I read an interview with Bill Gates last night, a few hours after a meeting with the CEO of a media planning firm, and the two of them made the same argument. Both expect AI to take out a great deal of headcount. They both said it without relish and even some level of fear. Both pointed to the things that still remain scarce…judgement, taste, responsibility, etc. Everything upstream of those gets cheap…the doing, for the most part.

This essay is not going to go down the dystopian path. We’ve all read too many of those. What stuck with me was narrower and closer to my own work. If you follow the logic, a company that comes out the other side of this argument is akin to a map of consequence. A few people who change direction, a few more who can move those people, and not much else.

Subscribe now

That “map” reminded me of something, an account map. When a seller looks at an organization, their filter is to see only the people who can make change happen. The decision makers, the influencers, the gate keepers. Everyone else fades into the background pattern of the fabric. The consequential map is the ideal, but unfortunately the ideal is too often a goal and not a reality for sellers.

What gets built instead is a portfolio selected for availability.

In too many situations, especially in idea-led firms, especially when the sellers are seller-doers, the points of contact are not the people on the consequential map. They are on the available map. These are people who had time. They are day-to-day contacts for project work. They are the people we get comfortable with, who we come to know. They are good contacts when it comes to alerting a seller when there is a named project. Sometimes they even bring a seller in early if the relationship is strong. But because their proximity to consequence is not high, they are not the ones who will drive a sellers success with an enterprise.

These relationships are the foundation of accidental revenue.

Let’s go back to where we started this essay. What does the increase in AI usage do. AI raises the water level.

Share

As more and more of the day-to-day tactical work gets offloaded to agents, we are seeing the degradation of the people on the availability map. First, some of those people are unfortunately part of a RIF, making them truly unavailable. Second, the others left holding the bag become a lot more busy, because, let’s agree, productivity doesn’t happen with the snap of fingers. Your map gets sparse real fast. Responses to email goes down. Meetings get cancelled. The relationship feels less close.

That distance you are feeling. It was always there, it was just hidden.

What the availability map really provided was a security blanket. Enough work arrived often enough, from people who liked us, that a firm never had to answer the question of where its revenue actually came from. The blanket is being pulled off. New business is down across the board. Projects have not disappeared, there are simply fewer of them, and firms are holding tight to their incumbent status.

Let’s run the water level forward a few years. Fewer available people every quarter, until you get to an organization staffed almost entirely by people of consequence.

You would think that makes the work easier, since the company has finally become the map every seller was told to draw. It does not, because the walls that kept sellers away from those people are not coming down with everything else. Those walls are getting higher. Meetings are scarcer. Inbound is triaged by software that was built to protect exactly this person. And the escorts, the ones who used to walk you upstairs because they had thirty minutes and thought you were interesting, are not at their desks anymore. The company becomes the map you always wanted and becomes harder to enter than it has ever been, at the same time. Like they say, be careful what you wish for.

So sellers will have to do something different. It will not be more outreach into a smaller opening. It will be to become that person’s counterpart. You will need to be a person of consequence as well. Just because the people have gone away doesn’t mean the problems have. Decisions still need to be made. Confidence needs to be had. Spare hands will still be in demand. It is just that the person on the other end of these transactions will be busy and they will be stressed and they will be impatient. They have needs but will not, cannot, suffer the games. They will gravitate to those who identify problems, solutions, and the path to change. They will want confidence personified.

This raises the second consequence that has not been talked about much, which is that the same arithmetic is being run on sales organizations right now. Just as the people on the availability map are being asked to leave their companies, the sellers whose maps were full of those people are being shown the door too. A large syndicated research firm recently de-staffed its sales team on the theory that what it needs is “sellers of consequence”, empowered with technology. The logic is identical to the logic being applied inside their clients, and it is being applied to the same category of person, the one whose contribution was being available.

The same question is being asked on both sides of the table, which is who here is consequential and who was merely available, and nobody is being given very long to answer it.

Share

If new business is down and your account list looks unchanged, those two facts are related. Go find out how.

If you have watched a four-year account turn out to be two people, tell me what happened next. I am collecting these.

Send this to the seller-doer on your team with the fullest calendar and the thinnest account.

Bossey is a growth studio. We build commercial systems for idea-led professional services firms, co-build them with the people who will run them, and hand them over. www.bossey.com

Two years ago I wrote about a Sandler (sales training) idiom, don’t spill your candy in the lobby. Seller-doers talk too much. They get thirty minutes of distracted attention and use every last second of it. By the time they take a breath, they’ve solved all the problems that no one asked them to solve and they are still without a client. When I point this out, everyone agrees, they write down my 30 percent rule, and then talk for twenty-two minutes on their next call.

Why? All that talking is doing something necessary…inspection. When you buy software, you get a demo. When you buy a car, you drive it. When you lease an office, you do a tour. What an idea-led firm sells can’t easily be inspected before it’s purchased. The quality is really only knowable after the bill has been paid and the client has lived with the work. So the seller talks, because talking is the demo, and telling them to stop is telling them to give up the demo and put nothing in its place.

I saw this in action this week, sitting through three straight presentations for a client looking to hire a PR firm. The first two ran their decks. History, philosophy, the logos, case studies, “any questions”. Both were competent.

The third firm did something different. They took 90 seconds. Who they are, the kind of company they do their best work for, and the key things they work on for a client like this. It was targeted. It was fast. It set the stage for a good discussion.

Everybody says don’t open by talking about yourself but what actually goes wrong is that the seller talks about the firm without deciding what to leave out. Alternatively (and probably the most annoying sales approach when you are working with senior executives) is the ask…tell me about yourself…what are you struggling with? In both of these cases, you are wasting time, both yours and theirs.

When you open the other way…saying who you are, who you do your best work for, and the three problems that you solve, then ask which one is closest to what they are feeling, you’ve done one of two things. Set the stage for a great discussion or freed two people from being politely unproductive.

This feels very uncomfortable for most people because it goes against everything they’ve been taught. I’m not saying to remove the humanity. You can still warm up the room. Still do introductions and talk about the weather or the struggles we have with Zoom or the fact that we all live in back to back meetings. But at around minute 5, something needs to click. We have to shift into commercial mode. The seller takes control of the agenda.

“Before we get started, I’m going to set the stage so we are all grounded in what we are doing together on this call.” Then you lay out your very well rehearsed, well researched, aligned to the situation, opening.

The reason to do this? It gets the no out now. If this isn’t a fit, you want to know. The alternative is a call that stays warm for thirty minutes, ends with enthusiasm, produces a recap email, and then dies without explanation. A no early on costs less than 20 minutes. A soft maybe in minute thirty costs you the proposal, the internal debate about whether to chase it, and six weeks of a pipeline entry that was never real.

The problem is almost nobody can do this. A well delivered ninety seconds requires knowing who you are and are not built for, why, and what the consequences are. Most decks are built to cover all the bases. To be a wide net. To demonstrate broad capability. Broad means uncertain. The short open is a courtesy. It respects that the person on the other end has a day, and it lets them out early if this is not for them, which nobody else in the process is willing to do.

But what about the “demo”? This still doesn’t address the problem about the candy. How does a buyer inspect the goods before committing?

The second aspect of a strong go-to-market playbook is that the buyer can check you. Ninety seconds works because it is a pointer, but a pointer needs something at the other end of it. Published work, case studies, a position on their category. That material is where the proving happens, on your website, in your social content, in your press. Give everything away in public. Give almost nothing away on the call. Let’s be real. No serious buyer comes to a call cold. They’ve looked you up. They’ve already decided you are worth a conversation. The call is where they decide whether to reveal something to you. Don’t waste it.

Back to the call. What do you do with the rest of the 20 or so minutes? If you are still on the call, the buyer has given you a hint of what they are interested in, where their problem lies. Now we are digging in, asking about why, and how, and who. We’re confirming the situation. We’re locking down whether a further discussion is warranted…one where you now are moving from credibility to engagement and building.

Every call has a commercial purpose. This one is about moving from a trigger to an opportunity. Moving, movement. This is the key word. If we haven’t actually moved to the next step (go further or decide not to), all we had is motion. Most firms are satisfied with motion, with activity, and will keep running the deck. It took months to build, everyone agreed it was good, and it half works often enough that nobody can prove it should be retired. You aren’t most firms.

Second Pass. I wrote a version of this in May 2024 and have not been able to leave it alone since. The original is here.

If you know someone who still opens with the deck, send this along.

If you want to work out what your ninety seconds says, reach out and we will get into it.

Bossey builds the commercial systems that let idea-led firms grow on purpose.

www.bossey.com

Over the last week I’ve been thinking about how firms make decisions, the types of decisions they make, and when those decisions lead them to go outside their own four walls to get something done. Those reasons fall into three buckets. They look for confidence, that is, they have a perspective and want someone with standing to say they are right. They look for ideation, that is, they don’t have a perspective and need one. Or they need execution, the decision is made and they need hands to do it.

A company is a series of decisions, and almost all of them are maintenance. Renewals, approvals, staffing, pricing tweaks, the work of keeping the place running. Most of them don’t lead to hiring an idea-led firm. Only a handful of decisions actually change the direction of the company, and those are the ones that count. Unfortunately, it isn’t always easy to see the difference between maintenance and game-changing, and that is important to me and to everybody reading this.

Recognition is the trigger for action, and who recognizes the trigger drives the sales strategy of the idea-led firm. Let’s consider three scenarios:

Sometimes the client owns it. By the time you hear anything, the decision has a shape, an owner, and a date. You are one of a few names invited into a question someone else already wrote. This is where most research, data, consulting, and creative firms do most of their business. Everybody there complains about how competitive it is, but the competition is a symptom. The real issue is that the terms were set without you. Winning means being findable, credentialed, responsive, and priced against the others, because the buyer is running a comparison.

Sometimes recognition is shared. You are close enough to a client, and talking to them often enough, that you see the decision forming at about the same time they do. Sometimes a little earlier. The conversation starts before the terms are set. Call this proximity. The economics here are the best a firm will ever see. The limit is arithmetic. Proximity depends on specific people, those people leave, and no firm has many of these relationships at once. A firm with a dozen of them has a good year and a fragile business. Most firms treat that inventory like a strategy.

Another alternative is that you own it. What that means is your thought leadership, your sales effort, your client development work has raised a decision that had not been fully recognized. You are instigating a trigger. These are what could be called dormant triggers, and that is where the opportunity is.

A dormant trigger is not a secret. It is a condition everyone can see that has never been classified as a decision. The reason it was never classified as a decision is that it came with an explanation attached, and the explanation is doing more work than anyone realizes.

Take a sales organization with a bad proposal process. The pain is obvious. Everyone has lived through the weekend before the deadline, the version control, the hunt for a case study nobody can find. And the explanation is that proposals are painful at every firm, that this is the price of a competitive business, and that the answer is more people and more hours. That explanation puts the problem in the maintenance bucket. Annoying forever, tolerable forever. It also protects the leader who would otherwise have to own it, because a problem everyone has is nobody’s fault. What is missing is the line between that process and the win rate. The win rate gets discussed in a different meeting, against a different set of causes, by the same people.

If your organization is feeling the proposal pain just mention and think it just might be affecting your win rate, Talewind is the company I’m writing about and the one equipped to solve that problem.

None of that is unknown. It is misfiled. And misfiling is normal. No condition announces which bucket it belongs in, and maintenance is where everything goes by default.

That is why instigation is not persuasion and has nothing to do with urgency. The condition was already there. All the firm does is cut the explanation away from the condition and attach the consequence instead. Once that connection is made, it can’t be unmade. The proposal process stops being an industry annoyance and becomes the reason a number that leader is accountable for is lower than it should be. Nothing about the situation changed. It just can’t be filed under maintenance anymore. And the person who now sees the line is exposed by it, which is why they move.

Doing this can be uncomfortable for you and for your client. It uncovers a problem that someone probably should have noticed and acted on. You are putting that problem on a desk that is most likely already pretty full. Those conversations aren’t always welcome, and that is a big reason why most firms don’t do this. It takes conviction. And if you are going to have conviction, you have to be ready to talk about action. Opening a wound without a bandage is not a credible way forward. Those who come with both have a strong offer and the makings of an actual, repeatable business.

Which matters more now than it did three years ago, because of what generative AI is taking aim at first. It is not taking aim at judgment. It is taking aim at commodity capability, the part of the work that can be specified and repeated, and that is the part most firms compete on when the client owns the recognition. A firm that automates its production can take on more work with fewer people, price lower, and turn faster, and so can everybody else. The competitive scenario described above gets more crowded, not less. More firms clear the bar, and they clear it on the same terms.

None of that touches the third scenario, because nothing about a faster production line helps you raise a decision a client has not yet recognized. So the gap between capability-led and idea-led work widens, in what the work is worth and in what a firm can keep.

All of which comes down to a distinction between two kinds of firms.

A capability-led firm sells what it is good at into questions other people have already written. Those are fine businesses. They run for decades, they make money, the craft is often excellent, and plenty of owners would take that outcome and should. What defines them is what they compete on. Being in the consideration set. Proving out against a scorecard. Being credible, available, and priced against the field at the moment a company that already recognized its choice goes looking. Their ceiling is set by someone else’s recognition, and the field of firms competing to satisfy it keeps growing.

An idea-led firm competes to be the reason the recognition happened. It holds a view its clients don’t hold yet. It would hold that view whether or not anyone ever bought anything. And everything it produces exists to get that view into circulation, so that conditions being treated as maintenance get reclassified as decisions.

While competition is the problem for capability-led firms, the idea-led firm has its own hurdle. The price of those higher margins and stickier relationships is story, proof, access, and movement. That is a commercial system, and it has to be built.

