I’ve been in the professional world for three decades now and I can tell you, unequivocally, that isn’t the case.

I first started to notice this reality a decade or so ago. I walked into a board meeting with plans to restructure the department I had taken over. By that time I had earned the respect of the Board, because our company was performing well and our growth was turning heads. My restructuring plan made sense on paper. I had all the right people moving into the right roles for their skill set. The whole plan was well laid out and explained in excruciating detail, all the data validated that the changes were needed, and every objection I could think of was pre-answered before anyone could raise it.

Then one board member, infamous for their “if it ain’t broken don’t fix it” advice made a comment that shifted the entire discussion in a completely different direction and my restructuring plan got glossed over. It was only months later, months of lost momentum, before I could get the discussion reignited and approved.

The same thing happened to me this week.

I was in a meeting with our senior executives discussing a key initiative and the business case I was writing to support that initiative. One of the executives called out a top competitor as the biggest threat to our customers. Everyone agreed with their summary.

Here’s the unheard part - about a year ago I sent out an internal memo, full of data, attempting to get my company to wake up to that exact threat.

No one cared until someone with a bigger title than mine said it, who said it better than my memo ever could.

The Reality Check: the room doesn’t remember your best idea. It remembers your shortest sentence. I had attempted to use a document to catch everyone’s attention. The other executive used one ultra clear statement.

For most of my career, advocating for myself meant proving I’d done the work. More context. More caveats. More evidence that I deserved the floor. It felt responsible. It was actually just noise with good intentions. The people who get heard in a room aren’t the ones who explain the most. They’re the ones who’ve already done the explaining somewhere else, so all that’s left to say is the one true sentence.

Here’s the version I use now, built the hard way: state the ask, back it with one number, stop talking. That’s it. No throat-clearing, no “just to give some context first.” If I can’t say my point in one breath, I don’t understand it well enough yet to be in the room.

I’m 52. Close enough to retirement that I can see it, just barely, ahead on my career roadmap. That stretch people call the twilight of a career, though I’ve come to think of it less as an ending and more as a change in what you’re optimizing for. For twenty years, adding was the instinct. Add a credential, add a data point, add a skill. Now the instinct has quietly reversed. I don’t want to prove anything else. I want to say the true thing plainly and let it stand on its own.

Coincidently, that conversation, the twilight of a person’s career, is what Todd and I talked about while recording a new episode of the Sunday Unedited podcast (we are still recording the first ten episodes; make sure you are subscribed to be able to listen when they are released).

Todd’s a few years ahead of me and recently went through a huge career change. Not entirely unlike mine from about seven months ago. So, for him, its the perfect time to be re-evaluating what he wants out of his career. Because this could be his last big push. His last chance to have a real impact, both for the work he does, himself, and his family.

Without spoiling the episode, it will be on the back end of episode #1 when released, we agreed that what a person wants out of their career, in the twilight of that career, is completely different than what they typical want in the dawn of that same career.

I know that’s spot on for me. Like most career aggressive young men, I wanted all the things when my career was starting out. Big responsibilities, big title, big income. The more my skill set grew, the more I accomplished some pretty big things, the more I wanted.

But, that’s not what I want anymore. To be fair, I’m not saying I would pass on big opportunities (😉). I’m saying that all of that isn’t the goal anymore. What I really want is simplicity.

That’s the part nobody tells you about getting older: simplicity stops being a nice idea and starts being the actual goal. Not less ambition. Less padding. The same discipline that makes a GTM plan work, cutting everything that isn’t the mechanism, is the discipline that gets you heard in a boardroom, and it’s the same discipline that makes a life feel like yours instead of a performance of having it together.

You don’t get handed the microphone. You earn it by saying less than everyone else in the room, and meaning every word of it.

Her mother and I had met him before. A few times. But this was different. This was the whole family in one room, plates of food, everyone taking turns getting a read on him. At some point he and I peeled off for a few minutes. Just the two of us. I told him what I expect. He listened. It didn’t take long.

