Podcasts about generalists

This week on Faisel and Friends, we are celebrating our 200th episode by discussing Investing in Humans: How Super-Generalists Shape the Future of Primary Care. Faisel and Dan are talking with Shawn Martin, Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Academy of Family Physicians.Our conversation explores breaking down the factors of healthcare affordability, building momentum with the Triple Double as we approach the midterm elections, and investing in humans and serving the community through the medical profession.

Dr. Reni Butler speaks with Dr. Bryan Haslam, Dr. Greg Sorensen, Dr. Matt McCabe, and Dr. Christoph Lee about their large real-world study evaluating an AI driven workflow for screening mammography across 109 U.S. facilities. Together, they explore how AI helped general radiologists achieve cancer detection and recall performance comparable to breast imaging specialists, as well as the broader implications for patient care, workflow design, and the future of precision screening. Closing the Performance Gap between Generalists and BreastImaging Specialists Using a Nationally Deployed AI Workflowfor Screening Mammography. McCabe et al. Radiology 2026; 320(1):e252005. 

Send us your thoughts! We may just feature it!Think about the last time you needed a doctor for a specific problem. You didn't want someone who does a little bit of everything, you wanted a specialist. So why are so many paralegals still trying to be good at everything instead of great at one thing?In this episode of Let's Talk Paralegal, host Eda Rosa breaks down the first pillar of the Business of You framework: Your Product. Learn why staying a generalist makes you replaceable, and how narrowing your focus into a real specialty makes you indispensable, and worth investing in.Eda walks through a practical, no quit your job required plan for finding your niche, including how to audit your last 90 days for your highest value work, the "Shadow Niche" strategy for building expertise inside your current role, and an exact script you can use to pitch a managing partner on owning a specific practice area.This week's homework: pick one legal sub specialty or technical skill you want to be known for, and take one real step toward it.Next episode: once your product is built, it's time to put it on display. We're talking about your Brand.Welcome to Let's Talk Paralegal—where the legal industry gets real. I'm your host, Eda Rosa, legal consultant, speaker, and founder of the Eda Rosa LLC & the Limitless Paralegal Academy.This isn't your stuffy legal studies school lecture. We're talking mindset, money, modern workflows, and how to build a career—and a life—you don't need a vacation from.Let's cut the fluff, raise the bar, and change the game… one conversation at a time. In the legal world, details win cases — and missing one can cost everything.That's why we're proud to be sponsored by Affirm Investigative Solutions. They partner with attorneys and legal teams to uncover the facts that matter most — from background investigations and witness locates to surveillance and asset searches.Affirm Investigative Solutions is discreet, thorough, and laser-focused on supporting strong case strategy, so you can focus on advocating for your clients.IfCase Clarity Case Clarity AI AI-powered litigation intelligence for attorneys. Turn documents, transcripts, audioGet Staffed Up Get Staffed Up, the leading virtual staffing company for law firms in the United States! Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the showFollow us on: LinkedIn Instagram @edarosallc1 Facebook

What happens when you stop saying yes to everything and commit to the part of your business that customers really want? In this episode of ScaleUp Radio, host Kevin Brent talks to Janet Tanguay, founder of The Hammock Way of Life, about the journey from broad business consulting to building a scalable business around vision boarding, coach certification and a growing global community. Janet's story is a great example of how focus can unlock growth. The turning point came during and after the pandemic. Janet had been using vision boarding to help businesses think creatively about their future, and demand began to grow. Rather than treating that demand as just another service opportunity, she recognised the market signal and made a deliberate decision to niche. Importantly, that also meant saying no. Janet turned down a significant project that didn't fit the direction she had chosen. That decision gave her the space to commit properly to the vision boarding opportunity, and she believes it accelerated the subsequent growth of the business. But finding a niche created another challenge: how do you scale something that depends on your own expertise and delivery? Janet's answer has been certification. She developed a programme to train and certify other coaches in her methodology, with Module 1 accredited for CPD in the UK and Module 2 progressing through the process. The model combines online learning, live Q&A and curated resources, enabling Janet to build a global network of independent practitioners rather than relying on a traditional employee model. What is particularly interesting is that the real value isn't simply the certification. It's the community around it. Members share resources, learn from each other and collaborate when clients need expertise outside their own areas. The community continues to develop its knowledge too, including work around aphantasia and making vision boarding more accessible to visually impaired people. Rather than trying to protect the methodology through highly restrictive agreements, Janet's approach is to make the network valuable enough that people want to remain part of it. That creates an important lesson for any founder thinking about scaling through partners, licences, franchises or certification: Don't just create a method people can buy. Create an ecosystem they don't want to leave. Removing the founder bottleneck Janet is now tackling another familiar ScaleUp challenge: removing herself from the centre of the business. At one stage she found herself facing 18 meetings in a single day, a pretty clear indication that the founder had become a bottleneck. Her longer-term ambition is to exit the business within the next few years, but she wants an exit that protects the purpose, vision and values she has created. That means systemising now. She is looking at bringing in operational leadership and strengthening areas including CRM, IT and marketing so the business can operate successfully without depending on Janet for everyday delivery. There's a valuable distinction here. Building a business that generates income for its founder isn't necessarily the same thing as building a business that somebody else could own. Word of mouth isn't necessarily accidental We also discuss Janet's approach to marketing. Much of her growth comes through referrals and word of mouth, but Janet doesn't simply wait for recommendations to happen. She deliberately brings well-connected people into events and experiences, knowing that if they see the value first-hand they're likely to talk about it. It's a useful reminder that word of mouth can be cultivated. We also hear the story behind Janet's book, Hammock Way of Life: Leaping Toward Joy, including an unexpected appearance on a Times Square billboard and how that visibility itself created another potential business opportunity. The standout message Perhaps the strongest ScaleUp lesson from Janet's journey is: Growth accelerated when she became clearer about what the business was going to do and, just as importantly, what it wasn't going to do. Choosing a niche meant turning down work. Scaling the niche meant turning her knowledge into a repeatable methodology. And building something that can ultimately exist without her means deliberately removing herself as the bottleneck. Those are three very different stages of the same journey from founder-led business to scalable organisation. In this episode, we explore Why customer demand prompted Janet to pivot from general consulting into a specialist niche Why saying no to a large opportunity helped rather than hindered growth How certification can turn founder expertise into a scalable model Why community can become a competitive advantage How Janet is building an international network without creating a large employee base The importance of systems when you're trying to remove founder dependency Why Janet is thinking about her eventual exit years in advance How to cultivate word-of-mouth marketing rather than simply hoping for referrals What a Times Square billboard taught Janet about unexpected opportunities The one key thing Scaling often starts with choosing less. Janet's experience demonstrates that focus isn't simply about becoming more efficient. It means having the confidence to decide where the greatest opportunity lies and saying no to work that distracts from it. Once you've made that choice, the next question is how you build systems, people and a community that allow the idea to grow without everything continuing to depend on you. Feeling busy but stuck? Most founders I speak to feel busy but stuck. Plenty happening, but no real clarity on what matters most this quarter. Here's what more than 500 interviews on this show have taught me: the founders who scale choose less, and deliver all of it. That's what the G90 Summit is for. It's a structured half-day where we cut through everything competing for your attention, agree the three to five things that must happen in the next 90 days, and build the rhythm to make sure they do. Quarterly. Virtual. £97 a seat. Find out more at Smart90.co.uk/summit. And if you know somebody with an interesting ScaleUp story who would make a great guest for ScaleUp Radio, you can nominate them for a future episode. Recommended Resources BooksMade To Stick – Chip Heath & Dan Heath Good to Great – Jim Collins Let Them – Mel Robbins Tech Go High Level Quickbooks Suno Claude ChatGPT Contact   LinkedIn: Janet TanguayWeb: The Hammock Way of LifeInsta: The Hammock Way of Life

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.sensible-med.com/subscribe

In this episode of Business Legacy Podcast, Paul Dio sits down with Seth Kamens, founder of Kamens CPA, for a conversation that is as refreshingly honest as any the show has produced. Seth didn't set out to build a twenty-five-person accounting firm. He set out to keep the lights on. What he built instead — starting with fifteen clients from his father, a solo practice, and a profile on Thumbtack — has exceeded every expectation he ever had for himself. And when Paul asks him about legacy, Seth laughs and says he doesn't care. His legacy is being a good dad. The rest, in his words, is bullshit. Seth traces the unusual path that brought him to accounting — Capitol Hill ambitions, investment banking, asset management, financial planning — and explains why he hated working at the big firms. The clients who weren't top tier were treated as second class. The work was compliance and regurgitation. Nobody was asking the five or six questions that actually move a business forward. Seth decided he could do it differently, and in 2012, with his father's referrals and a depleted bank account, he started. The heart of the conversation is what it means to be a proactive accountant rather than a reactive one. Seth explains why he turns down clients he can't actually help, why he thinks of himself as a business owner who happens to do accounting rather than the other way around, and why his firm's success — built entirely on networking and word of mouth, never a dollar of SEO — comes down to one thing: showing clients that someone gives a damn. The episode closes with the kind of honesty that's rare on business podcasts. Seth on the $200,000 error he caught that the bigger firm missed for three straight years. On why the accounting industry is commoditized and what that means for how you prove value. On building a leadership culture that's the opposite of Deloitte, JH Cohen, and Merrill — encouraging, accountable, and never humiliating anyone in front of their peers. And on the legacy question that made him laugh — because in ten or twelve years when he sells, not ten percent of his clients will remember his name, and he is completely fine with that. Timestamps 00:00 — Welcome and introduction 00:45 — The generalist's unusual path to accounting 02:30 — Why he hated the big firms and what a proactive CPA actually looks like 04:30 — Fifteen clients, a depleted bank account, and Thumbtack 06:00 — The entrepreneur who happens to be a CPA 07:30 — How the clientele has evolved over fifteen years 09:30 — Accountants as cost centers and repositioning the conversation 12:00 — The aha moment that keeps him going 14:00 — The psychology of gains, tax bills, and client blame 16:00 — Commoditization and how to prove your value anyway 18:00 — Navigating the ever-changing tax code 20:00 — The $200,000 error the big firm missed three straight years 22:30 — We've never spent a dollar on SEO 24:00 — Leadership as the opposite of Deloitte and Merrill 27:00 — Making mistakes, not personalizing them, and building culture 29:00 — Goals, ambition, and already exceeding every expectation 31:00 — How a stuck CPA redesigns their practice 34:00 — My legacy is being a good dad 36:00 — Where to find Seth and Kamens CPA Episode Resources Discover how Seth and his team at Kamens CPA help business owners, entrepreneurs, and individuals get proactive answers to the questions most accountants never think to ask — and how they've built a twenty-five-person firm entirely on referrals and the idea that someone should actually give a damn: www.kamenscpa.com Leave a Review: If you enjoyed the episode, leave a review and rating on your preferred podcast platform. For more information: Visit https://businesslegacypodcast.com to access the show notes and additional resources on the episode.  

Anish Acharya is a General Partner at Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), where he has focused on consumer investing. Anish is one of the most insightful, thought-provoking, and in-the-weeds product investors I've met, and this conversation will get your mind buzzing. Before joining a16z, Anish was a serial founder and operator: he founded SocialDeck, which he sold to Google, then led multiple efforts inside Google before founding Snowball, which he sold to Credit Karma. At Credit Karma he rose to VP of Product and then GM of the consumer product and the broader credit card business.In our in-depth conversation, we discuss:1. Why you don't have to worry about becoming part of the “permanent underclass”2. Why company building will now involve creating a series of loops3. What's happening in consumer right now4. Why the biggest opportunity in consumer is “/loop, make me happier”5. Why moats are discovered, not designed6. The rising importance of distribution as a moat7. Being a model sommelier—Brought to you by:WorkOS—Make your app enterprise-ready, with SSO, SCIM, RBAC, and moreMercury—Radically different banking, now with Command—Episode transcript: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/why-companies-are-becoming-a-series—Archive of all Lenny's Podcast transcripts: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/yxi4s2w998p1gvtpu4193/AMdNPR8AOw0lMklwtnC0TrQ?rlkey=j06x0nipoti519e0xgm23zsn9&st=ahz0fj11&dl=0—Where to find Anish Acharya:• Andreessen Horowitz: https://a16z.com/author/anish-acharya/• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anishacharya/• X: https://x.com/illscience• SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/illscience—Where to find Lenny:• Newsletter: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com• X: https://twitter.com/lennysan• LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lennyrachitsky/—In this episode, we cover:(00:00) Introduction(02:25) The fear of AI creating a permanent underclass(05:25) Why AI takeoff may be slower than expected(08:02) How companies are actually adopting AI(11:25) Building AI products with loops(15:25) Why human intuition still matters(20:19) What the winners in AI are doing differently(21:41) Generalists vs. specialists(26:22) How to become a model sommelier(32:03) /loop make me happier(36:15) Why Anish is optimistic about the future of AI(42:47) What happens when models become too dangerous(46:29) How AI will change jobs and ambition(51:34) The state of consumer AI(54:30) How to build a durable moat in AI(59:25) The power of distribution and word of mouth(01:04:30) Making bigger bets and rethinking pricing(01:09:17) Advice for product builders in the AI era(01:11:48) Lightning round and final thoughts—References: https://www.lennysnewsletter.com/p/why-companies-are-becoming-a-series—Production and marketing by https://penname.co/. For inquiries about sponsoring the podcast, email podcast@lennyrachitsky.com.—Lenny may be an investor in the companies discussed. To hear more, visit www.lennysnewsletter.com

 In Today's Episode... Jordan sits down with multi-passionate coach Brian Pardue to challenge the cultural pressure of being a narrow specialist. Together, they discuss the freedom of embracing being a "generalist," bust common myths about the "Jack-of-all-trades, master of none" concept, how to navigate societal expectations without falling into anxiety or avoidance, and why true passion and skill mastery should always start with genuine curiosity rather than a chase for money.   Connect with Bryan HERE and on LinkedIn or PeakOne Coaching Website   More about Bryan Pardue Bryan is a husband, father, and coach. He has been running PeakOne Coaching for 4 years, helping his business owners with strategy development and accountability. He believes that the only magic solution is time on task. Reminder: Subscribe, Rate & Review this podcast!  Whatever platform you are listening on, make sure to follow or subscribe & sign up for notifications for when weekly episodes drop every week! And if you feel called, please leave a rating and review. This helps us to reach more people!  JordanPendleton.com

The following article of the Tech industry is: 'Breadth Over Depth: Why Generalists Win in the Age of AI' by Roberto Peñacastro, CEO, Leadsales. 

Over the Summer I've curated a mini series of some of my favourite episodes from the podcast so far. We revisit old episodes that have stayed rent-free in my brain! So whether this episode ends up being new for you or you get to enjoy it again years later, I hope you find it helpful. In this episode, I chat with the incredibly talented illustrator Kyle T Webster about the power of being a generalist, building a creative career, and the value of authentic relationships. Kyle's journey; from experimenting with different creative paths to selling his company to Adobe; offers so many lessons for anyone navigating the ups and downs of creative business. I left this conversation feeling energized and inspired, and I hope you do too. Key Takeaways Embrace Being a Generalist You don't have to niche down to succeed; exploring different styles and skills can open unexpected doors and keep your work exciting. See Everything as an Experiment Treat your creative journey as a series of experiments. Success and failure are both valuable teachers, and trying new things leads to growth. Build Genuine Relationships Opportunities often come from authentic connections, not just networking for the sake of it. Be yourself and nurture real friendships in your industry. Redefine Success on Your Terms Success isn't always a straight line. Stay curious, keep learning, and let your own values guide your path. Persevere Through Rejection Every creative faces setbacks; what matters is getting back up, learning from criticism, and continuing to move forward. Stay Open to Unexpected Paths Sometimes the most rewarding opportunities come from zigzagging journeys and saying yes to new adventures. Episode Highlight 01:44 – How Kyle's zigzag career path led to Adobe and creative freedom 03:37 – The value of being a generalist vs. niching down 06:03 – Social media, style, and the myth of the "one true niche" 10:17 – Boredom, experimentation, and keeping creativity alive 12:28 – Learning from failure and treating everything as an experiment 19:25 – The power of authentic relationships and unexpected opportunities 21:06 – Stories of career breakthroughs and saying yes to new experiences 50:09 – Kyle's current projects, future dreams, and final inspiration Referenced in the episode:  Sign up for Kyle's newsletter The Accidental Expert Kyle's website Instagram I would love to hear what you think of this episode, so please do let me know on Instagram where I'm @‌lizmmosley or @‌buildingyourbrandpodcast and I hope you enjoy the episode! This episode was written and recorded by me and produced by Lucy Lucraft lucylucraft.co.uk If you enjoyed this episode please leave a 5* rating and review!