Share Growth is a Choice

Look at your last ten pieces of revenue and ask who owned the recognition in each one.

Write down the condition your clients are living with and explaining away, and the consequence nobody has connected to it.

Ask whether raising decisions like that one happens by design in your firm, or whether one person does it out of habit.

Bossey builds commercial systems for idea-led firms, helping them turn expertise into impact. www.bossey.com

In the seventh season of Happy Days, Fonzie put on water skis, kept his leather jacket over his swim trunks, and jumped a shark tank. The phrase came from that. What most people using it do not know is that the episode was a hit. Roughly thirty million people watched it, and the show ran six more seasons after that night. The show was finished and the ratings were the best they had been, so no one felt pressure to look any further.

Everyone remembers the stunt as the marker of decline, but nobody said so at the time. The phrase was coined years after the episode aired, by people who already knew how the show ended and worked backward to find the spot where it turned.

Subscribe now

The talk right now is about AI and content. Both LinkedIn and Substack have moved on detection. The prevailing read is that the platforms want better writing, that quality collapsed and they stepped in to fix it. That is not what happened. Users complained, in volume, about a feed that had become unreadable, and the platforms did what platforms do, which is give people what they say they want in a form that keeps them on the site longer. Detection is a product feature. It arrived because the channel stopped functioning, and a channel that stops functioning stops producing engagement.

The feature created a sport. Readers now hunt. They look for the tells, they find them, and they say so publicly, and the shaming produces more time on platform than the original content ever did.

Whatever anyone intended, what exists now is a system that manufactures suspicion and rewards accusation, and the piece of it that matters most commercially is that the detector reads only the sentence structure. A differentiated thought and an empty one get flagged the same way. So if you are scanning before you read, understand what you are doing. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater and you will never know which one you had.

This puts idea-led firms in an uncomfortable position. Why?

Content was never the commercial system. It was evidence that a commercial system existed. Somebody was in the field, meeting clients, taking positions and getting corrected by the market. The writing was the residue of that. It carried weight because production cost something. You could not fake having done the work, because faking it took longer than doing it.

Firms confused the residue for the engine. They built publishing calendars and treated the calendar as the growth choice, and it worked for a while because the proxy still correlated with the work. When production cost went to zero the correlation broke, and every firm that had been running the proxy found out it had no engine. That is the actual event of the last two years and it has almost nothing to do with prose quality.

A client told me recently that he could not tell my writing was AI generated, and that in a recent piece I had been too hard on myself about using the tool. He meant it kindly and I took it that way. It settles nothing. He is a client, he likes me, so the signal there is not strong enough for me to pat myself on the back, but it is still nice. What his comment does tell me is narrower and still useful. A reader who knows these tools went looking for the seam and did not find one. There was nothing to find, because the argument was mine before any of it reached the tool.

Here is where I part company with most of what is being written.

Regression to the mean is not a defect in these systems. It is the function. The tools return the center of the distribution because the center is what they were built from, and asking them to do otherwise is asking them to be something they are not. Every instruction you give is local. The pull is constant. I have banned the same words repeatedly and I still cut them out of drafts months later, and I have stopped experiencing that as a failure of the tool. It is the tool working as designed, against a distribution that includes everything average anyone ever published.

The consequence is that the output is a direct read on what you brought. Bring nothing and you get the average of everyone, rendered fluently, which is exactly why so much of it is unreadable in the same way. It is not badly written. It is written well and about nothing, and there are ten thousand versions of it. Bring a real argument, a position you can defend, terminology that means something specific, and the tools become very good at execution against structure at speed.

So this is an accelerant. Good work becomes great. Average work disappears into the middle, permanently, because the middle is now infinite. Poor work is noticeably worse than it was, because bad thinking used to hide behind bad writing and now the writing is clean enough that everyone can see straight through to the argument.

None of that is free. It takes work, and it takes the same work it always took. What people wanted from these tools was permission to skip the thinking, which is the only scarce input in the first place.

There are two checks on your work.

The internal one is a question you can answer without asking anyone. Are you choosing a growth path built on your own skill and your own position, or are you going through the motions. You know. There is no version of this where you have done the work and are unsure whether you did.

The external one is not analytics. Impressions and likes and engagement rates are the Fonzie metric, and thirty million people watched that episode. What counts is consequence. A prospect reaches out and says they read the piece and want to talk. Someone repeats your terminology back to you, using your words to describe their own situation, which means the argument got inside their thinking and stayed. And then, further out and slower, a client uses your writing as the justification for a strategy they are actually implementing, spending money against it, restructuring something because of it. The last one is not gamed by a platform because it happens in real life.

I am as creative as I have ever been. The ideas are mine and the core writing is mine. What I handed over was the monotonous part, the construction of my thoughts. There are great contractors that never hammer a nail. There are also contractors that throw cookie cutter developments together and call it a day.

The move to AI detection is a tell, but not what you may think it is. AI is not a get out of jail free card that helps you fill the content calendar. Idea-led firms thrive on ideas. They need to be good ones.

Share

If someone you know is scanning for the tells instead of reading the argument, send them this.

Tell me which check you trust more, the internal one or the consequence. I read every reply.

And if you have a publishing calendar but no engine underneath it, come find me.

Bossey is a growth studio. We build the commercial structure of your firm with you, the system that turns work arriving by luck into revenue you can count on, and then we hand it over so the firm can sell and grow without you carrying every deal. A studio builds it with you and leaves it in your hands.

This is the last question in this series, and it is the hardest. People put off answering it, because a straight answer can mean admitting there is no business here at all.

Every problem I have written about so far assumed one thing. You had an offer. It was stuck in your head and you had never written it down, but it was there. This next case is more common, and it is harder to see, because it looks exactly like being good at your job. The founder does not have a value proposition stuck in their head. The founder is the value proposition. They are a smart person who solves whatever problem comes through the door. That looks like a business that leans too hard on one person, but it is worse than that. There really is no business there at all. The talent is good enough that nobody notices it is missing, and the person who notices it least is the founder.

There is one phrase that gives it away, and you probably say it with some pride. I can do that. You say it because you think it shows range but what it does is let the buyer decide what you sell, every time, after the fact. You bring nothing fixed to the table. The buyer shows up with a problem and you tell them you can handle it, so you never sell a product, because every job is different, and when there is no product, all you have left to sell is your hours. That is what selling time and experience really is. It is not a pricing problem. Charging for the project instead of the day does not fix it. A real business keeps the offer the same and changes how it delivers the work. You change both. Nothing stays the same, so nothing builds on what came before, and nothing you do this month makes next month any easier.

The ceiling shows up early, well before you ever think about hiring a second person to sell. Every job is custom right down to the starting point, so nothing stacks up, and you start over from nothing each time. Even working alone, you hit a wall the founder in the last essay never hit. His wall was simple. There are only so many hours in a week to sell. Your wall is lower and it comes sooner, because none of your hours build the next ones.

The wall is hard to see because it looks like strength. A lot of demand looks like a big market. Usually it is not one. A market is a lot of people who all have the same problem. What you have is a lot of people with different problems, and the only thing they share is you. That is a following. There are only so many people who want you specifically, and once you run out of them, you are done.

You never built an offer because you never had to go find a customer. You were useful enough that the work came to you, and your reputation did the selling. That feels like good luck. It is the trap. The day the phone stops ringing, you have no offer to take out and sell to anyone new, and no practice at going out to find work, because you never once had to do either. The thing that kept you fed all these years is the same thing that leaves you with no defense when it stops.

This is the founder trap from the last essay, one level down. The same thing that brings in the work is the thing that stops a business from ever forming. Taking a position means saying no to things. A value proposition is a narrow promise. This result, for this buyer, every time. To stand for one thing, you have to turn down most of the others. Saying I can do that, over and over, means you never turn down anything. Someone with less talent would have been forced to specialize a long time ago, because they could not say yes to everything. You could. That is the whole reason you are still freelance.

None of this is an insult. A freelance career is not a failure. For a lot of people it is the better life, and the right move is sometimes to just admit that is what it is. Raise your rate. Get picky about the work. Stop apologizing for it, and stop calling it something it is not. The failure is running a freelance career while paying the cost, the stress, and the growth expectations of a business you do not actually have, and then being confused when it will not scale, will not sell, and cannot take on a hire. In the last essay the thing at least existed, even if it could not transfer to anyone else. This time there is nothing there to transfer yet.

So the choice here is harder than any of the earlier ones. The first essay asked how to reach a buyer. The second asked who should pay for that to happen. The third asked how to get what you know out of your own head and into someone else’s hands. This one asks the question underneath all three, and it does not come with a method, because it is not that kind of question. It asks whether there is anything in your head to get out in the first place, or whether you have spent years confusing how much you can do with the thing you actually build a business on. That is the question under all four. Not how to sell. Not who should sell. Not how to hand the selling off. Just whether there is a thing being sold at all, or only a person who is very good at being needed.

Share

If one of these four questions belongs to someone you know, send them the whole series.

Tell me which of the four you are stuck on. I read every reply.

And if the last one is yours, the question of whether there is a business under the talent, come find me.

Bossey is a growth studio. We build the commercial structure of your firm with you, the system that turns work arriving by luck into revenue you can count on, and we leave it in your hands so the firm can sell and grow without you in every room. That is what a studio does. It builds the thing with you, and then the thing is yours.

The trip is always the same trip. I get off the plane and the airport is the airport, the same terminal with the same shops selling the same neck pillows and the same overpriced electronics, the same walk to the same rideshare pickup where I stand in the same spot and watch for a car that looks like every other car. The Uber comes and it is a clean quiet sedan and the driver has the route already and we do not talk. Out the window the road from the airport is the road from every airport, the same chain restaurants in the same order, the same car dealerships, the same billboards for the same personal injury lawyers, and then the hotel, a Marriott, and the lobby has the wood and the warm light and the low music that is playing in every lobby, and upstairs the room has the same bland art over the bed and the same runner across the foot of it and the same small bottles lined up on the counter in the bathroom, and I put my bag down and I could be in any city in the country and for a second I cannot actually remember which one I am in.

The rides are silent and I prefer them that way, and they blur together so completely that I could not tell you a single driver I have had in the last five years, except for one, in Orlando, and only because my wife and I made the mistake twice.

The first time we were being friendly and we asked him how he was doing, which is the kind of thing you say without meaning it as a real question, and he answered it as a real question. He told us about his money, which was bad, and about a relationship that was falling apart, and about not being sure anymore about his own sexuality, and it went on, the whole ride, and my wife and I sat there and made the small polite sounds you make and underneath them we were both counting down to the hotel, wanting the door of the car to open, wanting to be out. We got out. We were relieved. Six months later we were back in Orlando and we got in an Uber and we asked the driver how he was doing and it was the same man, and his money was worse and the relationship was over and everything had gotten heavier, and when we finally got out of the car we looked at each other and laughed.

I used to think the problem was that the places were the same, that Dallas and Phoenix and Atlanta had become one city, but that is not right, they are not the same, they are all different if you go and look. What is true is that each of them now has everything, the Thai place and the sushi place and the tacos, the same stores, the same everything available in all of them, and a place that has everything gives you no particular reason to be in it rather than somewhere else. I can eat any food from anywhere in any mid-sized American city now, which sounds like abundance and mostly it is, and it also means that being in the city tells me nothing. The city has stopped being information.

There is a feeling that comes with getting older, or it came to me anyway, a low sense that there has to be more than this. A philosopher, Agnes Callard, has a theory that gets close to it. She calls it the unicontext. Her starting point is that a context is a set of circumstances that tells you how to behave, and for almost all of human history those contexts were local and there were many of them, so a person moved through a day changing as he went, solemn at a funeral and loud in a bar and careful in church, fluent in each room because each room was its own place with its own rules and none of them pretended to be the whole world. Her claim is that these rooms have collapsed into one room. Everyone is now in it, all at once, and there is a single set of norms that applies everywhere to everyone, and that is why so much of modern life feels the way it does, exposed and flattened and strangely the same everywhere you go.

When I first heard it I recognized the feeling, though I had felt it in a place she does not really talk about. Her one room is mostly the internet, all of us pushed into the same online conversation. Mine was physical, the airport and the highway and the hotel, and I had been feeling it for years before anyone was worried about algorithms, which makes me think the collapse she describes is older than the internet and has more than one cause. Where I part from her is on why it makes people unhappy. She reads the misery as something social, that we are all miserable together because complaint and bad news are the things that travel between us most easily, misery being more universal than joy. I do not think that is it. I think the feeling that there has to be more is simply correct. It is a real perception and not a mood, and the trouble is what happens when you go looking for the more and find that it appears to have run out.

Except it has not run out. This is the part I was slow to understand. The more is still there, the actual elsewhere, the place that is only itself and nowhere else, it still exists and you can still go to it. What happened is that somebody built a version of it that is closer and easier and good enough, a facsimile, and put the facsimile in front of the real thing, and the facsimile asks nothing of you. Think of Epcot. You can stand in the France pavilion and eat a crepe and look at a small Eiffel Tower and you have not been to France and you know you have not been to France, but it is right there and it is clean and pleasant and you do not have to fly for nine hours or get lost or fail to find dinner or feel stupid because you cannot read the signs. Disney did not fake France. Disney improved it. They took France and they removed the difficulty, and the difficulty is the part I keep getting wrong, because the difficulty was the experience itself, the getting lost and the failing and the nine hours are the thing, and a version with all of that removed is a version with the thing removed, which is why you can stand in the pavilion eating the crepe and feel nothing.