Later, sitting back with everyone, I noticed something. Everyone in that room was being themselves. Nobody was performing. But everyone was still leaving things out. Things they thought. Things they could have said. Things that didn’t need saying.

That’s been the whole week for me, actually. Cutting things out.

This week’s unedited thought: the hardest part of writing isn’t generating more. It’s having the nerve to remove what you already wrote.

I spent this week deep in business plans and pitch decks. One session was with coworkers, working through a stretch of my writer’s block. I wasn’t stuck because I didn’t have enough to say. I was stuck because I had too much, and I was struggling to contain my writer’s bloat.

The lesson that came out of that session was simple. Anything that doesn’t move the document forward, or the conversation forward, doesn’t belong in it.

I know this lesson. I’ve known it for years. And I still fight it every time.

My natural instinct, especially with fundraising documents, is to be exhaustive. Cover everything. Answer every objection before it’s asked. I tell myself it’s thoroughness. Really it’s fear. Fear of leaving the reader with a question I didn’t answer.

But here’s what that fear misses: a pitch deck was never supposed to close the deal. Its only job is to earn you the next conversation. The one where an investor actually digs in. You don’t win a term sheet on slide 14. You win it in the six weeks of diligence that come after. Load the deck with everything and you’ve just buried the one slide that would’ve gotten you there.

Less isn’t a compromise. Less is the strategy.

Turns out the same is true with boyfriends.

There’s no version of that conversation where I needed to say more than I said. My daughter doesn’t need a transcript of every worry I’ve ever had about her, her choices, or her future. She’s an adult. My job isn’t to write her story for her. It’s to set a few borders, say what actually matters, and trust her with the rest. Because she’s earned that trust with her decisions to date. Besides, by all appearances he’s a great choice.

A massive advice dump isn’t love. It’s noise dressed up as fear. One or two things, said clearly, land. Everything past that just gets tuned out, the same way an investor tunes out slide 14.

I understand this instinctively when it comes to go-to-market strategy. I’ve watched it play out for years. I just hadn’t clocked that it applies to fatherhood too.

Look at the market right now. Go-to-market firms are raising enormous amounts of capital. On the surface, that reads like a GTM story: the category is hot, budgets are flowing, everyone wants in.

That’s not actually the story.

The real story is that in a noisy market, the companies who can cut down to one true signal are the ones winning the capital. Every founder is pitching more surface area, more features, more everything. The ones raising the big rounds are usually saying less, and saying it better. Greg McKeown wrote a whole book on this idea and called it Essentialism, and I think about it more than almost any other business book I’ve read.

Less, done well, beats more, done thoroughly. Every time.

Whether I’m helping a company sharpen its go-to-market strategy or sitting across from the kid my daughter brought home, my job is the same. I’m not the author. I’m the editor. The story is already being written by someone else, and it’s not mine to take over.

My job is to trust what’s already been decided, and cut my own instinct to over-explain, over-warn, and over-parent the room.

The best editors and the best fathers do the same thing. They say less, and they trust the story to hold.

A few months ago, my friend Chris Marr, who runs The Question First Group, wrote something that stopped me mid-scroll.

An opportunity had landed on his desk. The kind his company would have said yes to a month earlier, no questions asked. This time, one of the owners turned it down. Wrong fit. Not the niche they’d chosen. Not the direction they were building toward.

One sentence. And I could not stop thinking about it, because I could not have done what that owner did.

I say yes to everything. I know exactly why.

That same week, I called my friend Tom. Thirty seconds into the call, I could hear it. That low grade burnout hum in his voice. He described his week like a man trying to catch six things falling off a shelf at once. Arms everywhere. Nothing caught.

I was not in a position to help him. I was living his week.

I had admitted the same thing to myself that same morning, for maybe the fifth time that year. I cannot say no.