The Daily Business and Finance Show - Wednesday, 26 August 2026 We get our business and finance news from Seeking Alpha and you should too! Subscribe to Seeking Alpha Premium for more in-depth market news and help support this podcast. Free for 14-days! Please click here for more info: Subscribe to Seeking Alpha Premium News Today's headlines: Target stock drops 5% after controversial Halloween costume recall sparks boycott calls Meta, states have reportedly discussed settling teen social media harm case AI mania makes room for the debasement trade Robotics startup Generalist hits $3B valuation after fresh funding - report Waymo's autonomous plans for Europe will begin in London and Munich Marvell in focus as Susquehanna ups price target ahead of Q2 results Microsoft and PIF-backed HUMAIN announce collaboration on Arabic AI integration Biggest stock movers Wednesday: SYRE, INTU, SAP and more Explanations from OpenAI ChatGPT API with proprietary prompts. This podcast provides information only and should not be construed as financial or business advice. This podcast is produced by Klassic Studios Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What's the last thing you learned simply because you wanted to know?Episode summaryWhy do we feel the need to justify what we learn? My guest on this episode is Annie Wagstaff, a musician and composer whose career has taken her around the world touring with Take That and into writing music for advertising. But alongside her work in music, Annie has developed another passion: learning about whatever happens to make her curious.That could be vine tomatoes, animals, colour, knots, the human body, or simply something she notices while walking through a supermarket.Annie shares what she discovers on social media, not because the knowledge necessarily has an obvious purpose, but because she finds it interesting. And that raises a fascinating question: what happens to the natural curiosity we have as children as we become adults?In our conversation, we explore creativity and constraints, sonic branding, why children pick up stones while adults tell them to put them down, the pleasure of knowing a little about a lot, short attention spans and hyperfocus, authenticity in an age of AI, and why learning something without knowing what you're going to do with it might be exactly the point.We also talk about Take That, vine tomatoes, staring at flowers, doomscrolling, notebooks, knots and sailing — the kind of eclectic mix that an episode about curiosity really ought to contain.Guest bioAnnie Wagstaff is a London-based guitarist, musician and composer.She has worked as a session musician, toured internationally with Take That, and composes music for advertising and other commercial projects.Earlier in her career, Annie also released her own music and built a large following online through her guitar playing.More recently, she has used her social channels to share the things she learns simply because they interest her — turning subjects ranging from science and animals to everyday observations into short, accessible explorations of curiosity.AI-Generated Timestamped Summary00:00 — Why curiosity matters05:00 — Touring the world with Take That10:00 — Writing music for advertising15:00 — Sonic branding and the power of sound17:00 — From “Guitar Girl” to curiosity creator22:00 — Vine tomatoes and unexpected rabbit holes25:00 — Why children are naturally curious34:00 — Flowers, distraction and noticing the world38:00 — Becoming a “knowledge butterfly”45:00 — Authenticity, social media and AI50:00 — Why does knowledge need a purpose?55:00 — Rediscovering curiosity — from five minutes to sailingLinksAnnie's Website: anniewagstaff.com including her booksTikTok: @annieplaysguitar on TikTokLinkedIn: Annie Wagstaff on LinkedInInstagram: @annieplaysguitar on InstagramYouTube: Annie Plays Guitar on YouTube

Find us at www.crisisinvesting.com Doug and Matt answer viewer questions on which dystopian story best fits the West today, focusing on expanding surveillance tech and a drift toward "1984," plus a nod to a second dystopia involving "Soma." They discuss the U.S. pressuring the Netherlands via the MATCH Act to curb ASML chip-tool sales to China, arguing there's no legitimate state role and warning it could damage ASML and supply chains. On reserve currency, Doug says paper currency is a government substitute for money and predicts a return to gold. They debate China's "communist" label, claiming the party intervenes less than often assumed and noting high Chinese savings versus low U.S. savings. They cover the Japanese carry trade, U.S. debt, depression risk, preparation advice for a 31-year-old leaving the military and a 44-year-old permaculture worker, draft speculation, Cyprus investing timing, AI/AGI risks, retirement income strategies, and priorities for small monthly investing, ending with an Einstein interest-rate joke and a teaser for an upcoming Bill Buppert interview. 00:00 Viewer Questions Return 01:11 Surveillance State Fears 03:58 Chip War and ASML 06:53 Reserve Currency and Gold 09:08 Is China Really Communist 11:50 Japan Carry Trade Risks 14:17 Starting Prep at 31 17:14 Generalist or Specialist 19:02 Draft Anxiety and Independence 22:29 Cyprus Investing Outlook 24:15 AI Agents Gone Rogue 25:21 Is AI Becoming Life 27:14 Investing Around AI Risk 28:39 Boats Planes And Expat Taxes 30:29 Critical Metals Watchlist 31:56 Retirement Income Portfolio 33:35 Small Budget Priorities 35:54 Robot Liability Questions 38:32 Antifragile Society Debate 42:06 Wrap Up And Interest Rates Joke 44:14 Next Guest Announcement

AI is transforming the workplace - not necessarily by eliminating jobs, but by fundamentally changing how people work and the skills they need. Join this episode of DM Radio as Eric Kavanagh speaks with Roberta Gamble, Chief Research Analyst at FOURCASTERS, about the real impact of AI on jobs, marketing, communications, and the evolving role of the knowledge worker. Learn why AI is making basic tasks easier while pushing professionals toward broader, more versatile skill sets and how it's being applied to corporate communications and the public sector, where better technology could dramatically improve everyday interactions with government services.

Look at your last ten projects and ask an uncomfortable question: how many could the platform's own AI agent do most of within the next two years? For a lot of SaaS partners, the honest answer is most of them, and that is exactly the implementation, configuration, and migration work paying the bills right now. In this episode, I break down why AI is not going to replace you, it is going to expose you, and what actually gets exposed once the repetitive setup work starts to shrink. I share the call Chris, a Salesforce partner, made when he picked one industry and said no to everything else: revenue dipped for three to six months, then came back at a higher margin with less rework because he stopped learning every client's business from scratch. If you are spread across five verticals, known well enough to configure but not well enough to advise, this is the one decision that determines whether AI multiplies you or exposes you.Resources and LinksChris Widmayer on The Paul Higgins Podcast: Episode 691 - Why Going All-In on One Vertical Beat Staying a Generalist with Chris WidmayerNeed help with your WHO and WHAT decisions? Apply for a FREE Multiplier CallBook a Decision Session herePrevious episode: 698 - SaaS is DeadCheck out more episodes of the Paul Higgins PodcastSubscribe to our YouTube channel: @PaulHigginsMentoringJoin our newsletterSuggested resources

Malcolm Reid Sr.: Ingredients for Success for the Modern Generalist and Kicking the Hopium Habit In this episode of the Stay On Course Podcast, Julie sits down with Malcolm Reid Sr., founder of Pro Global Business Advisors, to talk leadership, purpose, and the mindset shifts that separate predictable business growth from hope based guessing. Guest Background Malcolm Reid Sr. founded Pro Global Business Advisors, helping over a thousand coaches serve small business owners with integrity Known for a strong stance against hype driven coaching and for equipping ethical coaches with real systems and support Creator of Profit Advisor, a platform that brings marketing, sales, and fulfillment technology into one methodology Spent decades in music and corporate America before building twenty five years of entrepreneurial experience What They Discussed Why the specialist model is losing ground to the modern generalist in a world shaped by AI The full meaning behind the phrase a jack of all trades is a master of none Why so many entrepreneurs run their business on hope instead of tracked, predictable systems The triplets that keep business owners stuck: gonna do, did not do, and want to do The importance of success metrics and consistent prospecting, even after landing clients How Profit Advisor gives coaches a business in a box, without long contracts or restrictive territories The path to becoming a certified Profit Advisor and building real credibility Malcolm's journey from corporate America to becoming unemployable in the traditional workforce His early career in music, including work alongside KRS-One and Grandmaster Kaz The value of self leadership and consistency for long term legacy building Memorable Quotes Change you must or irrelevant you will become A jack of all trades is a master of none, but it is a whole lot better than just a master of one People are addicted to hope There are parking spaces on that road, that journey to success. Park, but back up and get back on the journey Get one percent better per week, and by the end of the year you will be sixty seven percent better than where you started Key Takeaways Systems beat hope. Predictability comes from tracked metrics, not wishful thinking Becoming a generalist, someone who can do more and deliver faster, is increasingly valuable Growth requires discipline. Small, consistent improvement compounds over time Every failure becomes part of the foundation for helping the next person Purpose and self leadership carry entrepreneurs through moments that feel insurmountable This episode is a must listen for coaches and small business owners ready to build a business rooted in purpose, clarity, and predictable success. Connect with Malcolm Reid Sr. Website: ProGlobalBA.com Free Book: 100kleak.com Company: Pro Global Business Advisors Connect with Julie Riga Website: julieriga.com/lead Social Media: LinkedIn | Facebook | Instagra. Coaching: Learn more about leadership coaching and transformation Stacklist: https://stacklist.app/julieriga Subscribe to Stay On Course wherever you listen to podcasts, and share this episode with the leaders in your life who need to hear about purpose, growth, and legacy. #stayoncourse #leadership #purpose #growth #entrepreneur Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Ed Keith is joined by Esteve Castells — former Head of SEO at Adevinta and founder of AI search visibility platform LLM Pulse — to work through what generative search actually means for real estate marketplaces.Chapters:00:00 Intro01:53 From Adevinta's global SEO lead to founding LLM Pulse04:01 What running SEO across a portfolio that size was really like05:59 Evangelising SEO inside a business that didn't believe in it09:32 How LLM Pulse started, and what it does now11:55 Executives vs operators: who's actually taking AI search seriously13:10 Will portals lose the search phase to LLMs?16:58 The strategic case for — and against — building ChatGPT apps22:23 Real estate vs other verticals, and the unique inventory problem26:15 Domain authority is out. What replaces it?29:26 Why 96% of what an LLM sees about your niche is other brands33:54 Scraped listings, attribution, and whether to block AI crawlers37:38 Will ChatGPT pick a favoured marketplace in each country?41:54 Ed's theory: portals will lose the consideration phase45:00 What portals can actually do about disintermediationThe evangelist's job never really endsEsteve joined Schibsted Marketplaces in January 2019 into an organisation with almost nobody working on SEO full time — a business that had grown on brand and TV without needing it. The hardest part of the job, he says, was never the SEO itself. It was getting resources and getting people to care. The eBay Classifieds Group acquisition brought a stronger SEO culture with it, and the team finally had a tailwind. He now sees the same cycle starting again with AI search, except this time nobody has the playbook.The disintermediation questionThe boardroom worst case is straightforward: ChatGPT serves every house on the market by going straight to the agency, and the aggregator in the middle disappears. Esteve points out that real estate is unusually exposed here because almost nobody has unique inventory — the same listing sits on the agency site, several portals and the meta-aggregators on top of them. Generalist goods marketplaces are far better protected, because they're the canonical source and they own payment and delivery.SEO and GEO are the same ingredients, a different dishEsteve's view is that SEO is the foundation for AI search, but the actions diverge. LLM Pulse data shows 96% of what an LLM sees when answering a query in your niche is about other brands, not yours — which pushes the work off your own site and onto third-party sources and PR. He also flags the brands that quietly went invisible because an IT decision blocked ChatGPT's crawler.The attribution problem, and who ChatGPT partners withCitation CTR is under 1%, so the marketplace that sourced an answer rarely gets credit for it. Esteve's research has found ChatGPT typically favours one media partner per country — Prisa in Spain — and the open question is whether that pattern extends beyond media. If it does, he argues it may favour the number two or three player rather than the incumbent, since the big marketplaces are the most hostile to partnering with OpenAI.Guest:Esteve Castells, Founder at LLM Pulse — LinkedInPresented by:Edmund Keith — LinkedIn

I’ve known Chris Piper for a couple years now, ever since a mutual friend put us in touch and he told me he wanted to get into the hunting industry. I didn’t think that was a terrible idea — okay, I kind of did — but this guy’s skill set is legit. He’s built marketing and ops departments for a $5 billion car company, ran point for Cody Sanchez at Contrarian Thinking, and now he’s out on his own helping companies bridge the gap between marketing and operations. But this episode isn’t really about business tactics. It’s about the whole arc — losing the fighter pilot dream to asthma, racing Formula cars and street racing through his teens, becoming a dad at 21 with zero parenting rights and fighting his way back from that, and grinding through corporate America to build the life he actually wanted. We get into whether buying “boring” small businesses is a real path to freedom or just a fancy way to buy yourself a job, why being a generalist beats being a specialist in the AI era, and what losing a neighbor to a sudden brain tumor taught him about “someday.” We also talk hunting — his first elk hunt, what he picked up from a week at Cliff Gray’s Elk Camp, and why patience in the mountains is the same skill as patience in business. If you’ve ever felt like you’re behind, or like you’re waiting for “someday” to start living the life you actually want, this one’s for you. Sponsors Bridger Watch This is a project I’ve personally been working on for a long time — a smartwatch actually built for hunting. Everyone told us we couldn’t take on Garmin, but I think we’ve built something amazing. The standout feature is the mapping. On top of all your normal smartwatch stuff — health tracking, fitness tracking, texts — Bridger Watch has the best mapping capability of any wearable out there. You can save offline maps, send them straight to your watch, and pan around right on your wrist with a screen that’s genuinely impressive. And because we integrate directly with onX, you can share your waypoints, tracks, and markups right to the watch — so if your phone dies or you lose it in the field, you’ve always got a backup. We’re not trying to replace your phone maps. We’re trying to give you redundancy in a wearable you’ll actually use every single day of the year. bridgerwatch.com Maven Optics (Note: the ad copy for Maven wasn’t in the transcript I was given, so I’ve written this based on Maven’s general brand positioning — swap in the actual episode read if you have it.) Maven builds premium hunting optics — riflescopes, binoculars, and spotting scopes — and sells direct to the hunter instead of marking everything up through a retail middleman. That means you’re getting glass that goes toe-to-toe with the big legacy brands, at a price that actually makes sense, backed by their unconditional lifetime warranty. mavenbuilt.com Use code TRO at checkout for a discount. Chapters 00:00 – Cold open: onX Hunt’s new Go Track “share your location” feature 01:00 – Sponsor: Bridger Watch 03:00 – Welcome Chris Piper, how they met and reconnected 05:15 – Chris’s original dream: Air Force pilot, shut down by asthma 08:30 – The street racing years — the helicopter chase story 12:30 – Becoming a dad at 21 and the custody fight that followed 17:00 – Choosing responsibility, insurance sales, and the climb into corporate America 21:00 – Director of Market Strategy at DriveTime and the biggest lesson from his 20s 25:30 – Chasing money vs. mastering a skill — building a “Swiss Army knife” career 30:00 – Generalist vs. specialist in the age of AI — why curiosity is the real edge 35:30 – Leaving corporate for Tucker Max, moving the family, and near-jail custody stress 41:00 – Joining Cody Sanchez at Contrarian Thinking, buying “boring” businesses 47:00 – Is buying small businesses real, or are you just buying yourself a job? 53:00 – The most successful (and surprising) small businesses to own 57:30 – Specialists vs. operators — why the best welder shouldn’t run the company 1:00:30 – What Chris wants his 40s, 50s, and 60s to look like — the forever ranch and an elk tag in every western state 1:04:00 – Losing a neighbor to a sudden brain tumor and why “someday” isn’t guaranteed 1:07:00 – Where the audacity to go get what you want actually comes from 1:08:30 – Wrap-up: Cliff Gray’s Elk Camp, patience in hunting vs. business, and where to find Chris Three Key Takeaways Disappointment comes from unmet expectations, not from reality itself. Chris talks about resetting his expectations daily instead of holding himself (or his team, or his family) to a fixed standard 24/7. Some weeks call for going all-in on the business; other weeks, the win is just showing up as a present dad. Adjusting the bar to the moment isn’t lowering it — it’s being honest about what’s actually needed right now. In the AI era, being a curious generalist beats being a narrow specialist. Chris didn’t get ahead by mastering one skill — he stacked social media, SEO, PPC, PR, and operations, then learned to move fluidly between marketing and ops. The real leverage now isn’t knowing one thing deeply; it’s having enough taste and curiosity to judge what AI (or anyone else) hands you and say, “that works” or “that’s BS.” Buying a small business can absolutely change your life — but it’s still a job, just a different kind of hard. Chris saw thousands of people go through the acquisition process at Contrarian Thinking. Some genuinely built freedom and equity; others just bought themselves a demanding new job with their name on the door. The difference wasn’t the business model — it was whether the buyer had real operating leverage (sales, marketing, or ops chops) going in.