So the real elsewhere costs effort, it always has, it costs the nine hours and the discomfort and the friction, and it always will, that never changed. What changed is that we built a way to feel like we went without going, and we all took it, and I took it, I take it constantly. I fly into the city and I get in the silent car and I go to the Marriott and I eat at the place near the hotel that I already know will be fine, and I tell myself I have been somewhere. I have not been anywhere. I have succumbed to the same dream everybody has, the dream that you can have the reward without paying for it, that the friction is just overhead to be cut, and it is the most reasonable thing in the world to want and it is exactly the thing that empties the reward out, because the friction was never overhead, it was the whole point, and I know this and I do it anyway.

Which brings me back to the driver in Orlando. He was the one thing on either of those trips that was not a facsimile. He was a real person with a real and worsening life, three feet from me, and the universe put him in my car twice, which almost never happens, and both times I wanted out and the second time I laughed. He was the elsewhere. He was the friction, the difficult uncomfortable real thing that asks something of you, and I did with him exactly what I do with everything, I wanted the quiet clean room where nothing is asked, and I got it, and I felt nothing, and I made him into a funny story I have now told at a few dinners.

I would like to tell you that I have changed, that I now seek out the friction and skip the facsimile and talk to the driver, but that would be its own kind of facsimile, the tidy version where the man learns his lesson. I have not changed. I will fly somewhere next month and the airport will be the airport and the car will be silent and the room will be the same room and I will probably eat at the place near the hotel. The only thing I can say is that I see it now, and seeing the flaw is supposed to be the first step toward getting past it, and I am on that first step, and I have not taken another one, and I am not sure the seeing is enough.

Share

I'm Keith Bossey, founder of Bossey Research Partners, where I work with idea-led firms and help them turn expertise into commercial performance, on the principle that thinking is free while movement costs something. More of the work is at bossey.com.

Most founder-led businesses hit the same wall in the same spot. The founder sells well. The business grows on it. At some point growth needs more selling than one person can do, so they hire. They bring in a good salesperson, hand over a quota and a CRM and a few introductions, and wait for it to click. It doesn’t. The new person struggles, builds a thinner and slower pipeline than the founder, and the founder decides good salespeople are hard to find, or that nobody can sell this the way they can. The hire takes the blame. Sometimes a second one does too.

The diagnosis is almost always wrong. The seller didn’t fail. There was nothing to hand them.

You’d think the founder had been selling without a foundation, the way a bad rep does. It’s the opposite. You’re not missing the foundation. You are the foundation. You know what you sell, to whom, when it matters, and what it does for them, better than any document could capture, because you built it and you live in it. The problem isn’t that it’s missing. It’s that it only exists inside you. It’s in your head when it needs to be on a shelf. And the whole point of a foundation is that other people can stand on it. One that only you can use isn’t something the company owns. It’s a personal talent.

What carries you is what traps you

This is why the things that make you good are quietly the problem. Your position, your closeness to the work, your network, your charisma. These aren’t your version of brand, value proposition, and relationships. They’re the personal versions of exactly those, the ones nobody else can inherit. You don’t have a brand. You are the brand. The network is yours, not the company’s. The value proposition never got written down because it didn’t need to be. You build it live, in the room, custom for each buyer, out of everything you know. Every deal runs on your judgment, one at a time. It works beautifully. It also builds nothing reusable, because the whole machine is you, and it switches off the moment you leave the room.

What’s actually failing

Be precise about what fails here, because you don’t fail as a seller. You win. The position closes deals. The closeness closes deals. The network and the charisma close deals. The money is real. What you fail to build is a sales capability, which is a different thing one level up. You succeed and the company never does. And it’s easy to miss, because it never shows up as a lost deal. It shows up as a ceiling. The business grows right to the edge of what one person can carry, then stops, and nobody can say why, because nothing looks broken. Everything that works still works. There’s just no more of you.

Your strength is causing the weakness

This is the part that makes it hard instead of just unlucky. Your own success is the thing fooling you. Every closed deal tells you the foundation is unnecessary, because the money came in and there’s no document anywhere. The exact traits that make you win are the ones that let you skip building what would let anyone else win. A worse salesperson would have been forced to write it all down years ago just to survive, and would have accidentally built a company you could hand off. Your talent is the direct cause of the fragility. The strength produces the weakness. That’s why it’s so rarely caught in time. The success hides the problem.

And the math points the wrong way every week. Closing the deal yourself is always faster than figuring out how to teach someone else to close it. Doing beats teaching, this quarter and every quarter. So you keep picking the sale over the asset, not out of laziness but out of arithmetic. The sale pays now. The asset pays later. Later never has a deadline. The bill gets pushed out, and a pushed-out bill feels free. Then the day comes when you want to grow past yourself, you reach for the thing you should have been building, and it isn’t there. You were too good at the short game to be forced to play the long one.

The actual job

Growing past yourself is the work of getting yourself out of the job. Taking the foundation out of your head and turning it into something the company owns and a seller can use. Digging out the things you’ve always known and never had to say, because you never had to say them even to yourself. This is harder than normal delegation. You’re not handing off a task. You’re trying to make plain a skill that went invisible to you because you’re so good at it. You’re the only one who has the foundation, so you’re the only one who can build it, and you’re also the last person the market will ever make build it, because there’s always one more deal you could go close instead.

So the real job, the day you decide to grow past yourself, is a strange one. Make yourself replaceable as a seller. Turn the talent into something the company owns, knowing the talent will keep tempting you to skip it, because the talent still works. Your ability to sell is the biggest reason your business can grow. It’s also the biggest reason you might never build the thing that lets it grow without you. Both are true at once, and your future turns on which one you act on.

Share

Pass this to whoever in your world should read it.
Share it and start the argument with your own people.
Reply and tell me what I have wrong. The discussion is the point.

Bossey Research Partners is a growth studio for idea-led firms. Bring us a growth problem worth attacking.

I made it to page 2 of 22 in the latest white paper from a competitor. Surprising because I am the target audience. Highly interested in the category, prefer writing to video, seeking competitive intel, but I got distracted. The language, the pace, the predictability, all stunk of AI. Then I got pissed. I recognize my writing in this as well. Numbing. It’s Muzak. I’m creating it. We’re all creating it. This doesn’t work.

Over the last two years I’ve been integrating generative AI into my business processes and a big part of that is my writing. I use multiple AI models as thinking partners, pressure-testing what I get, mixing and matching like a DJ. But somewhere in that process an over-reliance crept in, using AI to bulk produce once I felt the thinking was sound and then trying to comb myself back into the prose at the end. Voice isn’t a layer you add after the fact. I know this. I’ve been lazy and I’m not happy with it.

Two writing styles have never left me. Hemingway and haiku. Direct, compressed, every line with a purpose, nothing surviving that doesn’t have to be there. That’s a craft and a discipline and it produces a specific relationship between the writer and the reader that most business writing has never understood.

Hemingway called it the iceberg, the idea that the dignity of what you see comes entirely from what you don’t, that the seven-eighths below the surface is what gives the visible part its meaning and its tension, and that the writer who shows everything destroys the thing they’re trying to make. Carver understood this. So did Chekhov, who could end a story in a place that felt like the middle and leave you wrestling with it for days because the resolution was always underneath the story, not at the end of it. These writers knew exactly who they were writing for, not a demographic, not a buyer persona, an actual person, specific, recognizable, and that precision meant they could skip the scaffolding, the setup, the explanation of what they were about to say, because the reader they had in mind was already with them and didn’t need to be oriented. They trusted that reader the way you trust someone you’ve known a long time, which means they could say less and mean more, could let the gap between the said and the unsaid do the work.

That is where business writing has to go, not as a stylistic preference but as a strategic necessity, and the only way to get there is to know your reader the way Carver knew his, with enough specificity that you feel the permission to leave things out, to end before the conclusion, to put the meaning below the surface and trust that the person you’re writing for will feel the weight of it without the writer pointing at it.

Most business content doesn’t know who it’s writing for. Not really. It knows a category, a title, an industry, a problem set, and so it explains everything, covers every angle, leaves nothing below the surface, because it can’t afford to lose anyone, which means it reaches no one at all.

Business writing isn’t written. It’s produced. The difference matters. Production is a process, inputs in, content out, managed against time and capacity. Writing is a different act entirely and the part that gets cut when the calendar fills is always the hardest part, the compression, the editing down to core, the hours of knowing what to leave out. That takes deep knowledge of the topic, deep knowledge of the reader, not an ICP definition and a style guide but actual proximity to the person you’re writing for and what they’re up against. I lost that proximity somewhere in the last year and I’ve been feeling it. I’m stopping.

The tools stay. I’m still using them to think, to pressure-test, to find the holes in an argument before it goes out. But the prose is mine now, built line by line, and if it takes longer it takes longer because the alternative is Muzak and I’ve already written enough of that.

I almost stopped there. Thinking without action is activity, not movement.

The discipline isn’t just about writing. It’s about knowing who you serve with enough specificity that you can leave things out, speak directly, stop explaining. If you don’t want to be Muzak you have to design deliberately for the small group that matters, not the category, not the persona, the actual person you’re trying to be useful to. That takes time and thought and silence in the process that can feel like you’re falling behind. You’re not. The pause is the power. The edit is the tool. Precision in how you communicate is how you find the people worth being in the room with, and right now, that’s the only thing that cuts through.

Share

If you feel your efforts getting lost in a sea of sameness, let’s get the scalpel out and course correct. Book a working session.

Bossey is designed to solve growth problems for idea-led firms. This was written especially for you.

Probably not, and before you start replacing people it’s worth knowing why. If your salespeople aren’t producing, the instinct is to fix the salespeople. More training, better tools, a tighter sequence, new hires. Most of the time that doesn’t work, because you’re swapping out the one part that was never the problem. The selling isn’t broken. What the selling stands on is, and that part isn’t the seller’s to build. It’s yours.

Good outreach rests on something the email never shows. Behind it is a clear answer to what you offer, to whom, when it matters, and what outcome it produces. Without that, a seller has nothing to work from, so they improvise. They scrape a website for a line. They grab a recent post. They make up a reason to care, one email at a time. The weak, generic outreach you’re frustrated by is what selling looks like when there’s nothing underneath it.

That foundation gets set above the seller, and it’s paid for with money and decisions, not effort. So the behavior you keep trying to fix with tools is usually a symptom of an investment you never made.

The things that make selling work are all yours to fund

Advantage in selling comes from three places. All three are company investments, even though the seller’s name is on the deal.

Brand is the obvious one. When a buyer already knows you, the seller gets to be remembered instead of starting cold. That took years and money to build. No seller makes it and no seller owns it.

The value proposition and the buyer definition are the second. This is the work of deciding what you sell, why it wins, and who it wins with. You do it once and every seller uses it. Skip it and each one has to invent it themselves, badly, on every call.

Relationship is the third, and it’s the one people miss. Everyone treats a seller’s relationships as theirs, the book of business they carry in and out the door. But you decide which relationships walk in when you decide who to hire. Hiring a senior seller is buying their network. That’s a spending decision, same as building a brand. The rolodex you call theirs is something you bought.

Three sources of advantage. Three things you fund. None of them something a seller can conjure alone.

You’re grading them on a test you wrote

So look at what you’re doing when you blame the team. You’re judging sellers on results that depend on inputs you control and they don’t. You underfund the foundation, the outreach comes out weak, you call that a performance problem, and you buy a trainer or a tool or a longer sequence.

That’s the same move the lazy seller makes, just from the corner office. Buy some activity to skip the hard thinking. Deciding what you are, who you’re for, and why you win is slow and uncomfortable and doesn’t feel like leading. Buying a tool is fast and visible. So you buy the tool.

What is actually the seller’s job

This doesn’t let sellers off the hook for their part. The deep work on a specific deal, the read on a particular buyer, the conviction that comes from having done the homework on that one account: that’s real, it doesn’t automate, and it’s theirs alone. But it only works on top of a foundation someone else built. The seller owns running the play. You own whether there’s a play to run.

So when you blame a seller for weak outreach, you’re often blaming them for improvising in a vacuum. You handed them a quota and asked them to make up a value proposition one email at a time, because nobody above them built the thing they were supposed to use.

Where it actually breaks

It’s not all on leadership, and the best companies know it. Good sellers feed the foundation back. They’re in the market in a way you’re not, so they find out what actually lands, who the real buyer is, where the value shows up on a live call. The healthy version is a loop. You make the investment, the field sharpens it, you update, the next round is better.

It breaks when that loop is cut. Leadership doesn’t build the foundation and doesn’t listen to the people who could help build it, and just expects the seller to produce both the strategy and the selling out of nothing. So the honest version is this. The investment is yours to make. The field knowledge is theirs to bring. The mess you’re looking at is what happens when leadership does neither and calls it a sales problem.

How to tell which one you have

Simple test. If one seller is struggling, you might have a people problem. If the whole team’s outreach is weak, you don’t have a sales problem. You have a foundation problem, and no amount of training or tooling will fix it, because none of that is the missing piece. It’s activity you bought to avoid the decision.

The decision is the work. What do we sell, to whom, when does it matter, what outcome do we deliver. Make that call and the team will run with it and sharpen it. Don’t, and you’ll keep buying tools to cover for its absence. That’s the slowest, most expensive way there is to avoid leading.

Share

Pass this to whoever in your world should read it.
Share it and start the argument with your own people.
Reply and tell me what I have wrong. The discussion is the point.

Bossey Research Partners is a growth studio for idea-led firms. Bring us a growth problem worth attacking.

A month ago we made a pitch to a huge client. What we put on the table was a real departure from the work we had been doing with them for years, an attempt to make the relationship relevant again, to disrupt ourselves before the moment disrupted us. It wasn’t a great pitch. We are still feeling our way through this transition, still finding the language, still working out what we actually believe about where this needs to go. What we got back was silence. Not the considered kind. The other kind. The hey we are busy over here we will get back to you kind. We thought we had walked them through something that could change the relationship and what came back was nothing.

