's multimodal aspects is we've always wanted it to be multimodal from the start. And so, you know, that sometimes to people means text and images and video sort of human-like and audio, audio, human-like modalities. But I think it's also really useful to have Gemini know about non-human modalities. Yeah. Like LIDAR sensor data from. Yes. Say, Waymo vehicles or. Like robots or, you know, various kinds of health modalities, x-rays and MRIs and imaging and genomics information. And I think there's probably hundreds of modalities of data where you'd like the model to be able to at least be exposed to the fact that this is an interesting modality and has certain meaning in the world. Where even if you haven't trained on all the LIDAR data or MRI data, you could have, because maybe that's not, you know, it doesn't make sense in terms of trade-offs of. You know, what you include in your main pre-training data mix, at least including a little bit of it is actually quite useful. Yeah. Because it sort of tempts the model that this is a thing.Shawn Wang [00:18:04]: Yeah. Do you believe, I mean, since we're on this topic and something I just get to ask you all the questions I always wanted to ask, which is fantastic. Like, are there some king modalities, like modalities that supersede all the other modalities? So a simple example was Vision can, on a pixel level, encode text. And DeepSeq had this DeepSeq CR paper that did that. Vision. And Vision has also been shown to maybe incorporate audio because you can do audio spectrograms and that's, that's also like a Vision capable thing. Like, so, so maybe Vision is just the king modality and like. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:18:36]: I mean, Vision and Motion are quite important things, right? Motion. Well, like video as opposed to static images, because I mean, there's a reason evolution has evolved eyes like 23 independent ways, because it's such a useful capability for sensing the world around you, which is really what we want these models to be. So I think the only thing that we can be able to do is interpret the things we're seeing or the things we're paying attention to and then help us in using that information to do things. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:19:05]: I think motion, you know, I still want to shout out, I think Gemini, still the only native video understanding model that's out there. So I use it for YouTube all the time. Nice.Jeff Dean [00:19:15]: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's actually, I think people kind of are not necessarily aware of what the Gemini models can actually do. Yeah. Like I have an example I've used in one of my talks. It had like, it was like a YouTube highlight video of 18 memorable sports moments across the last 20 years or something. So it has like Michael Jordan hitting some jump shot at the end of the finals and, you know, some soccer goals and things like that. And you can literally just give it the video and say, can you please make me a table of what all these different events are? What when the date is when they happened? And a short description. And so you get like now an 18 row table of that information extracted from the video, which is, you know, not something most people think of as like a turn video into sequel like table.Alessio Fanelli [00:20:11]: Has there been any discussion inside of Google of like, you mentioned tending to the whole internet, right? Google, it's almost built because a human cannot tend to the whole internet and you need some sort of ranking to find what you need. Yep. That ranking is like much different for an LLM because you can expect a person to look at maybe the first five, six links in a Google search versus for an LLM. Should you expect to have 20 links that are highly relevant? Like how do you internally figure out, you know, how do we build the AI mode that is like maybe like much broader search and span versus like the more human one? Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:20:47]: I mean, I think even pre-language model based work, you know, our ranking systems would be built to start. I mean, I think even pre-language model based work, you know, our ranking systems would be built to start. With a giant number of web pages in our index, many of them are not relevant. So you identify a subset of them that are relevant with very lightweight kinds of methods. You know, you're down to like 30,000 documents or something. And then you gradually refine that to apply more and more sophisticated algorithms and more and more sophisticated sort of signals of various kinds in order to get down to ultimately what you show, which is, you know, the final 10 results or, you know, 10 results plus. Other kinds of information. And I think an LLM based system is not going to be that dissimilar, right? You're going to attend to trillions of tokens, but you're going to want to identify, you know, what are the 30,000 ish documents that are with the, you know, maybe 30 million interesting tokens. And then how do you go from that into what are the 117 documents I really should be paying attention to in order to carry out the tasks that the user has asked? And I think, you know, you can imagine systems where you have, you know, a lot of highly parallel processing to identify those initial 30,000 candidates, maybe with very lightweight kinds of models. Then you have some system that sort of helps you narrow down from 30,000 to the 117 with maybe a little bit more sophisticated model or set of models. And then maybe the final model is the thing that looks. So the 117 things that might be your most capable model. So I think it has to, it's going to be some system like that, that is really enables you to give the illusion of attending to trillions of tokens. Sort of the way Google search gives you, you know, not the illusion, but you are searching the internet, but you're finding, you know, a very small subset of things that are, that are relevant.Shawn Wang [00:22:47]: Yeah. I often tell a lot of people that are not steeped in like Google search history that, well, you know, like Bert was. Like he was like basically immediately inside of Google search and that improves results a lot, right? Like I don't, I don't have any numbers off the top of my head, but like, I'm sure you guys, that's obviously the most important numbers to Google. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:23:08]: I mean, I think going to an LLM based representation of text and words and so on enables you to get out of the explicit hard notion of, of particular words having to be on the page, but really getting at the notion of this topic of this page or this page. Paragraph is highly relevant to this query. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:23:28]: I don't think people understand how much LLMs have taken over all these very high traffic system, very high traffic. Yeah. Like it's Google, it's YouTube. YouTube has this like semantics ID thing where it's just like every token or every item in the vocab is a YouTube video or something that predicts the video using a code book, which is absurd to me for YouTube size.Jeff Dean [00:23:50]: And then most recently GROK also for, for XAI, which is like, yeah. I mean, I'll call out even before LLMs were used extensively in search, we put a lot of emphasis on softening the notion of what the user actually entered into the query.Shawn Wang [00:24:06]: So do you have like a history of like, what's the progression? Oh yeah.Jeff Dean [00:24:09]: I mean, I actually gave a talk in, uh, I guess, uh, web search and data mining conference in 2009, uh, where we never actually published any papers about the origins of Google search, uh, sort of, but we went through sort of four or five or six. generations, four or five or six generations of, uh, redesigning of the search and retrieval system, uh, from about 1999 through 2004 or five. And that talk is really about that evolution. And one of the things that really happened in 2001 was we were sort of working to scale the system in multiple dimensions. So one is we wanted to make our index bigger, so we could retrieve from a larger index, which always helps your quality in general. Uh, because if you don't have the page in your index, you're going to not do well. Um, and then we also needed to scale our capacity because we were, our traffic was growing quite extensively. Um, and so we had, you know, a sharded system where you have more and more shards as the index grows, you have like 30 shards. And then if you want to double the index size, you make 60 shards so that you can bound the latency by which you respond for any particular user query. Um, and then as traffic grows, you add, you add more and more replicas of each of those. And so we eventually did the math that realized that in a data center where we had say 60 shards and, um, you know, 20 copies of each shard, we now had 1200 machines, uh, with disks. And we did the math and we're like, Hey, one copy of that index would actually fit in memory across 1200 machines. So in 2001, we introduced, uh, we put our entire index in memory and what that enabled from a quality perspective was amazing. Um, and so we had more and more replicas of each of those. Before you had to be really careful about, you know, how many different terms you looked at for a query, because every one of them would involve a disk seek on every one of the 60 shards. And so you, as you make your index bigger, that becomes even more inefficient. But once you have the whole index in memory, it's totally fine to have 50 terms you throw into the query from the user's original three or four word query, because now you can add synonyms like restaurant and restaurants and cafe and, uh, you know, things like that. Uh, bistro and all these things. And you can suddenly start, uh, sort of really, uh, getting at the meaning of the word as opposed to the exact semantic form the user typed in. And that was, you know, 2001, very much pre LLM, but really it was about softening the, the strict definition of what the user typed in order to get at the meaning.Alessio Fanelli [00:26:47]: What are like principles that you use to like design the systems, especially when you have, I mean, in 2001, the internet is like. Doubling, tripling every year in size is not like, uh, you know, and I think today you kind of see that with LLMs too, where like every year the jumps in size and like capabilities are just so big. Are there just any, you know, principles that you use to like, think about this? Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:27:08]: I mean, I think, uh, you know, first, whenever you're designing a system, you want to understand what are the sort of design parameters that are going to be most important in designing that, you know? So, you know, how many queries per second do you need to handle? How big is the internet? How big is the index you need to handle? How much data do you need to keep for every document in the index? How are you going to look at it when you retrieve things? Um, what happens if traffic were to double or triple, you know, will that system work well? And I think a good design principle is you're going to want to design a system so that the most important characteristics could scale by like factors of five or 10, but probably not beyond that because often what happens is if you design a system for X. And something suddenly becomes a hundred X, that would enable a very different point in the design space that would not make sense at X. But all of a sudden at a hundred X makes total sense. So like going from a disk space index to a in memory index makes a lot of sense once you have enough traffic, because now you have enough replicas of the sort of state on disk that those machines now actually can hold, uh, you know, a full copy of the, uh, index and memory. Yeah. And that all of a sudden enabled. A completely different design that wouldn't have been practical before. Yeah. Um, so I'm, I'm a big fan of thinking through designs in your head, just kind of playing with the design space a little before you actually do a lot of writing of code. But, you know, as you said, in the early days of Google, we were growing the index, uh, quite extensively. We were growing the update rate of the index. So the update rate actually is the parameter that changed the most. Surprising. So it used to be once a month.Shawn Wang [00:28:55]: Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:28:56]: And then we went to a system that could update any particular page in like sub one minute. Okay.Shawn Wang [00:29:02]: Yeah. Because this is a competitive advantage, right?Jeff Dean [00:29:04]: Because all of a sudden news related queries, you know, if you're, if you've got last month's news index, it's not actually that useful for.Shawn Wang [00:29:11]: News is a special beast. Was there any, like you could have split it onto a separate system.Jeff Dean [00:29:15]: Well, we did. We launched a Google news product, but you also want news related queries that people type into the main index to also be sort of updated.Shawn Wang [00:29:23]: So, yeah, it's interesting. And then you have to like classify whether the page is, you have to decide which pages should be updated and what frequency. Oh yeah.Jeff Dean [00:29:30]: There's a whole like, uh, system behind the scenes that's trying to decide update rates and importance of the pages. So even if the update rate seems low, you might still want to recrawl important pages quite often because, uh, the likelihood they change might be low, but the value of having updated is high.Shawn Wang [00:29:50]: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Uh, well, you know, yeah. This, uh, you know, mention of latency and, and saving things to this reminds me of one of your classics, which I have to bring up, which is latency numbers. Every programmer should know, uh, was there a, was it just a, just a general story behind that? Did you like just write it down?Jeff Dean [00:30:06]: I mean, this has like sort of eight or 10 different kinds of metrics that are like, how long does a cache mistake? How long does branch mispredict take? How long does a reference domain memory take? How long does it take to send, you know, a packet from the U S to the Netherlands or something? Um,Shawn Wang [00:30:21]: why Netherlands, by the way, or is it, is that because of Chrome?Jeff Dean [00:30:25]: Uh, we had a data center in the Netherlands, um, so, I mean, I think this gets to the point of being able to do the back of the envelope calculations. So these are sort of the raw ingredients of those, and you can use them to say, okay, well, if I need to design a system to do image search and thumb nailing or something of the result page, you know, how, what I do that I could pre-compute the image thumbnails. I could like. Try to thumbnail them on the fly from the larger images. What would that do? How much dis bandwidth than I need? How many des seeks would I do? Um, and you can sort of actually do thought experiments in, you know, 30 seconds or a minute with the sort of, uh, basic, uh, basic numbers at your fingertips. Uh, and then as you sort of build software using higher level libraries, you kind of want to develop the same intuitions for how long does it take to, you know, look up something in this particular kind of.Shawn Wang [00:31:21]: I'll see you next time.Shawn Wang [00:31:51]: Which is a simple byte conversion. That's nothing interesting. I wonder if you have any, if you were to update your...Jeff Dean [00:31:58]: I mean, I think it's really good to think about calculations you're doing in a model, either for training or inference.Jeff Dean [00:32:09]: Often a good way to view that is how much state will you need to bring in from memory, either like on-chip SRAM or HBM from the accelerator. Attached memory or DRAM or over the network. And then how expensive is that data motion relative to the cost of, say, an actual multiply in the matrix multiply unit? And that cost is actually really, really low, right? Because it's order, depending on your precision, I think it's like sub one picodule.Shawn Wang [00:32:50]: Oh, okay. You measure it by energy. Yeah. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:32:52]: Yeah. I mean, it's all going to be about energy and how do you make the most energy efficient system. And then moving data from the SRAM on the other side of the chip, not even off the off chip, but on the other side of the same chip can be, you know, a thousand picodules. Oh, yeah. And so all of a sudden, this is why your accelerators require batching. Because if you move, like, say, the parameter of a model from SRAM on the, on the chip into the multiplier unit, that's going to cost you a thousand picodules. So you better make use of that, that thing that you moved many, many times with. So that's where the batch dimension comes in. Because all of a sudden, you know, if you have a batch of 256 or something, that's not so bad. But if you have a batch of one, that's really not good.Shawn Wang [00:33:40]: Yeah. Yeah. Right.Jeff Dean [00:33:41]: Because then you paid a thousand picodules in order to do your one picodule multiply.Shawn Wang [00:33:46]: I have never heard an energy-based analysis of batching.Jeff Dean [00:33:50]: Yeah. I mean, that's why people batch. Yeah. Ideally, you'd like to use batch size one because the latency would be great.Shawn Wang [00:33:56]: The best latency.Jeff Dean [00:33:56]: But the energy cost and the compute cost inefficiency that you get is quite large. So, yeah.Shawn Wang [00:34:04]: Is there a similar trick like, like, like you did with, you know, putting everything in memory? Like, you know, I think obviously NVIDIA has caused a lot of waves with betting very hard on SRAM with Grok. I wonder if, like, that's something that you already saw with, with the TPUs, right? Like that, that you had to. Uh, to serve at your scale, uh, you probably sort of saw that coming. Like what, what, what hardware, uh, innovations or insights were formed because of what you're seeing there?Jeff Dean [00:34:33]: Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, TPUs have this nice, uh, sort of regular structure of 2D or 3D meshes with a bunch of chips connected. Yeah. And each one of those has HBM attached. Um, I think for serving some kinds of models, uh, you know, you, you pay a lot higher cost. Uh, and time latency, um, bringing things in from HBM than you do bringing them in from, uh, SRAM on the chip. So if you have a small enough model, you can actually do model parallelism, spread it out over lots of chips and you actually get quite good throughput improvements and latency improvements from doing that. And so you're now sort of striping your smallish scale model over say 16 or 64 chips. Uh, but as if you do that and it all fits in. In SRAM, uh, that can be a big win. So yeah, that's not a surprise, but it is a good technique.Alessio Fanelli [00:35:27]: Yeah. What about the TPU design? Like how much do you decide where the improvements have to go? So like, this is like a good example of like, is there a way to bring the thousand picojoules down to 50? Like, is it worth designing a new chip to do that? The extreme is like when people say, oh, you should burn the model on the ASIC and that's kind of like the most extreme thing. How much of it? Is it worth doing an hardware when things change so quickly? Like what was the internal discussion? Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:35:57]: I mean, we, we have a lot of interaction between say the TPU chip design architecture team and the sort of higher level modeling, uh, experts, because you really want to take advantage of being able to co-design what should future TPUs look like based on where we think the sort of ML research puck is going, uh, in some sense, because, uh, you know, as a hardware designer for ML and in particular, you're trying to design a chip starting today and that design might take two years before it even lands in a data center. And then it has to sort of be a reasonable lifetime of the chip to take you three, four or five years. So you're trying to predict two to six years out where, what ML computations will people want to run two to six years out in a very fast changing field. And so having people with interest. Interesting ML research ideas of things we think will start to work in that timeframe or will be more important in that timeframe, uh, really enables us to then get, you know, interesting hardware features put into, you know, TPU N plus two, where TPU N is what we have today.Shawn Wang [00:37:10]: Oh, the cycle time is plus two.Jeff Dean [00:37:12]: Roughly. Wow. Because, uh, I mean, sometimes you can squeeze some changes into N plus one, but, you know, bigger changes are going to require the chip. Yeah. Design be earlier in its lifetime design process. Um, so whenever we can do that, it's generally good. And sometimes you can put in speculative features that maybe won't cost you much chip area, but if it works out, it would make something, you know, 10 times as fast. And if it doesn't work out, well, you burned a little bit of tiny amount of your chip area on that thing, but it's not that big a deal. Uh, sometimes it's a very big change and we want to be pretty sure this is going to work out. So we'll do like lots of carefulness. Uh, ML experimentation to show us, uh, this is actually the, the way we want to go. Yeah.Alessio Fanelli [00:37:58]: Is there a reverse of like, we already committed to this chip design so we can not take the model architecture that way because it doesn't quite fit?Jeff Dean [00:38:06]: Yeah. I mean, you, you definitely have things where you're going to adapt what the model architecture looks like so that they're efficient on the chips that you're going to have for both training and inference of that, of that, uh, generation of model. So I think it kind of goes both ways. Um, you know, sometimes you can take advantage of, you know, lower precision things that are coming in a future generation. So you can, might train it at that lower precision, even if the current generation doesn't quite do that. Mm.Shawn Wang [00:38:40]: Yeah. How low can we go in precision?Jeff Dean [00:38:43]: Because people are saying like ternary is like, uh, yeah, I mean, I'm a big fan of very low precision because I think that gets, that saves you a tremendous amount of time. Right. Because it's picojoules per bit that you're transferring and reducing the number of bits is a really good way to, to reduce that. Um, you know, I think people have gotten a lot of luck, uh, mileage out of having very low bit precision things, but then having scaling factors that apply to a whole bunch of, uh, those, those weights. Scaling. How does it, how does it, okay.Shawn Wang [00:39:15]: Interesting. You, so low, low precision, but scaled up weights. Yeah. Huh. Yeah. Never considered that. Yeah. Interesting. Uh, w w while we're on this topic, you know, I think there's a lot of, um, uh, this, the concept of precision at all is weird when we're sampling, you know, uh, we just, at the end of this, we're going to have all these like chips that I'll do like very good math. And then we're just going to throw a random number generator at the start. So, I mean, there's a movement towards, uh, energy based, uh, models and processors. I'm just curious if you've, obviously you've thought about it, but like, what's your commentary?Jeff Dean [00:39:50]: Yeah. I mean, I think. There's a bunch of interesting trends though. Energy based models is one, you know, diffusion based models, which don't sort of sequentially decode tokens is another, um, you know, speculative decoding is a way that you can get sort of an equivalent, very small.Shawn Wang [00:40:06]: Draft.Jeff Dean [00:40:07]: Batch factor, uh, for like you predict eight tokens out and that enables you to sort of increase the effective batch size of what you're doing by a factor of eight, even, and then you maybe accept five or six of those tokens. So you get. A five, a five X improvement in the amortization of moving weights, uh, into the multipliers to do the prediction for the, the tokens. So these are all really good techniques and I think it's really good to look at them from the lens of, uh, energy, real energy, not energy based models, um, and, and also latency and throughput, right? If you look at things from that lens, that sort of guides you to. Two solutions that are gonna be, uh, you know, better from, uh, you know, being able to serve larger models or, you know, equivalent size models more cheaply and with lower latency.Shawn Wang [00:41:03]: Yeah. Well, I think, I think I, um, it's appealing intellectually, uh, haven't seen it like really hit the mainstream, but, um, I do think that, uh, there's some poetry in the sense that, uh, you know, we don't have to do, uh, a lot of shenanigans if like we fundamentally. Design it into the hardware. Yeah, yeah.Jeff Dean [00:41:23]: I mean, I think there's still a, there's also sort of the more exotic things like analog based, uh, uh, computing substrates as opposed to digital ones. Uh, I'm, you know, I think those are super interesting cause they can be potentially low power. Uh, but I think you often end up wanting to interface that with digital systems and you end up losing a lot of the power advantages in the digital to analog and analog to digital conversions. You end up doing, uh, at the sort of boundaries. And periphery of that system. Um, I still think there's a tremendous distance we can go from where we are today in terms of energy efficiency with sort of, uh, much better and specialized hardware for the models we care about.Shawn Wang [00:42:05]: Yeah.Alessio Fanelli [00:42:06]: Um, any other interesting research ideas that you've seen, or like maybe things that you cannot pursue a Google that you would be interested in seeing researchers take a step at, I guess you have a lot of researchers. Yeah, I guess you have enough, but our, our research.Jeff Dean [00:42:21]: Our research portfolio is pretty broad. I would say, um, I mean, I think, uh, in terms of research directions, there's a whole bunch of, uh, you know, open problems and how do you make these models reliable and able to do much longer, kind of, uh, more complex tasks that have lots of subtasks. How do you orchestrate, you know, maybe one model that's using other models as tools in order to sort of build, uh, things that can accomplish, uh, you know, much more. Yeah. Significant pieces of work, uh, collectively, then you would ask a single model to do. Um, so that's super interesting. How do you get more verifiable, uh, you know, how do you get RL to work for non-verifiable domains? I think it's a pretty interesting open problem because I think that would broaden out the capabilities of the models, the improvements that you're seeing in both math and coding. Uh, if we could apply those to other less verifiable domains, because we've come up with RL techniques that actually enable us to do that. Uh, effectively, that would, that would really make the models improve quite a lot. I think.Alessio Fanelli [00:43:26]: I'm curious, like when we had Noam Brown on the podcast, he said, um, they already proved you can do it with deep research. Um, you kind of have it with AI mode in a way it's not verifiable. I'm curious if there's any thread that you think is interesting there. Like what is it? Both are like information retrieval of JSON. So I wonder if it's like the retrieval is like the verifiable part. That you can score or what are like, yeah, yeah. How, how would you model that, that problem?Jeff Dean [00:43:55]: Yeah. I mean, I think there are ways of having other models that can evaluate the results of what a first model did, maybe even retrieving. Can you have another model that says, is this things, are these things you retrieved relevant? Or can you rate these 2000 things you retrieved to assess which ones are the 50 most relevant or something? Um, I think those kinds of techniques are actually quite effective. Sometimes I can even be the same model, just prompted differently to be a, you know, a critic as opposed to a, uh, actual retrieval system. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:44:28]: Um, I do think like there, there is that, that weird cliff where like, it feels like we've done the easy stuff and then now it's, but it always feels like that every year. It's like, oh, like we know, we know, and the next part is super hard and nobody's figured it out. And, uh, exactly with this RLVR thing where like everyone's talking about, well, okay, how do we. the next stage of the non-verifiable stuff. And everyone's like, I don't know, you know, Ellen judge.Jeff Dean [00:44:56]: I mean, I feel like the nice thing about this field is there's lots and lots of smart people thinking about creative solutions to some of the problems that we all see. Uh, because I think everyone sort of sees that the models, you know, are great at some things and they fall down around the edges of those things and, and are not as capable as we'd like in those areas. And then coming up with good techniques and trying those. And seeing which ones actually make a difference is sort of what the whole research aspect of this field is, is pushing forward. And I think that's why it's super interesting. You know, if you think about two years ago, we were struggling with GSM, eight K problems, right? Like, you know, Fred has two rabbits. He gets three more rabbits. How many rabbits does he have? That's a pretty far cry from the kinds of mathematics that the models can, and now you're doing IMO and Erdos problems in pure language. Yeah. Yeah. Pure language. So that is a really, really amazing jump in capabilities in, you know, in a year and a half or something. And I think, um, for other areas, it'd be great if we could make that kind of leap. Uh, and you know, we don't exactly see how to do it for some, some areas, but we do see it for some other areas and we're going to work hard on making that better. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:46:13]: Yeah.Alessio Fanelli [00:46:14]: Like YouTube thumbnail generation. That would be very helpful. We need that. That would be AGI. We need that.Shawn Wang [00:46:20]: That would be. As far as content creators go.Jeff Dean [00:46:22]: I guess I'm not a YouTube creator, so I don't care that much about that problem, but I guess, uh, many people do.Shawn Wang [00:46:27]: It does. Yeah. It doesn't, it doesn't matter. People do judge books by their covers as it turns out. Um, uh, just to draw a bit on the IMO goal. Um, I'm still not over the fact that a year ago we had alpha proof and alpha geometry and all those things. And then this year we were like, screw that we'll just chuck it into Gemini. Yeah. What's your reflection? Like, I think this, this question about. Like the merger of like symbolic systems and like, and, and LMS, uh, was a very much core belief. And then somewhere along the line, people would just said, Nope, we'll just all do it in the LLM.Jeff Dean [00:47:02]: Yeah. I mean, I think it makes a lot of sense to me because, you know, humans manipulate symbols, but we probably don't have like a symbolic representation in our heads. Right. We have some distributed representation that is neural net, like in some way of lots of different neurons. And activation patterns firing when we see certain things and that enables us to reason and plan and, you know, do chains of thought and, you know, roll them back now that, that approach for solving the problem doesn't seem like it's going to work. I'm going to try this one. And, you know, in a lot of ways we're emulating what we intuitively think, uh, is happening inside real brains in neural net based models. So it never made sense to me to have like completely separate. Uh, discrete, uh, symbolic things, and then a completely different way of, of, uh, you know, thinking about those things.Shawn Wang [00:47:59]: Interesting. Yeah. Uh, I mean, it's maybe seems obvious to you, but it wasn't obvious to me a year ago. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:48:06]: I mean, I do think like that IMO with, you know, translating to lean and using lean and then the next year and also a specialized geometry model. And then this year switching to a single unified model. That is roughly the production model with a little bit more inference budget, uh, is actually, you know, quite good because it shows you that the capabilities of that general model have improved dramatically and, and now you don't need the specialized model. This is actually sort of very similar to the 2013 to 16 era of machine learning, right? Like it used to be, people would train separate models for lots of different, each different problem, right? I have, I want to recognize street signs and something. So I train a street sign. Recognition recognition model, or I want to, you know, decode speech recognition. I have a speech model, right? I think now the era of unified models that do everything is really upon us. And the question is how well do those models generalize to new things they've never been asked to do and they're getting better and better.Shawn Wang [00:49:10]: And you don't need domain experts. Like one of my, uh, so I interviewed ETA who was on, who was on that team. Uh, and he was like, yeah, I, I don't know how they work. I don't know where the IMO competition was held. I don't know the rules of it. I just trained the models, the training models. Yeah. Yeah. And it's kind of interesting that like people with these, this like universal skill set of just like machine learning, you just give them data and give them enough compute and they can kind of tackle any task, which is the bitter lesson, I guess. I don't know. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:49:39]: I mean, I think, uh, general models, uh, will win out over specialized ones in most cases.Shawn Wang [00:49:45]: Uh, so I want to push there a bit. I think there's one hole here, which is like, uh. There's this concept of like, uh, maybe capacity of a model, like abstractly a model can only contain the number of bits that it has. And, uh, and so it, you know, God knows like Gemini pro is like one to 10 trillion parameters. We don't know, but, uh, the Gemma models, for example, right? Like a lot of people want like the open source local models that are like that, that, that, and, and, uh, they have some knowledge, which is not necessary, right? Like they can't know everything like, like you have the. The luxury of you have the big model and big model should be able to capable of everything. But like when, when you're distilling and you're going down to the small models, you know, you're actually memorizing things that are not useful. Yeah. And so like, how do we, I guess, do we want to extract that? Can we, can we divorce knowledge from reasoning, you know?Jeff Dean [00:50:38]: Yeah. I mean, I think you do want the model to be most effective at reasoning if it can retrieve things, right? Because having the model devote precious parameter space. To remembering obscure facts that could be looked up is actually not the best use of that parameter space, right? Like you might prefer something that is more generally useful in more settings than this obscure fact that it has. Um, so I think that's always attention at the same time. You also don't want your model to be kind of completely detached from, you know, knowing stuff about the world, right? Like it's probably useful to know how long the golden gate be. Bridges just as a general sense of like how long are bridges, right? And, uh, it should have that kind of knowledge. It maybe doesn't need to know how long some teeny little bridge in some other more obscure part of the world is, but, uh, it does help it to have a fair bit of world knowledge and the bigger your model is, the more you can have. Uh, but I do think combining retrieval with sort of reasoning and making the model really good at doing multiple stages of retrieval. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:51:49]: And reasoning through the intermediate retrieval results is going to be a, a pretty effective way of making the model seem much more capable, because if you think about, say, a personal Gemini, yeah, right?Jeff Dean [00:52:01]: Like we're not going to train Gemini on my email. Probably we'd rather have a single model that, uh, we can then use and use being able to retrieve from my email as a tool and have the model reason about it and retrieve from my photos or whatever, uh, and then make use of that and have multiple. Um, you know, uh, stages of interaction. that makes sense.Alessio Fanelli [00:52:24]: Do you think the vertical models are like, uh, interesting pursuit? Like when people are like, oh, we're building the best healthcare LLM, we're building the best law LLM, are those kind of like short-term stopgaps or?Jeff Dean [00:52:37]: No, I mean, I think, I think vertical models are interesting. Like you want them to start from a pretty good base model, but then you can sort of, uh, sort of viewing them, view them as enriching the data. Data distribution for that particular vertical domain for healthcare, say, um, we're probably not going to train or for say robotics. We're probably not going to train Gemini on all possible robotics data. We, you could train it on because we want it to have a balanced set of capabilities. Um, so we'll expose it to some robotics data, but if you're trying to build a really, really good robotics model, you're going to want to start with that and then train it on more robotics data. And then maybe that would. It's multilingual translation capability, but improve its robotics capabilities. And we're always making these kind of, uh, you know, trade-offs in the data mix that we train the base Gemini models on. You know, we'd love to include data from 200 more languages and as much data as we have for those languages, but that's going to displace some other capabilities of the model. It won't be as good at, um, you know, Pearl programming, you know, it'll still be good at Python programming. Cause we'll include it. Enough. Of that, but there's other long tail computer languages or coding capabilities that it may suffer on or multi, uh, multimodal reasoning capabilities may suffer. Cause we didn't get to expose it to as much data there, but it's really good at multilingual things. So I, I think some combination of specialized models, maybe more modular models. So it'd be nice to have the capability to have those 200 languages, plus this awesome robotics model, plus this awesome healthcare, uh, module that all can be knitted together to work in concert and called upon in different circumstances. Right? Like if I have a health related thing, then it should enable using this health module in conjunction with the main base model to be even better at those kinds of things. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:54:36]: Installable knowledge. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:54:37]: Right.Shawn Wang [00:54:38]: Just download as a, as a package.Jeff Dean [00:54:39]: And some of that installable stuff can come from retrieval, but some of it probably should come from preloaded training on, you know, uh, a hundred billion tokens or a trillion tokens of health data. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:54:51]: And for listeners, I think, uh, I will highlight the Gemma three end paper where they, there was a little bit of that, I think. Yeah.Alessio Fanelli [00:54:56]: Yeah. I guess the question is like, how many billions of tokens do you need to outpace the frontier model improvements? You know, it's like, if I have to make this model better healthcare and the main. Gemini model is still improving. Do I need 50 billion tokens? Can I do it with a hundred, if I need a trillion healthcare tokens, it's like, they're probably not out there that you don't have, you know, I think that's really like the.Jeff Dean [00:55:21]: Well, I mean, I think healthcare is a particularly challenging domain, so there's a lot of healthcare data that, you know, we don't have access to appropriately, but there's a lot of, you know, uh, healthcare organizations that want to train models on their own data. That is not public healthcare data, uh, not public health. But public healthcare data. Um, so I think there are opportunities there to say, partner with a large healthcare organization and train models for their use that are going to be, you know, more bespoke, but probably, uh, might be better than a general model trained on say, public data. Yeah.Shawn Wang [00:55:58]: Yeah. I, I believe, uh, by the way, also this is like somewhat related to the language conversation. Uh, I think one of your, your favorite examples was you can put a low resource language in the context and it just learns. Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:56:09]: Oh, yeah, I think the example we used was Calamon, which is truly low resource because it's only spoken by, I think 120 people in the world and there's no written text.Shawn Wang [00:56:20]: So, yeah. So you can just do it that way. Just put it in the context. Yeah. Yeah. But I think your whole data set in the context, right.Jeff Dean [00:56:27]: If you, if you take a language like, uh, you know, Somali or something, there is a fair bit of Somali text in the world that, uh, or Ethiopian Amharic or something, um, you know, we probably. Yeah. Are not putting all the data from those languages into the Gemini based training. We put some of it, but if you put more of it, you'll improve the capabilities of those models.Shawn Wang [00:56:49]: Yeah.Jeff Dean [00:56:49]:

I audited my 2025 year looking for lessons learned, relearned, and unlearned. Here's a big one I'm relearning: the difference between someone good on your team versus someone great isn't 10-20% better—it's 10-20X in productivity, output, and impact. I really mean this. I came from the corporate world where I had big budgets and could hire A-players, but when I went out on my own with tighter budgets, I developed a bad habit: hiring cheaper people thinking I could get it all done. I'd hire two or three mediocre people instead of one A-player focused on the most important thing. What happened? Failed prioritization. Mediocre people increased noise, required constant oversight, and diluted my time instead of extending capacity. I was micromanaging and fixing instead of building. This past year I went back to my roots: only accept A-players, which forced me to prioritize ruthlessly. The business accelerated dramatically. This episode breaks down my number one recommendation for hiring A-players: treat it like video production—spend way more time on pre-production and strategy to dramatically reduce post-production work. Instead of jumping to a job post and taking "good enough," spend time defining what success really looks like, who would crush it (beyond resume bullets), and what systems screen people in or out. It feels slower up front but there's no comparison in speed to full output and caliber of people you stack on the team.//Welcome to Repeatable Revenue, hosted by strategic growth advisor , Ray J. Green.About Ray:→ Former Managing Director of National Small & Midsize Business at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, where he doubled revenue per sale in fundraising, led the first increase in SMB membership, co-built a national Mid-Market sales channel, and more.→ Former CEO operator for several investor groups where he led turnarounds of recently acquired small businesses.→ Current founder of MSP Sales Partners, where we currently help IT companies scale sales: www.MSPSalesPartners.com→ Current Sales & Sales Management Expert in Residence at the world's largest IT business mastermind.→ Current Managing Partner of Repeatable Revenue Ventures, where we scale B2B companies we have equity in: www.RayJGreen.com//Follow Ray on:YouTube | LinkedIn | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram

What does 2026 hold for indie authors and the publishing industry? I give my thoughts on trends and predictions for the year ahead. In the intro, Quitting the right stuff; how to edit your author business in 2026; Is SubStack Good for Indie Authors?; Business for Authors webinars. If you'd like to join my community and support the show every month, you'll get access to my growing list of Patron videos and audio on all aspects of the author business — for the price of a black coffee (or two) a month. Join us at Patreon.com/thecreativepenn. Joanna Penn writes non-fiction for authors and is an award-winning, New York Times and USA Today bestselling thriller author as J.F. Penn. She's also an award-winning podcaster, creative entrepreneur, and international professional speaker. You can listen above or on your favorite podcast app or read the notes and links below. Here are the highlights and the full transcript is below. (1) More indie authors will sell direct through Shopify, Kickstarter, and local in-person events (2) AI-powered search will start to shift elements of book discoverability (3) The start of Agentic Commerce (4) AI-assisted audiobook narration will go mainstream (5) AI-assisted translation will start to take off beyond the early adopters (6) AI video becomes ubiquitous. ‘Live selling' becomes the next trend in social sales. (7) AI will create, run, and optimise ads without the need for human intervention (8) 1000 True Fans becomes more important than ever You can find all my books as J.F. Penn and Joanna Penn on your favourite online store in all the usual formats, or order from your local library or bookstore. You can also buy direct from me at CreativePennBooks.com and JFPennBooks.com. I'm not really active on social media, but you can always see my photos at Instagram @jfpennauthor. 2026 Trends and Predictions for Indie Authors and Book Publishing (1) More indie authors will sell direct through Shopify, Kickstarter, and local in-person events — and more companies like BookVault will offer even more beautiful physical books and products to support this. This trend will not be a surprise to most of you! Selling direct has been a trend for the last few years, but in 2026, it will continue to grow as a way that independent authors become even more independent. The recent Written Word Media survey from Dec 2025 noted that 30% of authors surveyed are selling direct already and 30% say they plan to start in 2026. Among authors earning over $10,000 per month, roughly half sell direct. In my opinion, selling direct is an advanced author strategy, meaning that you have multiple books and you understand book marketing and have an email list already or some guaranteed way to reach readers. In fact, Kindlepreneur reports that 66% of authors selling direct have more than 5 books, and 46% have more than 10 books. Of course, you can start with the something small, like a table at a local event with a limited number of books for sale, but if you want to consistently sell direct for years to come, you need to consider all the business aspects. Selling direct is not a silver bullet. It's much harder work to sell direct than it is to just upload an ebook to Amazon, whether you choose a Kickstarter campaign, or Shopify/Payhip or other online stores, or regular in-person sales at events/conferences/fairs. You need a business mindset and business practices, for example, you need to pay upfront for setup as well as ongoing management, and bulk printing in some cases. You need to manage taxes and cashflow. You need to be a lot more proactive about marketing, as you won't sell anything if you don't bring readers to your books/products. But selling direct also brings advantages. It sets you apart from the bulk of digital only authors who still only upload ebooks to Amazon, or maybe add a print on demand book, and in an era of AI rapid creation, that number is growing all the time. If you sell direct, you get your customer data and you can reach those customers next time, through your email list. If you don't know who bought your books and don't have a guaranteed way to reach them, you will more easily be disrupted when things change — and they always change eventually. Kindlepreneur notes that “45% of the successful direct selling authors had over 1,000 subscribers on their email lists,” with “a clear, positive correlation between email list size and monthly direct sales income — with authors having an email list of over 15,000 subscribers earning 20X more than authors with email lists under 100 subscribers.” Selling direct means faster money, sometimes the same day or the same week in many cases, or a few weeks after a campaign finishes, as with Kickstarter. And remember, you don't have to sell all your formats directly. You can keep your ebooks in KU, do whatever you like with audiobooks, and just have premium print products direct, or start with a very basic Kickstarter campaign, or a table at a local fair. Lots more tips for Shopify and Kickstarter at https://www.thecreativepenn.com/selldirectresources/ I also recommend the Novel Marketing Podcast on The Shopify Trap: Why authors keep losing money as it is a great counterpoint to my positive endorsement of selling direct on Shopify! Among other things, Thomas notes that a fixed monthly fee for a store doesn't match how most authors make money from books which is more in spikes, the complexity and hassle eats time and can cost more money if you pay for help, and it can reduce sales on Amazon and weaken your ranking. Basically, if you haven't figured out marketing direct to your store, it can hurt you.All true for some authors, for some genres, and for some people's lifestyle. But for authors who don't want to be on the hamster wheel of the Amazon algorithm and who want more diversity and control in income, as well as the incredible creative benefits of what you can do selling direct, then I would say, consider your options in 2025, even if that is trying out a low-financial-goal Kickstarter campaign, or selling some print books at a local fair. Interestingly, traditional publishers are also experimenting with direct sales. Kate Elton, the new CEO of Harper Collins notes in The Bookseller's 2026 trend article, “we are seeing global success with responsive, reader-driven publishing, subscription boxes and TikTok Shop and – crucially – developing strategies that are founded on a comprehensive understanding of the reader.” She also notes, “AI enables us to dramatically change the way we interact with and grow audiences. The opportunities are genuinely exciting – finding new ways to help readers discover books they will love, innovating in the ways we market and reach audiences, building new channels and adapting to new methods of consuming content.” (2) AI-powered search will start to shift elements of book discoverability From LinkedIn's 2026 Big Ideas: “Generative engine optimization (GEO) is set to replace search engine optimization (SEO) as the way brands get discovered in the year ahead. As consumers turn to AI chatbots, agentic workflows and answer engines, appearing prominently in generative outputs will matter more than ranking in search engines.” Google has been rolling out AI Mode with its AI Overviews and is beginning to push it within Google.com itself in some countries, which means the start of a fundamental change in how people discover content online. I first posted about GEO (Generative Engine Optimisation) and AEO (Answer Engine Optimisation) in 2023, and it's going to change how readers find books. For years, we've talked about the long tail of search. Now, with AI-powered search, that tail is getting even longer and more nuanced. AI can understand complex, conversational queries that traditional search engines struggled with. Someone might ask, “What's a good thriller set in a small town with a female protagonist who's a journalist investigating a cold case?” and get highly specific recommendations. This means your book metadata, your website content, and your online presence need to be more detailed and conversational. AI search engines understand context in ways that go far beyond simple keywords. The authors who win in this new landscape will be those who create rich, authentic content about their books and themselves, not just promotional copy. As economist Tyler Cowen has said, “Consider the AIs as part of your audience. Because they are already reading your words and listening to your voice.” We're in the ‘organic' traffic phase right now, where these AI engines are surfacing content for ‘free,' but paid ads are inevitably on the way, and even rumoured to be coming this year to ChatGPT. By the end of 2026, I expect some authors and publishers to be paying for AI traffic, rather than blocking and protesting them. For now, I recommend checking that your author name/s and your books are surfaced when you search on ChatGPT.com as well as Google.com AI Mode (powered by Gemini). You want to make sure your work comes up in some way. I found that Joanna Penn and J.F. Penn searches brought up my Shopify stores, my website, podcast, Instagram, LinkedIn, and even my Patreon page, but did not bring up links to Amazon. If you only have an author presence on Amazon, does it appear in AI search at all? Do you need to improve anything about what the AI search brings up? Traditional publishers are also looking at this, with PublishersWeekly doing webinars on various aspects of AI in early 2026, including sessions on GEO and how book sales are changing, AI agents, and book marketing. In a 2026 predictions article on The Bookseller, the CEO of Bloomsbury Publishing noted, “The boundaries of artificial intelligence will become clearer, enabling publishers to harness its benefits while seeking to safeguard the intellectual property rights of authors, illustrators and publishers.” “AI will be deeply embedded in our workflows, automating tasks such as metadata tagging, freeing teams to focus on creativity and strategy. Challenges will persist. Generative AI threatens traditional web traffic and ad revenue models, making metadata optimisation and SEO critical for visibility as we adjust to this new reality online.” (3) The start of Agentic Commerce AI researches what you want to buy and may even buy on your behalf. Plus, I predict that Amazon does a commerce deal with OpenAI for shopping within ChatGPT by the end of 2026. In September 2025, ChatGPT launched Instant Checkout and the Agentic Commerce Protocol, which will enable bots to buy on websites in the background if authorised by the human with the credit card. VISA is getting on board with this, so is PayPal, with no doubt more payment options to come. In the USA, ChatGPT Plus, Pro, and Free users can now buy directly from US Etsy sellers inside the chat interface, with over a million Shopify merchants coming soon. Shopify and OpenAI have also announced a partnership to bring commerce to ChatGPT. I am insanely excited about this as it could represent the first time we have been able to more easily find and surface books in a much more nuanced way than the 7 keywords and 3 categories we have relied on for so long! I've been using ChatGPT for at least the last year to find fiction and non-fiction books as I find the Amazon interface is ‘polluted' by ads. I've discovered fascinating books from authors I've never heard of, most in very long tail areas. For example, Slashed Beauties by A. Rushby, recommended by ChatGPT as I am interested in medical anatomy and anatomical Venuses, and The Macabre by Kosoko Jackson, recommended as I like art history and the supernatural. I don't think I would have found either of these within a nuanced discussion with ChatGPT. Even without these direct purchase integrations, ChatGPT now has Shopping Research, which I have found links directly to my Shopify store when I search for my books specifically. Walmart has partnered with OpenAI to create AI-first shopping experiences, and you have to wonder what Amazon might be doing? In Nov 2025, Amazon signed a “strategic partnership” with OpenAI, and even though it's focused on the technical side of AI, those two companies in a room together might also be working on other plans … I'm calling it for 2026. I think Amazon will sign a commerce agreement with OpenAI sometime before the end of the year. This will enable at least recommendation and shopping links into Amazon stores (presumably using an OpenAI affiliate link), or perhaps even Instant Checkout with ChatGPT for Amazon. It will also enable a new marketing angle, especially if paid ads arrive in ChatGPT, perhaps even integrating with Amazon Ads in some way as part of any possible agreement, since ads are such a good revenue stream for Amazon anyway. The line between discovery, engagement, and purchase is collapsing. Someone could be having a conversation with an AI about what to read next, and within that same conversation, purchase a bookwithout ever leaving the chat interface. This already happens within TikTok and social commerce clearly works for many authors. It's possible that the next development for book discoverability and sales might be within AI chats. This will likely stratify the already fragmented book eco-system even more. Some readers will continue to live only within the Amazon ecosystem and (maybe) use their Rufus chatbot to buy, and others will be much wider in their exploration of how to find and discover books (and other products and services). If you haven't tried it yet, try ChatGPT.com Shopping Research for a book. You can do this on the free tier. Use the drop down in the main chat box and select Shopping Research. It doesn't have to be for your book. It can be any book or product, for example, our microwave died just before Christmas so I used it to find a new one. But do a really nuanced search with multiple requirements. Go far beyond what you would search for on Amazon. In the results, notice that (at the time of writing) it does not generally link to Amazon, but to independent sites and stores. As above, I think this will change by the end of 2026, as some kind of commerce deal with Amazon seems inevitable. (4) AI-assisted audiobook narration will go mainstream I've been talking about AI narration of audiobooks since 2019, and over the years, I've tried various different options. In 2025, the technology reached a level of emotional nuance that made it much easier to create satisfying fiction audio as well as non-fiction. It also super-charges accessibility, making audio available in more languages and more accents than ever before. Of course, human narration remains the gold standard, but the cost makes it prohibitive for many authors, and indeed many small traditional publishers, for all books. If it costs $2000 – $10,000 to create an audiobook, you have to sell a lot to make a profit, and the dominance of subscription models have made it harder to recoup the costs. Famous narrators and voice artists who have an audience may still be worth investing in, as well as premium production, but require an even higher upfront cost and therefore higher sales and streams in return. AI voice/audio models are continuing to improve, and even as this goes out, there are rumours on TechCrunch that OpenAI's new device, designed by Jony Ive who designed the iPhone, will be audio first and OpenAI are improving their voice models even more in preparation for that launch. In 2026, I think AI-narrated audio will go mainstream with far-reaching adoption across publishing and the indie author world in many different languages and accents. This will mean a further stratification of audiobooks, with high quality, high production, high cost human narrated audio for a small percentage of books, and then mass market, affordable AI-narrated audio for the rest. AI-narrated audiobooks will make audio ubiquitous, and just as (almost) every print book has an ebook format, in 2026, they will also have an audio format. I straddle both these worlds, as I am still a human audiobook narrator for my own work. I human-narrated Successful Self-Publishing Fourth Edition (free audiobook) and The Buried and the Drowned, my short story collection. I also use AI narration for some books. ElevenLabs remains my preferred service and in 2025, I used my J.F. Penn voice clone for Death Valley and also Blood Vintage, while using a male voice for Catacomb. I clearly label my AI-narration in the sales description and also on the cover, which I think is important, although it is not always required by the various services. You can distribute ElevenLabs narrated audiobooks on Spotify, Kobo Writing Life, YouTube, ElevenReader, and of course your own store if you use Shopify with Bookfunnel. There are many other services springing up all the time, so make sure you check the rights you have over the finished audio, as well as where you can sell and distribute the final files. If they are just using ElevenLabs models in the back-end, then why not just do that directly? (Most services will be using someone's model in the back-end, since most companies do not train their own models.) Of course, you can use Amazon's own narration. While Amazon originally launched Audible audiobooks with Virtual Voice (AVV) in November 2023, it was rolled out to more authors and territories in 2025. If your book is eligible, the option to create an audiobook will appear on your KDP dashboard. With just a few clicks, you can create an audiobook from a range of voices and accents, and publish it on Amazon and Audible. However, the files are not yours. They are exclusive to Amazon and you cannot use them on other platforms or sell them direct yourself. But they are also free, so of course, many authors, especially those in KU, will use this option. I have done some for my mum's sweet romance books as Penny Appleton and I will likely use them for my books in translation when the option becomes available. Traditional publishers are experimenting with AI-assisted audiobook narration as well. MacMillan is selling digital audiobooks read by AI directly on their store. PublishersWeekly reports that PRH Audio “has experimented with artificial voice in specific instances, such as entrepreneur Ely Callaway's posthumous memoir The Unconquerable Game,” when an “authorized voice replica” was created for the audiobook. The article also notes that PRH Audio “embrace artificial intelligence across business operations—my entire department [PRH Audio] is using AI for business applications.” And while indie authors can't use AI voices on ACX right now, Audible have over 100 voices available to selected publishing partnerships, as reported by The Guardian with “two options for publishers wishing to make use of the technology: “Audible-managed” production, or “self-service” whereby publishers produce their own audiobooks with the help of Audible's AI technology.” In 2026, it's likely that more traditional publishers — as well as indie authors — will get their backlist into audio with AI narration. (5) AI-assisted translation will start to take off beyond the early adopters Over the years, I've done translation deals with traditional publishers in different languages (German, French, Spanish, Korean, Italian) for some fiction and non-fiction books. But of course, to get these kinds of deals, you have to be proactive about pitching, or work with an agent for foreign rights only, and those are few and far between! There are also lots of languages and territories worldwide, and most deals are for the bigger markets, leaving a LOT of blue water for books in translation, even if you have licensed some of the bigger markets. I did my first partially AI-translated books in 2019 when I used Deepl.com for the first draft and then worked with a German editor to do 3 non-fiction books in German. While the first draft was cheap, the editing was pretty expensive, so I stopped after only doing a couple. I have made the money back now, but it took years. In 2025, AI Translation began to take off with ScribeShadow, GlobeScribe.ai, and more recently, in November 2025, Kindle Translate boosting the number of translated books available. Kindle Translate is (currently) only available to US authors for English into Spanish and also German into English, but in 2026, this will likely roll out to more languages and more authors, making it easier than ever to produce translations for free. Of course, once again, the gold standard is human translation, or at least human-edited translations, but the cost is prohibitive even just for proof-reading, and if there is a cheap or even free option, like Kindle Translate, then of course, authors are going to try it. If the translation gets bad reviews, they can just un-publish. There are many anecdotal stories of indie success in 2025 with AI-translated genre fiction sales (in series) in under-served markets like Italian, French, and Spanish, as well as more mainstream adoption in German. I was around in the Kindle gold-rush days of 2009-2012 and the AI-translation energy right now feels like that. There are hardly any Kindle ebooks in many of these languages compared to how many there are in English, so inevitably, the rush is on to fill the void, especially in genres that are under-served by traditional publishers in those markets. Yes, some of these AI translated books will be ‘AI-slop,' but readers are not stupid. Those books will get bad reviews and thus will sink to the bottom of the store, never to be seen again. The AI translation models are also improving rapidly, and Amazon's Kindle Translate may improve faster than most, for books specifically, since they will be able to get feedback in terms of page reads. Amazon is also a major investor in Anthropic, which makes Claude.ai, widely considered the best quality for creative writing and translation, so it's likely that is used somewhere in the mix. Some traditional publishers are also experimenting with AI-assisted translation, with Harlequin France reportedly using AI translation and human proofreaders, as reported by the European Council of Literary Translators' Associations in December 2025. Academic publisher Taylor and Francis is also using AI for book translation, noting: “Following a program of rigorous testing, Taylor & Francis has announced plans to use AI translation tools to publish books that would otherwise be unavailable to English-language readers, bringing the latest knowledge to a vastly expanded readership.” “Until now, the time and resources required to translate books has meant that the majority remained accessible only to those who could read them in the original language. Books that were translated often only became available after a significant delay. Today, with the development of sophisticated AI translation tools, it has become possible to make these important texts available to a broad readership at speed, without compromising on accuracy.” (6) AI video becomes ubiquitous. ‘Live selling' becomes the next trend in social sales. In 2025, short form AI-generated video became very high quality. OpenAI released Sora 2, and YouTube announced new Shorts creation tools with Veo 3, which you can also use directly within Gemini. There are tons of different AI video apps now, including those within the social media sites themselves. There is more video than ever and it's much easier to create. I am not a fan of short form video! I don't make it and I don't consume it, but I do love making book trailers for my Kickstarter campaigns and for adding to my book pages and using on social media. I made a trailer for The Buried and the Drowned using Midjourney for images and then animation of those images, and Canva to put them together along with ElevenLabs to generate the music. But despite the AI tools getting so much easier to use, you still have to prompt them with exactly what you want. I can't just upload my book and say, “Make a book trailer,” or “Make a short film.” This may change with generative video ads, which are likely to become more common in 2026, as video turns specifically commercial. Video ads may even be generated specifically for the user, with an audience of one, maybe even holding your book in their hands (using something like Cameos on Sora), in the same way that some AI-powered clothing stores do virtual try-ons. This might also up-end the way we discover and buy things, as the AI for eCommerce and Amazon Sellers newsletter says about OpenAI's Sora app, “OpenAI isn't just trying to build a TikTok competitor. They're building a complete reimagining of how we discover and buy things …” “The combination of ChatGPT's research capabilities and Sora's potential for emotional manipulation—I mean, “engagement”—could create something we've never seen before: an AI ecosystem that might eventually guide you through every type of purchase, from the most considered to the most impulsive.” In 2026, there will be A LOT more AI-generated video, but that also leads to the human trend of more live video. While you can use an AI avatar that looks and sounds like you using tools like HeyGen or Synthesia, live video has all the imperfect human elements that make it stand-out, plus the scarcity element which leads to the purchase decision within a countdown period. Live video is nothing new in terms of brand building and content in general, but it seems that live events primarily for direct sales might be a thing in 2026. Kim Kardashian hosted Kimsmas Live in December 2025 with a 45 minute live shopping event with special guests, described as entertainment but designed to be a sales extravaganza. Indie authors are doing a similar thing on TikTok with their books, so this is a trend to watch in 2026, especially if you feel that live selling might fit with your personality and author business goals. It's certainly not for everyone, but I suspect it will suit a different kind of creator to those who prefer ‘no face' video, or no video at all! On other aspects of the human side of social media, Adam Mosseri the CEO of Instagram put a post on Threads called Authenticity after Abundance. He said, “Everything that made creators matter—the ability to be real, to connect, to have a voice that couldn't be faked—is now suddenly accessible to anyone with the right tools.” “Deepfakes are getting better and better. AI is generating photographs and videos indistinguishable from captured media. The feeds are starting to fill up with synthetic everything. And in that world, here's what I think happens.Creators matter more.” It's a long article so just to pick a few things from it: “We like to talk about “AI slop,” but there is a lot of amazing AI content … we are going to start to see more and more realistic AI content.” I've talked to my Patreon Community about this ‘tsunami of excellence' as these tools are just getting better and better and the word ‘slop' can also be applied to purely human output, too. If you think that AI content is ‘worse' than wholly human content, in 2026, you are wrong. It is now very very good, especially in the hands of people who can drive the AI tools. Back to Adam's post: “Authenticity is fast becoming a scarce resource, …The creators who succeed will be those who figure out how to maintain their authenticity [even when it can be simulated] …” “The bar is going to shift from “can you create?” to “can you make something that only you could create?” He talks about how the personal content on Instagram now is: “unpolished; it's blurry photos and shaky videos of people's daily experiences … flattering imagery is cheap to produce and boring to consume. People want content that feels real… Savvy creators are going to lean into explicitly unproduced and unflattering images of themselves. In a world where everything can be perfected, imperfection becomes a signal. Rawness isn't just aesthetic preference anymore—it's proof. It's defensive. A way of saying: this is real because it's imperfect.” While I partially love this, and I really hope it's true, as in I hope we don't need to look good for the camera anymore I would also challenge Adam on this, because pretty much every woman I know on social media has been sent sexual messages, and/or told they are ugly and/or fat when posting anything unflattering. I've certainly had both even for the same content, but I don't expect Adam has been the target for such posting! But I get his point. He goes on:“Labeling content as authentic or AI-generated is only part of the solution though. We, as an industry, are going to need to surface much more context about not only the media on our platforms, but the accounts that are sharing it in order for people to be able to make informed decisions about what to believe. Where is the account? When was it created? What else have they posted?” This is exactly what I've been saying for a while under my double down on being human focus. I use my Instagram @jfpennauthor as evidence of humanity, not as a sales channel. You can do both of course, but increasingly, you need to make sure your accounts at places have longevity and trust, even by the platforms themselves. Adam finishes: “In a world of infinite abundance and infinite doubt, the creators who can maintain trust and signal authenticity—by being real, transparent, and consistent—will stand out.” For other marketing trends for 2026, I recommend publicist Kathleen Schmidt's SubStack which is mostly focused on traditional publishing but still interesting for indies. In her 2026 article, she notes: “We have reached a social media saturation point where going viral can be meaningless and should not be the goal; authenticity and creativity should. She also says, “In-person events are important again,” and, “Social media marketing takes a nosedive… we have reached a saturation point … What publishers must figure out is how to make their social media campaigns stand out. If they remain somewhat uninspired, the money spent on social ads won't convert into book sales.” I think this is part of the rise of live selling as above, which can stand out above more ‘produced' videos. Kathleen also talks about AI usage. “AI can help lighten the burden of publicity and marketing.” “A lot of AI tools are coming to market to lessen the load: they can write pitches, create media lists for you, send pitches for you, and more. I know the industry is grappling with all things AI, but some of these tools are huge time savers and may help a book more than hurt it.” On that note … (7) AI will create, run, and optimise ads without the need for human intervention Many authors will be very happy about this as marketing is often the bane of our author business lives! As I noted in my 2026 goals, I would love to outsource more marketing tasks to AI. I want an “AI book marketing assistant” where I can upload a book and specify a budget and say, ‘Go market this,' then the AI will action the marketing, without me having to cobble together workflows between systems. Of course, it will present plans for me to approve but it will do the work itself on the various platforms and monitor and optimize things for me. I really hope 2026 is the year this becomes possible, because we are on the edge of it already in some areas. Amazon Ads launched a new agentic AI tool in September 2025 that creates professional-quality ads. I've also been working with Claude in Chrome browser to help me analyse my Amazon Ad data and suggest which keywords/products to turn off and what to put more budget into. I'll do a Patreon video on that soon. Meta announced it will enable AI ad creation by the end of 2026 for Facebook and Instagram. For authors who find ad creation overwhelming or time-consuming, this could be a game-changer. Of course, you will still need a budget! (8) 1000 True Fans becomes more important than ever Lots of authors and publishers are moaning about the difficulty of reaching readers in an era of ‘AI slop' but there is no shortage of excellent content created by humans, or humans using AI tools. As ever, our competition is less about other authors, or even authors using AI-assisted creation, we're competing against everything else that jostles for people's attention, and the volume of that is also growing exponentially. I've never been a fan of rapid release, and have said for years that you can't keep up with the pace of the machines. So play a different game. As Kevin Kelly wrote in 2008, If you have 1000 true fans, (also known as super fans), “you can make a living — if you are content to make a living but not a fortune.” [Kevin Kelly was on this show in 2023 talking about Excellent Advice for Living.] Many authors and the publishing industry are stuck in the old model of aiming to sell huge volumes of books at a low profit margin to a massive number of readers, many of them releasing ever faster to try and keep the algorithms moving. But the maths can work for the smaller audience of more invested readers and fans. If you only make $2 profit on an ebook, you need to sell 500 ebooks to make $1000, and then do it again next month. Or you can have a small community like my patreon.com/thecreativepenn where people pay $2 (or more) a month, so even a small revenue per person results in a better outcome over the year, as it is consistent monthly income with no advertising. But what if you could make $20 profit per book? That is entirely possible if you're producing high quality hardbacks on Kickstarter, or bundle deals of audiobooks, or whole series of ebooks. You would only need to sell to 50 people to make $1000. What about $100 profit per sale, which you can do with a small course or live event? You only need 10 people to make $1000, and this in-person focus also amplifies trust and fosters human connection. I've found the intimacy of my live Patreon Office Hours and also my webinars have been rewarding personally, but also financially, and are far more memorable — and potentially transformative — than a pre-recorded video or even another book. From the LinkedIn 2026 Big Ideas article: “In an AI-optimized world, intentional human connection will become the ultimate luxury.” The 1000 True Fans model is about serving a smaller, more personal audience with higher value products (and maybe services if that's your thing). As ever, its about niche and where you fit in the long long long long long tail. It's also about trust. Because there is definitely a shortage of that in so many areas, and as Adam Mosseri of Instagram has said, trust will be increasingly important. Trust takes time to build, but if you focus on serving your audience consistently, and delivering a high quality, and being authentic, this emerges as part of being human. In an echo of what happened when online commerce first took off, we are back to talking about trust. Back in 2010, I read Trust Agents: by Julien Smith and Chris Brogan, which clearly needs a comeback. There was a 10th anniversary edition published in 2020, so that's worth a read/listen. Chris Brogan was also on this show in 2017 when we talked about finding and serving your niche for the long term. That interview is still relevant, here's a quick excerpt, where I have (lightly edited) his response to my question on this topic back in 2017: Jo: The principle of know, like, and trust, why is that still important or perhaps even more important these days? Chris: There are a few things that at play there, Joanna. One is that the same tools that make it so easy for any of us to start and run a business also allow certain elements to decide whether or not they want to do something dubious. And with all new technologies that come, you know, there's nothing unique about these new technologies. In the 1800s, anyone could put anything in a bottle and sell it to you and say, this is gonna cure everything. Cancer — gone. And the bottle could have nothing in. You know, it could be Kool-Aid. And so, the idea of trying to understand what's behind the business though, one beautiful thing that's come is that we can see in much more dimensions who we're dealing with. We can understand better who's the face behind the brand. I really want people to try their best to be a lot clearer on what they stand for or what they say. And I don't really mean a tagline. I mean, humans don't really talk like that. They don't throw some sentence out as often as they can that you remember them for that phrase. But I would say that, we have so many media available to us — the plural of mediums — where we can be more of ourselves. And I think that there's a great opportunity to share the ‘you' behind the scenes, and some people get immediately terrified about this, ‘Ah, the last thing I want is for people to know more about me,' but I think we have such an opportunity. We have such an opportunity to voice our thoughts on something, to talk about the story that goes behind the product. We were all raised on overly produced material, but I think we don't want that anymore. We really want clarity, brevity, simplicity. We want the ability for what we feel is connection and then access. And so I think it's vital that we connect and show people our accessibility, not so that they can pester us with strange questions, but more so that you can say, this person stands with their product and their service and this person believes these things, and I feel something when I hear them and I wanna be part of that.” That's from Chris Brogan's interview here in 2017, and he is still blogging and speaking at writing at ChrisBrogan.com and I'm going to re-listen to the audiobook of Trust Agents again myself as I think it's more relevant than ever. The original quote comes from Bob Burg in his 1994 book, Endless Referrals, “All things being equal, people will do business with, and refer business to, those people they know, like and trust.” That still applies, and absolutely fits with the 1000 True Fans model of aiming to serve a smaller audience. As Kevin Kelly says in 1000 True Fans, “Instead of trying to reach the narrow and unlikely peaks of platinum bestseller hits, blockbusters, and celebrity status, you can aim for direct connection with a thousand true fans.” “On your way, no matter how many fans you actually succeed in gaining, you'll be surrounded not by faddish infatuation, but by genuine and true appreciation. It's a much saner destiny to hope for. And you are much more likely to actually arrive there.” In 2026, I hope that more authors (including me!) let go of ego goals and vanity metrics like ranking, gross sales (income before you take away costs), subscribers, followers, and likes, and consider important business numbers like profit (which is the money you have after costs like marketing are taken out), as well as number of true fans — and also lifestyle elements like number of weekends off, or days spent enjoying life and not just working! OK, that's my list of trends and predictions for 2026. Let me know what you think in the comments. Do you agree? Am I wrong? What have I missed? The post 2026 Trends And Predictions For Indie Authors And The Book Publishing Industry with Joanna Penn first appeared on The Creative Penn.