Get access to more than 200 episodes of my premium podcast (The Aliquot) when you sign up as a FoundMyFitness Premium Member The next 10 years may add decades to human lifespan by compressing the time it takes to understand, treat, and prevent disease. In this episode, Dr. Derya Unutmaz explains why accelerating AI could transform drug discovery, shorten clinical trials, and push cancer treatment toward increasingly personalized interventions. He also reframes AI not as an existential threat, but as a medical enabler that doctors may soon be ethically obligated to use. Timestamps: (00:00) Introduction (07:11) Why the next 10 years may add 50 to your lifespan (11:19) How AI is transforming drug discovery (16:50) Could digital twins shorten clinical trials? (19:25) Can AI predict drug safety and efficacy? (23:40) Have we already reached AGI? (29:23) Why AI may be medicine's greatest force multiplier (35:35) Can AI replicate a scientist's biological intuition? (42:16) Is it malpractice for doctors not to use AI? (48:18) What happens when AI monitors disease in real time? (51:52) Which AI models should doctors trust? (57:29) Claude vs. GPT—does the model matter for diagnosis? (1:00:58) Generalist vs. specialized AI—which works better in medicine? (1:04:25) Why cancer is so hard to cure (1:08:18) Could cancer be curable within a decade? (1:12:29) Can AI design cancer treatments on demand? (1:14:31) How AI could curb overtreatment and side effects (1:17:28) Predicting cancer years before it forms—is it possible? (1:23:50) Why biology could go exponential with AI (1:28:58) Why aging may be easier to prevent than reverse (1:34:51) Can the body be engineered to resist aging? (1:40:07) Can AI model how gene therapy will behave? (1:44:12) What people who reach 110+ reveal about Human 2.0 (1:46:21) From Dolly to Yamanaka factors—the case for cellular age reversal (1:50:56) Why full-body rejuvenation is an engineering problem (1:58:44) What happens when AI reasons longer about biology? (2:01:25) The biosecurity dilemma of powerful AI (2:06:12) What should we actually measure to track aging? (2:12:34) How old immune cells distort aging clocks (2:15:22) Why reversing brain aging is uniquely difficult (2:21:49) The ultimate prompt for extending lifespan (2:23:50) What data does a true digital twin need? (2:28:32) How to build a mini digital twin today (2:33:26) How to give AI a long-term memory of your data (2:36:33) Why personal baselines matter for AI advice Show notes are available by clicking here Watch this episode on YouTube

Over half of us identify as generalists and most workplaces still aren't built for us.Siobhán O'Riordan, founder of Big Sea Strategies and author of Reframe, joins Ashish Kothari to make the case that in a world changing faster than any playbook, the "ubiquitous and yet unseen" generalist is exactly the talent leaders need.She shares the story behind her own pattern of "crushing it or crashing out," why fit beats effort every time, and three concrete moves any generalist can use to name their value and thrive in a system wired for specialists: know your value from the outside in, manage up to make it visible, and protect your range by saying no on purpose. A conversation for anyone who has ever felt like they didn't fit the org chart and for the leaders who keep losing their most adaptive people.What You Will Learn:Flourishing is a fit problem, not an effort problem.The same person, bringing the same energy, can thrive in one role and be shown the door in another. Before you push harder, examine the context: do you have the freedom, authority, and cover to do what you actually do well?Generalists are defined externally so define yourself first.Specialists come with built-in expectations; generalists don't. Ask five to ten colleagues what value you brought them, then learn to name how you think out loud: "I'm someone who sees patterns and gaps."Control your talents, or they will boss you around.A room full of ideas is a liability if you dump all 100. Know your strengths, bring the best three, and pair with people (and AI) who turn ideas into finished work. Generalists cannot work alone.In a fast-changing world, generalists lead adaptation.As "expert practitioners," they test, connect dots, and absorb the risk specialists can't. Think of the hospitalist who knows enough about every specialty to prioritize care for one whole patient.To thrive in a specialist world, get strategic.Know your value, stay connected to other generalists, and get smart about what you say no to. Don't fight gravity, build specialization where you must, and augment your gaps with technology and partnership.Episode Chapters: 00:00 Why fit matters more than effort01:08 Flourishing starts with self-knowledge03:40 What actually defines a generalist11:18 Expert practitioners and the hospitalist metaphor16:19 Crushing it or crashing out: Siobhán's story23:56 Context, freedom, and the right roles for generalists29:46 Turning curiosity into disciplined value34:36 How AI powers the one-person unicorn35:02 From seeing the pattern to naming it41:50 Thriving as a generalist in a specialist world44:44 Three moves you can make todayResources:Connect with the GuestLinkedIn: Siobhán O'RiordanRecommended Reading: ReframeHow Generalists Thrive in a Changing WorldConnect with the HostLinkedIn: Ashish KothariWebsite: Happiness SquadBook: Hardwired For HappinessTEDx: How to make flourishing your competitive edgeYouTube: Happiness Squad ChannelIf this conversation sparked something for you, please subscribe and leave a review, it takes 30 seconds and helps more people discover the show.

What happens when technology evolves faster than the venture capital model built to fund it?In this episode, I sit down with my longtime friend Jenny Fielding, Cofounder and General Partner of Everywhere Ventures, to explore how venture capital is adapting to a world where competitive advantages can disappear faster than ever.We discuss what it takes to raise a pre-seed round in today's market, why traditional assumptions around defensibility are being challenged, and how AI is reshaping the economics of software companies.Jenny also shares lessons from her time as a Managing Director at Techstars and explains why Everywhere Ventures built a community-driven approach to investing — leveraging founder networks and real-time market insight to identify breakout companies at the earliest stages.Whether you're a founder raising capital, an investor navigating a changing market, or simply curious about where technology is headed, this conversation offers a practical look at how venture is evolving for the next generation of companies.Special thanks to Jenny for joining the show and sharing her perspective on the future of venture.⏱️ Chapter Markers:00:00 - Introduction and studio acoustics01:05 - Generalist investing shift02:09 - Redefining modern pre-seed criteria04:26 - Global Slack diligence network06:31 - Check sizing and syndicate structures07:20 - Conviction-led turnaround speeds09:21 - Venture capital's existential model crisis11:48 - Defensibility against quantum technology13:17 - Sourcing wisdom from international founders16:01 - Evaluating the accelerator landscape17:26 - Clear milestones for founder success19:39 - Moving targets in the Series A gap21:05 - Evolution of emerging tech hubs23:32 - Retaining global talent via immigration reformLinks:Jenny Fielding: LinkedIn, XEverywhere Ventures: Website, LinkedIn, XInterplay: Website, LinkedIn, XMPD: LinkedIn, X

Ever tried to sell everything and ended up selling nothing? In this episode, Cathy shares the simple burger shop story that explains why clear, specific messaging makes it easier for coaching clients to say yes. You will discover why narrowing your focus does not lose clients, how the right people recognise themselves faster, and why recognition will always beat persuasion.

Interview recorded - 7th of July, 2026On this episode of the WTFinance podcast I had the pleasure of welcoming back Daniel Lacalle. Daniel Lacalle is the Chief Economist at Tressis, a professor of global economics, and the author of Escape from the Central Bank Trap.During our conversation we spoke about his overview on the economy, central banks hawkishness, strong economics, AI Bubble, Debt Crisis 2.0 and more. I hope you enjoy!0:00 - Introduction1:19 - Overview of economy and markets4:07 - Central Banks hawkishness5:39 - Strong economies11:22 - AI bubble?19:10 - Value investing22:59 - Thematic trends24:18 - Dollar strength27:01 - Warsh impact?30:07 - Debt access32:31 - Debt crisis 2.0?38:25 - One message to takeaway?Daniel Lacalle has a PhD in Economy and is a fund manager. He holds the CIIA financial analyst title, with a post graduate degree in IESE and a master's degree in economic investigation (UCV).On January 30th, Mr. Lacalle was mentioned in the US House of Representatives by Congressman Mr. Joe Wilson from South Carolina, citing his article Do Not Forget About Cuba.Mr. Lacalle has presented and given keynote speeches at the most prestigious forums globally, including the Federal Reserve in Houston, the Heritage Foundation in Washington, London School of Economics, Funds Society Forum in Miami, World Economic Forum, Forecast Summit in Peru, Mining Show in Dubai, Our Crowd in Jerusalem, Nordea Investor Summit in Oslo, and many others.Mr Lacalle has more than 24 years of experience in the energy and finance sectors, including experience in North Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. He is currently a fund manager overseeing equities, bonds and commodities. He was voted Top 3 Generalist and Number 1 Pan-European Buyside Individual in Oil & Gas in Thomson Reuters' Extel Survey in 2011, the leading survey among companies and financial institutions.Daniel Lacalle - Website - https://www.dlacalle.com/en/YouTube - @DanielLacalleOfficial X - https://x.com/dlacalle_IAWTFinance -Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/wtfinancee/Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/67rpmjG92PNBW0doLyPvfniTunes - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/wtfinance/id1554934665?uo=4Twitter - https://twitter.com/AnthonyFatseas

► Today I'm welcoming onto the Polymath PolyCast. Julie Lavergne who is a polymathic generalist, TEDx Speaker, and Host of The Generalist Advantage podcast!Kicking off season 8 strong!Links:https://8ballclarity.com/TEDxhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/julie-lavergne/Generalist Advantage PodcastMentioned:Polymathy PanelChapters00:00 From Corporate to Curiosity: A Journey of Transformation02:44 The Engineering Mindset: Problem Solving and Process05:36 The Art of Communication: Navigating Multiple Roles08:35 Curiosity as a Skill: Embracing the Unknown11:27 Travel and Growth: Expanding Horizons through Experience14:18 The Juggling Act: Balancing Multiple Interests17:12 Content Creation: The Pursuit of Passion and Challenge20:00 TEDx and Beyond: Sharing Messages and Personal Growth22:38 The Art of Conversation: Orchestrating Meaningful Dialogues27:36 Defining Polymathy: Generalist vs. Polymath30:41 Measuring Accomplishment: The Polymath's Journey32:58 The Multidisciplinary Spectrum: Understanding Expertise38:30 The Genesis of the Generalist Advantage Podcast49:25 8 Ball Clarity: Enhancing Decision-Making with AI▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬► Affiliates:Videos Repurposed with Opus Clip:https://www.opus.pro/?via=729b77Social Posts Automated with Nuelink:http://nuelink.com/?via=dustin▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬►

If your business is fully booked and still can't grow, the problem is not capacity and it is not systems. It is that everything still runs through you. In this episode, I share the question I ask every SaaS partner I work with: what would have to be true for you not to be needed in delivery tomorrow? Not next year, tomorrow. I walk through how a Zoho partner who was doing delivery on nearly every job himself made one structural decision, brought in a strategic partner for funding and leads, and doubled revenue without changing what he was good at. The hardest part was not the restructure. It was the moment he stopped being the indispensable person in the room. If you know your business has grown around you rather than beyond you, this episode is where that changes.Resources and LinksNeed help with your WHO and WHAT decisions? Apply for a FREE Multiplier CallBook a Decision Session herePrevious episode: 691 - Why Going All-In on One Vertical Beat Staying a Generalist with Chris WidmayerCheck out more episodes of the Paul Higgins PodcastSubscribe to our YouTube channel: @PaulHigginsMentoringJoin our newsletterSuggested resources

Why you should listenChris Widmayer took Penrod from a generalist Salesforce shop to one of the top five healthcare partners at Salesforce, and lifted gross margins by about 15% (now sitting between 47% and 55%) by committing to a single vertical.Learn how he built productized packages and SaaS products on top of his services so the business earns at high margin without him in every delivery, now 20% of revenue.Take away his reframe on measuring AI: stop counting hours saved and start measuring whether your people can do the work of three or four, with concrete examples of where that actually shows up.Taking every client who pays and telling yourself revenue is revenue? That call feels safe and it quietly caps your margins, your hiring, and the level you get to consult at. In this episode, I talk with Chris Widmyer from Penrod, who walked away from a huge slice of his addressable market to go all in on one healthcare vertical and became one of the top five healthcare partners at Salesforce. He is candid about the revenue dip that came first, and what changed once his whole team spoke the customer's language instead of only Salesforce. If you are stuck competing on certifications while clients treat you as a vendor, this is the shift that moves you to trusted advisor.About Chris WidmayerGideon Shalwick is the founder and CEO of Penrod, a healthcare consulting agency built around great patient experiences. A developer by trade with more than 30 years writing code, he turns complex technical work into strategies healthcare IT leaders can act on, helping enterprise health systems build the data infrastructure, compliance frameworks, and AI-ready foundations they need to grow. Penrod is now one of the top five healthcare partners in the Salesforce ecosystem.Resources and LinksPenrod Chris Widmayer on LinkedInMoonoxClaudeSnowflakeNeed help with your WHO and WHAT decisions? Apply for a FREE Multiplier CallBook a Decision Session herePrevious episode: 689 - Why Building More Tools Won't Fill Your PipelineCheck out more episodes of the Paul Higgins PodcastSubscribe to our YouTube channel: @PaulHigginsMentoringJoin our newsletterSuggested resources

Every business decision is doing one of two things. It's either building authority or destroying it.  In this episode, Jake breaks down five business decisions that are silently ruining personal brand authority. From the way you position your pricing and package your offers to the way prospects experience your sales process, onboarding, and client journey, these hidden decisions shape whether people trust you, value your expertise, and see you as the obvious choice.  Because personal branding is about far more than logos, colors, and social media presence. True authority is built throughout the entire customer journey. Every touchpoint either reinforces confidence or creates doubt.   Whether you're a coach, consultant, service provider, or entrepreneur building something meaningful, this conversation will challenge the way you think about personal branding. Because authority isn't something you claim. It's something people experience. And when every part of your business is aligned to reinforce trust, growth becomes a whole lot easier.  What You'll Learn: The five business decisions that quietly destroy personal brand authority How to strategically design premium offers that elevate perceived value and strengthen credibility The hidden mistakes that attract the wrong clients and repel the right ones The overlooked touchpoints that either reinforce or erode trust throughout the customer journey Practical ways to strengthen authority at every stage of your business Timestamps: (00:43) - Why Personal Branding Is More Than Logos, Content, and Social Media (05:08) - Pricing & Positioning Mistakes That Destroy Authority (06:22) - Why Premium Offers Build More Trust Than Hourly Services (12:26) - Too Many Offers = Less Authority (14:26) - The Signature Offer Framework That Builds Trust Faster (24:15) - Sales & Conversion Mistakes That Cost You Clients (33:39) - Brand Positioning and the Danger of Being a Generalist (40:59) - Operations, Onboarding, and Client Experience (41:34) - The Hidden Trust Leaks Creating Buyer's Remorse (48:58) - Final Challenge: Which Business Decision Is Costing You Authority? Are You Seen as a True Crowned Authority™ With Your Personal Brand? Take the Crowned Authority™Assessment | https://www.fordivine.com/assessment/  Connect with Jake: Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/jakehavron     YouTube | https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxG3bKqLK_M_HZpOgiVrtng  More from Emily & FORDIVINE: Website |  https://meetemilyford.com   Instagram | https://www.instagram.com/itsemily         Facebook | https://www.facebook.com/itsemilymethod    YouTube | https://www.youtube.com/c/ITSEMILYFORD  Called & Crowned Podcast | https://www.instagram.com/calledandcrowned/  FORDIVINE | https://www.fordivine.com/discover   

Send us Fan MailIn this week's episode of the Digital and Dirt podcast, Ian sits down with Todd Johnson to discuss the evolution of programmatic advertising, the growing role of AI and attention measurement in media buying, and why storytelling still matters in an increasingly automated industry.Podcast Breakdown00:00 - 04:50 Introduction, career beginnings & action movie fandom04:51 - 13:55 Generalist vs. specialist & building a career path13:56 - 22:14 Inside Viant & the programmatic advertising ecosystem22:15 - 26:51 Storytelling, brand strategy & connecting with consumers26:52 - 30:33 Attention, creativity & campaign effectiveness30:34 - 36:11 Data-driven media buying & optimizing performance36:12 - 43:29 AI, adaptability & navigating industry change43:30 - 44:45 Future trends, consumer behavior & what's next for advertising

The generalist agent is disappearing. The ones winning right now aren't trying to be everything to everyone — they're becoming the undeniable expert in one thing.   Valerie Upham, a Compass agent in San Diego, did exactly that. By committing to a single, high-need specialty most agents won't touch, she generated over $475,000 in GCI in 18 months — and $267,000 of that came straight from educational seminars and events.   If you're still chasing every lead in every price point and quietly wondering why you feel replaceable… this episode shows you the opposite move.   In this episode, you'll learn:   The Niche-Down Paradox: Why narrowing her focus to one specialty actually multiplied her referrals — and made her the obvious call. The $267K Seminar Engine: How educational events became her single biggest source of GCI in 18 months. The Room of Two: Why Valerie works a 2-person seminar like a full listing appointment — and the listings it's closed. Fill the Room: The exact channel mix she uses to drive attendance — direct mail to 30-year homeowners, Facebook, NextDoor, LinkedIn, and Eventbrite. The Trust-First Play: How shredding events and her own podcast build relationships years before anyone's ready to list. The Equity Protector: Why she personally manages contractors and renovations to protect a family's return through a major life transition.   Valerie's results weren't luck. The structure behind her niche was built inside Tom Ferry Coaching.   Ready to stop competing as a generalist and become the expert clients seek out?   Schedule a free call with a Tom Ferry consultant to learn more about coaching and see if it's right for you.

What does it actually take to grow as a talent leader when the playbook keeps changing? Chelsea Kovak, Head of Global Talent Acquisition at TaskRabbit, shares how she thinks about AI, data, tooling, and the skills recruiters need to build in a market that's moving faster than ever. Along the way, she reflects on her path from sales to talent acquisition, the value of being a connector, and why adaptability may be the most important skill in modern recruiting.Connect with host James Mackey on LinkedIn! Thank you to our sponsor, SecureVision, for making this show possible!  Follow us:https://www.linkedin.com/company/82436841/SecureVision: #1 Rated Embedded Recruitment Firm on G2!https://www.g2.com/products/securevision/reviewsThanks for listening!