It is at these moments that the second-guessing starts. You look inward. You self-criticize. You replay the conversation. You start an internal dialogue that is not great. Then a few other pitches go the same way and the internal noise gets really loud. The instinct is to turn on yourself. Maybe the thinking is wrong. Maybe we are not seeing what they are seeing. Maybe we have misread the moment entirely.

So we go into rework mode. Was it the deck? Was it the story? Was it who we had in the room? We pretty much talked at them the whole time and they looked back at us with vacant eyes, no real questions, no pushback, no engagement, just nodding. Did we flop. Do we need to rethink this. Are we fooling ourselves about this relationship, is it at risk, do we need to abandon this whole initiative. Maybe we need to rethink the branding. Maybe the positioning is wrong. Maybe the whole frame is wrong.

A month later, the client finally writes back. I’m overwhelmed and if I’m being honest, I don’t really know what you are talking about and how to make it happen in my org. I’m being asked to do things that sound like what you described but it’s not my level of expertise. Can I align you with the teams internally that are working on this? Can we have a conversation together that helps bring me closer to it?

This is the spiral we run. We take a thirty-minute meeting and some scattered feedback and we build an entire structural critique of ourselves out of it. We move from a moment to a verdict in the space of a few days. The deck becomes the brand becomes the positioning becomes the question of whether any of this is real. And then a single email arrives and the whole construction collapses, because the story we built was never the story that was happening on the other side. It rarely is. We are much smaller in other people’s lives than we think we are. And that is ok.

Share

This one is a little more philosophical than many posts here at Growth is a Choice, but it’s reflective of what our clients experience in the moment, in the day to day. This newsletter is for founders and leaders in the idea-led space, helping them with the thinking, frameworks, strategies and tactics to grow. The thinking here is always free. Putting it into action is what we do at Bossey Research Partners. Struggling with growth? Want a thinking and execution partner? Let’s talk.

Sales has a long-running fight about prospect research. One side says personalize everything: study the account, find the hook. The other says that doesn’t scale, so build a tight profile, sharpen one idea, and send at volume. There’s now software that scrapes a prospect’s site and writes the personalized line for you, easy peasy, end of fight.

It doesn’t end anything. The fight was never about research. It skips the only question that matters.

You don’t own their attention

Cold outreach assumes the prospect’s time is yours to spend. It isn’t. Time is the one thing a buyer can’t get more of, and you’re asking them to spend it finding out whether you were worth it. That’s backwards. You’re making them carry the proof that should be yours.

Most research just hides this. “I saw your post about X” doesn’t prove you can help. It proves you can use LinkedIn. “Can I grab fifteen minutes to learn about your challenges” is asking them to teach you so you can sell to them. People can smell it.

The only research worth doing gives them something useful. Not “I studied you.” More like “here’s something I see that you might not, and it helps you even if we never work together.” One is a badge you give yourself. The other actually helps the person.

Most selling is just motion

Watch where the effort goes and it’s almost all volume. More emails, more follow-ups, more sequence. People call this hard work. It is work. It’s just the cheap kind. The expensive kind is deciding whether this specific person has a reason to care right now. That’s slow and it doesn’t automate, so the industry built tools to do more of the cheap thing and called it productivity.

It survives because it works just often enough. Send a hundred vague emails, close three, decide the method works. It didn’t. Those three were going to buy anyway, the timing was right, and your email was in the inbox at the right moment. That’s not skill. That’s being there when luck showed up.

The wins that aren’t luck get credited to brand or relationship, as if those were shortcuts around the work. They’re not. They’re the work, done earlier. Brand is the value-first thing done at scale over years, so the market shows up already sold. Relationship is the same thing one person at a time. The branded seller and the cold seller are doing the same job. One paid in advance. The other is trying to do it all in one email.

Deal size decides the game

Whether to go deep on a prospect or send at volume isn’t a matter of taste. Two things set it: how much a win is worth, and how much your effort actually moves the odds.

A hundred-thousand-dollar deal where real thinking can move it from a long shot to a live one is worth heavy investment. A small deal where nothing you do changes the buyer’s mind is a volume game, and pretending otherwise wastes your time. Size sets how much the work can be worth. Whether effort moves the odds decides whether you collect it.

For a firm selling large engagements this is almost the whole thing, because the year might come down to ten or twenty wins. Each one is worth a lot and judgment moves the odds, so deep work obviously pays. And still these sellers default to volume, because volume feels like selling and the deep work doesn’t.

Hit rate is the wrong measure

The usual objection: going deeper doesn’t lift my close rate, so why bother. But close rate is a volume number. It’s the wrong tool for a big-deal game.

Chase fifteen big accounts, win five, and a thirty-three percent rate looks unimpressive. Grinding won’t move it much, so you decide the investment didn’t work. But five wins at a hundred grand is half a million. The number that mattered was never the rate. It was revenue per hour. By that number the deep play wins easily, even when the percentage looks ordinary.

There’s another reason this game stays manual. Ten or twenty deals a year isn’t enough to test anything. You can’t run a clean experiment on fifteen data points. The volume seller learns from averages. The big-deal seller has no averages to hide behind and has to think about each one. The high-value game doesn’t just reward judgment. It demands it, because there’s nothing to mass-produce.

The middle is the worst place to be

This is why scraping is worse than it looks. It’s not a smart compromise between the two strategies. It loses on both.

Per-prospect research is expensive because it doesn’t scale. The middle-ground seller pays that cost and then doesn’t actually go deep, so they get the price of personalization with the content of a mail merge. Real volume costs almost nothing per prospect, because the thinking went into the profile and the idea up front. Deep research costs a lot and earns it on big deals. The middle costs something and earns nothing.

The two real strategies differ by what you study. Volume studies the type of buyer. Deep studies the actual person. Studying the type well beats studying the person badly every time. The middle picks the person and then won’t do the work the person needs.

There’s also an asset hiding in the volume play. Knowing your offer and your buyer is capital. You build it once, every prospect draws on it, and it gets sharper with use. The scraped line is the opposite. It’s made for one email and dead on send. One builds something. The other is disposable. The middle builds nothing and wins nothing.

This isn’t an argument against light research. Light research is fine when its job is to decide where to invest, not to write the message. You can’t study five hundred accounts deeply, so something has to tell you which twenty are worth it. That pass is shallow on purpose, and useful, because it’s sorting, not selling. The mistake is taking that sorting signal and pasting it into the email as if it were the work.

What it all rests on

Every move here assumes one thing. Sizing a win, picking your game, deciding who’s worth going deep on, knowing what counts as useful to a particular buyer. None of it works until you know what you sell, why it matters, to whom, and when.

That’s not one input among many. It’s the thing everything else needs. You can’t do the size-times-odds math without it. Triage has nothing to sort against. Deep research doesn’t know what it’s digging for. The scraper just produces noise, because there’s no point of view for the fact to attach to.

So surface research is a symptom, not the disease. The seller grabs the nearest fact, the recent post, the funding round, because they never decided what they sell or why it matters. They can’t tell a signal from a coincidence. You can’t see what’s relevant about a prospect without knowing what relevance even looks like. Surface research is what research becomes when you don’t know what you’re looking for.

Most sellers run this backwards. They start with activity, reach for research when activity stalls, and never touch the foundation because it doesn’t feel like selling. The right order is the reverse. Know what you sell, why it’s worth buying, to whom, and when. Then how to spend your effort becomes a real question.

There’s a bigger question under this: whose job is the foundation. A seller usually can’t build it alone, because the offer and the positioning get set above them. That’s its own piece. For now it’s enough to see that the research fight is downstream of work that has to exist first. Get that right and the rest mostly sorts itself out. Skip it, and no amount of research was ever going to save the outreach.

Share

Pass this to whoever in your world should read it.
Share it and start the argument with your own people.
Reply and tell me what I have wrong. The discussion is the point.

Bossey Research Partners is a growth studio for idea-led firms. Bring us a growth problem worth attacking.

The last thing I wrote argued that the structural changes in how firms grow have moved sales back to the front of the commercial operation. If you read it and felt something tighten, you are the person I am writing this for. Because the move that essay describes, sales at the center, is the exact move you have spent your career trying to avoid.

You did not get into this work to sell. You got into it because you are good at something. You can see a problem more clearly than the people living inside it. You can take a tangle a client has been carrying for years and show them the shape of it. That is your craft. The selling was the tax you paid to keep doing the craft, and you have been looking for ways to pay less of it ever since.

So when someone tells you sales matters more now, your mind goes immediately to how you can keep it away from you. Marketing should make leads. Hire a BDR to fill the calendar. Build a machine that produces meetings so the selling part is small and quick and handled by someone whose whole job is to handle it. You are not trying to get good at sales. You are trying to get sales far enough away that you can go back to the work you love.

I understand the instinct. I want to show you why it is keeping you bad at the only part of selling that was ever going to work for you.

Here is the thing you have wrong, and you have it wrong because everyone has it wrong. You think sales is the close. You think it is the negotiation, the asking for the money, the moment where you have to push and they might say no and you have to push again. You think it is the part where you stop being a thoughtful person who understands problems and become someone who pressures another person toward a signature. That is what you hate. That is what you picture when you picture selling, and your hatred of it is not irrational. That version of selling is genuinely unpleasant, and you are genuinely not built for it.

But that version is the smallest part of selling, and it is only unpleasant because of what you failed to do before you got there.

The real work of selling happens in three places that come long before the close, and all three are made of exactly the capability you already have.

The first is the trigger. Not waiting for a lead to appear. Choosing. Deciding which specific organizations you are going to pursue, because something has happened inside them that makes your work relevant now, or because you can see a gap they are carrying that they have not yet put words around. This is not prospecting. Prospecting is volume, a wide net, a list of anyone who might one day need you. The trigger is the opposite. It is a short, deliberate list of organizations where you already understand why they should be talking to you. Building that list is a thinking exercise. It is the work of looking at a market and seeing where the tension actually lives. You are good at exactly this. You have just never been told it was the first move in selling, because the model you inherited had no name for it.

The second is the engagement. This is the conversation, and it is not a pitch. You open by disrupting. You put a frame in front of the prospect that names something they have been absorbing as normal. Here is what we are seeing in firms like yours. Here is what it is costing you. Here is the question we think you should be asking that you are not. And you work that conversation until the prospect agrees, in their own words, that yes, this gap is real, and yes, there is tension here worth closing, and yes, we want to do something about it. That agreement is the whole job of the engagement. Notice what it requires. It requires you to understand their problem better than they do and to say so in a way they recognize. That is your craft. That is the thing you are best at in the world, pointed at a prospect instead of a client.

The third is the build. By now the gap is agreed. The build is where you and the prospect work together to define the actions that will close it. Not you presenting a solution and them evaluating it. The two of you, side by side, designing the answer. This is co-authorship, and it is the most powerful thing in the entire process, because a person does not reject a plan they helped create. By the end of the build there is an agreed problem and an agreed path, designed together, and the prospect is no longer a prospect in any meaningful sense. They are a partner who has not yet done the paperwork.

Look at what those three stages are made of. Seeing where tension lives. Understanding a problem better than the person who has it. Designing a solution alongside someone who trusts your judgment. That is not salesmanship. That is the work you already do and already love. The front half of selling is your craft wearing a different name.

Now look at what is left. Recommend, negotiate, close. The part you dread.

Recommend is not you convincing the prospect. The prospect is already convinced. Recommend is the two of you, together, selling the agreed plan to the people inside their organization who were not in the room. Your job is to make your champion successful in front of their colleagues and their boss. You are arming someone who already believes you to go win an argument on your behalf. A doer is good at this, because it is just more of the explaining and clarifying you already do.

Negotiate is tidying the commercial edges. Terms, scope, expectations, the practical loose ends. It is not a battle, because the deal was won in the front half. There is nothing to fight over when both sides already agree on the problem and the plan.

And the close is not a close. It is the name for what was already true. When the front half is done properly, there is no moment where you have to push a hesitant person over a line, because there is no hesitant person and there is no line. There is a problem you both see, a plan you both built, and the simple administrative fact of beginning.

The reason you hate sales is that you have been doing it backwards, and so has nearly everyone in idea-led firms. You put almost no effort into the trigger, because no one told you it mattered. You skipped the real engagement, opening with rapport or a capabilities overview instead of a disruption. You presented solutions instead of building them together. And so you arrived at the close with nothing built underneath you, having to manufacture agreement and tension and a solution all at once, under time pressure, in front of someone who is not yet convinced. Of course it felt brutal. You turned the close into the place where all the work happens, and the close is the worst possible place to do that work.

You inherited this from the funnel. The funnel puts the volume at the top and the conversion at the bottom and teaches you that selling is the act of moving things down and getting them over the line. The funnel has no trigger stage and no real engagement stage. Its top is just leads, which is why your instinct is to make marketing produce more of them and hire someone to chase them. You were handed a model that pointed you at the exact part of selling you are worst at and hid from you the part you were built for. No wonder you wanted it kept away from you. You were given the wrong job and told it was sales.

Here is what changes when you move your effort to the front. The deals that should not happen die early, in the trigger and the engagement, cheaply, before you have poured months into them. The deals that should happen get built so thoroughly that the close takes care of itself. And you stop experiencing sales as a series of confrontations you are not suited for and start experiencing it as what it actually is, which is the disciplined work of understanding a small number of problems deeply enough to be useful, and then helping the people who have those problems do something about them.