The Hot Stove is heating up and there's plenty to unpack on Episode 46. We break down the Mets' latest moves, diving into the signings of Jorge Polanco and Luke Weaver—what they signal about roster construction, lineup balance, and David Stearns' broader plan. Is a true power bat still missing, and where could the Mets realistically find it?We also zoom out to the league-wide chaos, reacting to a starting pitching market that's gone completely off the rails and what it means for the Mets' options moving forward. Plus, we dig into renewed Mets–Padres rumors, the possibility of the payroll coming down, and how ownership's approach could shape the rest of the offseason.To top it all off, we react to a stunner on the international front as Munetaka Murakami signs with the White Sox—what happened, why the Mets weren't in it, and what it says about their international strategy.All that and more as we try to make sense of a wild, unpredictable Hot Stove.Had a few technical difficulties along the way so bare with us!Follow on INSTAGRAM, YOUTUBE & X: @cupofmetsSubscribe on SPOTIFY, APPLE or wherever you get your favorite podcasts!Download The SeatGeek App! Use Code: "CUPOFMETS" at first purchase to get $20.00 off!Download The ProphetX App! Use Code: "CUPOFMETS" at signup to get up to 20X in Bonus Cash, matching up to $100!

Ever felt overwhelmed by relentless growth, leadership friction, or the challenge of building teams that actually scale? What if you could gain proven, insider strategies for multiplying operations by 20X while keeping chaos at bay?In this bold episode, Cameron Herold sits down with Harrison Crum, Chief Operating Officer of Ally Waste, to unpack the rarely-told story behind scaling a national waste-services brand—now operating in 40 states, with over 1,500 employees and a mission to dominate a niche few understand.They dig deep on developmental leadership, acquisition integration, ruthless prioritization, and using tech and AI for surprising advantage. If you want to dodge burnout, outpace competitors, and solve execution pain now, don't wait—this conversation reveals real advantages you won't find anywhere else.Timestamped Highlights[00:00] – Harrison spills how sales intelligence and regional structure turn cold prospects into loyal clients[02:31] – Why the “doorstep to dumpster” model wins in multi-family and what luxury tenants secretly value[04:33] – The ugly side of apartment junk and how subscription junk removal flips the profit script[07:03] – Ally Waste's national play: how to dominate fragmented markets and win big contracts[09:29] – Commercial expansion temptations: the real use cases for “waste leveling” in strip malls[13:58] – Navigating hauler relationships, unions, and the anti-mafia garbage wars in New York & New Jersey[16:51] – How 20X growth nearly broke the company—and the relentless focus that turned chaos into margin[21:43] – Acquisitions decoded: finding the right people, fixing culture, and building tech that actually scales[26:04] – Are robots or AI coming for waste? Harrison's thrilling vision for how tech could flip the industry[32:01] – The Ally Way: promoting leaders from within, tough-core values, and intentional developmentAbout the GuestHarrison Crum is the Chief Operating Officer of Ally Waste, a fast-growing, multi-state waste services provider specializing in multifamily and commercial property solutions. With deep experience in Fortune 500 and private sector operations—including past roles at Republic Services and Ford—he's known for scaling Ally's operations by 20X in four years, championing high-retention business models, and building game-changing technology for dirty jobs. Harrison is a seasoned leader in acquisition integration, organizational development, and culture-driven execution.