Rylan Foltz went from JP Morgan analyst to independent wealth advisor to co-founding WealthFeed — a marketing and prospecting platform helping financial advisors find better clients faster using predictive analytics and behavioral data. In this episode, Rylan walks through the full arc of that journey and unpacks the strategic decisions that took WealthFeed from zero to thousands of advisors in just two years.Jeff and Rylan dig into why the wealth management industry is so underserved by marketing technology, the power of building bottom-up before going enterprise, how to make a SaaS product genuinely sticky in a regulated industry, and why your distribution moat matters more than your product moat in an era where anyone can spin up a competing product overnight.Whether you're a first-time founder trying to crack product-market fit, or a scaling SaaS leader thinking through enterprise sales cycles, pricing strategy, and team-building, this episode delivers actionable insight on all fronts.Key Takeaways3:47 — The Origin of WealthFeed Rylan realized as a practicing advisor that organic growth was the hardest part of the job — and that the wealth management industry had almost no structured approach to marketing. That gap became the business.6:15 — Why Finance Is Marketing's Last Frontier Advisors can name the big firms but not their local competitors. The industry is dominated by aging, lifestyle-mode advisors who stopped teaching growth tactics — leaving a giant opportunity for a niche marketing platform.10:39 — What's Old Is New Again WealthFeed offers machine-written handwritten notes that look like wedding invitations. In a world saturated with digital communication, old-school physical outreach is standing out again.11:22 — Stop Thinking Leads, Start Building Assets Advisors shouldn't buy leads — they should build a database audience the way Budweiser buys Super Bowl ads: consistent, compounding, ROI over time.13:01 — Niche Marketing Builds Trust Generic messaging ("I help with retirement planning") signals you don't know your prospect. Hyper-specific messaging ("I work exclusively with SaaS co-founders on RSUs and equity comp") creates immediate trust and relevance.14:12 — The All-in-One Platform Advantage WealthFeed layers CRM, outbound marketing (LinkedIn, email, direct mail, handwritten notes), and proprietary data into one workflow — so advisors don't stitch together five point solutions.17:41 — Simplicity Over Power at Launch Early on, feature overload slowed adoption. The lesson: launch with one compelling use case (for WealthFeed, inheritance lead data), get users in the door, then upsell from there.20:55 — Your Moat Is Your Distribution AI lets anyone copy a product in a weekend. What can't be copied overnight is your relationships, your user base, and the custom integrations you've built into a customer's workflow.25:03 — Bottom-Up Enterprise Strategy WealthFeed got traction by signing individual advisors first, letting the grassroots demand bubble up to management — which created enterprise deals without having to wait in long procurement queues.27:09 — Don't Hunt Elephants Until You Can Afford To Enterprise deals can drag for three years. Without revenue from individual and SMB customers, a startup can starve waiting for that one big contract to close.29:28 — Hybrid Pricing: Access Fee + Usage Credits Flat subscriptions don't work when one advisor sends 20,000 handwritten notes and another logs in once a month. A hybrid model lets you charge for scale without penalizing light users.31:28 — Price High, Discount Down Starting low and raising prices creates churn and resentment. Starting at a premium and offering a promotional discount sets expectations — customers know the real value from day one.33:19 — Balancing Founder Vision vs. Customer Feedback A 50/50 split: take customer input seriously, but don't become a yes-man. The most successful founders — especially those who've lived the problem — trust their forward vision even when customers can't yet see it.35:59 — Build Infrastructure Before You're Drowning WealthFeed hired sales, dev, and customer success earlier than felt necessary. That foundation is now why their customer success "outperforms anyone else in the industry."38:30 — Flatten the Org to Connect Dev and Customer Tech teams that never see how the product is used build the wrong things. WealthFeed has engineers sit in on sales calls so they understand why features matter, not just what to build.39:45 — Let Compliance Work With You, Not Against You Instead of pitching firms on new compliance workflows, WealthFeed integrates into whatever compliance process already exists — dramatically speeding up enterprise approvals.Tweetable Quotes"Your moat is your distribution. Go-to-market has gotten extremely valuable because you could almost create the product overnight." — Rylan Foltz"Stop thinking about leads. Start thinking about building an audience, a database, an asset for life." — Rylan Foltz"No one wants a generalist. Everyone wants the best knee surgeon in the country. As an advisor, you've got to become really niche-focused." — Rylan Foltz"Start your pricing high. You can always discount down. It's really hard to raise prices." — Rylan Foltz"It's easier to sell one flavor of ice cream and say it's the best than to offer 32 flavors and create option overload." — Rylan Foltz"What's old is new. Everything shifted to digital, so old-school processes are how you stand out now." — Rylan Foltz"You'll be most successful solving a problem you personally went through. It comes across in your sales, your fundraising, everything." — Rylan Foltz"Don't get too caught up in enterprise until you build up the user base. Get revenue first, then you can afford to chase the elephants." — Rylan FoltzSaaS Leadership Lessons1. Niche down relentlessly — and mean it. Rylan didn't just say "we focus on financial advisors." WealthFeed built every feature, every data layer, and every compliance workflow around that single ICP. The more specific your niche, the stronger your trust signal, the better your retention, and the harder you are to displace. Generalist products get commoditized. Specialists get embedded.2. Distribution is the real product. In a world where a working SaaS product can be replicated in a weekend, your go-to-market is your most defensible asset. Relationships, user base saturation within target firms, custom integrations, and compliance workflow ownership are what prevent a competitor from walking in and saying "we do the same thing." Build distribution as intentionally as you build product.3. Start simple — layer complexity after adoption. Feature-rich doesn't mean better. WealthFeed launched with one use case (inheritance lead data) and expanded from there. Getting a user in the door on one powerful idea is vastly easier than selling a full platform. Upselling to an existing user is far more efficient than converting a prospect who's overwhelmed at first glance.4. Build your team infrastructure earlier than you think you need it. Founders often hire only when they're already underwater. Rylan and his team built out sales, dev, and customer success before they felt the pressure — and that head start compounded into top-tier customer outcomes. Infrastructure built under stress tends to crack. Infrastructure built with intention scales.5. Price to your value, then offer strategic discounts. Starting low might feel like a growth hack, but it sets a price anchor that's almost impossible to raise without friction. Starting at a premium gives you room to discount strategically, run promos, and still maintain perceived value. Customers who came in knowing the "real" price won't balk at renewal the way customers who got a surprise price hike will.6. Close the gap between your builders and your buyers. One of WealthFeed's most impactful structural choices: having engineers sit in on sales calls. When the people building the product understand how it's actually used — and why it matters — they build better, faster, and with more empathy. Kill the wall between tech and go-to-market. Your roadmap will thank you.Guest Resourcesrylan@wealthfeed.comhttps://www.wealthfeed.com/https://www.linkedin.com/in/rylanfolts/Episode SponsorThe Futureproof Series - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLfkXKUPZ5xuOqMPR7_gzGybncTtavyR1NThe Captain's KeysSmall Fish, Big Pond – https://smallfishbigpond.com/ Use the promo code ‘SaaSFuel'Champion Leadership Group –

In this episode of SLP Coffee Talk, Hallie chats with Sarah Bishop—14-year school-based SLP, California Speech-Hearing Association president, and union rep—about why being a generalist is actually your biggest flex. Sarah shares her winding path to the field (spoiler: it starts with an art history degree and museum tours), why school-based SLPs need to stop apologizing for knowing a little of everything, and how to keep growing without losing your mind. This one's for every SLP who's ever felt like everyone else has a specialty except them.Bullet Points to Discuss: Why the generalist label gets a bad rap—and why it shouldn'tHow to figure out what continuing education you actually needWhat a PLC is and how to start one even if your district doesn't have oneThe mindset shift that makes it easier to grow without burning outHow school-based SLPs define their expertise differently than private practiceHere's what we learned: Own the generalist title. Any kid walks through your door, you know where to start. That's not nothing—that's everything.You will get things wrong. So will every SLP who's been in the field for 14 years. Let it go and keep moving.Connection is the intervention. Showing up, caring, and actually paying attention to a kid? That's already therapeutic.Find your people. You don't need a huge community. Start with one SLP buddy or one district PLC meeting.Know your role. Private practice treats the disability. You remove barriers to education. That's a different—and equally valid—job.Learn more about Sarah Bishop: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sawahfwend Learn more about Hallie Sherman and SLP Elevate:  

What does it mean for a business to truly operate at the AI frontier? In a special crossover episode at Microsoft Build, Sarah Guo and Elad Gil team up with Latent Space host “swyx” to talk with Microsoft Chairman and CEO Satya Nadella about the future of AI platforms, software development, and the tech ecosystem. Satya reflects on the latest breakthroughs from Microsoft Build, the strategic shift toward multi-model harnesses, and why private evaluations (evals) are now a company's most important intellectual property. They also discuss how autonomous AI agents are reshaping the role of software engineers, the durability of SaaS business models, and why showing communities the ROI on data centers is so critical. Plus, Satya shares his thoughts on the economic and societal impacts of the token economy, as well as the future of AI-driven education startups. Sign up for new podcasts every week. Email feedback to show@no-priors.com Follow us on Twitter: @NoPriorsPod | @Saranormous | @EladGil | @satyanadella | @Microsoft | @latentspacepod | @swyx Chapters: 00:00 – Satya Nadella Introduction 01:48 – Reflections from Microsoft Build 03:12 – Microsoft's AI Training Strategy 05:48 – Complexity of Real-World Deployment of AI 07:33 – Augmenting Human Capital 09:37 – Harnesses for Enterprise 11:49 – Developer Value 15:09 – Can Everybody Operate at the Frontier with Their Frontier Intelligence? 15:51 – Modern Definition of IP 17:38 – Future of Vendor vs. Enterprise Agents 21:48 – Near-Term Predictions on Model Pricing 24:02 – Durability of SaaS 25:58 – What Satya's Building 28:18 – Future of Engineering Roles 30:54 – How Microsoft Can Be More Ambitious 34:36 – Data Centers and Community Impact 38:01 – AI's Impact on Society 39:52 - AI and Education 42:28 – Conclusion

Cassiano Surek, CTO at Beyond, joins host KJ to explore how artificial intelligence is fundamentally reshaping the workforce, enterprise structure, and even how we shop. Cassiano argues that the era of hyper-specialized talent is giving way to competent generalists who can orchestrate AI tools across the full stack, and that the companies embracing this shift are already pulling ahead. The conversation spans team architecture, the flattening of corporate hierarchies, the dawn of agentic commerce, and a surprising personal project built to lighten the mental load of moms everywhere. Four Key Takeaways: 3:39 — Curiosity is the core driver of innovation. It won't always pay off, but the compounding of near-wins over time is what ultimately leads to breakthroughs. 12:36 — Corporate hierarchies are contracting dramatically. AI enables fewer, more versatile people to do more, making deep layers of management increasingly obsolete. 17:26 — The workforce is shifting from deep specialists to competent generalists, people who can work across the full solution stack using AI tooling, unlocking a new era of entrepreneurial creativity. 17:26 — Agentic commerce is already here. AI agents will soon shop on your behalf, fundamentally disrupting how merchants, brands, and consumers interact, possibly by this Christmas. Quote of the Show (12:37):"A success is made of many almost quasi successes... It's an endless journey of exploration." — Cassiano Surek Join our Anti-PR newsletter where we’re keeping a watchful and clever eye on PR trends, PR fails, and interesting news in tech so you don't have to. You're welcome. Want PR that actually matters? Get 30 minutes of expert advice in a fast-paced, zero-nonsense session from Karla Jo Helms, a veteran Crisis PR and Anti-PR Strategist who knows how to tell your story in the best possible light and get the exposure you need to disrupt your industry. Click here to book your call: https://info.jotopr.com/free-anti-pr-eval Ways to connect with Cassiano Surek:LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cassianosurek Company Website: http://www.bynd.com/ How to get more Disruption/Interruption: Amazon Music - https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/eccda84d-4d5b-4c52-ba54-7fd8af3cbe87/disruption-interruption Apple Podcast - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/disruption-interruption/id1581985755 Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/6yGSwcSp8J354awJkCmJlD YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=disruption+%2F+interuuptionSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Proximity to Power is one of the most overlooked skills in business, leadership, and personal growth. In this coaching session, I break down why talent alone is not enough and how getting close to the right people can completely change your trajectory.Most highly talented people stay underpaid, overlooked, and undercapitalized because decision-makers never truly see their value. This video reveals how powerful people think, what they look for, and how to position yourself to gain influence, opportunity, and momentum.If you want to increase your influence, attract high-level opportunities, and become impossible to ignore, this lesson is for you.Whether you're an entrepreneur, executive, salesperson, coach, or ambitious professional, these principles can help you elevate your position and unlock new levels of success.Chapters:00:00 - Highly Talented Yet Under Capitalized 00:56 - Proximity to Power04:05 - The Power of One Person05:05 - Generalist vs. Specialist05:48 - Luck Is A Person07:45 - Seeing Prey Drive09:50 - Like and Subscribe!________________________________Get connected with Coach Burt:Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/michealburtTikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@therealcoachburtFacebook - https://www.facebook.com/CoachMichealBurtLinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/michealburtDive deeper with Coach and his concepts:Free PreyDrive Planner: https://planner.coachburt.com/plannerEvents: https://www.thegreatnessfactory.com/eventsJoin Our Group Coaching: https://www.thegreatnessfactory.com/membershipHire Me To Speak: https://www.coachburt.com/bookcoachCheck Out My Books: https://books.coachburt.com/books#ProximityToPower #CoachBurt #Leadership #SuccessMindset #BusinessGrowth

In this episode, Kaila and Kyle are joined by Milly Tamati, the founder of generalist.world, to talk about the benefits of being a career generalist (vs. a specialist), what people get wrong about generalists, and how to start building a portfolio career.  00:00 Intro  01:29 Defining what a “generalist” is 02:27 What does a long-term generalist career look like? 04:42 What people get wrong about specialists vs generalists 07:39 How do you figure out your strengths and fit as a generalist? 14:52 What is a “portfolio career”? 21:16 Are there certain personalities that are best suited for a portfolio career? 23:06 How Milly is thinking about AI 27:03 Is it more beneficial in the long run to be a generalist given the AI boom? 31:57 Per My Last Policy Want to get all of Kaila & Kyle's career resources? Subscribe to Per My Last Email: https://www.permylastemailshow.com/  Watch Per My Last Email on YouTube:   @PerMYLastEmailShow Follow Per My Last Email Instagram: @permylastemailshow TikTok: @permylastemailshow Twitter: @permylast_email Have a question for us? Send us an email or voice note to permylastemail@morningbrew.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Each week on Per My Last Email, Morning Brew's resident career experts Kaila and Kyle – whose careers have collectively spanned the corporate, government, nonprofit and startup sectors – debate the trickiest challenges in work life, and share tactics on how to overcome them. Share the show with a friend, and leave us a review on your favorite podcast app! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dyslexic Kids: Specialists, Not Generalists | Russell Van Brocklen Russell Van Brocklen speaking, the Dyslexia Professor, shifting daily reading frustrations into confident academic wins for students facing dyslexia.Dyslexia touches as many as 15–20 % of all learners  , yet most families still hear “wait and see.” I flip that script. As the Dyslexia Professor, I translate structured-literacy methods proven most effective for struggling readers   into bite-size actions parents can use tonight. Your audience leaves knowing exactly why multisensory routines beat generic worksheets and how to start seeing progress before the next report card.Links:https://mailchi.mp/dcacd9a6f9ae/3-reasons-ebookhttps://www.instagram.com/dyslexiaclassesus/Tagspodcast for creatives,creative podcast,podcast creator interviews,professional podcast,creative podcasts,podcast host interviews,creative podcast ideas,Dyslexia,Early Childhood Education,Education,Education Coach,Education for Kids,Kids & Family,Parenting,Raising Kids,Reading,TeachingSupport PEG by checking out our Sponsors:Download and use Newsly for free now from www.newsly.me or from the link in the description, and use promo code “GHOST” and receive a 1-month free premium subscription.The best tool for getting podcast guests:https://podmatch.com/signup/phantomelectricghostSubscribe to our Instagram for exclusive content:https://www.instagram.com/expansive_sound_experiments/Subscribe to our YouTube https://youtube.com/@phantomelectricghost?si=rEyT56WQvDsAoRprRSShttps://anchor.fm/s/3b31908/podcast/rssSubstackhttps://substack.com/@phantomelectricghost?utm_source=edit-profile-page

Josh built Green Construction & Roofing from $0 to $550K in his first year — and he's on track for $1.5M. So why can't anyone find him on Google?In this live business breakdown, we pull up his market in Biloxi, MS and discover the brutal truth: he's spending $10,000/week on ads and is NOWHERE to be found. The problem isn't his budget. It's his name, his niche, and who he hired to run it.We break down:0:00 The keyword mistake costing him customers1:19 Meet Josh — $550K year one, on track for $1.5M04:30 Why "Construction AND Roofing" is killing his Google ranking06:00 The rebrand + mascot strategy the big players use08:15 Live Google audit — he's invisible (watch it happen)12:30 Generalist vs. specialist: who you should ACTUALLY hire15:55 The Facebook video strategy 99% of contractors get wrong17:40 Automating the customer journey (booking, color selection, follow-up)24:40 The 3 moves to make THIS weekIf you're a roofer or contractor trying to scale past the chaos, this one's for you.Coaching Session Signup: https://calendly.com/dripjobs/breakthroughPurchase the 31 Days of Value and build an EMPIRE: https://www.amazon.com/31-Days-Value-home-service-businesses/dp/B0FQSH32X7Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2v0D0SNSBofqJJE6zApEE1DripJobs Demo: https://calendly.com/dripjobsteam/dripjobsdemoGusto: https://gusto.com/i/tanner269OpenPhone: https://openph.one/referral/8Kc17aqFacebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/173750747824373/?ref=shareFollow me on Instagram: http://Instagram.com/officialtannermullen#roofing #roofingbusiness #contractormarketing #localseo #roofingcontractor #homeservices #businessgrowth

Show Highlights: Overreliance on federated patronage to subsidize local co-ops. [03:55] Preserving disciplined strategic focus in favorable cycles. [10:17] How generalist experience supports an enterprise perspective. [17:29] Generalist vs. specialist paths in ag for future talent. [23:36] The importance of matching skills to evolving roles. [29:01] Garden City Co-op's prolific development of CEO talent. [31:57] What's GCC's succession and talent planning strategy? [34:04] Early AI adoption strategy and guardrails for co-ops. [39:40] The need for new talent and agility with AI experimentation. [43:51] Imagining asset-free co-ops and redefining value creation. [49:44]  Connect with Jeff on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-boyd-81220441/. To explore Garden City Co-op, visit https://www.gccoop.com/.  If you are interested in connecting with Joe, go to LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joemosher/, or schedule a call at www.moshercg.com.