You do not have to become a salesperson. You were never going to be good at the version of sales you have been dreading, and you do not need to be, because that version is not where deals are won. You have to become a more deliberate version of the thinker you already are, pointed at the front of the process instead of cornered at the end of it.

The fear was never wrong. It was just aimed at the wrong stage.

Share

Bossey works with idea-led firms, who often are powered by reluctant sellers. If you are one of those professionals, or you have these folks on your team, we want to show you the way to commercial excellence. See more at Bossey.com

I spent the last several weeks inside the research on how business buyers actually make decisions. Not how we wish they decided. Not how the funnel diagrams say they decide. What the evidence shows. I went in with my own arguments about erosion marketing and triggers already on the record, and I wanted to know where the literature agreed with me, where it complicated me, and where it said something I had not considered at all. Here is what it says.

Very few of your buyers are in the market at any given moment. The Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, working with LinkedIn’s B2B Institute, put numbers on it. Firms change providers of services like consulting, research, and advisory work roughly every five years, which means about 20 percent of a market is buying in a given year and about 5 percent in a given quarter. The other 95 percent cannot say yes to you no matter how good the message is, because they have nothing to say yes to.

When buyers do enter the market, they arrive with the decision largely made. Around 86 percent report having a day-one list of firms in mind before they start shopping. Over 90 percent buy from that list. If you are not on it when the buying moment opens, the RFP, the bake-off, the chemistry meeting, all the competition you can see, is mostly theater performed after the outcome was determined.

When they engage, they barely engage with you. Gartner’s research puts buyer time spent with potential suppliers at about 17 percent of the total buying effort. That is all suppliers combined. The rest happens inside the buying organization, in committees where, again per Gartner, three quarters of buying teams report unhealthy conflict. The deliberation that decides your fate happens in rooms you will never enter, among people you will never meet.

And too often, nothing happens at all. The research behind The JOLT Effect, built on 2.5 million recorded sales conversations, found that 40 to 60 percent of deals end in no decision. Not a competitor. Nothing. More than half of those losses trace to fear rather than satisfaction with the status quo. Fear of choosing wrong. Fear of being the person whose name is attached to the failure. The same research found that when sellers respond to a hesitating buyer by turning up the pressure, the deal becomes more likely to die, 84 percent of the time.

So that is the buyer. Out of market most of the time, decided before arriving, barely in the room with you, and inclined to do nothing because doing something is frightening. Now set the standard commercial toolkit against that buyer.

Outbound is getting less effective by the year, and the decline is measurable. Cold email reply rates have fallen from 8.5 percent in 2019 to under 3.5 percent today, ground down by inbox saturation and a flood of AI-written outreach that all sounds like the same intern. The sequence vendors’ own defense has shifted from “it works” to “it works for the most precise senders,” which concedes the point. A sequence asks a buyer who is 95 percent likely to be out of market to take a meeting. The math was never going to hold, and the inbox finally proved it.

Generic posting fares no better. Two thirds of decision makers say the volume of thought leadership has exploded, and nearly 40 percent say there is more than they can keep up with. Content posted to everyone reaches no one. The research does show that genuinely sharp thinking moves buyers, the kind that makes a reader realize their organization is exposed in a way they had not seen. But that is real precision work. The daily “presence-maintenance” posting that most firms call marketing is noise added to noise.

Brand building, the textbook answer, runs into a wall of arithmetic. If buyers decide from memory before entering the market, the prescription is to build that memory across the whole market, broadly, for years. The logic is sound and I can’t find a flaw in it. I also can’t find a mid-sized idea-led firm that can afford it. Sustained category-wide brand building is a capital game, derived from studying mass brands in mass categories. For a firm whose entire market is a few hundred buyers, the prescription is correct and unusable, and it may not even fit, because memory built through advertising is thin memory, and a buyer choosing judgment wants more than recall.

Which leaves the channel that actually works. Ask leaders of idea-led firms where their best clients came from and the answer is nearly always the same: relationships. A referral, an introduction, a former client who moved, someone who knew someone. The research backs them completely. Around 72 percent of senior buyers now start their journey by asking peers in private channels, ahead of any search engine. Buyers trust colleagues at 82 percent and vendor salespeople at 29 percent. The influence that decides B2B purchases moves through rooms no vendor can see, and the relationship path is the only path that reaches those rooms.

Then ask those same leaders a second question. Why did that relationship produce a client, and that one, and not the dozens of others? Which conversation mattered? What was said? What would you do tomorrow to make it happen again, on purpose?

Silence. I know, because I asked myself. I run a working group that connects senior executives with idea-led firms, and it has produced real revenue: one client, three successive engagements, roughly $400,000. The model works and the early returns say so. But when I push on why that relationship converted when it did, what was said in the moments that mattered, which conditions I could recreate next quarter, I cannot fully answer. The win was real. It was not yet deliberate. And nearly every firm I know is in the same position with their own wins, at larger scale and longer standing. The relationships are real. The revenue is real. The understanding of how one became the other is missing.

That is accidental revenue. Money that arrived through a door you did not build, on a schedule you did not set, for reasons you cannot state. It feels like luck because, functionally, it is luck. Luck running through real relationships, which makes it respectable, but luck all the same. And here is what the research adds up to, taken whole: the tactics firms can systematize do not work on how buyers actually decide, and the channel that does work on how buyers decide is the one almost no firm has ever systematized. Selling activities are measurable and increasingly futile. Relationships are decisive and entirely unexamined. Every idea-led firm I know is running hard on the first and praying on the second.

The buyer research is settled enough. The open question is the one it forces: if relationships are the channel, and yours produce revenue you cannot explain, what would it take to make that revenue deliberate? Because the other side of accidental revenue is potential revenue. The clients your firm could already hold, through relationships it could already build, on the strength of work it has already done. Every idea-led firm is full of it, and almost none of it ever converts. That is where I am going next.

Share

Three things you can do from here:

• Forward it to one person who’d argue with you about it.

• Reply and tell me where I’m wrong. I read every reply.

• Work with us. Bossey is where we do this with firms directly.

Full essays every Tuesday. Short versions on LinkedIn: Choose Growth | Relentlessly.

Read a piece this week on Japan’s population. The numbers stop you for a second. More than three quarters of a million people gone from the count in a single year, fifteen straight years of decline, projections that take the country from roughly 124 million today to something under 90 million by 2070. An entire society shrinking in slow motion while the businesses operating inside it continue to file plans built on assumptions that no longer hold. The article framed it as a demographic story. It is also a strategic one. An entire economic logic is ending, and most of the strategic playbooks the developed world has been running for forty years were written for a world that is no longer the one they have to operate in.

Japan is just the most advanced version of what is coming. Italy is on the same path. Germany. South Korea. Spain. China crossed over a few years ago and is now shrinking faster than its planners expected. The United States is still growing on paper but only because of immigration, and the underlying fertility rate has been below replacement since the early 1970s. The whole developed world, with a few exceptions, is sliding into a future where there are not enough new people coming in to power the model of growth that built modern consumer capitalism. More people, more households, more first-time buyers, more category entry, more upgrades, more everything. That was the engine. It is winding down, and the businesses still operating as if it is running are about to find out what it means to optimize a machine that has no fuel.

Optimization became the dominant strategic mode for a reason. The standard story is that demographic abundance kept the engine hot and companies just got better at running it. The truer story is that the abundance had already started to fade by the early 2000s and the categories were already filling up with too many products chasing too few new buyers. Optimization was a rational response to a market that was already running out of room. When growth slows and supply outruns demand, the smart move inside the existing logic is to defend share, sharpen the spend, personalize the experience, and squeeze the existing customer harder. That is what the industry did. For twenty years. The whole apparatus of performance marketing, attribution, CRM, retail media, dynamic pricing, AB testing, and finer and finer segmentation was built to manage a decline that nobody wanted to call a decline, because the quarterly numbers could still be hit and the stock prices could still be defended and the bonus pools could still be filled. It was a twenty year managed glide through a market that had already passed its peak. The demographic cliff is just removing the runway that managed glide was happening on.

This matters because it changes what innovation has to mean. The corporate innovation theater of the last decade, the labs, the demo days, the sticky notes on the conference room glass, the moonshot logos, the fail fast posters, all of it was operating inside the optimization logic. The job was to find slightly better versions of the existing product, slightly different flavors of the existing experience, slightly extended uses of the existing brand. None of that is structurally interesting. None of it changes what the company is for. It is just optimization wearing a hoodie. Real innovation, the kind the next twenty years are going to demand, is not another cool t-shirt or a clever line extension or a new app inside the existing portfolio. It is structural. It is the reinvention of how people live, how they age, how they work, how they eat, how they move, how they connect, how they recover, how they remain useful and curious and engaged across forty more years of life than the previous generation had to figure out.

That is a different kind of work. It is closer to civic design than to consumer marketing. It requires companies to look at a 67 year old woman in Osaka who is still working, dating, traveling, caring for a grandchild, and managing two chronic conditions, and ask what her actual life is missing, what would make the next thirty years of it materially better, what products and services and experiences and relationships and infrastructures would have to exist for her to flourish in a country and a body that the existing economy was not designed for. That question cannot be answered by a sticky note exercise. It requires conviction, structural imagination, real research, real product development, real capital, and real time. It also requires the company to accept that the answer might not look like its current portfolio at all, that the brand it has spent fifty years building might be the wrong brand for the consumer it now has to serve, that the distribution system it perfected might not be the distribution system that reaches her, that the metrics it uses to evaluate success might miss the most important thing it is now trying to do.

Segmentation is still real, it just has to do a different job. The old segmentation existed to make targeting more efficient, which made sense when the audiences were big and the question was how to spend media against them. The new segmentation has to make creation more precise. Narrower audiences, smaller and stranger and more specifically defined, not because anyone wants smaller markets but because that is where the unmet need actually lives and that is the level at which a real product can be built. The Osaka woman is a market. So is the 72 year old widower in rural Tennessee who has not bought anything new for himself in fifteen years. So is the 58 year old caregiver in Munich who is supporting both her mother and her adult children. There are tens of millions of each of them, and the segmentation that finds them has to drive the product, the messaging, the channel, the price point, and the entire commercial system around them rather than tacking them on as secondary audiences for brands built for someone else. Multiply that across every developed economy and you start to see what the work actually is. Hundreds of these markets. None of them addressed by the current portfolio. All of them representing growth that is invisible to a strategy function still running the optimization playbook.

The metrics have to change with the work. Same-store sales, share of category, conversion rate, CAC, LTV, attribution, the whole performance marketing apparatus, all of it was built to measure how well a company is running an existing model. None of it measures whether the company is building the next one. The companies that get this right are going to need a different scorecard sitting next to the existing one. New revenue from audiences the company was not serving three years ago. Number of viable new categories the company has entered. Percent of revenue from products less than five years old. Strategic optionality created. Markets opened. The incentives have to follow the metrics, which means the people running the new work cannot be evaluated on the same quarter the people running the old work are being evaluated on, and the boards have to be honest with themselves about which clock they are actually running. Most of them are not. Most of them are still rewarding the optimization of a machine whose underlying demand curve has already turned.

Pushed far enough, this story stops being about strategy and starts being about geography. If Japan continues on its current path, the country will not just be smaller, it will be spatially reorganized in a way that has no recent precedent in a wealthy economy. The rural prefectures are already emptying. Schools are closing. Hospitals are consolidating. Train lines are being cut. What is left, twenty years from now, may look like a handful of dense urban cores, Tokyo and Osaka and a few regional hubs, surrounded by something closer to managed wilderness than to a functioning provincial economy. The United States will not look like that, but the underlying logic still applies. A country whose median age keeps rising and whose rural population keeps thinning is a country whose retail footprint, healthcare system, transportation network, housing stock, labor market, and political map are all going to have to be rebuilt around a different population distribution than the one the existing infrastructure was designed for. Europe will face a sharper version of the same problem, with smaller countries and older populations and less political room to adjust. The companies operating across all of this will be making decisions about where to invest, where to retreat, and where to build something new, and most of those decisions will be made with strategy tools that were designed for a world of expanding markets.

The trendsetters will move too. For the last fifty years cultural and commercial trend originated in a relatively narrow set of places, the American coasts, a few European capitals, Tokyo, Seoul. That happened partly because those places had young, affluent, growing consumer bases that everyone wanted to reach. As those bases age and shrink, the gravity moves. Lagos is going to be a city of more than thirty million people. Kinshasa, Dar es Salaam, Nairobi, the same trajectory. Sub-Saharan Africa is going to add more people in the next thirty years than the entire population of Europe. India is already the most populous country in the world and is going to spend the next twenty years becoming the dominant young consumer market on the planet. The cultural production, the music, the fashion, the food, the platforms, the formats, the language of aspiration itself, all of it starts to move with the demographic gravity. The Western consumer brand that does not have a serious answer for India and Africa in 2040 is going to find itself in the same position the Japanese consumer brand of the 1990s found itself in when it failed to make the leap to a global market. Optimizing the home market while the gravity moves elsewhere is the slowest possible way to become irrelevant.

None of this is science fiction. It is the demographic data carried forward with normal assumptions about how people behave when the math underneath their economy starts to shift. The reason it feels like science fiction is that the strategic vocabulary inside most companies has not caught up. The decks still talk about share gain and optimization and incremental growth. The boards still reward the quarter. The marketing functions are still organized around channels rather than audiences. The product functions are still organized around line extensions rather than category creation. The insights functions are still organized around measurement of the existing world rather than discovery of the next one. All of these structures made sense for managing a slow decline. None of them are built for structural reinvention.

So what does all of this have to do with the people who read this newsletter, the founders and leaders of idea-led firms wrestling with where to take their organizations next. Two things, and they cut in the same direction.