Criterion breaks down year-end acquisition numbers, highlights stock-market bubble indicators, and lays out a practical commercial real estate strategy to survive a potential 2026–2027 correction. Time Stamps: 0:00 – Introduction 1:30 – Year-end update: $72M acquired + $21M equity raised 2:35 – Growth story: 2019 first deal to “20X” scale + investor base expansion 4:27 – Why talk about a potential 2026–2027 market correction 6:12 – Index run-up: S&P / Dow / NASDAQ context and “bubble” risk framing 8:47 – Valuation red flags: S&P PE ratios vs. 1929 / 2001 comps 9:47 – Buffett Indicator explained (market cap vs. GDP) 10:55 – “Magnificent 7” concentration + elevated PE multiples 12:40 – Awareness over prediction: risk management mindset 13:08 – Macro pressure: national debt + interest cost discussion 15:19 – If stocks crash: what happens to real estate values + inflation response 16:39 – CRE in a downturn: tenant risk, vacancy, and cash reserves 17:25 – Rates drop = refinance opportunity; CRE vs. stocks volatility 18:42 – Why higher-cap buys help: breathing room on cash flow 19:14 – Crash playbook: buy discounted assets, avoid forced sales, keep operating 19:47 – “Don't wait for perfect”: buy through every season Visit TheCriterionFund.com for more information commercialrealestate #commercialrealestateinvesting #cre #realestateinvesting #investing #passiveincome #wealthbuilding #financialfreedom #realestatepodcast #investoreducation #stripcenters #retailrealestate #neighborhoodcenters #caprate #cashoncash #dealmaking #capitalraising #privateequityrealestate #marketcycle #recessionproof #riskmanagement #economicoutlook #interestrates #refinance #valueadd #assetmanagement #tenantmix #vacancy #portfolio #multifamilyinvesting stockmarket #sp500 #nasdaq #dowjones #buffettindicator #priceratios #peratio #magnificentseven #marketcorrection #marketcrash #macro #inflation #deficit #nationaldebt #economy #investingtips #wealthstrategy #longterminvesting #buythedip

Today I'm sharing what three real coaches did differently to increase their prices by $2,000, make 20X their investment back in less than two weeks, and transform their entire business confidence in just a few weeks. These aren't hypothetical stories. These are real coaches who went from playing small and discounting prices to confidently charging premium rates and delivering predictable results. In this case study episode, you'll hear exactly what happened when three different coaches stopped second-guessing their expertise and created frameworks that backed up every promise they made to clients. Plus: Details about the Framework Builder Lab live cohort starting October 22 - the lowest price this container will ever be for eight weeks of live coaching, real-time accountability, and a complete framework. Your framework isn't just how you help clients - it's how you build the confidence to do everything you're capable of. Resources mentioned: Framework Builder Lab: https://amanda-walker.com/lab/ Free coaching questions: amanda-walker.com/questions Instagram: @awalkmyway

Could Bitcoin hit $130K this weekend?! The charts are lighting up, and momentum is building fast. Meanwhile, several altcoins are showing setups that could deliver 20X gains in the next move. LBank Promo - https://www.lbank.com/activity/bonuspro/100M-EN11-BonusPro?

Could Bitcoin hit $130K this weekend?! The charts are lighting up, and momentum is building fast. Meanwhile, several altcoins are showing setups that could deliver 20X gains in the next move. LBank Promo - https://www.lbank.com/activity/bonuspro/100M-EN11-BonusPro?

Episode Summary: Ryan Lang and Brook Bishop dive deep into a record-breaking $81 million book launch, breaking down the strategic elements that made it successful and why most coaches are approaching their business growth completely out of sequence. They reveal how three years of patient trust-building led to one explosive day and what coaches can learn about building systems, relationships, and offers that actually work.Key Takeaways:• (02:47) The donation-based offer strategy: How selling 200 books for $5,998 creates multiple revenue streams while building massive databases through lead capture• (08:32) Why execution isn't the hard part: The real heavy lifting happens 90 days to 6 months before launch through relationship building and affiliate partnerships• (10:44) The $4 million ad spend revelation: How investing over $4 million in ads for a 20X return proves the importance of knowing your numbers and having systems that can handle scale• (18:51) Creating what people actually want: The difference between thinking inwardly ("this would be cool") versus understanding true market demand and building offers people will actually buy• (26:25) Trust as the ultimate currency: How three years of adding value without selling built the foundation for massive revenue generation• (32:33) The sequence problem: Why copying tactics without proper foundation is like switching flour and frosting in a cake recipe - you'll get a very different outcomeNotable Quotes:• "He plays chess while most people are playing checkers. This was 100% orchestrated - he didn't just orchestrate this like a couple months ago." - Ryan Lang (22:31)• "The most important currency these days is trust. And Alex has done an incredible job of just adding value, adding value, adding value." - Brook Bishop (26:25)• "This is not an $81 million day. This is three years of building to this moment." - Brook Bishop (28:02)• "When you create strong systems and structures out of simple pieces, you become nimble, you become scalable, and you become practically bulletproof." - Ryan Lang (31:38)• "You might have all the right ingredients, but if you change up the sequence of when you use those ingredients... you're gonna get a very, very different outcome." - Brook Bishop (32:33)Resources Mentioned:"$100 Million Offers" book and strategic framework "$100 Million Leads" book and methodology “$100 Million Money Models” YouTube LaunchDan Kennedy's "MIFGE" marketing concept Are you building your business in the right sequence, or are you trying to leapfrog to expert-level tactics before mastering the fundamentals? Take an honest look at where you are in your business journey - startup, stability, success, or mastery - and make sure your strategies match your stage. The strongest businesses aren't built overnight; they're built through patient, systematic execution over time.Connect with Empire Partners: Ready to build a coaching business that scales systematically? Subscribe to The Coaching Equation Podcast for weekly insights on building profitable, mission-driven coaching businesses. Leave us a review and share this episode with a coach who needs to hear about proper business sequencing.

Mi sistema de Contenido en Notion

In this episode I'm joined by Art Shectman, founder and CEO of Elephant Ventures, a global innovation firm helping companies unlock the full potential of AI transformation. But we don't just talk tech: we dive into the human side of building and leading a business.Art shares how he intentionally designed a company culture built on dependability, psychological safety, and joyful work. We talk about how his team successfully adopted a compressed four-day workweek, and what it really takes to implement major organizational shifts like AI adoption without sparking panic or burnout.You'll walk away with a better understanding of how to structure your team for accountability (without toxicity), why empowering employees beats micromanaging every time, and how to lead transformation with honesty, clarity, and how to get buy-in from the ground up.If you're thinking about hiring across borders, piloting a 4-day week, or embracing AI in your business you don't want to miss this one. What you'll hear in this episode:[1:40] How Elephant Ventures helps companies get 20X results from AI - not just 20%[3:29] Why Art started hiring internationally in 2008[4:12] The early struggles of global hiring (and why EORs are game-changing now)[7:17] Why founders must prioritize their “joyfulness battery”[10:17] Building culture intentionally: dependability, kindness, and the value pyramid[14:02] Holding people accountable without being toxic[18:17] How Elephant Ventures rolled out a compressed 4-day workweek[22:15] Lessons from testing and scaling flexible work[24:10] Coaching teams through AI transformation without fear[26:29] Creating psychological safety in practice [30:06] Why vulnerability and consistency matter more than charisma[32:19] Where to find Art's thought leadership on AI and transformationResources and links:Connect with Art on LinkedIn: Art ShectmanExplore Elephant Ventures' AI resources: Elevate.ElephantVentures.comConnect with me on LinkedIn: Jackie KochDownload my free HR + Hiring Essentials Playbook: peopleprinciples.co

The future of coding. We cover multiplying engineering output, vibe coding bottlenecks, agents as reviewer, AI roll-ups, and the future of developing software. Merrill Lutsky is co-founder and CEO of Graphite, bringing AI-acceleration and automation to code review. Founded in 2020 out of New York, Graphite has become a key part of the developer ecosystem — as more code is generated with AI, they enable developers to scale the evaluation, testing, and review process before it is released. A growing bottleneck that has become incredibly important. The startup has raised over $70M from leading VC’s such Accel, A16Z, Menlo as well as a receiving a strategic investment from model provider Anthropic. Last year Graphite grew its revenue 20X and is trusted by over 45,000 developers at top engineering organizations such as Shopify and Figma. His second startup, Merrill has helped develop and manage software products for high output engineering companies such as Square, Oscar Insurance, and SelfMade. He holds a degree in Applies Math and Economics from Harvard. Sign up for new podcasts and our newsletter, and email me on danieldarling@focal.vcSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bronson Hill is a leading expert in passive income and wealth psychology, known for his ability to break down the habits and strategies of the ultra-wealthy. As the founder and CEO of Bronson Equity and host of the Mailbox Money Show, Bronson has interviewed over 2,500 millionaires, uncovering the mindsets and investment tactics that separate everyday earners from those who achieve true financial freedom. A former medical sales professional, Bronson walked away from a high-paying career to pursue passive income, scaling his wealth 20X in just a few years. He's a general partner in 2,500 multifamily units worth over $250M and has personally raised over $45M for real estate and private equity deals. Bronson's unique perspective comes from both his humble beginnings and his relentless focus on mindset, making him a sought-after keynote speaker and author. On this episode we talk about: – The mindset shift that helped Bronson 20X his net worth – Lessons from interviewing over 2,500 millionaires – Why “wealth-worthiness” is the hidden key to financial success – How the ultra-wealthy invest differently (and why “alternative assets” aren't so alternative) – Actionable strategies to build confidence and take your first steps toward passive income Top 3 Takeaways 1. Mindset is everything: The right psychology and self-talk are foundational to building wealth. Most people stay broke because they never develop a sense of “wealth-worthiness”—the belief that they deserve and are capable of financial success. 2. Surround yourself with the right people: Who you spend time with determines your financial future. Learning from mentors and modeling the habits of successful investors can accelerate your growth. 3. Take action despite fear: Confidence isn't about being fearless—it's about acting in the face of fear. Start small, celebrate wins, and use setbacks as data for growth. Notable Quotes “Confidence isn't something you're born with—it's something you build. Small wins, big lessons, and relentless action—love this breakdown.” “Make yourself valuable to valuable people.” “Being wealthy is not about having money or not having money. It's the habits and the person you become.” Connect with Bronson Hill: BronsonEquity.com Instagram: @bronsondavidhill Mailbox Money Show: Available on all major podcast platforms

China retaliates to Trump's retaliation to China's tit-for-tat response to tariffs; downward pressure continues as markets trying to recalibrate with a moving tariff target; there are cracks appearing in the treasury market from the basis trade; what will the Fed do? Lance explains the latest gyrations in markets and the sharp rise in bond yields. Basis trade explained; appears to be at 20X leverage: Is someone getting margin calls and liquidating? Tariffs are not the issue here; will the Fed step in? Wall Mart reports earnings, but cannot provide guidance until tariff trouble is resolved. How much money does it take to move markets one-point? Slowing economy = less demand = high unemployment. It's going to get worse before it gets better. There is an alarming trend of 401k early withdrawals; "leakage" has been a problem for a while. Lance and Danny examine the eruption in the bond market; don't over react. The VIX has spiked, but is moderating. What will the Fed do? The best tariff trade is the Roth conversion. SEG-1: Tit-for-tat on Tariffs SEG-2: What is the Basis Trade? SEG-3: It's Going to Get Worse Before It Gets Better SEG-4: Eruption in the Bond Market Hosted by RIA Advisors Chief Investment Strategist Lance Roberts, CIO, w Senior Financial Advisor Danny Ratliff, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer ------- Watch today's full show video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo_zfOuvXVw&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=2705s ------- Articles mentioned in this report: "Stupidity And The 5-Laws Not To Follow" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/stupidity-and-the-5-laws-not-to-follow/ "Corporate Yield Spreads Start To Widen" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/daily-market-commentary/ "The Market Crash – Hope In The Fear" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/the-market-crash-a-set-up-for-a-rally/ "The “Liberation Day” Tariffs Crash The Market" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/the-liberation-day-tariffs-crash-the-market/ ------- The latest installment of our new feature, Before the Bell, "Yields Belie Market Instability," is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnT6n_NY_tY&list=PLwNgo56zE4RAbkqxgdj-8GOvjZTp9_Zlz&index=1 ------- Our previous show is here: "Markets Rally; What's Next?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLv00PZtAHM&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1 ------- Get more info & commentary: https://realinvestmentadvice.com/newsletter/ -------- SUBSCRIBE to The Real Investment Show here: http://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealInvestmentShow -------- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN -------- Subscribe to SimpleVisor: https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new -------- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #LiquidityCrisis #MarketVolatility #FinancialStress #CreditCrunch #FedWatch #BondYields #MarketInstability #BasisTrade #ETF #Liquidity #StockMarketRally #MarketOutlook2025 #InvestingInsights #FinanceNews #EconomicTrends #MarketCrash2025 #FearAndFinance #InvestingInUncertainty #FinancialCrisis #HopeInTheCrash #EarningsImpact #TariffEffect #MarketAnalysis #InvestorInsight #TradeWar2025 #MarketBottom #TariffWar #BondMarket #DownsideRisk #Tariffs #MarketLows #InvestingAdvice #Money #Investing