The secret to better communication isn't adding more—it's knowing what to leave out.Communication isn't clearer when you say more — it's clearer when you say less. As David Epstein puts it, we're wired to keep adding, even when “the better solution is often what you take away.” The challenge isn't having ideas; it's choosing which one actually matters.Epstein is an author and investigative journalist known for his New York Times bestseller Range. In his latest book, Inside the Box, he explores how constraints can sharpen creativity and elevate thinking, a theme that reflects his broader work at the intersection of psychology, performance, and innovation. “If you assume someone will only remember one thing,” he explains, “decide what that is before you start talking.” That simple constraint forces clarity — and changes how we communicate entirely.In this episode of Think Fast Talk Smart, Epstein and host Matt Abrahams unpack why limits make us better communicators and thinkers. From the dangers of “featuritis” to the creative breakthroughs sparked by restriction, they explore how blocking familiar paths leads to more original ideas and communication. To listen to the extended Deep Thinks version of this episode, please visit FasterSmarter.io/premium.Episode Reference Links:David EpsteinDavid's Book: Inside the BoxEp.108 All In: How Improv Helps You Show Up and Communicate Well Connect:Premium Signup >>>> Think Fast Talk Smart PremiumEmail Questions & Feedback >>> hello@fastersmarter.ioEpisode Transcripts >>> Think Fast Talk Smart WebsiteNewsletter Signup + English Language Learning >>> FasterSmarter.ioThink Fast Talk Smart >>> LinkedIn, Instagram, YouTubeMatt Abrahams >>> LinkedInChapters:(00:00) - Introduction (02:18) - Featuritis & Overload (03:57) - Constraints & Creativity (08:07) - Chunking Information (09:28) - Familiarity & Innovation (10:30) - Clarifying Through Feedback (13:01) - Defining the Problem (14:23) - Precluding Default Approaches (16:03) - The Final Three Questions (23:12) - Conclusion ********Thank you to our sponsors.  These partnerships support the ongoing production of the podcast, allowing us to bring it to you at no cost.Unleash your Superhuman potential with AI that meets you where you work. Learn more at superhuman.comJoin our Think Fast Talk Smart Learning Community and become the communicator you want to be. 

Your revenue is inconsistent and you already know why you haven't made the decision yet. In this episode, I break down the WHO problem most SaaS partners mistake for a skills problem, why serving more industries makes you the best option for no one, and the audit I run on every client's last twelve months of revenue to find their real signal. I share what Jay McBain's data shows about the fastest-growing tech partners right now, and the three steps to rebuild your business around one industry and one problem type. If you keep getting random referrals and repricing every engagement from scratch, this one's for you.Resources and LinksJay McBain on The Paul Higgins Podcast: Episode 435Need help with your WHO and WHAT decisions? Apply for a FREE Multiplier CallBook a Decision Session herePrevious episode: 680 - The 28 Moments Your Clients Use to Choose Without YouCheck out more episodes of the Paul Higgins PodcastSubscribe to our YouTube channel: @PaulHigginsMentoringJoin our newsletterSuggested resources

In this episode, Trey sits down with Andrew Wagley. Andrew shares his journey from insurance rookie to niche domination, building a successful agency with innovative SEO strategies and programmatic insurance solutions. Discover how he leverages relationships, technology, and niche focus to scale rapidly and efficiently as a one-man agency. Keywords:Insurance, Niche Markets, SEO, Agency Growth, Program Insurance, Home Care, Business Development, Industry RelationshipsKey TopicsBuilding niche insurance verticalsLeveraging relationships with underwritersImplementing SEO strategies for lead generationFocus on niche markets to accelerate growthBuild strong relationships with underwriters for program accessUse SEO to generate inbound leads at scaleFrom Rookie to Niche Leader: Andrew Wagley's Insurance Success StoryHow Andrew Wagley Built a 350-Client Home Care Insurance Empire"Nationwide SEO strategy for home care leads""The sky's the limit for agency growth""Retention rates are very high"Chapters00:00 Introduction to Andrew Wagley01:50 Andrew's Journey into Insurance04:19 Building a Successful Agency06:15 The Importance of Relationships in Insurance07:39 Expanding into New Verticals09:41 Leveraging SEO for Lead Generation12:37 Creating Exclusive Programs14:32Scaling the Business18:41 Retention and Client Relationships21:28 Exclusive Products and Partnerships25:12 Generalist vs. Niche Focus28:38 The Power of Consistency31:59 Challenges of Starting an Agency33:52 Advice for Aspiring Entrepreneurs39:13 Key Takeaways for Success

Tune in to hear Head of School, Dr. Mark Carleton, chat with Cindy Hilton, Lower School 5th grade Language Arts teacher about her professional background including five years in finance and 17 years in education. This episode is now live and available for download on our People of PS Podcast. Cindy Hilton holds an Associate of Science in Biology from San Jacinto College and a Bachelor of Science in Interdisciplinary Studies from the University of Houston–Clear Lake. She is certified in EC–6 Generalist, EC–12 Special Education, English as a Second Language (ELL), and Gifted and Talented (GT).  Throughout her teaching career, Cindy has worked with 2nd grade, 4th grade, 5th grade, Special Education, and GT students, building a strong foundation in supporting a wide range of learners.  Cindy and her husband Jay, the School's Director of Facility Operations, not only work together at PS, but they also work together in their community. She and her husband pastor a small church in the Clear Lake area where she teaches Sunday School, and is part of the praise team. In their free time, the Hiltons enjoy fishing in Galveston Bay, Port Aransas, and Rockport. Cindy also enjoys bible journaling, reading, sewing, and embroidering.  Jay and Cindy have been enjoying life together for 30 years, and they are proud parents to sons Blaze (24), Bishop (22), and Brooks (13), and bonus son Charles (20). At home, her family also cares for chickens, ducks, and two quirky German Shepherds.