The first is that the idea-led organization, far from being made obsolete by AI, becomes more valuable in this environment, not less. The optimization economy rewarded pattern recognition, which is exactly the thing AI is going to do better and cheaper than any human team for the rest of time. The economy that is now opening up rewards the opposite skill. Fresh thinking. Structural imagination. The capacity to look at a 67 year old woman in Osaka and design a category around her that does not yet exist. That is not a pattern recognition problem. There is no pattern. The pattern has to be invented, and the firms that can invent it, the research firms and strategy shops and creative organizations and consultancies built around ideas rather than throughput, are about to find themselves in a market that needs exactly what they are best at. The work gets harder, and the value of doing it well goes up.

The second is what this does to commercial execution, and it cuts directly into the erosion model I wrote about a few weeks ago. If the consumer audiences are narrowing into hundreds of specific, structurally underserved markets, the implication for sellers is that the ICPs narrow with them. The era of broad targeting, calls into the same hundred logos every quarter, the same generic pitch dressed up in different colors, is already failing and is about to fail harder. Narrow audiences mean narrow ICPs. Narrow ICPs mean the seller has to understand a specific kind of buyer wrestling with a specific kind of structural problem, in a way the generic seller cannot fake. That is going to crush the bottom half of the commercial talent pool, the order takers and the relationship coasters and the people who have been hiding inside the optimization era for a decade. It is going to be enormously good for the top. High quality commercial executives, the ones who actually understand the business problem on the other side of the table, who can sit in a room with a CMO or a CSO or a head of product and have an argument worth having about where growth is going to come from, become the actual drivers of success. The system collapses around them rather than around the spreadsheet.

Growth is a choice. The optimization economy did not require many companies to make it. The next economy will require it of everyone, including the firms reading this. The demographic floor is being removed. The work is getting harder. The commercial bar is rising. Some companies will keep running the old machine until it stops. Others will build the next one. That choice is being made right now, inside strategy rooms in every developed market. The companies that make it well have a chance. The ones that do not will be optimizing right up until the moment the lights go out.

Share

Bossey is built for the next phase of idea-led firms. The research shops, strategy practices, consultancies, and creative organizations whose value goes up when the world stops rewarding pattern recognition and starts rewarding fresh thinking. We help them get ready. Visit us to learn how. www.bossey.com

My last piece ended on something I made sound easy.

Pick the phone back up, in whatever form the phone now takes. A founder reads that, agrees with it, and does the reasonable thing, which is to decide to hire someone to pick it up for them. That is where the trouble starts. The person who can actually do it is not a role you can write up and fill at the going rate, because that person got rare, and rare people cost more than the org chart expects, and the money turns out to be the easy part.

The price comes from who that person has to be. They can be in the live moment with a stranger who would rather hang up, and be useful while they are there. They find the trigger before the prospect has finished describing the problem. They begin building the solution with the prospect before anyone talks about terms. They take a no they feel in their body and pick the phone up again the next morning. The skill in that can be taught. The willingness to be present and exposed cannot be taught quickly, and it is rare, and it is rare for a plain reason. For more than a decade almost nothing in commercial work asked for it. The tools paid people to work alone at a keyboard and show a chart, so that is what people got good at, and the live work went unpracticed because nothing paid anyone to practice it. The shortage is not a failure of nerve in the people you can hire. The industry built it, by hiring and promoting and measuring for the other thing.

So the price is real before commitment even comes up. A seller who can do this, with base and commission and the taxes and tools and travel that come with the job, costs more than $350,000 in a working year. At thirty points of gross margin, that one person has to bring in well over a million dollars of new revenue before they have paid for themselves. For a three million dollar firm that has run on the founder’s own selling, that is a forty percent swing in the business, on one hire.

And the money is still the small part. The cost you cannot write a check for is commitment. This is a function you own. You give the seller the story, the proof, and real authority over price. You let them commit the firm without running every decision back through you, or what you have is an expensive appointment setter. You protect the long ramp, the three to nine months before a cold start turns into closed revenue, the stretch when the numbers tell you nothing. You can hand off a task. You cannot hand off commitment.

Most founders look at all that and look for a way around it. There are three, and every one of them feels like relief.

The marketer’s wage

The first is to keep the job and cut the pay, to post the role at what a marketing hire costs, because on the org chart the seat used to belong to marketing. The market set the price for a scarce person. Your budget set the price for the common one you replaced. You will not get the scarce person for that money. You will get someone who fills the weekly review with charts that climb and is never across the table from a stranger deciding whether to trust you with money, and you will not know the difference for three or four quarters, by which point you have paid for selling and gotten posting.

The seasoned closer

The second is to pay up for the experienced closer, the one with the résumé and the logos and the years, because experience feels safe. The problem is that the résumé does not travel. Those numbers were built on a platform you cannot see from the outside, the brand that opened the door, the leads that filled the calendar, the references and the reputation that did half the work before the seller said anything. Take that person to your three million dollar firm with none of it, and you find out how much was them and how much was the firm they left, and you find out over eighteen months on your money. They also arrive with habits built for a different kind of sale, and someone who has sold one way for twenty years does not change quickly, so you spend the premium teaching a senior person to unlearn the way they have always worked.

The famous name

The third feels free, which is why founders reach for it most. You find someone senior, often near retirement, with a long career and a bigger network than yours, and you put them on commission with no salary, and it looks like you solved the problem at no risk. What you hired is an occasional seller. They will make the introduction that costs them nothing. They will not make the call that costs them something, because nothing in the deal requires it, and the hard part of selling is the part nobody does for free. The pay is no longer tied to need, so the discipline that need used to enforce is gone. You also have no control, because you cannot direct or correct or hold a standard with someone you do not pay, and they can walk at no cost to themselves. You get the name on the roster and almost none of the selling, and whatever revenue shows up is accidental, which is the exact thing you were trying to replace.

Build it or be it

Take the shortcuts away and two answers are left. You build the capability, or you are it yourself.

Being it is the founder picking up the phone, taking the no, and selling until the firm can afford something else. Most firms started there. The ones in trouble are usually the ones who left it too early for one of the three shortcuts.

Building it means developing a seller instead of buying one, which for a firm at thirty to forty-five points of margin is the only version that is not a bet on the whole company. You hire for willingness and aptitude at a salary you can afford. You put the real money into equipping and coaching over the better part of a year. The seller has to be relentless, and relentless alone is not enough. You give them the story, the proof, the ICP, and the tools, because without those even the rare ones have nothing to sell with. What you get at the end is a capability the firm owns, a seller who learned your story from the start and built every relationship on your platform, so nothing leaves when a person does.

Most firms will do none of this. They will post for a closer at a marketer’s wage, or pay up for a résumé that does not travel, or hand the work to a famous name who picks up the phone when it suits him, and they will wait for accidental revenue to turn structural on its own, which it does not. The firms that grow will decide the seller is worth equipping and the function is worth committing to, and they will pay for it, in money or in their own years or in both. That is the whole choice. There is no cheap version and no comfortable one, and most will keep looking for one anyway.

Share

This is the work I do. Bossey runs the build so you do not have to run it alone. I hire the seller, equip them with your story, your proof, your ICP, and the tools to sell, and manage them through the nine months it takes to prove the motion and produce real pipeline. I absorb the risk of the wrong hire, and at the end you keep a working seller and a working playbook, on your platform, owned by your firm. The cycle that breaks most firms before they reach a real seller becomes my problem, not yours. If you are tired of paying marketer wages and waiting for sales, that is the conversation to have.

The team over at came out with a great analysis the other day that everyone should read. That analysis is moving around the insights and analytics world. It is right, and it describes where a large share of idea-led firms already are. The deliverable these firms have always sold, the study, the deck, the read of the market, is moving from the end of the intelligence chain to the front of it. It used to be the product. It is becoming an input to a system that takes in everything else the enterprise knows and produces the conclusion itself. The map calls this a move from output to input. The deliverable was always an input. The PowerPoint let everyone treat it as a decision.

The industry was never good at making decisions. It was good at producing inputs and calling them insight. Reporting was always the weak link, and the guts to say what the data actually said, to make the call instead of laying out the options, was the thing most firms never had. The platform does not remove that capability. It exposes that the capability was missing. It aggregates and concludes better than a room of siloed decks ever did, and in doing so it shows everyone what was actually being bought, which was the data and not the judgment.

Selling does not have to change. It should, because most sellers in this industry were never selling. They were taking orders from people with a budget for decks. That budget is the thing the platform removes first, and when it goes the order-takers go with it. What never left is the work most of them skipped. Find the tension a buyer can’t quite articulate, build the path through it, move her to a decision. That work sells at either end of the new chain. Deck fulfillment sells at neither.

Who you sell to

The traditional buyer, the insights lead who commissioned a study and passed a deck upward, was a middle layer with no decision authority and no ownership of the infrastructure. A budget for studies, and that budget is the one the map shows shrinking while the money moves to the teams plugged into the decision system. That buyer is useless to the sale now. There is nothing on either end of the new chain for that person to own. (and if you are reading this and think I’m talking about you, there is a path out of that corporate role and into something much more valuable…let’s chat).

Two buyers remain, one at each end.

At one end is the person responsible for the infrastructure, the data feeding the decision system. He runs the factory floor. He needs suppliers who can provide the machinery, keep the machines running, feeds that stay clean, refresh on schedule, and come from a source he can stand behind. His problems are real and mostly unspoken. The audit he could fail. The decision team that comes back angry because the data did not answer the question. The feed he paid for but already had. The niche source no one told him he needed. The call on when to go outside his own stack to solve something it cannot. Each of those is a problem he will pay to solve. Each is a sale.

At the other end is the person making the business decision. She owns the decision and does not know what it needs. She arrives data-rich and stuck. The work is three questions, and not one of them is a data question. What are you trying to decide. What do you already have that informs it. What is missing that would make the picture clear enough to act on. That conversation has to happen before anyone can tell the infrastructure owner what to pull or what to buy. Whoever runs it works upstream of the supply sale and defines what good input means for the decision.

What you are actually selling

The map describes the structure and misses what does not change. The seller’s expertise was never the data. It was never the methodology. It was always fluency in how a specific client firm decides. Who makes the call. Who can kill it. What it costs to be wrong. What is already on the table. What is missing. The platform cannot supply that, because it knows what the data says and nothing about who has to act on it.

This is why the same sale works at both ends. The infrastructure owner is not buying a feed. He is deciding how to serve other people’s decisions, and he owns the risk when one goes bad on bad data. The business buyer is deciding about the business. Same work, different subject. Both are a person who has to decide under uncertainty and will pay for help getting there.

That skill is not a methodology. It is reading how a firm decides and being useful inside that, and it works at both ends because both come down to a decision. The industry can be redrawn as many times as capital wants. Someone still has to decide.

Creating Movement is the twelve-week Bossey program that builds this seller, the Change Agent who creates movement by being useful rather than by applying pressure. It trains the people who sell without calling themselves sellers to show up useful, find the tension a buyer has not voiced, and build the path with the buyer instead of pitching at him, then move the opportunity to a close. Message for more info.

The path forward

A firm has three positions open now. Feed the platform as an input. Be the platform. Or sell the judgment that turns data into a decision.

Generative AI made the second one buildable. The synthesis layer that needed a data-science team is now a small domain team wiring models, retrieval, and its own frameworks together. That opens the platform to the firm that owns proprietary data it could never build a product around. It opens the same door to the firm whose only asset is judgment, and that firm builds a platform the next ten firms copy by the following quarter. The platform belongs to whoever owns data or distribution a model cannot reproduce. Everyone else is productizing the one thing that made them worth hiring.

The other two positions stay service businesses, and the commercial structure each one needs is different.

The infrastructure end is a supply relationship, and supply relationships divide after the win. A seller owns the commercial surface, the next feed, the cross-sell, the expansion inside the stack. A customer success manager owns what the renewal depends on, usage and a clean experience, because a supply account does not renew on charm. It renews on the feed performing and the buyer never having a bad day because of you. For most idea-led firms that is a real change, from the seller-doer who sells and delivers in one body to a seller and a success manager who own different halves of the same account.

The decision end stays advisory, and it is the work the system was built for. Help the buyer see the data her decision needs and does not have. Help her procure or produce it, which is where you decide whether to route her to the infrastructure owner you also serve or build something yourself. Then help her make the call. That last step is the guts to say what the data says, the move the old industry avoided, and it pays advisory money because the machine will not do it for her.

The two ends feed each other. The business buyer who finds in your diagnostic that she is missing a feed gets routed to the infrastructure owner. The infrastructure owner who cannot tell which feeds his decision teams need has a problem you solve from the other side. The old insights buyer used to stand between them. Take both ends and you work where that layer used to, with a better view than either buyer has alone.

The structure is right and most firms cannot staff it yet. A seller and a success manager at one end, a diagnostic advisor at the other, all running the same fluency in how a firm decides, aimed at different decisions. Most idea-led firms have a few rainmakers and a deep bench of expertise with no commercial habit. Asking a firm to stand up two or three commercial roles where it has one and a half is a rebuild. The question the map opens and does not answer is which firms ever had a sales capability, and which only had a buyer with a budget for decks that is now gone.

That question sorts the firms, and the sort will be uncomfortable, because most of this industry never had to find out which one it was. Now it does.

Share

If you run an idea-led firm, three decisions to make now:

1. Pick your position. Are you the input that feeds the platform, the platform itself, or the judgment that turns data into a decision? Each is a real business. None is the deck you sell today.

2. Make your ICP and your proof match it. The clients and the evidence that win you work as an input firm will not win you work as a decision firm. Know who you are built for now, and whether your track record proves you can do it.