China retaliates to Trump's retaliation to China's tit-for-tat response to tariffs; downward pressure continues as markets trying to recalibrate with a moving tariff target; there are cracks appearing in the treasury market from the basis trade; what will the Fed do? Lance explains the latest gyrations in markets and the sharp rise in bond yields. Basis trade explained; appears to be at 20X leverage: Is someone getting margin calls and liquidating? Tariffs are not the issue here; will the Fed step in? Wall Mart reports earnings, but cannot provide guidance until tariff trouble is resolved. How much money does it take to move markets one-point? Slowing economy = less demand = high unemployment. It's going to get worse before it gets better. There is an alarming trend of 401k early withdrawals; "leakage" has been a problem for a while. Lance and Danny examine the eruption in the bond market; don't over react. The VIX has spiked, but is moderating. What will the Fed do? The best tariff trade is the Roth conversion. SEG-1: Tit-for-tat on Tariffs SEG-2: What is the Basis Trade? SEG-3: It's Going to Get Worse Before It Gets Better SEG-4: Eruption in the Bond Market Hosted by RIA Advisors Chief Investment Strategist Lance Roberts, CIO, w Senior Financial Advisor Danny Ratliff, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer ------- Watch today's full show video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo_zfOuvXVw&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=2705s ------- Articles mentioned in this report: "Stupidity And The 5-Laws Not To Follow" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/stupidity-and-the-5-laws-not-to-follow/ "Corporate Yield Spreads Start To Widen" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/daily-market-commentary/ "The Market Crash – Hope In The Fear" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/the-market-crash-a-set-up-for-a-rally/ "The “Liberation Day” Tariffs Crash The Market" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/resources/blog/the-liberation-day-tariffs-crash-the-market/ ------- The latest installment of our new feature, Before the Bell, "Yields Belie Market Instability," is here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnT6n_NY_tY&list=PLwNgo56zE4RAbkqxgdj-8GOvjZTp9_Zlz&index=1 ------- Our previous show is here: "Markets Rally; What's Next?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLv00PZtAHM&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1 ------- Get more info & commentary:  https://realinvestmentadvice.com/newsletter/ -------- SUBSCRIBE to The Real Investment Show here: http://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealInvestmentShow -------- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN -------- Subscribe to SimpleVisor: https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new -------- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #LiquidityCrisis #MarketVolatility #FinancialStress #CreditCrunch #FedWatch #BondYields #MarketInstability #BasisTrade #ETF #Liquidity #StockMarketRally #MarketOutlook2025 #InvestingInsights #FinanceNews #EconomicTrends #MarketCrash2025 #FearAndFinance #InvestingInUncertainty #FinancialCrisis #HopeInTheCrash #EarningsImpact #TariffEffect #MarketAnalysis #InvestorInsight #TradeWar2025 #MarketBottom #TariffWar #BondMarket #DownsideRisk #Tariffs #MarketLows #InvestingAdvice #Money #Investing

#300 In the world of marketing, there are countless strategies and tactics at your disposal, each promising a path to success. In this episode, we dive into a unique and highly effective approach: leveraging quizzes to grow your business!  I recently chatted with my good friend and fellow entrepreneur, Kirsten Tyrrel, about her secret sauce for making quizzes go viral on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Pinterest.  But first, you might be thinking, why quizzes? According to Riddle.com, quizzes are more than 20X (or 2,000%) better than pop-up email collection forms…and get 400% more engagement (time on site) than other email opt-in sites. Need we say more?  So if you're wondering how to create a successful marketing questionnaire, you're in luck. Kirsten broke it down for us, making it easier than ever to craft that killer marketing quiz. We've also created a super cool article that tells you all the exciting stuff from this episode. You definitely don't want to miss it, so give it a look right here! (Original Air Date - 10/26/23) What we discuss with Kirsten: + Introduction and Importance of Quizzes in Business + Kirsten Tyrell's Entrepreneurial Journey + The Power of Quiz Funnel Marketing + The Process of Creating a Quiz Funnel + The Impact of Quiz Funnels on Business Growth + Balancing Entrepreneurship and Motherhood + Final Thoughts and Contact Information Resources from this episode: Blog Post: 16 Tips for Using Quizzes to Grow Your Business! Sign up for our FREE Business Course - over 300+ new business ideas, also includes the 7 Phases of a business, so you know where you are now and where you need to go next. You'll also get 7 of the most popular marketing strategies and 31 stay-on-track hacks that successful millionaires follow to grow and automate their businesses. Go to https://www.millionaireuniversity.com/training. And follow us on: Instagram Facebook Tik Tok Youtube Twitter To get exclusive offers mentioned in this episode and to support the show, visit millionaireuniversity.com/sponsors. Want to hear from more incredible entrepreneurs? Check out all of our interviews here! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ladies, let's be real—almost nothing about Chalene is natural, and that's exactly the way she likes it!  From DIY hair extensions and face tape to jawline hacks and the best self-tanners, Chalene is spilling every beauty secret she swears by. Want to add volume to fine hair, smooth out your skin, or master the art DIY lashes? Consider this your ultimate beauty cheat sheet! No gatekeeping—just real talk about all the little tricks that make a big difference.

Super Bowl 59 Preview: Chiefs vs. Eagles Super Bowl LIX is here! Can the Chiefs make history with a three-peat, or will the Eagles get their redemption? Hosts Brad Fowler and Alex Higdon deliver an extensive breakdown of key matchups, X-factors, and betting picks for the big game. We analyze the Chiefs' run defense, Philly's ground attack, Mahomes and Hurts under pressure, the Eagles' dominant D-line, and the coaching matchups. Plus, we've got multiple prop bet picks and our final predictions—can Saquon Barkley and the Philly defense be the difference-maker, or do Mahomes and Andy Reid find a way yet again? Don't miss this in-depth Super Bowl preview! Connect with UsGet exclusive articles and subscribe to our FREE newsletter at Pint Glass Football. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for exclusive video content: Pint Glass Football on YouTube. Sponsors: Underdog FantasyUnderdog Fantasy is the easiest place to play fantasy sports! Win up to 20X your money in a single night. Sign up today and use promo code PGF to get your Special Pick + First Time Deposit offer up to $250 in bonus cash! SeatGeekSeatGeek offers the best seats at the best prices. Never worry about overpaying for tickets again. Each ticket has a 0 to 10 score so you know if you're getting a good deal! Download the SeatGeek app and enter code PGFPOD for $20 off your first ticket purchase. BetAlyticsBetAlytics is a predictive sports betting software platform that helps you win more single bets and parlays. Take back the advantage from the sportsbooks. Get 25% off any package with promo code PGF. Visit BetAlytics to learn more. Bettor EdgeBettor Edge is a sports betting platform that lets you create your own betting lines and prices for real money betting positions with no sportsbook fees. Use promo code PGF to receive a FREE $20 on your first order at bettoredge.com. ZencastrZencastr is the ultimate all-in-one podcasting platform. Record, edit, distribute, and monetize all from one place. Use our special link Zencastr and code PGFP to save 30% off your first three months of Zencastr Professional. #madeonzencastr

Building wealth isn't just about what you do—it's about how you think. And the ultra-wealthy know that financial success starts in the mind.That's exactly what today's guest, Bronson Hill, discovered after interviewing over 2,500 millionaires. Through those conversations, he uncovered the habits, mindsets, and investment strategies that separate everyday earners from those who achieve true financial freedom.A former medical sales professional, Bronson walked away from a high-paying career to pursue passive income, scaling his wealth 20X in just a few years. Bronson is a general partner in 2,500 multifamily units worth over $250M, and has personally raised over $45M for real estate and private equity deals.In this episode, we dive deep into the psychology of wealth, why who you surround yourself with determines your financial future, and the hidden investment strategies the ultra-wealthy use to build lasting fortunes.In this episode, you'll learn:✅ The mindset shift that helped Bronson 20X his net worth—and the surprising reason most people stay broke.✅ How 2,500 millionaires built their wealth—and the biggest investing mistakes to avoid.✅ The investment strategy ultra-wealthy investors use to outperform the stock market.✅ The hidden “Wealth-Worthiness” belief that silently holds most people back from financial freedom.Show Notes: LifestyleInvestor.com/224Tax Strategy MasterclassIf you're interested in learning more about Tax Strategy and how YOU can apply 28 of the best, most effective strategies right away, check out our BRAND NEW Tax Strategy Masterclass: www.lifestyleinvestor.com/taxStrategy Session For a limited time, my team is hosting free, personalized consultation calls to learn more about your goals and determine which of our courses or masterminds will get you to the next level. To book your free session, visit LifestyleInvestor.com/consultationThe Lifestyle Investor InsiderJoin The Lifestyle Investor Insider, our brand new AI - curated newsletter - FREE for all podcast listeners for a limited time: www.lifestyleinvestor.com/insiderRate & ReviewIf you enjoyed today's episode of The Lifestyle Investor, hit the subscribe button on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen, so future episodes are automatically downloaded directly to your device. You can also help by providing an honest rating & review.Connect with Justin DonaldFacebookYouTubeInstagramLinkedInTwitterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Exclusive Interview with Former NFL Executive Jack Easterby Jack Easterby served as the Executive Vice President of Football Operations for the Houston Texans and was instrumental in shaping their organization. Before that, he played a key role with the New England Patriots from 2013 to 2018, where he served in leadership, and character-coaching to help foster a winning culture. Connect with UsGet exclusive articles and subscribe to our FREE newsletter at Pint Glass Football. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for exclusive video content: Pint Glass Football on YouTube. Sponsors: Underdog FantasyUnderdog Fantasy is the easiest place to play fantasy sports! Win up to 20X your money in a single night. Sign up today and use promo code PGF to get your Special Pick + First Time Deposit offer up to $250 in bonus cash! SeatGeekSeatGeek offers the best seats at the best prices. Never worry about overpaying for tickets again. Each ticket has a 0 to 10 score so you know if you're getting a good deal! Download the SeatGeek app and enter code PGFPOD for $20 off your first ticket purchase. BetAlyticsBetAlytics is a predictive sports betting software platform that helps you win more single bets and parlays. Take back the advantage from the sportsbooks. Get 25% off any package with promo code PGF. Visit BetAlytics to learn more. Bettor EdgeBettor Edge is a sports betting platform that lets you create your own betting lines and prices for real money betting positions with no sportsbook fees. Use promo code PGF to receive a FREE $20 on your first order at bettoredge.com. ZencastrZencastr is the ultimate all-in-one podcasting platform. Record, edit, distribute, and monetize all from one place. Use our special link Zencastr and code PGFP to save 30% off your first three months of Zencastr Professional. #madeonzencastr

Ohio State's Dominance, Lamar's Legacy, Did the Lions' Super Bowl Window Close? Ohio State caps off an incredible CFP run with a dominant National Championship win. We break down their historic playoff journey, the expanded format, and what's next for Notre Dame. In the NFL, we recap the Divisional Round games, dive into Lamar Jackson's playoff struggles, the Chiefs' officiating controversies, and whether the Lions' Super Bowl window just slammed shut. Plus, Jayden Daniels' historic rise and more! Connect with UsGet exclusive articles and subscribe to our FREE newsletter at Pint Glass Football. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for exclusive video content: Pint Glass Football on YouTube. Sponsors: Underdog FantasyUnderdog Fantasy is the easiest place to play fantasy sports! Win up to 20X your money in a single night. Sign up today and use promo code PGF to get your Special Pick + First Time Deposit offer up to $250 in bonus cash! SeatGeekSeatGeek offers the best seats at the best prices. Never worry about overpaying for tickets again. Each ticket has a 0 to 10 score so you know if you're getting a good deal! Download the SeatGeek app and enter code PGFPOD for $20 off your first ticket purchase. BetAlyticsBetAlytics is a predictive sports betting software platform that helps you win more single bets and parlays. Take back the advantage from the sportsbooks. Get 25% off any package with promo code PGF. Visit BetAlytics to learn more. Bettor EdgeBettor Edge is a sports betting platform that lets you create your own betting lines and prices for real money betting positions with no sportsbook fees. Use promo code PGF to receive a FREE $20 on your first order at bettoredge.com. ZencastrZencastr is the ultimate all-in-one podcasting platform. Record, edit, distribute, and monetize all from one place. Use our special link Zencastr and code PGFP to save 30% off your first three months of Zencastr Professional. #madeonzencastr

NFL Wild Card Recap, College Football Playoff Semifinals Reaction, and Deion Sanders to the Dallas Cowboys Rumors In this episode, we dive into NFL Wild Card Weekend surprises, discuss rumors of Deion Sanders as a potential Dallas Cowboys coach, and react to the latest College Football Playoff action. Plus, we break down Mike McCarthy's future, analyze standout player performances, debate coaching decisions, and explore the quarterback dilemmas facing teams like the Steelers and Vikings. Connect with UsGet exclusive articles and subscribe to our FREE newsletter at Pint Glass Football. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for exclusive video content: Pint Glass Football on YouTube. Sponsors: Underdog FantasyUnderdog Fantasy is the easiest place to play fantasy sports! Win up to 20X your money in a single night. Sign up today and use promo code PGF to get your Special Pick + First Time Deposit offer up to $250 in bonus cash! SeatGeekSeatGeek offers the best seats at the best prices. Never worry about overpaying for tickets again. Each ticket has a 0 to 10 score so you know if you're getting a good deal! Download the SeatGeek app and enter code PGFPOD for $20 off your first ticket purchase. BetAlyticsBetAlytics is a predictive sports betting software platform that helps you win more single bets and parlays. Take back the advantage from the sportsbooks. Get 25% off any package with promo code PGF. Visit BetAlytics to learn more. Bettor EdgeBettor Edge is a sports betting platform that lets you create your own betting lines and prices for real money betting positions with no sportsbook fees. Use promo code PGF to receive a FREE $20 on your first order at bettoredge.com. ZencastrZencastr is the ultimate all-in-one podcasting platform. Record, edit, distribute, and monetize all from one place. Use our special link Zencastr and code PGFP to save 30% off your first three months of Zencastr Professional. #madeonzencastr