The Great private Capital Reset is upon us. Markets are volatile and driving new economic imperatives. Are VC funds still VC funds, even if they raise billions per fund? What happened to the rest of the market? What is driving VC investments? What do Limited Partners think? What is on their minds? This and more, in episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. Navigation: Intro The State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation What Really Matters: Performance.. Returns The Mega Fund Question The Case for Smaller… Rightsized Funds What Comes Next? 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 Bertrand Introduction Welcome to episode 76 of Tech Deciphered. This episode will be about the great private capital reset. As you know, or you have probably heard, there is significant structural transformation in the world of venture capital, and we are probably witnessing a fundamental reset of the private capital stack. We got a huge bubble in 2020, 2021. Fueled by near-zero interest rates. We got inflated fund size, compressed due diligence, and now a generation of zombie funds and zombie startups. Now that rates have normalized, exits have not been as much as expected. LP patience is a warning sign, and I guess the industry is being forced to confront an uncomfortable truth: most VC funds raised since 2017 might not return what their LPs expected. You know, how do we start?   Nuno This is going to be a relatively nuanced episode. Obviously, there is going to be a lot of haves and have-nots, both in terms of VC funds, also in terms of startups. And so I want to start with that. This is going to be more nuanced than all transformational and disruptive.   Bertrand It’s not the end. It’s not the end.   Nuno State of the Reset: The Hangover from the Party? It’s not the end. There’s still huge mega funds that are raising more and more. It’s clear that the music has stopped, right? So if we’re playing the game of chairs, the music has stopped. Around ’22, ’23, we started seeing the first signals that funds had raised way too much money. Firms collectively raised around $669 billion globally in 2021 alone. If we fast forward now to last year, 2025, depending on the sources, we did some internal analysis at Chameleon. We came up with $75.6 billion was raised last year by 493 funds, right? So That’s a significant drop, right, in terms of fundraising. Other sources would say a little bit more. There’s a little bit of a discussion around how much did the top 30 funds capture. If you believe some of the stats out there, they would say that actually top 30 funds captured 75% of all capital raised last year. We did again some internal analysis at Chameleon, and the conclusion we came to, it was closer to 50 to 55%. So not as dramatic as some of the sources out there, but still pretty dramatic. There’s a lot of capital concentration on the top funds. Again, the top 30 funds would’ve raised 50 to 55% of capital or up to 75% according to other sources. So definitely a tremendous amount of concentration. There was a lot more fragmentation in terms of capital raised if we’re looking at the years from 2010, 2011, all the way through 2021. So 2021 would’ve been sort of the peak of non-concentration if you look at that. And that again, now we are getting more and more concentration. There’s more and more of this arbitrage around, I’ll give money to the top funds, I will not give money to the smaller funds, or I’ll give less money to the smaller funds. There’s a little bit of a movement around concentration. We’ll talk about it later and what that means. Are mega funds really better? Are the small funds still the way to go? We’ll talk a lot about that later in today’s episode. There seems to be a little bit of a bifurcation. We could say it’s either bifurcation around top-tier VCs or larger VC funds versus smaller VC funds. My perspective is the bifurcation that we’re seeing right now is more of a bifurcation between funds that are no longer just stepped into the VC space, but they’re actually becoming more and more private equity firms with full asset management range from early stage all the way to late stage. Think of it almost like a private equity hedge fund, quasi, versus classic VC funds. And I think what we’re seeing is the Andreessen Horowitzes, the a16zs of the world, the NEAs, the Sequoia Capitals, just to name a few, becoming more and more broad asset class managers across private equity, whereas you have more classic VC happening in earlier stages. And so that’s the real bifurcation that I think is actually happening.   Bertrand And maybe not really hedge fund, because they are always still long-only funds. So there is no hedging happening, at least as far as I know.   Nuno Well, some of these guys have become RIAs, like A16z has become an RIA, so they can do secondaries.   Bertrand That’s true. Yeah.   Nuno And they can also sell stuff, etc. So I don’t know how aggressive they’re going to be in terms of secondaries and selling and actually doing other kinds of services you can do if you’re an RIA. But it’s not, I think, out of the realm of possibility that they would sort of acquire and sell stock more rapidly. In that way, to your point, Bertrand, maybe they actually become beyond just long guys, right?   Bertrand Yes. Another trend I have seen is some of the larger VC funds seems to have no problem investing in multiple competitors. This was not possible before. I mean, if you’re a VC fund, you had some sort of duty not to invest in the competitors, but now some invest OpenAI, Anthropic at the same time. Do you see that as part of this evolution?   Nuno For sure. And I think there’s a lot of people like the ostrich putting their heads below the ground and it’s like, “Eh, no, no, nothing to see here.” But that does constitute a conflict of interest. And if I’m a startup raising, this assumption that you will not invest in one of my competitors is no longer there, certainly for the mega funds, because of that notion of deployment of capital. Now, some funds will still hide under the notion, actually formally from a fund perspective, we’re not investing in competitors. It just happens that different types of our funds are investing in competitors. Like maybe my growth fund is investing in a competitor to my early stage fund, right? But our funds are relatively independent. So I think there’s a little bit of hide and seek that will go on if you talk to some of the fund managers. Well, they say, well, we’re not investing out of the same fund into these competitors. But between you and I, as we know, a lot of these partnerships actually do a lot of stuff together at the general partnership level. So are there really actual Chinese walls between the funds? Well, it really depends on the partnership. And to be honest, most of the partnerships don’t have very significant Chinese walls between the funds, right? The managing general partners sometimes actually occupy investment committee roles across different funds. So I think the conflict of interest is there. So that’s why I say there’s a little bit of ostrich behavior. Put your head behind the ground or below the ground and just pretend nothing is happening. Just sharing maybe a couple of interesting stats. Global fund closings for 2025, according to our numbers at Chameleon, 1,098 closed. In 2025. Closed is when you start deploying capital, right? Whereas— so it’s not closed down, it’s closed like we start deploying capital. And that number, 1,098, is dramatically down from 1,600 in 2024. And it’s actually the lowest number of closings that we saw since 2014. So again, this is bad, right? It means there’s less funds doing fund closings and deploying capital in the market than since 2014 and dramatically below the 2024 numbers, right? Where we already saw some market readjustments. The number of active VC firms in the US that did 2+ deals, which is not a huge bar, has dropped 38% back to numbers in 2023. So we don’t have numbers that are a little bit more up to date, but basically in 2023, those numbers are already dramatically dropped. So there’s less and less active funds. So there’s funds that might be in the market, but they’re not actually deploying that much capital, not doing that many investment. They’re sort of either zombie funds or relatively passive funds that have passed their investment period. For those listening to us, the investment period for a VC fund is normally between the first 3 to 5 years of the fund, which is when you build your portfolio, when you can invest in new companies. After that time period, everything that you do up to normally what would be year 10 is follow-ons. You put more money into the companies that you’re already invested in, that you already constructed portfolio with during those 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand Yeah, that’s a pretty scary change. And obviously, I guess we’ll come to it, but the time it takes to fully liquidate investments is getting longer and longer. In the old days, we used to talk about VC funds having a 10-year life, maybe a +1/+1 in terms of extension of the fund life. But it looks like it’s taking 16 to 18 years actually to get full liquidity from a fund investment.   Nuno LP Fatigue and VC Differentiation And I think that’s the scariest piece. I mean, just to share some numbers, we in venture capital talk about vintages, right? Which year did your fund start in? Normally when you did your first close onto the fund, as we were saying before, close is when you get all your investors at that moment in time to come in and you do your first close so the next fund starts running. 2018 vintage funds, right? This is now almost 7 years ago. So you should start having— actually 8 years ago almost at this point in time. You should start already getting distributions or you start getting cash back if you’re a limited partner and investor in those funds, you should start getting cash back. Half of all 2018 vintage funds have returned $0 to their LPs. So they’ve had no distributions to their LPs. 2020 vintage, which was a very hot vintage, only 42% have begun any distribution. So 58% have distributed $0, right? 2021, only 25% have done any distributions. Now, I happen to have a 2018 vintage fund and a 2021 fund. My 2018 fund has already distributed over 3x net of fees in distributions, and my 2021 fund’s already over 10% distributed back in distribution. So we’re very proud of that. But in general, the numbers are awful. There’s no liquidity back to LPs. And to your point, that’s kind of a big deal because some of these funds have been going on for 7, 8 years, and where’s the liquidity going to come from? On the other hand, if you look at TVPI, so DPI is distributions to paid-ins cash on cash. But if you look at TVPI, which is total value to paid-in, which also includes the book value or the value that you’re marking it on your books, basically the paper value as we call it for the company, even on that, the median 2017 fund, so 2017 vintage fund has a TVPI, total value to paid-in, of only around 1.76x, which is well below what should be, which is sort of the 2 to 3x benchmark of a really good performing fund. So the median funds are doing very, very poorly overall. So if you add that to the fact of what’s happening and distributions are taking a long time, back to your point, Bertrand, it’s taking like— this should be a 10-year asset class, maybe 11, 12 years, and now it’s looking a little bit like a 15, to 18-year asset class, which is not what most limited partners sign up for. Part of this dynamic, I think, is that we’ve had tremendously overvalued private companies over the last few years, right? Secondly, these companies have just stayed private longer. And I was having a discussion recently with a friend of mine, it’s like, hey, what’s this thing about companies are staying private much longer? Is there some dynamic around secondaries? And the reality is there is a dynamic around secondaries, right? Because if I’m a very large fund and I can get away with doing secondaries on my portfolio, I will get liquidity at some point, right? But someone else is stuck with private stock, which hopefully will IPO, but who knows, right? And so there’s this funny dynamic right now of because of secondaries, because of a couple of other things that are happening in the market, actually a lot of these startups are staying private for tremendous amounts of times, and some of them will IPO and they’ll be huge deals. Some of them might not and might not warrant the latest private valuations that they’ve exercised. And so there’s this tremendous noise that we’re seeing in the mid to late funnel of privately held companies where some are just waiting to be public. Some of them might not be able to go public at anything that is an up round versus private valuations that they’ve had in previous moments and in previous rounds.   Bertrand And obviously the 2 to 3x returns that funds are targeting, and obviously more 3x than 2x, I mean, that was good and nice if it’s a 10-year fund, but if it’s the same 3x for 15 to 18 years, it’s not at all the same rate of return annualized. So it’s a really, really, really big issue if you keep the return the same, but you extend the duration of the fund. Concerning going IPO, there is a lot of complexity going public, the IPO process itself, but also after that when you’re a public company. It changed how you can run the business. Some would argue that we have had an issue with more companies delisting than companies listing on the public market. So I think there might be also separate issues about the efficiency of the public market and maybe a need for change. We went very strongly in one direction for the public market, have post and run, but was it really ultimately the right thing to do? I’m actually not so sure.   Nuno Yeah, I mean, just to be clear, this is anecdotal, but when we tell prospective LPs at Chameleon about our returns, the last few funds, 2018, 2021, the first reaction is, “You must be lying, right? Surely you can’t have distributions already for 2021,” et cetera, et cetera. So clearly there’s almost a state of disbelief right now from limited partners. And liquidity does matter. So clearly you have to move forward. So how did we get to this point where we had this bubble 2021 all around that time space and now things don’t look so good. Well, the macro conditions have changed dramatically. I mean, rates when they were near zero, safer assets yield nothing or yield nothing. So basically you had to push capital into longer duration risk assets like venture capital. And so you had to push it. So the opportunity cost of capital also has fundamentally shifted. Obviously a 3x VC return in 15 years over 10 actually competes very poorly against 5% annual credit returns over several years. So there’s been a readjustment of stuff. And then the public equities in particular, the tech public equities have had a lot of volatility, but some of them have done extremely well, right? Chipsets, things like NVIDIA, the Amazons of the world, Alphabets, et cetera, et cetera. They’ve done very, very well. So why would I invest in a long-term illiquid asset that takes now longer to give me money back, and in some case doesn’t give me back, if I can invest just in public equities, and a variety of other things. The venture debt costs have increased dramatically. The burn rates that were sustainable back in the day with sort of the addition of venture debt, private credit, et cetera, now are overblown at this moment in time. At the end of the day, there’s been a lot of movements also overall in the pipeline in terms of valuations, et cetera, et cetera. Now, I would put a grain of salt into all the numbers I just told you. There still is a little bit of the haves and have-nots in startup land. Certainly in early stage where if you’re a hot AI company, you can get away with raising a Series C or $480 million. This is actually a true story. Series C, right? Not Series C, a $480 million at $4 billion pre-money valuation. Whereas if you are maybe in a space that’s less hot, you’ll have more difficulty in raising money at this point in time, might not be able to even raise a Series C, right? So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots happening on the VC side in early stage that has been really amplified by the macro regime and where we’re at, which is actively zero-rate era is done and now the new regime is quite different. And so I can get better returns by doing something else.   Bertrand Kind of makes sense. I mean, if you have some ways the SaaSpocalypse in the public market because there is that fear that AI is going to completely change the game for especially for the more typical software companies. Good luck raising private money to quote unquote just build traditional software companies. You cannot expect a warm embrace from the private market if the public markets are completely destroying that category. I’m not saying that this is there forever, uh, things might change over time, but for sure what’s happening on the public markets always have a very strong impact on the private market.   Nuno Indeed. So what’s happening in this relationship between limited partners and VCs, the general partners? Again, limited partners are the people that give venture capital firms and venture capital funds their capital to actually deploy. And they are a variety of different players, right? Could be endowments, like university endowments, pension funds, family offices, very high net worth individuals, fund of funds, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, in particular, if you look at the institutional investors, the endowments, the pension funds, the fund of funds, they have allocations that they do to different asset classes typically. And the feedback that we’ve received from the market is they are increasingly frustrated with what’s happening in terms of distributions. They’re not getting capital back. It’s like, I gave you capital 8 years ago, 9 years ago, 2017, 2018 vintages, and I’m not getting any capital back. So what the hell’s happening? On paper, it looks maybe the fund’s doing okay or it’s doing great in some cases, but where’s my money? And so that creates a little bit of wait-and-see kind of game on portfolio allocation. As we’re thinking through their re-ups, putting more capital into funds that they’re already actually put capital or putting in capital into new slots, into new fund managers that they want to put money into. They’re like, well, let’s wait and see. I want to get my money back or get some money back first before I redeploy it. Again, this is a little bit the haves and have-nots because we’ve seen, for example, a couple of top-end LPs in terms of returns that have a little bit the opposite problem, right? Because they are into funds that are performing extremely well. They actually are over that period and they want to actually redeploy. But to be honest, the average in the industry right now is a wait-and-see game. It’s like, I want to wait and see, which leads to what can only be characterized— I was hearing someone the other day, one of the top advisors in the LP community, saying this is the worst fundraising environment ever for venture capital. Not the last 20 years, 30 years, like ever, right? Since this became an asset class more institutionally in the late ’60s, early ’70s, Pulse Robo 2 as it was created, this is the worst fundraising environment ever. Oh, wow.   Bertrand And concerning TVPI, let’s not forget that typically it’s not mark-to-market. So the metrics in terms of TVPI, correct me if I’m wrong, you know, but the metrics in TVPI are based on typically the last fundraise. So if the valuation went down but there was no additional fundraise, we wouldn’t know by looking at the TVPI metrics. It will only be updated if there is a new Financing, equity financing, or an exit.   Nuno Yeah, normally most funds act like that. Some funds are a little bit more aggressive and do do mark-to-market, but normally funds would be conservative and say, hey, I’m being conservative, it’s whatever is the last known valuation of the company. And if there wasn’t a priced round, it’s a little bit more obscure than that, right, Bertrand? Because it might actually be the company has raised money on a note, or either convertible note or a SAFE note, and that wouldn’t count as a priced round. So I would say actually, even if it was a cap that’s below with a significant discount, I won’t recognize the assets as a down round. I won’t recognize the asset with a lower valuation because formally it wasn’t a price round. So it’s on the one hand conservative, on the other hand, it’s only relating to price rounds or exits to your point. So it’s sort of, you can be like, hmm, well, we opt to do that because we think it’s actually the most conservative route. Mark-to-market is extremely difficult to do. And who would do the mark-to-market for you, right? It’s like it’s some valuation firm, et cetera.   Bertrand I’m not saying a mark-to-market is easy, but I’m not sure I would call using the last valuation something conservative in the context that most startups will fail. So it’s not clear.   Nuno Well, in some cases it is, some cases it’s not, right? Depends on the startup situation, to be honest. Yeah, yeah.   Bertrand But yeah, at least that’s how it’s done. So for instance, to evaluate the impact of the SaaS apocalypse, it’s tough to know. We will have on the private market. I mean, we will see that in a few quarters. Because if companies still exist in that environment, if they still do additional truly price rounds after that, that’s when I will start to know.   Nuno I mean, just to share a little bit more data, like VC fund close time stretched to 15 months. Basically, it’s just taking a long time to raise money. It’s taking a long time to do your first close, get your fund running. When entrepreneurs complain to me that their fundraising is difficult, I always say, you have no clue how difficult it is compared to ours. First-time funds have collapsed. We had some numbers that only 77 first-time funds actually closed. I assume this is in 2025 versus 215 in 2023. So that’s a huge number. We did some internal analysis on our side and we did some analysis that emerging fund managers, emerging fund managers are normally people that are in their first one or two funds. Basically emerging fund managers gained some ground until 2017. Reaching by then a slice that was 63.7% of all capital raised in 2017. But since then, the capital deployed to emerging managers has been largely reduced to actually 24.2%, right? So it’s gone from 63.7% in 2017 to 24.2%. So this has been a culling of sorts on emerging managers and almost like a slaughterhouse of emerging managers. Compared to previous situations, which is obviously incredibly concerning if you’re an emerging manager starting your VC firm, et cetera, et cetera. So really tremendously problematic for those. We think capital’s not leaving VC. I think we see a lot of the institutionals saying— there’s some numbers as high as 33% of institutional investors plan to invest more in venture in the next 12 months. So I don’t think capital’s leaving VC. I think it’s really concentrating. We’ll come back to the concentration issue later in the episode. And part of that concentration comes from a topic that has been widely spoken in venture capital recently, which is differentiation. How do you differentiate in venture capital if you’re talking to a limited partner, right? How does my firm differentiate versus the firm next to mine? And that’s incredibly, incredibly challenging. Bertrand, what are your thoughts on that?   Bertrand Differentiation is always a question. I mean, if you’re an entrepreneur, Typically, you think fully about the best possible partner for your stage and for your type of business model. You want a VC who understands fully your business model, because if they don’t, then it’s going to be troubled down the line. But that’s true that another piece of the puzzle is that the best VCs help you get more visibility in terms of achieving potential customer deals, in terms of attracting the best talent. And that’s where VCs’ brand names can help. If you can say you have backing by some of the top, most visible names in the industry, and usually these are the mega funds because others have trouble to be as visible, then they have some sort of unfair advantage compared to others. So I can see that there is some level of concentration happening naturally, especially in the later stage from Series B onwards.   Nuno What Really Matters: Performance… Returns Yeah, I mean, we did some analysis internally about What are the top funds that invested in the top performing companies in early stage, Series C, Series A? And we looked at it by size of fund and the top performing normally are funds below $100 million, but in some cases very closely followed by funds between $100 and $500 million. And actually funds above $500 million, so $500 million to $1 billion and then $1 billion and above are actually tremendously underperforming. So this notion of the industry that says, well, the mega funds still see The top investments early on, because they still deploy in Series C and Series A opportunistically, in some cases even spray and pray if they have their own incubation and acceleration programs, is not true. Actually, we verified that over the last 12 to 13 years. It is not 12 to 13 years in vintage, right? So up to a 2021 vintage fund. So we went basically 12, 13 years back from there. And it’s not true. Actually, the most performing are 0 to 100 and then 100 to 500. And as I said, there’s 100 to 500 in a couple of years actually are a little bit better. Than the $0 to $100 million ones. So that’s the first thing that’s a conclusion. And actually, that’s not shocking. If we remember back in the day, Kleiner Perkins used to raise funds up to $600 million, Benchmark raised their $425 million funds. It seems like the sweet spot for a VC fund would be around $500 million at the top end, like maximum. And now somehow people are saying, well, I’m raising a $3 billion VC fund. It’s like, well, it can’t be a VC fund. The return profile is totally different, right? You can’t deploy that capital just based on early stage investing. And by the way, you’re not seeing the guys at early stage, all that you’re seeing, you’re going to make your returns in mid to late stage, right? Back to what we said at the beginning of the episode. So there’s a little bit of the haves and have-nots there. The big guys are raising more and more money, but they’re no longer venture capital. And I think limited partners that are a little bit more evolved, that are a little bit more conscious of this, that have been in the market longer, are realizing that shift. So it’s like if they want to have the alpha of venture capital, they need to deploy to the sub-$100 million funds or the sub-$500 million funds, right? That’s where they need to actually focus their VC capital. They can still deploy to mega funds, but they’re deploying to a different asset class. They’re deploying to a private equity, mid to late stage asset class, which looks maybe a little bit more like a growth fund or something like that. The second part of differentiation is the honest truth is most VC funds are like, I have proprietary network access, right? I’m ex-Stripe or I’m ex-Google or I’m ex-Facebook or whatever, and I have access to that. I mean, we know proprietary networks from that standpoint are no longer true. The whole thing that created Silicon Valley back in the ’70s of what I used to call the country club deals where there were a few people coming out of the big companies, the Fairchilds of the world, later on the Intels of the world, et cetera, et cetera, that made some money along the way that sort of bootstrapped their next companies, were well-known quantity to the existing VCs and raised money relatively easy on ideas, that doesn’t work anymore. Someone was telling me the other day one interesting thing that I wasn’t quite aware of, a lot of it had to do with the NDAs. I don’t know if you knew this, Bertrand, but like the fact that in California, it was sort of the Silicon Valley community sort of imposed this, we don’t sign NDAs thing and Boston continued signing it. And this whole NDA enforcement issue and non-compete, actually not the NDA thing, but more strongly that California did not enforce non-competes. I could leave Fairchild and start a company that magically was doing something that could be considered competitive to Fairchild. And that was sort of part of the acceleration actually of venture capital in California versus, for example, Boston, which was sort of hand in hand at the beginning.   Bertrand Yeah, I mean, I’m a big, big believer in California success coming from not enforcing or banning non-compete agreements. I think it’s a key part of the game. If you lock people into not doing something similar in the next 6 months to 24 months. And the industry has always been moving fast. So this is a significant time where you are blocked to do something very similar. I think it was really an issue. So I think it’s a key part of the game and it has been there. I don’t know how it started, but I think that non-enforcement of non-compete has been a key part of the success of California. I’m actually pleased to say that Washington State is going in the same direction. They are just signing a non-compete ban. And you might remember that at the federal level, I think in 2024, there was also a ban that was put in place to ban non-compete, but this has been reversed by the courts. So this is not there anymore. So that’s why we see a state like Washington State putting their own ban, and we might see more state by state moving in that direction. I think it was not helping at all, this non-compete. I mean, there is obviously stuff that needs to be done, like you cannot steal secrets, you cannot steal IP.   Nuno Yeah.   Bertrand Even stealing employees, there should be some restraints. We need to find the right balance, but you have to be careful there. That was key for the success of California, and I’m glad to see that this is a trend that’s going to go beyond California. And I hope most states will have a ban on non-compete.   