3. Pressure-test your GTM. Do you have the staff and the enablement to run the position you picked, or only the habit of selling the old deliverable?

Bossey helps idea-led firms pick that position and build the commercial structure it needs.

I have been selling since I was a teenager. My first job was telemarketing subscriptions to Newsday, calling people at their kitchen tables at the worst possible hour and asking them to take the paper. After college I sold insurance. Then I became a stockbroker. Every one of those jobs was basically the same act. I picked up the phone, called someone who had not asked to hear from me, and tried to make something happen while they were on the line with me. I made a living that way, sometimes a good one. The work was uncomfortable in a way I understood completely, because the discomfort and the income were the same thing. If you could stand to be in the moment with a stranger who would rather hang up, you got paid.

Early in my research career the method started to change, and at first it looked like nothing more than getting smarter. The unannounced call became the voicemail you left when nobody picked up. The voicemail became the email, which you could send to twenty people in the time one call used to take. The email became the LinkedIn message, then the LinkedIn post, then the comment under someone else’s post, then the repost of your own thing with a fresh line on top. Each step felt like an improvement. More scalable. More respectful of people’s time. More modern. Less intrusive. And each step put a little more distance between me and the person on the other end, until the person on the other end was no longer on any end at all, because nobody was on a line, nobody was in a room, nobody was across a table with their guard up and their problem live in front of them.

What I was removing, one comfortable step at a time, was friction. The friction of catching a person in real time, of being there while their tension and their resistance and their real situation were live and unresolved, of having to do something useful with all of it while they watched me try. I told myself I was removing inefficiency. I was removing the selling. The live moment you cannot schedule or edit or take back was the work itself, and over the years I engineered it out of my own days and called every removal an upgrade.

That is the part the two erosion pieces did not get to. I argued that the slow-accumulation model is structurally finished, that the market got more crowded while demand thinned and attention collapsed, that preference is built in real time at the moment a problem surfaces rather than deposited over years of showing up. All of that is true. But structural arguments explain why a thing stopped working. They do not explain why we keep doing it anyway, why people who can read the numbers still give their best hours to a machine that has already been declared dead, and that answer has nothing to do with structure. The asynchronous version of selling is the most comfortable way to spend a working life that anyone has ever built, and comfort does not care whether it works.

The tools were made to keep us comfortable. The like, the notification, the small number climbing through the day, all of it was engineered by people who understood human reward better than we understood our own pipelines, and we took that machinery, built to hold the attention of a person scrolling on a couch, and wired it straight into our commercial lives and started reading its outputs as if they told us something about whether the business would grow. A post does well and you feel the business is doing well. A strong week of engagement and you feel covered, protected, like the future is being handled. None of those feelings connect to one decision anyone made to hire you, but they arrive on schedule and they feel like progress, and a feeling that arrives on schedule will beat a truth that arrives rarely every time.

The structure around it makes the comfort easy to defend. A posting cadence is a calendar you can keep. A content plan is a thing you can finish. You can measure impressions and followers and engagement, walk into a quarterly review, show a chart that goes up, and everyone in the room understands the chart and nobody asks the only question that matters, which is whether any of it caused a single person to pick up the phone with money in their hand. Activity gives you a scoreboard. Selling gives you a verdict. Offered a game you can always feel like you are winning and a game that tells you the truth about yourself a few times a quarter, the human animal takes the scoreboard, builds a whole professional identity on the scoreboard, and calls that identity marketing.

That is how the selling became marketing without anyone deciding it should. No firm held a meeting and resolved to stop selling. What happened was quieter. The people who should have been in front of live problems started producing content instead, the content felt like outreach, the outreach felt respectful and modern and non-intrusive, and slowly the whole commercial motion moved out of conversations and into the feed, where it could be planned and scheduled and measured and admired, and where it would never have to survive contact with a person who could say no. The firm kept its marketing function and let its sales function thin into a posting habit, and because everyone in the industry was doing the same thing at the same time, the disappearance of selling looked like the arrival of strategy.

I am describing myself. The teenager who could call a stranger at dinner grew into an operator with a cadence and a calendar and a set of climbing numbers and a clean tired feeling at the end of a day in which he had reached no one, asked nothing, and risked less than he had risked on his first afternoon dialing for Newsday. The sleep was pleasant. That is the thing nobody says about it. There was no failure of effort, I was working constantly. The effort had been routed away from the only place it could ever have done anything, which is the moment a real person with a real problem is deciding in real time whom to trust with it.

That moment has not changed. It is still synchronous, it still costs what it always cost, it happens between two people who are present to each other, it cannot be scheduled or edited or taken back, it will sometimes end in a no you feel in your body, and no tool removes that, because the thing that makes the moment uncomfortable is the thing that makes it the moment. The work in a sale was always at the front, in finding the trigger and earning the conversation and building the thing together before anyone talks about terms, and the front is the part that asks you to be awake and present and exposed, which is the part the feed let me avoid for years.

The two prior pieces argued that erosion no longer works. The harder question is whether you are willing to put the friction back, to give up the thing that feels like work for the thing that is work, to tolerate the live moment again after years of being soothed by the asynchronous one, to look at the chart that goes up and feel how little it tells you. I do not think most people will. The sleep is too comfortable, the waking is too costly, and the whole industry is dreaming the same dream at the same time, which is what makes it feel like something other than a dream. The firms that grow from here are the ones that pick the phone back up, in whatever form the phone now takes, and the rest will keep posting into a room where no one has been on the other end for a long time.

Share

Three things you can do from here:

• Forward it to one person who’d argue with you about it.

• Reply and tell me where I’m wrong. I read every reply.

• Work with us. Bossey is where we do this with firms directly.

Full essays every Tuesday. Short versions on LinkedIn: Choose Growth | Relentlessly.

Almost every commercial strategy idea-led firms have run for the last twenty years rests on the same unspoken assumption. Publish consistently, show up consistently, accumulate recognition consistently, and eventually the right prospects will think of you when the right problem surfaces. Content programs run on this assumption. Brand programs run on it. Thought leadership runs on it. Sales enablement runs on it. The whole apparatus of marketing investment at professional services and research and advisory firms is built on the belief that preference is a deposit that accumulates in the prospect’s mind over time, and that the firm’s job is to keep making the deposits.

The assumption is no longer true.

Subscribe now

I wrote recently about why the slow-accumulation model of building preference no longer works, and why the firms that are growing right now are the ones choosing precision over patience. That piece ended at the door. This one walks through it. The question I did not answer there was the one that matters most. If erosion does not work, and broadening makes it worse, what is the actual mechanism by which a clear firm gets in front of the right prospect at the right moment. The structural answer came into focus for me through a Substack note by Alex M H Smith, which put the market dynamics in front of me in a way that made the rest of the argument follow.

Smith’s point is that the market is cumulative. Every year more firms get added to the pool. Very few leave. The supply of firms keeps climbing while the demand for firms falls, because geography no longer bounds anyone and a single operator can now serve customers internationally, which means the number of firms required to meet the same volume of need keeps shrinking. More supply. Less demand. No boundaries. The picture he draws is of a market that does not behave anything like the one most of us learned to operate in, where commercial intuitions formed in the nineties and the two-thousands no longer track reality.

Put that against the deposit model and the model collapses. The deposit model requires the prospect to be capable of accumulating presence over time in a field of manageable size. In a cumulative market with collapsed attention and AI-saturated information environments and a noise floor that keeps rising, the prospect is not accumulating anything. The prospect is being pushed in the opposite direction, into pattern fatigue, into noise tolerance, into a default posture of filtering everything out except what is directly relevant in the moment. The publishing program that was supposed to build presence is producing presence into a void.

The overcorrection is to say preference does not exist. That is silly. Preference is real. Firms do live in the minds of prospects. Some firms are recognizable, recommended, recalled. Mindshare exists for some firms in some markets. Preference is not gone. The mechanism most firms believe creates it does not work for most of them. Preference exists for a small number of firms already advantaged by scale, history, network position, or category leadership, and the publishing programs those firms run get the credit for preference that was largely produced by other forces. For everyone else, and that is most firms reading this, the broad publishing program does not produce the preference it promises. It produces motion that looks like it might produce preference if it ran long enough. It will not.

When preference does form, something different is happening from what the deposit model assumes, and once you see it the rest of the argument follows.

Preference is not built over time in the prospect’s mind. Preference is built in real time at the moment the prospect needs it.

The prospect is not running a background accumulation process. The prospect is doing their own work, dealing with their own problems, ignoring the noise. When something inside their organization forces the question of who solves this, a trigger fires, and the prospect does real-time work. They surface the firms they can remember. They search. They prompt an answer engine. They ask a colleague. They form an impression on the spot, fast, under pressure, drawing on whatever evidence is reachable in the minutes and hours and days that the trigger gives them. The preference is constructed at the trigger moment from materials that happen to be available, not retrieved fully formed from long-term memory. This is closer to how decision science says humans actually make decisions under pressure than the folk theory of accumulating brand impressions ever was, and it is now closer to how the commercial environment actually works.

That changes what the firm is doing between triggers. The firm is not building preference. The firm is putting evidence into the world that prospects can find and assemble into a preference fast when their moment comes. That is the work, and it is a smaller and more concrete job than the broad-field accumulation the old model demanded. You publish so that there is something to find. You distribute so that the evidence reaches the people likely to surface options at the trigger moment. You are clear at the source so that both human searchers and answer engines can route the right person to you when the moment comes. None of that is preference accumulation. All of it is preference construction infrastructure.

Triggers also do not only fire from inside the prospect’s organization. Triggers can be created by the firm. A prospect has a gap. The gap is real. It is producing some level of cost, friction, missed opportunity, or risk inside the organization right now. But nobody has put words around the gap that make it visible. The people who feel it have not connected it to the people who can act on it. The cost is being absorbed as normal background. The gap exists. The tension is dormant. The trigger has not fired because no one has framed the situation in a way that demands a response.

The firm’s job, when it is operating well, is to bring the frame that makes the dormant tension visible. To take a real condition that real organizations are absorbing and reformulate it as a specific, costly gap that demands an answer. When that frame reaches the right person at the right moment, the dormant tension goes active. The conversation that was not happening starts happening. The leadership question that was not being asked gets asked. The trigger fires, not because the world produced it, but because the firm produced it.

This is the work the published frame is actually doing. Not building general awareness. Not adding to the firm’s background presence. Identifying a specific tension the prospect did not know they had, in language clear enough that once the prospect sees it they cannot unsee it. That is a much higher bar than what most idea-led firms have set for their publishing. Generic thought leadership does not surface tensions because it does not have to. It just has to be vaguely relevant and consistently present. Diagnostic publishing has to do real intellectual work. It has to identify a condition the prospect is actually living with, describe it accurately enough that the prospect recognizes themselves in it, and frame it clearly enough that the prospect cannot absorb it as normal anymore. That requires the firm to know something about its market that the market does not yet know about itself, which is exactly the kind of work idea-led firms are supposed to be good at and which most of their marketing programs never get near because the marketing programs are organized around volume rather than insight.

The sales function changes too, and the change is harder than the marketing change, because sales is the function that takes the diagnostic frame into specific organizations and uses it in real conversations.

The old sales function reached out to qualified prospects and tried to move them through a buying process. The new sales function reaches out to organizations the firm has identified as likely carriers of a specific dormant tension, and the opening move of the conversation is not a pitch and not a qualification question. The opening move is a diagnostic observation. Here is what we are seeing in firms that look like yours. Here is the cost of the gap you are absorbing. Here is the question we think your leadership should be asking that they probably are not asking yet. That is a different conversation. It requires the seller to be working from real intellectual ammunition rather than a deck. It requires the seller to be willing to be wrong out loud in front of the prospect, because the diagnostic might miss. It requires the seller to have done their own work on the gap, not to have memorized a script.

The deeper problem with most of the advice idea-led firms are getting right now is that the diagnosis is structural and the prescription is behavioral. The market has shifted structurally. The response on offer is that partners should commit more time to business development, post more on LinkedIn, send more useful information to clients, log more activities. None of that responds to what has actually changed. Behavioral adjustment inside an obsolete commercial model produces visible motion and no structural result. The conditions producing the pressure are not behavioral. The conditions are structural. The response has to be structural too.

Stop running publishing programs designed to build broad presence. They are no longer doing the job you imagine they are doing. The market is too dense, the noise floor is too high, and the supply of presence has exceeded the prospect’s capacity to accumulate any of it. Whatever preference you have today is largely the residue of work you did under different conditions, and it is not being meaningfully extended by what you are publishing now.

Choose the set of organizations you are actually going to serve. Not the broad market you imagine you could serve. Not the long list of plausible prospects. The specific set where you have done enough thinking about the gap they carry that you can put clear words around it, and where you have enough relationship surface to detect when their triggers fire. The set is smaller than you want it to be. That is the point.

Build the firm’s intellectual operation around diagnostic frames. What is the tension your chosen set is absorbing. What is the question their leadership is not yet asking. What is the cost of the gap. The published work, the sales conversations, the proposals, the delivered engagements all have to be expressions of the same diagnostic capability operating at different temperatures. The firm has one engine. The engine runs hot when a trigger is active and cool when it is not. Same engine.

Put sales back at the front of the commercial discipline, because sales is the function closest to the moment the prospect does real-time preference work. Marketing supports sales by putting the diagnostic frames into the world that the seller will use and the prospect will surface. Marketing does not lead the commercial operation anymore. Marketing serves it.