Lions Dominate Vikings, Jerod Mayo Fired, Week 18 and CFP Quarterfinals Recap We recap NFL Week 18 and the College Football Playoff quarterfinals. Highlights include the Lions dominating the Vikings, Jerod Mayo's firing in New England, and playoff shakeups. We break down Burrow's big year, Mike Evans' record-setting season, and Aaron Rodgers' 500 TD milestone. On the college side, we cover Ohio State's blowout win, Notre Dame's upset over Georgia, and the ASU vs. Texas thriller. Connect with UsGet exclusive articles and subscribe to our FREE newsletter at Pint Glass Football. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for exclusive video content: Pint Glass Football on YouTube. Sponsors: Underdog FantasyUnderdog Fantasy is the easiest place to play fantasy sports! Win up to 20X your money in a single night. Sign up today and use promo code PGF to get your Special Pick + First Time Deposit offer up to $250 in bonus cash! SeatGeekSeatGeek offers the best seats at the best prices. Never worry about overpaying for tickets again. Each ticket has a 0 to 10 score so you know if you're getting a good deal! Download the SeatGeek app and enter code PGFPOD for $20 off your first ticket purchase. BetAlyticsBetAlytics is a predictive sports betting software platform that helps you win more single bets and parlays. Take back the advantage from the sportsbooks. Get 25% off any package with promo code PGF. Visit BetAlytics to learn more. Bettor EdgeBettor Edge is a sports betting platform that lets you create your own betting lines and prices for real money betting positions with no sportsbook fees. Use promo code PGF to receive a FREE $20 on your first order at bettoredge.com. ZencastrZencastr is the ultimate all-in-one podcasting platform. Record, edit, distribute, and monetize all from one place. Use our special link Zencastr and code PGFP to save 30% off your first three months of Zencastr Professional. #madeonzencastr

Eagles the NFL's Best Team? Travis Hunter's Historic Heisman, and Belichick's Shocking Move to CFB The Eagles dominate the Steelers—are they the best team in the NFL? Josh Allen proves he's unstoppable, and the Broncos rally to stay hot. Chiefs offensive issues continue-Is Mahomes still elite? Plus, Bill Belichick shocks the football world—will he succeed in college football?—and Travis Hunter wins the Heisman. Where does he rank among the all-time greats? Connect with UsGet exclusive articles and subscribe to our FREE newsletter at Pint Glass Football. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for exclusive video content: Pint Glass Football on YouTube. Sponsors: Underdog FantasyUnderdog Fantasy is the easiest place to play fantasy sports! Win up to 20X your money in a single night. Sign up today and use promo code PGF to get your Special Pick + First Time Deposit offer up to $250 in bonus cash! SeatGeekSeatGeek offers the best seats at the best prices. Never worry about overpaying for tickets again. Each ticket has a 0 to 10 score so you know if you're getting a good deal! Download the SeatGeek app and enter code PGFPOD for $20 off your first ticket purchase. BetAlyticsBetAlytics is a predictive sports betting software platform that helps you win more single bets and parlays. Take back the advantage from the sportsbooks. Get 25% off any package with promo code PGF. Visit BetAlytics to learn more. Bettor EdgeBettor Edge is a sports betting platform that lets you create your own betting lines and prices for real money betting positions with no sportsbook fees. Use promo code PGF to receive a FREE $20 on your first order at bettoredge.com. ZencastrZencastr is the ultimate all-in-one podcasting platform. Record, edit, distribute, and monetize all from one place. Use our special link Zencastr and code PGFP to save 30% off your first three months of Zencastr Professional. #madeonzencastr

NFL Week 14 Reactions: Bills' Troubles, Vikings' QB Dilemma, and CFP Format Controversy In this episode, we dive into NFL Week 14 reactions: Are the Bills in trouble after another flat performance? Do the Rams have a chance to surge late in the season? Will the Steelers re-sign Russell Wilson this offseason? We discuss the Vikings' quarterback situation, the College Football Playoff controversy, and why the new 12-team playoff format already needs an overhaul. Connect with UsGet exclusive articles and subscribe to our FREE newsletter at Pint Glass Football. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for exclusive video content: Pint Glass Football on YouTube. Sponsors: Underdog FantasyUnderdog Fantasy is the easiest place to play fantasy sports! Win up to 20X your money in a single night. Sign up today and use promo code PGF to get your Special Pick + First Time Deposit offer up to $250 in bonus cash! SeatGeekSeatGeek offers the best seats at the best prices. Never worry about overpaying for tickets again. Each ticket has a 0 to 10 score so you know if you're getting a good deal! Download the SeatGeek app and enter code PGFPOD for $20 off your first ticket purchase. BetAlyticsBetAlytics is a predictive sports betting software platform that helps you win more single bets and parlays. Take back the advantage from the sportsbooks. Get 25% off any package with promo code PGF. Visit BetAlytics to learn more. Bettor EdgeBettor Edge is a sports betting platform that lets you create your own betting lines and prices for real money betting positions with no sportsbook fees. Use promo code PGF to receive a FREE $20 on your first order at bettoredge.com. ZencastrZencastr is the ultimate all-in-one podcasting platform. Record, edit, distribute, and monetize all from one place. Use our special link Zencastr and code PGFP to save 30% off your first three months of Zencastr Professional. #madeonzencastr

Eagles Soar, Chiefs Flaws, Bills Dominate, and CFB Championship Picks This week, we dive into the Eagles' dominance as legit Super Bowl contenders, fueled by their physicality and a lights-out defense under Vic Fangio. The Ravens show signs of regression, we discuss the Chiefs' flaws, Mahomes' regression, and why Brad calls them the most unimpressive 11-1 team in NFL history. Meanwhile, the Bills crush the 49ers in a snowy disaster, solidifying their spot as the AFC's best. We break down playoff seeding, Brad calls out how overrated Kyler Murray is, and we discuss the Steelers' ceiling, Joe Burrow's brilliance being wasted in Cincinnati. Plus, we make our picks for the College Football Championship games and more! Connect with UsGet exclusive articles and subscribe to our FREE newsletter at Pint Glass Football. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for exclusive video content: Pint Glass Football on YouTube. Sponsors: Underdog FantasyUnderdog Fantasy is the easiest place to play fantasy sports! Win up to 20X your money in a single night. Sign up today and use promo code PGF to get your Special Pick + First Time Deposit offer up to $250 in bonus cash! SeatGeekSeatGeek offers the best seats at the best prices. Never worry about overpaying for tickets again. Each ticket has a 0 to 10 score so you know if you're getting a good deal! Download the SeatGeek app and enter code PGFPOD for $20 off your first ticket purchase. BetAlyticsBetAlytics is a predictive sports betting software platform that helps you win more single bets and parlays. Take back the advantage from the sportsbooks. Get 25% off any package with promo code PGF. Visit BetAlytics to learn more. Bettor EdgeBettor Edge is a sports betting platform that lets you create your own betting lines and prices for real money betting positions with no sportsbook fees. Use promo code PGF to receive a FREE $20 on your first order at bettoredge.com. ZencastrZencastr is the ultimate all-in-one podcasting platform. Record, edit, distribute, and monetize all from one place. Use our special link Zencastr and code PGFP to save 30% off your first three months of Zencastr Professional. #madeonzencastr

Eagles Soar, Chiefs Flaws, Bills Dominate, and CFB Championship Picks This week, we dive into the Eagles' dominance as legit Super Bowl contenders, fueled by their physicality and a lights-out defense under Vic Fangio. The Ravens show signs of regression, we discuss the Chiefs' flaws and why Brad thinks they are the most unimpressive 11-1 team in NFL history. Meanwhile, the Bills crush the 49ers in a snowy disaster, solidifying their spot as the AFC's best. We break down playoff seeding, Brad calls out Kyler Murray, we discuss the Steelers' ceiling and is Joe Burrow being wasted in Cincinnati? Plus, we make our picks for the College Football Championship games and more! Connect with UsGet exclusive articles and subscribe to our FREE newsletter at Pint Glass Football. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for exclusive video content: Pint Glass Football on YouTube. Sponsors: Underdog FantasyUnderdog Fantasy is the easiest place to play fantasy sports! Win up to 20X your money in a single night. Sign up today and use promo code PGF to get your Special Pick + First Time Deposit offer up to $250 in bonus cash! SeatGeekSeatGeek offers the best seats at the best prices. Never worry about overpaying for tickets again. Each ticket has a 0 to 10 score so you know if you're getting a good deal! Download the SeatGeek app and enter code PGFPOD for $20 off your first ticket purchase. BetAlyticsBetAlytics is a predictive sports betting software platform that helps you win more single bets and parlays. Take back the advantage from the sportsbooks. Get 25% off any package with promo code PGF. Visit BetAlytics to learn more. Bettor EdgeBettor Edge is a sports betting platform that lets you create your own betting lines and prices for real money betting positions with no sportsbook fees. Use promo code PGF to receive a FREE $20 on your first order at bettoredge.com. ZencastrZencastr is the ultimate all-in-one podcasting platform. Record, edit, distribute, and monetize all from one place. Use our special link Zencastr and code PGFP to save 30% off your first three months of Zencastr Professional. #madeonzencastr

NFL Power Shifts, Eagles Dominate, and CFP Chaos Brad Fowler and Alex Higdon dive into a packed episode of Pint Glass Football, tackling the biggest NFL and college football storylines of the week. Are the Eagles and Chiefs as good as their records suggest? How good are the Vikings?Did the Giants quit on Brian Daboll? Plus, we break down the Caleb Williams hype, the 49ers' struggles with injuries, and how much do we trust the Kansas City Chiefs after a close win to the Panthers? On the college side, seven Top 20 teams fell on Saturday, shaking up the CFP picture. What does it mean for teams like Georgia, Ohio State, and surprise risers in the ACC? And could Arizona State be the best team in the Big 12? Brad and Alex discuss it and more! Connect with UsGet exclusive articles and subscribe to our FREE newsletter at Pint Glass Football. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for exclusive video content: Pint Glass Football on YouTube. Sponsors: Underdog FantasyUnderdog Fantasy is the easiest place to play fantasy sports! Win up to 20X your money in a single night. Sign up today and use promo code PGF to get your Special Pick + First Time Deposit offer up to $250 in bonus cash! SeatGeekSeatGeek offers the best seats at the best prices. Never worry about overpaying for tickets again. Each ticket has a 0 to 10 score so you know if you're getting a good deal! Download the SeatGeek app and enter code PGFPOD for $20 off your first ticket purchase. BetAlyticsBetAlytics is a predictive sports betting software platform that helps you win more single bets and parlays. Take back the advantage from the sportsbooks. Get 25% off any package with promo code PGF. Visit BetAlytics to learn more. Bettor EdgeBettor Edge is a sports betting platform that lets you create your own betting lines and prices for real money betting positions with no sportsbook fees. Use promo code PGF to receive a FREE $20 on your first order at bettoredge.com. ZencastrZencastr is the ultimate all-in-one podcasting platform. Record, edit, distribute, and monetize all from one place. Use our special link Zencastr and code PGFP to save 30% off your first three months of Zencastr Professional. #madeonzencastr

Can Colorado Make the CFP? Bills Dominate KC, Lamar's Steelers Struggles, and More! Hosts Brad Fowler and Alex Higdon break down another packed week of NFL and college football action! Why can't Lamar Jackson solve the Steelers? Are the Bills the team to beat after a dominant win over the Chiefs? Plus, Colorado's run toward the CFP continues, and Bo Nix shines while Jayden Daniels cools off. The guys also dive into Georgia's resurgence, Oregon's gritty escape in Madison, and Shanahan's challenges in San Francisco. They also recap Alex's red-hot betting picks from last week and more! Connect with UsGet exclusive articles and subscribe to our FREE newsletter at Pint Glass Football. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for exclusive video content: Pint Glass Football on YouTube. Sponsors: Underdog FantasyUnderdog Fantasy is the easiest place to play fantasy sports! Win up to 20X your money in a single night. Sign up today and use promo code PGF to get your Special Pick + First Time Deposit offer up to $250 in bonus cash! SeatGeekSeatGeek offers the best seats at the best prices. Never worry about overpaying for tickets again. Each ticket has a 0 to 10 score so you know if you're getting a good deal! Download the SeatGeek app and enter code PGFPOD for $20 off your first ticket purchase. BetAlyticsBetAlytics is a predictive sports betting software platform that helps you win more single bets and parlays. Take back the advantage from the sportsbooks. Get 25% off any package with promo code PGF. Visit BetAlytics to learn more. Bettor EdgeBettor Edge is a sports betting platform that lets you create your own betting lines and prices for real money betting positions with no sportsbook fees. Use promo code PGF to receive a FREE $20 on your first order at bettoredge.com. ZencastrZencastr is the ultimate all-in-one podcasting platform. Record, edit, distribute, and monetize all from one place. Use our special link Zencastr and code PGFP to save 30% off your first three months of Zencastr Professional. #madeonzencastr

Lions Find a Way, Steelers Contenders? Colorado's CFP Path We break down the Lions' gritty win, question if the Steelers are true contenders, and discuss the Chiefs' shaky season despite their perfect record. We also analyze the Bears' offensive struggles, pump the brakes on Washington, and explore the surprising parity in college football with Ole Miss' upset over Georgia and Colorado's comeback against Texas Tech, and more! Connect with UsGet exclusive articles and subscribe to our FREE newsletter at Pint Glass Football. Subscribe to our YouTube channel for exclusive video content: Pint Glass Football on YouTube. Sponsors: Underdog FantasyUnderdog Fantasy is the easiest place to play fantasy sports! Win up to 20X your money in a single night. Sign up today and use promo code PGF to get your Special Pick + First Time Deposit offer up to $250 in bonus cash! SeatGeekSeatGeek offers the best seats at the best prices. Never worry about overpaying for tickets again. Each ticket has a 0 to 10 score so you know if you're getting a good deal! Download the SeatGeek app and enter code PGFPOD for $20 off your first ticket purchase. BetAlyticsBetAlytics is a predictive sports betting software platform that helps you win more single bets and parlays. Take back the advantage from the sportsbooks. Get 25% off any package with promo code PGF. Visit BetAlytics to learn more. Bettor EdgeBettor Edge is a sports betting platform that lets you create your own betting lines and prices for real money betting positions with no sportsbook fees. Use promo code PGF to receive a FREE $20 on your first order at bettoredge.com. ZencastrZencastr is the ultimate all-in-one podcasting platform. Record, edit, distribute, and monetize all from one place. Use our special link Zencastr and code PGFP to save 30% off your first three months of Zencastr Professional. #madeonzencastr