Nuno Maybe just to close on the differentiation process, two things. One, I think there’s this notion When you talk to some LPs, that seems to be a little bit ingrained, some LPs that prefer specialized funds. We’ve also done some significant analysis internally and have talked to a couple of datasets other than our own, or people that own datasets other than our own, and the feedback has actually been not so fast. Actually, generalist funds over time cannot perform specialist funds. There seems to be a little bit of a sweet spot around generalist funds. We like to call ourselves multi-specialized at Chameleon, but ultimately from the perspective of specialized versus Generalist funds, the picture’s not as clear as specialized funds outperform generalists or generalists outperform specialized. We’ve seen there are pockets where actually generalists outperform specialized, in other pockets where specialized of a certain size can outperform generalists. So that’s one topic on differentiation that is a little bit broader. And then the final topic on differentiation, it’s really an industry that hasn’t innovated dramatically on where it creates the most value, which is really the picking stage, right? So it’s having great deal flow, very optimal, productive, efficient due diligence with very few resources and the ability to then get into those deals. That’s where most of the value is created. And then hopefully liquidating the asset if there’s an opportunity to do so at the right time, either through secondary trade sales or an IPO or something else. And what we’ve seen is the industry has innovated very little. I mean, the only thing I could point out in terms of core innovation at the top of the funnel has been the creation of the mega funds, the well-known funds, right? Like a16z, Union Square Ventures, et cetera, et cetera. But there needs to be more innovation on that cycle. And that’s why we certainly at Chameleon believe that the future is to have quant and AI-native VC firms that develop their own tooling, their own platforms. We have Mantis in our case that allow you to have this unfair advantage in how you source deals and how you do due diligence, how you get into the deals, et cetera, and how you take it to the next level. And we think that’s the beginning of the next stage is that the industry becomes more tech-enabled, shockingly enough, an industry that has made all its returns on tech or almost all of its returns on tech. That we need to be more tech-enabled ourselves. But I think the writing is on the wall there, and that will be a source of differentiation certainly over the next 3 to 5 years.   Bertrand One thing the industry has innovated somewhat and maybe could innovate even more is providing liquidity beyond trade sale and an IPO, because it’s clear that if VCs want more liquidity without waiting 18 years, you need that liquidity at different stage, not just when it’s time to do an exit, a full exit for the business. And for employees as well. I mean, it’s one thing to stay for a company for 4 years, which is your typical vesting. Maybe you extend that to 6 years, to 8 years, you have a great time at the company. But to think that maybe you have to stick around for 15 to 20 years in order to get liquidity on your stock options. I mean, that’s too much to ask for most people. I mean, people have a life, they have other things to do, other plans, they might want to move, they come at a different stage of life. So you need to provide them liquidity. The new game is we are not going to exit until 15 to 20 years, else it’s truly unfair. It’s not just unfair, but people will say, you know what, I’m going to go across the street, go work for Amazon or Google. I will have RSUs at best regularly that are liquid, and why bother? I mean, we need to find pathways to liquidity for both investors but also employees. There has been a change in that direction, but I think we need more of this change, and maybe not just reserved for the absolute biggest, most successful companies like OpenAI or SpaceX, but also us as well. Hopefully we can find a way.   Nuno Well, now we have these AI companies that actually grow so fast that they will IPO in one year. Now, isn’t that what’s going to happen? They raise They raised $500 million in Series C or $1.4 billion in Series C, and they’re going to IPO in 2 years. No? Is that not the new reality? I’m being facetious.   Bertrand At the same time, I mean, there are rumors that some of them are going to IPO this year. I mean, we talk about OpenAI, about Anthropic. I mean, OpenAI is quite old, but Anthropic is a relatively new business, quote unquote. So I think it’s a good time.   Nuno The Mega Fund Question So maybe it will be true after all. Moving to the next section, are mega funds still venture capital, Bertrand? Are they still venture capital funds?   Bertrand Yeah, I guess venture capital is a term that can encompass from small to very big funds. I truly don’t know. I mean, once you reach a growth stage, are you truly a VC fund? I don’t know. I think some of these definitions are kind of arbitrary from my perspective. What is clear is that you as a business need different providers of capital. And as we just discussed, you as a business, probably need to keep going and stay private for longer. One reason being, again, there is a tremendous cost to being a public company. There are some true strategic disadvantages. And at the same time, just practically, I mean, you need to get bigger and bigger in order to have a chance of a successful IPO. So you cannot just go IPO at a $500 million valuation. I mean, that’s like committing suicide, at least in the US market on NASDAQ. So my point is, you truly have no choice. You need to extend and If you need to extend, then you need to have capital providers that are there at later stage and therefore have more money. Is it still true venture capital? Is it true venture? I don’t know. At some point, it makes sense that from the startups to the capital providers, everyone adjusts to a reality where the life cycle is getting longer.   Nuno We don’t think it is. We don’t think mega funds are venture capital. We have actually some data that shows that they’re not in terms of actual returns. The alphas you can generate, the IRR that you can generate is actually not comparable. We did some analysis again with some of our datasets and from 2012 to 2022, so that’s the datasets that we used so that we had actual distributions and stuff we could take into account and so on and so forth. And looking at IRR, just to share some numbers in terms of IRR over those 10 years on sub-$100 million funds versus above $1 billion funds, the differences are incredibly stark. And this is true for global and US IRR, right? So just to quote some numbers in terms of average, sub-$100 million funds, global IRR of 22.9%, US IRR of 21.6% versus above $1 billion, 9.1% and 9.0%. Median IRR, if we just looked at median, 7.3% and 16.6% for sub-$100 million funds, 7.5% and 8.1% above $1 billion. Top quartile IRR, sub-$100 million, 31% versus 30.4% US IRR. And then above $1 billion funds, 14.7%, 15.5%. So it’s very clear if you sort of cut this in different ways, averages, medians, top quartiles, et cetera, over all these years that sub-$100 million funds are in a very different asset class than above $1 billion funds. They’re in different alpha that you can generate and so on and so forth. Now to the point you made, Bertrand, I don’t fully disagree with the point you made of the bigger funds should become bigger. I just think they’re becoming different things. Now, again, some of these funds will hide under the facts like, well, wait a second, we have all these assets under management, but they’re over different funds. Sequoia, we’re still raising small early-stage funds, $500, $600 million funds. And then we have larger funds for growth, et cetera, et cetera. Andreessen Horowitz, a little bit less clear what they’re actually doing. We heard that they’ve raised $15 billion across funds. I’m not sure if that’s the exact number at the end of the day. But the point is, if I’m a multi-asset class manager, like early growth, et cetera, et cetera, then it still applies what Nunu is saying. I’m still going after the $500 million, $600 million early-stage funds. Well, not so fast, right? Because you still have all this capital with managing general partners that are maybe across funds for which their incentives in particular, both carry and management fees are coming from the larger funds. Et cetera, et cetera. So there’s necessarily conflicts of interest. In many cases, the funds are just straight up big, right? And so they are above a billion. And so I don’t think a lot of these guys are in early-stage investing anymore, right? It may appear that they are, but I don’t think that’s where the returns necessarily are going to come from. And so if you are a limited partner, if you’re looking at your asset class allocation, again, you’re absolutely free to put money into mega funds because that’s the kind of asset class you want to play in. In terms of a blended private equity asset class that has a little bit of growth, a little bit of whatever, or actually a lot of growth, a lot of late stage, and maybe a little bit of early stage. And I want something that’s a little bit more blended, right? But if I still want the alpha venture capital, I need to deploy to funds that are early stage, right? And that’s like up to $100 million, up to $500 million. I think that’s my two cents on that topic. We see crossover things coming around, like guys who do both public and private markets. Again, that starts feeling a bit like a hedge fund. A lot of these funds have also become RAs, as we discussed earlier. So I feel the writing’s on the wall. The mega funds are going more and more after either some mechanism of edging or a mechanism that’s a little bit more blended in terms of private equity than classic venture capital.   Bertrand Yes, I think a few things. One, if you’re an LP, I can imagine that dealing with multiple $100 million funds might be more difficult. You, you need to know the partners, you need to have some background, uh, visibility. You need potentially to change regularly of VC investments. So I can see some level of simplicity if you just focus on the bigger ones, especially if you have a lot of assets you have to put to work. Another piece of the puzzle, I would guess that the bigger funds are able to return money faster because they are at later stage of the cycle. So instead of that 15 to 18 years, maybe they are more in a 5 to 10 year range, while the smaller funds being there more early might be the one who are taking longer to deliver. So I can see that Yes, there is an IRR picture, but there is also time to liquidity that is not the same. So that can probably also influence. And in terms of crossover PE hybrid model, I mean, for sure we have seen some of the public equity investors doing crossover, meaning going into private equity firms like Coatue, like Tiger Global and others. And for companies that are preparing for IPO, there is a lot of value to work with these firms because they have very good visibility and understanding of the public markets. And their presence in the cap table is also a sign of quality, typically for public market investors. So there is a lot of value and logic for them to be there on both sides of the puzzle. But again, the fact that firms keep delaying IPOs, that the market is not so much startup-friendly, makes this model a bit more difficult. But personally, I think there is value there.   Nuno Yeah, I think on the mega fund, just so that I’m not boo-booing everything, I mean, but there’s definitely angles in terms of the asset class that make a lot of sense. And there’s the scalability of the model. The ability to go after Series B, Series C, as well as mid-stage, as well as late-stage, even secondaries over time, to your point, in some cases even public equities. And that level of skill I think matters. We’ve also seen, as we’ve known, we won’t mention any brands, but people will know who they are, that late-stage hedge funds and investors, even if they’ve done okay-ish in growth in private equity, don’t necessarily do well in venture. So it’s clearly a very different asset class, right? So once you start getting venture teams together, The returns are not quite the same. Actually, sometimes they’re not even quite the same as the growth investments. So clearly they’re very good at the growth side, but not so good in early stage. But definitely there is a case for it. The Case for Smaller…Rightsized Funds But if we switch gears maybe to the small, or I would call right-sized funds, maybe just to quote a couple of numbers and then open up the discussion. Small funds do seem to outperform larger funds. There’s a lot of data in the market that shows some of that dynamic outperformance frequency. All the Very historical numbers from Cambridge Associates from 1981 to 2010. 19 out of 30 vintages were won by sub-$150 million funds. We did our own analysis as I was sharing before. Funds between $0 and $100 won most years between around 2010 and 2021. And the years that they didn’t outperform in terms of investing in the top-performing companies in early-stage Series C, Series A, they were outperformed by the $100 to $500 million funds. The $500 to $1 billion funds and $1 billion or above were never even in the same league in terms of performance, of having identified those top performers in terms of quantity over those early-stage investments. Top 10 funds by vintage, 2004 to 2006, 2016 numbers. Top 10 funds, 73% were sub-$100 million. 2004 to 2016, top 10 funds by vintage, 73% of those were sub-$100 million. So there seems to be a little bit of a case that actually smaller funds, sub-$100 million, sub-$500 million in some cases, are outperforming the larger funds over time. Now, these funds are complex in and of itself. The positive of it is small fund GPs like myself, we are deeply invested in our own funds. We’re not there to just make management fee monies. I mean, we’re not making $1 million, $2 million a year in management fees of salary ourselves, like some of the larger funds. So we are there to really get the carry and be less focused on management fees. And so I think there’s a little bit of alignment around that and really taking that kind of perspective on portfolio construction and liquidation, being also more aggressive on the individual time that we spend with our startups. On the negative side, obviously a lot of these smaller funds, not the case of Chameleon, but others out there are single GPs, very little teams or very small teams. And so it’s sometimes difficult to actually do a lot for portfolio companies as well. And this is where the mega funds, for example, a16z notably would say, hey, we have 600+ people that can support you, right? On market development, business development, communications, talent recruiting, all this stuff. Question mark whether that’s the right way to do it in terms of operating model, if technology is not a better way of supplying that value back to your portfolio companies, or if there’s no better way of doing it. But still, that’s one of the appeals of actually dealing with a larger mega fund if you’re a startup, right? That they will have the resources, also the financial resources to put more capital in you. But also, again, if there’s entrepreneurs listening to this right now, and hopefully there are, it’s a two-edged sword, right? Because if you have Andreessen Horowitz putting money in you, or NEA, or General Catalyst, or whatever, putting money in you on a Series C and then not doubling down on the Series A or the Series B, there will be questions, right? Because like they have the capital, they have other funds, so why the hell are they not putting more money in? Um, so, so it’s a little bit of a two-edged sword.   Bertrand Yeah, I think that one is a pretty big one. And on top of it, as we discussed, some of these big firms have multiple funds managed technically by different teams. So you might have convinced the early-stage teams, they have investors, they’re happy, but you don’t convince the growth-stage firm. As you say, it might raise questions because people might think that there is some communication between the early-stage team and the growth-stage team. So why the heck are they not deciding to invest? And as we also discussed, even worse possible situation, what happens if the growth-stage team has invested in your competitor? It’s even more trouble. So I think trying to understand how firms behave, what’s the reputation of the firm, what’s the reputation of the partner you are working with, I mean, can have tremendous importance and impact. When it’s time for you to work with a firm.   Nuno Indeed. I mean, at the end of the day, we still believe that the smaller fund— we at Chameleon discuss the notion that our limit should be $500 million per fund, right? And that’s the logic of it. We think that model is the model that works well in venture capital. We do recognize, as I said before, why mega funds keep raising more and more money, right? It becomes a harm’s race at that end of the market. As I said, probably a slightly different asset class, or if not a significantly different asset class as well. So seeing a little bit both sides of the market, I mean, we often compete with the mega funds, but honestly, a lot of the mega funds are kind to us and they let us in. And this whole notion of elbows out, we haven’t felt it that much in the market. And people see our value at the table. And in many cases, I, I do see the larger funds more and more seeing the value of smaller funds coming in on the same rounds and even in some cases co-leading early stage rounds like Series C. So it’s not like elbows are out everywhere across the board. So I don’t mean to say this is like an all-out war between small funds and big funds and the small funds need to win or the big funds need to win. I think actually there’s a lot of potential for coexistence. My point is more that the asset classes and the returns are quite different over time, and that’s how I would think through it. And if you’re an entrepreneur, you should think about that as well, right? What are the implications of taking money from certain funds versus others in terms of the expected returns, expected time allocated to you? For example, if you’re not doing very well as a as a company, right? Will the big funds spend the same amount of energy on you if you’re not doing great and all of that? So it’s a little bit sort of a beware, open your eyes, both for limited partners and for startups. What do you actually want, right? What do you want from your VC firm if you’re a startup? And what do you want from your VC firm if you’re an LP?   Bertrand I must say, as an entrepreneur, uh, a board member, I have seen some situations where the bigger funds are actually trying sometimes to elbow out the existing investors. Like, uh, we have that much money to put to work, we cannot do less. And you’re like, yeah, but I don’t need that much money. And then they’re like, okay, just don’t let your existing investors do their pro rata. I don’t think it’s great because an entrepreneur, if your investors, your VCs, trusted you earlier stage when it’s more risky, and when it’s becoming less risky, you don’t give them the right to their pro rata because you have to let this big guy come in. That’s not great. Or even if there is not this pro rata issue, when an investor tries to put more money to work than it’s really necessary, it’s also not a good idea as an entrepreneur to take more capital than you could use. It will dilute you more, it will set higher expectations in terms of valuation, it will push you to use that capital faster than maybe would be reasonable. So I think that’s something you want to be careful with the bigger funds. So don’t talk to funds that are in some ways beyond your stage and try to make it work in that context. Or don’t accept to have your strategy change dramatically for no good reason by funds that just want to put too much money to work in your business. And that for me is surprising because it should also be in their best interest not to invest in businesses that are not ready to accept that much capital. But as we have seen, there were in the past some funds that believe that capital is a moat. Was a good idea. So hopefully, I guess we’re a bit behind that. But yeah, I would say entrepreneurs, be careful, find partners that are the right partners for you at your current stage. Sometimes some big names look great, but at the same time, if it comes with a lot of issues, from too much capital to also taking the risk that these partners don’t understand the stage of the business you are in or your industry, Just be careful. There is a lot of value to have firms that are very focused on your stage, on your industry, are finely attuned to that situation.   Nuno What Comes Next? Maybe to end in terms of sections, what comes next? And maybe we can come up with some predictions that are a little bit provocative on what’s going to happen to the market. You, if you’re listening to us, feel free to interact with us on LinkedIn, on X. If you have our email address, shoot us an email as well. We’d love to hear from you if you think these are the right predictions or if we’re totally off. Maybe I’ll throw in the first one, Bertrand, and we’ll go one by one. So we’ll each put one at the table and see where we head. My first one is that we’ll have a huge culling of VC investors. We had this rapid expansion of the VC asset class with arguably at least tens of thousands of firms globally, maybe even over 10,000 in the US. I think we’ll have a culling and the culling will continue and we’ll have several firms sort of getting eliminated over the next couple of years that will have either because they’re having tremendous difficulty doing their first close in their next fund, or the returns are not there, or it’s a firm that has done 3, 4 funds, but for some reason the returns have just gone out of whack in the last few years during the bull years. And so therefore, actually they can’t justify to raise more funds out there. So I predict there will be a significant elimination of active firms in the next at least 2 to 3 years. So maybe by 2028, and we’ll be below, I don’t know, 30% of number of active firms that we are today. The other side of it is I do think if we look beyond that, 2029, 2030, and so on, we’ll have the reemergence of not micro funds, but nano funds where people will start deploying capital very, very early and writing small angel checks, but doing it in a way that it’s sort of not this cottage industry that we’ve had of angel investors. So I think angel investment will be disrupted by people that will use more and more of the AI toolification out there to actually manage their portfolios of 10, 15, 5K investments in a way that is a lot more professional, creating sort of an advent of nano funds.   Bertrand Yeah, makes sense. On my side, in terms of prediction, I think there is a possibility that the mega fund model keeps expanding and looks more similar over time to some PE models. So do we have the top 10 VC firms that look more like a Blackstone than a Kleiner Perkins or Sequoia used to be? That for me will be an interesting question and development. I think that there is some possibility that it keeps going in that direction. A lot of incentives are pushing things that way.   Nuno My next prediction is that DPI, distributions to paid-in cash on cash, just cash back, will become essential for limited partners. I think TVPI, total value to paid-in, that also has in there, as we just said, paper valuations. There’s a lot of disbelief now around the TVPI metric if there isn’t distributions going alongside it. For those who, again, don’t know what TVPI is, it’s total value paid in, but it also includes DPI. So it’s cash on cash component plus a remaining valuation to paid in, an RVPI. And the problem is the RVPI really, in reality, it’s that kind of on-paper valuation that never gets attributed. I think LPs, they’ve seen the writing on the wall and they’re like, dude, just show me your DPI numbers. I don’t care about TVPI. Some LPs will still ask about TVPI just to make sure that the rest is sort of looking in order. Like, show me the money, show me the cash. Actually, it’s not money, show me the cash, right? I want money back.   Bertrand But that’s an issue. I mean, if you’re supposed to raise financing every 3 or 4 years, good luck getting DPI to show for that. So you need to be at least on your third fund in order to be able to show DPI, I guess.   Nuno I mean, my corollary to that, Bertrand, is if you allow me just to have a corollary kind of prediction, is that we’ll see certainly for funds like $50 million and above, $100 million, $200 million, et cetera, even increased concentration, right? I really need to have anchors that believe in me over time. And we might start having, again, the advent— we had it some decades ago, the advent of cap table kind of VCs, right? Like Sutter Hill Ventures, right? Where they’re not really raising funds anymore. And so we might have the advent of that, that we’ll have structures that are created that have more permanent capital allocated to them, or at the very least more concentrated capital by very few players.   Bertrand Interesting. Me on my side, as I shared before, I believe secondaries are, are important and here to stay. Um, in the past, some could argue, is it a distress signal or something? I, I don’t think it’s true anymore. In a world where your average startup might take 15 to 18 years to exit through M&A or IPO, we need to have other options. For funds, for employees, they cannot be expected to stick around for so long and have no liquidity. I mean, it’s just pure madness. It’s just bad alignment at some point to do that. So I think secondaries are becoming the third liquidity pathway for VCs, for employees, and it should be more and more a key part of the game, a key infrastructure in the VC/startups tech industry.   Nuno I mean, on specialized versus generalist funds, I believe we’ll continue seeing the coexistence of those two models where the specialized funds will in many pockets actually outperform generalist funds, but where we’ll continue seeing that the large franchises, the tier one franchises will likely be generalist funds. I mean, we just saw it in the cycle. The AI cycle went upon us. We had a 2021 fund. We could easily adapt and go into AI and figure out that AI was growing very fast. I mean, if you have an ultra-specialized fund and that’s your remit and that’s the only thing you can invest on, very difficult to change even during our investment period. I will put a caveat on that. We don’t call, for example, ourselves at Chameleon generalist. We call ourselves multi-specialized because our scoring models for the verticals that we track are specialized within Mantis. Because the partnership is specialized, we all focus on different areas. And because we have the Kin network that allows us to tap into that level of expertise, Again, I think the world will be specialized coexistence. Some pockets specialized will do very well, certainly on the smaller fund size, but the big franchises will likely look a little bit more generalist. And as I said, multi-specialized from our perspective is the future. We’ll start seeing more and more funds that are multi-specialized like ourselves. Do you want to talk about AI and how it’ll distort the metrics? No.   Bertrand Yes. I think AI is an exciting moment in the tech industry. It feels in some ways that the same way we had a big distortion coming with COVID and work from home in 2020, 2021. 2021, where suddenly everyone and their mother will build a SaaS company or invest in a SaaS company. AI feels a bit of the same. I mean, to be clear, I truly believe it’s deserved. I mean, we are facing a dramatic shift in how computing is being done in terms of value you can get from software. So at the same time, AI will probably distort this matrix for a long time. We clearly see a split where investments are going, in what startups are being created. So I think, yeah, we will see some distortion. And we know that maybe 50% of all deal value is going to AI in 2025. We have seen single rounds reaching 40 billion, like to OpenAI. We have seen, as you discussed, some seed stage investment of 400 million. So AI investing and AI startups are definitely a beast on their own. And will distort VC metrics for a long time. And we might need two sets of metrics in parallel, you know, AI versus everything else. So that would be an interesting bifurcation in the industry in some ways. I would say it’s fair to separate AI versus non-AI. We reach a point where it’s two different beasts.   Nuno Conclusion So in conclusion, AI has changed the world and it’s changing VC as well, as we discussed earlier in the episode. We have a tremendous momentous occasion for the asset class where venture capital is really bifurcating into very large funds, which no longer are in venture capital or seemingly may be distributed between different asset classes, and the smaller funds, sub-$500 million and sub-$100 million, that keep having the better returns, but also with much smaller scale. We’re seeing a culling of the industry where the industry is definitely getting smaller and smaller and more concentrated at both ends, number of VC firms, as well as a number of limited partners per fund and the interest that some of these limited partners have of being more and more concentrated in their own portfolio allocations. And last but not the least, the discussion around specialized versus generalist, where it seems like there’s some clear winners on some asset classes, on some sizes, in some industries, but on others, there’s other kinds of winners. And so maybe the future is multi-specialized, as I framed at the end. Thank you so much for listening. If you want to check us out and if you want to comment, feel free to send us messages on X, LinkedIn, to both myself and Bertrand, as well as send us an email. Thank you so much, Bertrand.   Bertrand Thank you, Nuno.