The shape of the response is a choice. A tight ICP. A clear value proposition. A smaller commercial team built around two roles. An influence function, a person or a small group, whose job is to produce the diagnostic frames that are in the world when the trigger fires or that produce the trigger on contact. And strategic sellers who take those frames into specific organizations and use them. In a smaller firm, both roles fold into a single strong commercial executive, which is the person the previous essay was describing. In a larger firm, the two roles separate, but the leadership of the commercial operation stays with a sales-first executive, because sales is the function closest to the moment the prospect actually decides. The influence work serves that leadership. It does not run parallel to it. That is the structural reorganization. It does not require years. It requires the firm to decide. The firms that decide will operate from a different ground than the firms that do not.

The market has changed structurally. The response has to be structural too. That is the unglamorous answer. It is also the right one.

Share

Recognition isn’t movement.

If something in this essay landed, book a working session. 45 minutes. Your situation. A clearer move out.

Growth is a choice. So is doing something about it.

Have questions? Message me.

I was scrolling through LinkedIn the other day and stopped to actually look at what was in front of me. I do not normally do this because I am, by any honest measure, a content whore. I read everything. I ingest posts and articles and newsletters and threads at a pace that probably is not healthy. And yet there I was, scrolling through my feed and realizing that almost none of it was readable. Post after post of recycled frameworks and warmed-over takes and the same five hooks rearranged in slightly different orders. The question that came to me was not why is this so bad. It was who is reading all of this. The honest answer is no one. Not really. Not in any way that matters. And if no one is reading it then what exactly are we doing it for.

The entire B2B marketing apparatus is built on the assumption that the content is doing something. That the posts are reaching someone. That the impressions and the clicks and the engagement add up to something commercially meaningful. Anyone who has spent time inside that machine knows most of it is just motion. Firms feeding platforms because feeding platforms is what firms do now. The output gets measured in activity rather than in anything resembling commercial progress.

The structure itself is the problem.

Most B2B firms have been trained to think about growth as two separate problems sitting next to each other, marketing on one side and sales on the other, content and campaigns feeding the top of a funnel and outreach and proposals closing things at the bottom. The whole apparatus has become so familiar that nobody questions whether it is the right structure for the kind of business they are actually running. It works for companies selling commodities, or products where the buyer already knows what they need and is comparing options on price and feature. It breaks down for the kind of firm that sells thinking, judgment, advice, research, strategy, or anything where the real product is a way of seeing a problem the client did not fully understand before they met you.

Those firms are not selling a service. They are selling belief, and trust, and a different way of looking at something. The commercial work is not to generate leads and push them through stages until they convert. It is to move the right people from not knowing you exist to recognizing that you understand something important, and eventually trusting that judgment enough to act on it.

The default way that movement happens is erosion. You show up consistently over months and years. You wear down the prospect’s lack of awareness. You wear down their assumption that they do not have the problem you solve. Eventually some of them come around. This works the way water eventually shapes rock, which is to say slowly, indifferently, and without any guarantee that the right rock is being shaped. Most firms cannot afford the timeline. Most of the work the market is doing during that erosion is just trying to figure out who you are and whether you matter to them. That is wasted work, and it is wasted because the firm itself never did the work to make those answers obvious.

The alternative is not more patience. It is precision. A firm that knows exactly who it is, what problem it owns, and who specifically has that problem does not need to wear the market down. The right prospects recognize themselves on contact. The story does in one encounter what erosion would have done in a year, because the work of recognition has already been done by the firm before the prospect ever shows up.

Founders and leadership teams want results and do not have the patience for erosion. If you want results you have to make a choice, and the choice is the part most firms will not make.

You cannot bullshit yourself into expanding the market to feel safer. The instinct, when growth is not happening, is to broaden. Add a service line. Soften the positioning. Talk to more kinds of buyers. Become palatable to a wider audience. This feels like commercial prudence and it is actually the opposite. The wider you cast, the less recognizable you become to the people who would actually buy from you, and the longer the erosion has to run before any of it produces anything. Broadening is how firms talk themselves out of clarity in the name of de-risking, and it is the single most expensive decision a leadership team can make.

You also cannot rely on a marketing machine to do the work for you. The agencies and the platforms and the content engines and the lead-gen systems are all built around activity, because activity is what they can produce reliably and what they can charge for. None of them can give you clarity about who you are and what problem you own, because that is not their job and they do not have the standing to push back on the answers when you get them wrong. The marketing machine takes whatever you give it and amplifies it, and if what you gave it was vague then what you get back is more vague at higher volume, which is exactly what my LinkedIn feed looks like.

The choice is to narrow. To decide what the firm actually believes about the problem it solves and who specifically has that problem. Not the category. The problem. Not the segment. The actual person, the actual role, the actual moment in their business where the problem becomes unavoidable. And then to commit to that, knowing you are walking away from buyers who do not fit, because the firms that try to be relevant to everyone end up being unmistakable to no one.

The second part of the choice is hiring. You need at least one dedicated commercial executive whose job is to own this system. Not a marketing manager who runs campaigns. Not a sales rep who works leads. A commercial executive who owns the whole thing, from the belief and the story through the targeting and the outreach into the sales conversations and the proposals, and who has the standing inside the firm to push back when the founder tries to broaden the positioning again or chase a deal that does not fit. Without that person the system does not get built, because founders do not have the time and consultants do not have the standing, and the work decays into activity again within a quarter.

There is no shortcut that does not involve choosing who you are not for, and there is no version of this that does not involve paying for one real person to own it. Everything else is the erosion path with extra steps, and the erosion path is too slow for any leadership team that actually wants growth.

Once those two choices are made, the commercial system gets much simpler. You are not trying to be visible to everyone. You are trying to be unmistakable to a small number of specific people. The content becomes a way of telling that story creatively and consistently. The outreach becomes accurate rather than volume-based. The sales conversations start from recognition rather than from explanation, because the prospect already knows why they are in the room. The proposal is not a closing document, it is the natural next step in a conversation that started before either of you knew the other existed.

What grows an idea-led firm is not more content, more outreach, more meetings, or more leads. It is the decision about who the firm is for, and the person inside the firm who owns that decision and protects it. The rest of the commercial system follows from those two things. Without them, nothing follows from anything, and the LinkedIn feed keeps filling up with posts that no one is reading.

Share

Three things you can do from here:

• Forward it to one person who’d argue with you about it.

• Reply and tell me where I’m wrong. I read every reply.

• Work with us. Bossey is where we do this with firms directly.

Full essays every Tuesday. Short versions on LinkedIn: Choose Growth | Relentlessly.

Years ago, when I was early in sales and interviewing for jobs I mostly did not want, a recruiter would slide a pencil across the table and ask me to sell it to him. The exercise was supposed to reveal something about sales acumen. It revealed almost nothing. The pencil on the table was a pencil. There was no firm behind it, no point of view, no reason for it to exist beyond the fact that someone had manufactured a writing instrument and someone else needed something to scribble with. The right answer, supposedly, was to ask the recruiter questions, uncover his needs, find the pain, and close. I would do some version of that. He would nod. The whole thing felt like theater performed by two people who both knew it was theater, and neither of us learned anything about whether I could actually sell.

What none of those recruiters seemed to grasp was that a pencil is not only a pencil. Not if there is an idea behind it.

A pencil can be a piece of commodity hardware, manufactured by whoever can produce it cheapest, sold by weight, indistinguishable from every other pencil in the bin. That is most pencils. Or a pencil can be the output of a firm that has thought hard about what a pencil should be. The wood it is made from and why. The hardness of the graphite and what kind of work the writer is doing with it. The weight and balance in the hand. The way the finish wears. The kind of person the pencil is for and the kind of person it is not for. The customers the firm pursues and the ones it turns away. The price it charges and the price it refuses to charge. Everything about the firm arranges itself around a specific view of what this object should be and what it should do for the person using it.

Two pencils. Same SKU on the surface. Completely different firms behind them. One firm is organized around production. The other is organized around an idea. The pencil is incidental. What it tells you about the firm is everything.

This is the distinction that matters for any firm trying to figure out what it actually is, and the distinction the AI moment is about to force on every firm whether it wants the question or not. Most firms call themselves idea-led because their output carries ideas. A research firm sells reports. A consulting firm sells strategy. A creative shop sells campaigns. The deliverable contains ideas, so the firm describes itself accordingly, and the term becomes a category description of what comes out of the building rather than a statement about what is happening inside it.

An idea-led firm is something different and more demanding. It is a firm where the idea is the operating center. The thing the firm is organized around, protects, sequences everything else behind. Hiring, pricing, qualification, who the firm works with and who it does not, what the work looks like and what it refuses to look like. The idea is upstream of all of it. The output is downstream. The pencil is the output. The idea is what the firm is for.

This is why the pencil firm can be idea-led and the research firm can fail to be. If the pencil firm has a real conviction about what a pencil should be and the firm is organized around that conviction, the firm is idea-led even though its output is a piece of wood with graphite inside. If the research firm has a methodology, a delivery process, a utilization model, and a sales motion that grinds through clients and produces documents, the firm is production-led even though every deliverable is full of ideas. The reports contain ideas. The firm is not organized around them. The ideas are whatever the methodology turns out this quarter. Strip the methodology and the firm has nothing. Strip the ideas and the firm is unchanged. That tells you where the operating center actually is.

The production-led firm is organized around the engine that turns hours into invoices. The methodology is the most visible artifact of that organization. It is what gets put in front of the client, what gets trained into new hires, what gets refined in the off-sites. It is the firm’s substance, in the sense that if you took it away, the firm would not know how to operate. A research firm whose methodology is the heart of the pitch is a production firm. A consulting firm whose framework slide is the heart of the pitch is a production firm. The framework is the production system rendered visible, and the visibility is exactly what tells you where the firm is organized.

This worked for decades and worked well. The production-led firm was a real and rational business. The cost of producing thought-intensive deliverables was high, the labor was expensive, the coordination was expensive, the production cycles were long. A firm that could build a reliable engine to do this work at quality, at margin, at scale, had a real moat. Clients paid for the engine. They paid for the certainty that a team of trained people running a refined methodology would produce a defensible deliverable on a predictable timeline. The ideas inside were part of the value, but the engine was the actual product. The engine was what justified the price.

The economics of that engine are now collapsing.

The production layer is what AI is eating first and fastest. The synthesis of source material, the structuring of analysis, the drafting of findings, the building of frameworks, the production of slides and reports and decks and recommendations, all of this was the work the engine was built to do. It was expensive because it required trained people working in coordinated teams over weeks. It is becoming cheap because a single competent operator with the right tools can now produce the same artifacts in days or hours. The labor that used to be the firm’s substance is becoming the firm’s overhead.

When production cost goes to zero, the firm whose operating center was production has nothing to charge for. The methodology that used to be a moat becomes documentation. The engine that used to justify the price becomes an expense the client can replicate or replace. The deliverable that used to take six weeks and a team becomes something a client’s internal operator can produce on a Thursday afternoon with a good prompt and a clear question. The firm can keep selling the engine, but the price is going where the cost is going.

This is happening already and it is happening unevenly. The firms that feel it first are the ones whose engines were most replicable, whose methodologies were most generic, whose deliverables were most templated. The firms that feel it next are the ones whose engines were more refined but still production-led, where the methodology was real but the operating center was still the production of the artifact rather than the conviction underneath it. The firms that feel it last are the ones with strong reputations and deep relationships, where the engine is still the operating center but the relationship subsidy covers the gap for a while. The subsidy runs out. The structural pressure does not.

The question the production-led firm has not had to answer before is the one the AI moment is putting on the table now. What is the firm actually selling. For decades the answer was the engine. The engine produced ideas, and the ideas had value, but the engine was the business. Now the engine is collapsing in cost and therefore collapsing in price. What is left is the part of the firm that exists upstream of the engine. The judgment, the point of view, the conviction about what is true and what the client should do. The firms that have this as their operating center already are getting stronger. The firms that have an engine and called it idea-led are getting exposed.

The test for which kind of firm you are running is uncomfortable and direct. What would the firm refuse to do for money. What clients would it turn away. What scopes would it decline. What hires would it not make even with the headcount budget approved. What revenue would it leave on the table to protect what it actually is. If the answer is nothing meaningful, the firm is not idea-led, whatever the website says. The idea is marketing language layered on top of an operating system organized around something else. If the answer is real and specific and costs the firm money, the firm is idea-led, and the category of the output is incidental. The pencil firm and the research firm can both pass the test or both fail it. The test is about the operating center, not the SKU.

The production-led firm has three options from here. Deny what is happening and ride the engine down. Compete on engine efficiency by adopting AI faster than its peers and chasing margin in a deflating market, which is a race to a smaller version of the same business. Or move the operating center. Stop being a firm organized around production and become a firm organized around the idea, where the production is downstream of conviction rather than upstream of it.

The third move is harder than it sounds because it is not a marketing change. The firm does not become idea-led by writing different copy on the website. The firm becomes idea-led by reorganizing what it protects, what it sequences, what it refuses, who it hires, how it prices, what it sells and what it stops selling. The production engine has to stop being the center. Something else has to take its place. Most production-led firms do not know what that something else is for them, because they have never had to know. The engine answered the question. When the engine cannot answer it anymore, the firm has to find an actual answer or admit it does not have one.

The recruiters were asking the wrong question all those years ago. The right question is not whether you can sell the pencil. The right question is whether the pencil came from a firm with an idea at its center or a firm with a production line at its center. One is going to be worth more in five years than it is today. The other is going to be worth less, possibly nothing, possibly already is.

Bossey works with idea-led firms, and the ones who want to be.

Share

We work in three movements. Ideation defines the idea at the core of the business. Influence shapes who it is for and how it travels. Impact builds the sales and enablement systems that turn the idea into value.

Learn more at Bossey.com.