Feel like your firm is scattered and you have to say yes to everything?It might be niching problem. In this episode, I walk through why staying broad makes everything harder, and what actually happens when you narrow your focus. You'll hear why the fear is normal, what changes on the other side, and how niching leads to better clients, easier work, and more confidence. If your firm feels chaotic, this is your starting point.…Link to full shownotes: https://www.businessstrategyforcpas.com/390…Want Pricing Essentials?If you feel trapped by your own accounting firm, it's not because of the work – it's how you've priced the work. Too many accountants are stuck in undercharging, overdelivering, and people-pleasing cycles. Break the pattern with my short PDF guide: 7 Pricing Essentials »It's free and you can read it in 5 minutes.I want to help you get your prices up without losing loyal clients.  …Want to hear what works, from 57+ clients?Check out the Client Interviews podcast: LISTEN »

A heartfelt look at why trusting good news is its own creative challenge and how you can build self-belief one win at a time. Have you ever wondered why trusting good things can feel harder than handling the tough stuff? In this solo episode of Your Creative Mind, Izolda pulls back the curtain on what it's like to be a multi-passionate creative navigating growth, self-doubt, and the surprising intensity of things finally going well. She shares her evolving playwriting journey, the emotional roller coaster of receiving meaningful feedback, and the unique challenges that come with being a generalist who cares deeply about many artistic paths at once. If you've ever questioned your creative direction or wrestled with second-guessing your own progress, this episode offers comforting perspective and grounded insights into the creative process for multi-hyphenate artists. Water Mandala Connect with Izolda Website: https://IzoldaT.com Book Your Discovery Call: https://calendly.com/izoldat/discovery-call New Play Exchange: https://newplayexchange.org/users/90481/izolda-trakhtenberg This episode is brought to you by Brain.fm.* I love and use brain.fm! It combines music and neuroscience to help me focus, meditate, and even sleep! Because you listen to this show, you can get a free trial and 20% off with this exclusive coupon code: innovativemindset. (affiliate link) URL: https://brain.fm/innovativemindset Listen on These Channels Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Podbean | MyTuner | iHeart Radio | TuneIn | Deezer | Overcast | PodChaser | Listen Notes | Player FM | Podcast Addict | Podcast Republic | *Affiliate Link

Dr. Jenna Skowronski, Dr. Shazli Khan, and Dr. Alix Barnes discuss the involvement of palliative care throughout the heart failure spectrum with Dr. Sarah Chuzi. Audio editing for this episode was performed by CardioNerds Intern, Dr. Julia Marques Fernandes. In this episode, we discuss utilizing palliative care principles while caring for patients with heart failure, particularly those being considered for advanced therapies. We emphasize utilization of communication frameworks when discussing prognosis and making decisions on pursuing therapies such as palliative inotropes, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs), and heart transplant. Additionally, we discuss when to involve specialty palliative care services. Finally, we highlight the difference between palliative care and hospice and how to help patients navigate the transition from life-prolonging care to hospice. Dr. Jenna Skowronski is the Chair for the CardioNerds Heart Failure Council. Dr. Jenna Skowronski and Dr. Shazli Khan are the Co-chairs for the CardioNerds Advanced Heart Failure Therapies Series. Dr. Alix Barnes is the CardioNerds FIT Ambassador at UPMC and member of the CardioNerds Critical Care Cardiology Council. Enjoy this Circulation Paths to Discovery article to learn more about the CardioNerds mission and journey. US Cardiology Review is now the official journal of CardioNerds! Submit your manuscripts here. CardioNerds Heart Success Series PageCardioNerds Episode PageCardioNerds AcademyCardionerds Healy Honor Roll CardioNerds Journal ClubSubscribe to The Heartbeat Newsletter!Check out CardioNerds SWAG!Become a CardioNerds Patron! Pearls Primary palliative care is care provided by a clinician that is not a palliative care specialist, such as a heart failure clinician having a conversation with a patient about their goals and values in clinic.  Taking time to get to know a patient as an individual and learning their goals and values prior to diving into conversations about prognosis and change in treatment plan facilitates more effective goals of care discussions.   Utilizing and practicing a communication framework can improve our skills at goals of care discussions.   Palliative inotropes should be reserved for patients experiencing symptomatic benefit from the therapy that outweighs the associated risks including arrhythmias and infections. The burden of managing these therapies at home should also be considered. Partnerships between cardiologists and hospice agencies can improve the experience for patients with heart failure who enroll in hospice. Cardiologists can continue to see their patients even after hospice enrollment and help with symptom management.   Notes Notes: Notes drafted by Dr. Barnes. 1. What is the difference between primary palliative care and specialty palliative care? Primary palliative care is the delivery of palliative care services that any clinician can deliver. This includes aligning treatment with a patient's goals and basic symptom management. For heart failure patients, symptom management can include cardiac symptoms such as dyspnea and chest pain as well as managing comorbid mood disorders such as adjustment disorder, depression, and anxiety. Advanced palliative care skills take additional training and time to develop. These include leading a difficult family meeting, managing symptoms that are not controlled with standard therapies and responding to emotional and spiritual distress. When these situations are encountered, referral to a specialty palliative care service should be considered. 1 2. How is palliative care integrated throughout the disease trajectory of a patient with heart failure? Heart failure clinicians deliver primary palliative care when assessing a patient's preferences, goals and values or managing symptoms. As a patient's disease progresses, the heart failure team also engages in primary palliative care when delivering news about prognosis. When advanced therapies are being considered, utilization of shared decision-making (SDM) should be employed (see question 3 for further discussion on SDM). For patients being considered for LVAD, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) mandates that patients are seen by a palliative care specialist prior to implantation. 2 Despite this, there remains variability in how institutions involve specialty palliative care in this decision-making process. Thoughtful consideration of what palliative care resources are available at your institution should guide how best to integrate specialty palliative care teams into the LVAD decision tree. One example of a model for meeting this mandate is having a small team of heart failure clinicians with additional palliative care training meet all patient's being evaluate for LVAD. 3. What is shared decision-making (SDM) and how is it utilized when evaluating a patient for advanced therapies? SDM is a collaborative process where patients and clinicians work together to make medical decisions that are aligned with a patient's goals and values.3 There are a variety of communication frameworks that can be used to engage in effective SDM. One framework is the Serious Illness Conversation guide. This is an evidenced based framework that can be used to deliver the news about a patient's current condition and then assess their goals, values and preferences for next steps in their treatment plan.4  This framework can be helpful when discussing prognosis prior to introducing the idea of an evaluation for advanced therapies. REMAP is a second commonly used framework which stands for Reframe, Expect Emotion, Map What's Important, Align, and Plan.5 This framework is similarly helpful when starting a discussion about advanced therapies with a patient. Both frameworks prioritize learning about a patient's goals, values, and preferences prior to making a recommendation for a treatment plan. Listening more than speaking and accepting that a patient and their family may choose a path that is different than what you personally might choose for yourself or your loved ones are vital pillars to engaging in these conversations effectively. When discussing LVAD, it is important to avoid framing the decision as “LVAD or no LVAD,” rather LVAD versus best supportive care. The “Best Case, Worst Case” framework is an effective way to create choice awareness for patients when they are faced with making this decision. This is a way to discuss both the best outcomes after LVAD implantation as well as the potential complications so a patient is better able to understand the full spectrum of possible outcomes. 6 4. How do you select which patients would benefit from home inotrope therapy? There is no data demonstrating a survival benefit with use of palliative inotropes. There may be subsets of patients who derive a survival benefit, such as patients whose renal function worsens when the agent is withdrawn, however there is no concrete data proving this. 7 Therefore, the benefit of home inotrope therapy should be based on if the patient derives symptomatic benefit from these agents. Additionally, risks of the therapy such as arrhythmias and infection as well as the burden of managing these therapies at home should also be weighed in the decision.8 Life expectancy for patients being initiated on palliative inotropes likely ranges from 6 to 9 months. Given this prognosis, concordant palliative care efforts should be intensified when starting patients on these agents. This can either be through involvement in specialty palliative care or increasing primary palliative care interventions. 9 5. How do you determine if a patient would be a candidate for hospice and how do you discuss hospice with patients and their families? Hospice is a comprehensive program that provides supportive care to patients at end of life. This includes a team of physicians, nurses, aids, social workers and chaplains that can deliver care in the home, at a nursing facility, or in an inpatient hospice facility. 10 Patients with a prognosis of 6 months or less can qualify for hospice services. Even if a patient qualifies for hospice based on their prognosis, it is important to assess if a patient's goals and values align with hospice. Introducing hospice to patients who still desire life prolonging care can cause mistrust between the patient and their health care team. When introducing hospice, it is helpful to describe the services hospice offers in addition to naming the service as some patients may have a negative connotation with the word “hospice.” 6. How can cardiologists partner with hospice agencies to provide better care for these patients? Heart failure specialists can continue to see their patients even after they enroll in hospice. Partnering in hospice agencies in this way can help improve symptom management for patients while also allowing them to continue meaningful relationships with providers with whom they've developed a longitudinal relationship with. Guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) and diuretics can be continued while enrolled in hospice as long as they are offering symptomatic benefit. Heart failure specialists can help with adjusting GDMT to cheaper formulations, such as exchanging angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ANRIs) for angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Many hospice agencies cannot accept patients receiving palliative inotropes due to the resources and training required to safely care for these patients. Understanding what hospice agencies in your area can and cannot support allows heart failure specialists to have informed discussions with patients and make appropriate referrals. References Quill TE, Abernethy AP. Generalist plus Specialist Palliative Care — Creating a More Sustainable Model. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(13):1173-1175. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1215620. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1215620 Ventricular Assist Devices for Bridge-to-Transplant and Destination Therapy. Published online August 1, 2013. https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/ncacal-decision-memo.aspx?proposed=Y&NCAId=268 Godfrey S, Barnes A, Gao J, Katz JN, Chuzi S. Shared Decision-making in Palliative and End‑of‑life Care in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit. US Cardiol Rev. 2024;18:e13. doi:10.15420/usc.2024.03. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39494405/ Baxter R, Pusa S, Andersson S, Fromme EK, Paladino J, Sandgren A. Core elements of serious illness conversations: an integrative systematic review. BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2024;14(e3):e2268-e2279. doi:10.1136/spcare-2023-004163. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11671901/ Childers JW, Back AL, Tulsky JA, Arnold RM. REMAP: A Framework for Goals of Care Conversations. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13(10):e844-e850. doi:10.1200/JOP.2016.018796. https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JOP.2016.018796 Kruser JM, Nabozny MJ, Steffens NM, et al. “Best Case/Worst Case”: Qualitative Evaluation of a Novel Communication Tool for Difficult in-the-Moment Surgical Decisions. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(9):1805-1811. doi:10.1111/jgs.13615. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4747100/ Tolia S, Khan M, Khan S, et al. Mortality and long-term outcomes of palliative inotropes in ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Eur Heart J.  2021;42(Supplement_1):ehab724.0915. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab724.0915. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/42/Supplement_1/ehab724.0915/6392681 Chuzi S, Allen LA, Dunlay SM, Warraich HJ. Palliative Inotrope Therapy: A Narrative Review. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4(8):815. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2019.2081. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/article-abstract/2737414#google_vignette Chuzi S, Gao J, Thariath J, et al. Characteristics and Outcomes of Palliative Continuous Intravenous Inotrope Support Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Heart Failure. J Am Heart Assoc. 2025;14(14):e039397. doi:10.1161/JAHA.124.039397. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/JAHA.124.039397 What is hospice? Published online September 24, 2024. https://hospicefoundation.org/what-is-hospice/

Eric Bugera returns to RX'D Radio with a genuine argument for why specializing too early is one of the worst career decisions a trainer can make, and holds the experience to back it up. https://www.instagram.com/ericbugera/ https://ebugera.com/ Join the PSL1 Waitlist For Our Only Course Discount: https://www.pre-script.com/psl1 FREE Coach's Field Guide: https://www.pre-script.com/coachs-field-guide Spoken Nutrition: 15% Off Your Order! www.spokennutrition.com/RXD We've got a new sponsor! Marek Health is a health optimization company that offers advanced blood testing, health coaching, and expert medical oversight. Our services can help you enhance your lifestyle, nutrition, and supplementation to medical treatment and care. https://marekhealth.com/rxd Code RXD Don't miss the release of our newest educational community -The Pre-Script ® Collective! Join the community today at www.pre-script.com. For other strength training, health, and injury prevention resources, check out our website, YouTube channel, and Instagram. For more episodes, subscribe and tune in to our podcast. Also, make sure to sign up to our mailing list at www.pre-script.com to get the first updates on new programming releases. You can also follow Dr. Jordan Shallow and Dr. Jordan Jiunta on Instagram! Dr. Jordan Shallow: https://www.instagram.com/the_muscle_doc/ Dr. Jordan Jiunta: https://www.instagram.com/redwiteandjordan/

Most PT clinic owners assume growth comes from referrals—until those referrals slow down.In this episode, Lex Lancaster breaks down how patients actually find clinics today and why most PT websites fail to convert visitors into patients. This conversation focuses on practical, actionable strategies clinic owners can use immediately.Key Takeaways:• SEO is about getting found by the right patients, not more traffic• Your website must clearly answer: who you help, what you do, how, and where• Generalist messaging kills conversions—specificity wins• Organic traffic builds long-term patient flow without ongoing ad spend• SEO is a 6–18 month play, not a quick fix• Content = answering real patient questions consistently• If your website doesn't convert, ads will only waste moneyWhy This MattersIf your clinic relies only on referrals, you're exposed. SEO and content create a second, scalable pipeline of patients that works even when referrals slow down.Guest LinksWebsite: https://www.lexlancaster.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexlancaster_SponsorsSaRA Health — Automates patient engagement and RTMEMPOWER EMR — Faster workflows built for PTsU.S. Physical Therapy — Career growth and clinic supportFlagler Health - https://www.flaglerhealth.io/Subscribe & FollowApple Podcastshttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/pt-pintcast-physical-therapy/id1000443325Spotifyhttps://open.spotify.com/show/3LmMUT64yrUc2iGo9EmafcYouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/@PTPintcastLinkedInhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/jimmy-mckay-pt-dpt-a4207659/Instagramhttps://www.instagram.com/ptpintcastX / Twitterhttps://x.com/PTPintcastWebsitehttps://www.ptpintcast.com/