Back in June, I had announced a summer sabbatical from my side projects. Step back. Simplify. Breathe. It lasted three weeks. Three genuinely great weeks, no inbox anxiety, no chasing “just one more opportunity.”

Then I got restless, and restlessness always disguises itself as productivity. I called it strategic planning and got back to work. I looked at where my side income actually came from and found that ninety five percent of it traced back to two channels, out of a dozen things I was spending time on. The math was obvious. Stop touching the other ten.

The next day I got offered a five thousand dollar a month opportunity sourced through one piece of unrelated content. I canceled the sabbatical. I said yes.

Within forty eight hours, I regretted it. Not because the work was bad. Because I had been untrue to what I had just decided mattered.

I have spent my career building companies. I have run capital efficiency audits on startups burning cash without moving the needle. It took me an embarrassingly long time to turn that same audit on myself.

This guide is that audit, rebuilt for a person instead of a company.

The Premise

Companies burn cash without ever finding product market fit. People burn time and energy the exact same way, and almost nobody names it that plainly.

Runway is not just a company metric. It is personal too. It is how much capacity you have left before something breaks, whether that something is your business, your health, or your patience with the people who love you.

I built a Capital Efficiency Scorecard for the founders I advise. Five categories, a weight, a score, a total. It tells them the truth about their business faster than a board meeting ever could.

This is that same scorecard, aimed inward.

Five categories. A weight. A score. A total. Twenty minutes of honesty, and you will know exactly where your leak is.

The Five Categories

I. Time Payback

What it measures: how long before a commitment starts paying you back, instead of just costing you.

In business, we track CAC payback: how many months of revenue it takes to recover what you spent acquiring a customer. Anything that pays back too slowly gets cut, no matter how good it felt to win.

I have said yes to opportunities that never paid me back in anything. Not money, not energy, not meaning. I kept them anyway because quitting felt like admitting I was wrong to start.

Score 1 to 5. A 1 means something in your life has been a pure drain for months with no sign of turning. A 5 means most of what you carry starts paying you back quickly and keeps paying.

Ask yourself: What is something you said yes to recently that still has not paid you back?

II. Energy Retention

What it measures: whether the things already in your life sustain themselves, or whether they collapse the moment you stop forcing them.

Net revenue retention tells a founder whether the business grows on its own, without new sales spend propping it up every quarter. It is the difference between a business and a treadmill.

I have built relationships, routines, and side projects that only existed because I kept white knuckling them. The second I let go, they were gone. That is not commitment. That is life support.

Score 1 to 5. A 1 means everything falls apart the moment you stop pushing. A 5 means most things run without you forcing them.

Ask yourself: What in your week would collapse in a month if you stopped forcing it?

III. Margin

What it measures: after the real cost of a commitment, time, stress, favors owed, how much is actually left over for you.

Gross margin tells you what is left to fund the rest of the business after the cost of delivering the product. Most people never calculate their personal version of this number, which is exactly why they are always tired and never sure why.

Score 1 to 5. A 1 means you are underwater on almost everything you do. A 5 means most of what you carry leaves you with real surplus, not just survival.

Ask yourself: Where are you spending more of yourself than you are getting back, and calling it normal?

IV. Burn Rate

What it measures: how much of yourself you are burning for every unit of visible progress.

A burn multiple over one point five is a red flag for any company I audit. It means you are torching cash faster than you are creating value. People run the same broken math with sleep, patience, and presence, and nobody flags it because there is no board meeting for a life.

Score 1 to 5. A 1 means you are burning hard for almost no output. A 5 means your pace is sustainable and your output actually matches what you are spending to get it.

Ask yourself: If your energy were a bank account, are you overdrawn right now?

V. Compounding Investment

What it measures: whether the time you invest in yourself is actually building on itself, or just occupying you.

R&D to revenue tells a company whether its investment in new features is producing proportional growth, or whether it is time to kill the project. I ask founders this question constantly. I rarely ask it about my own year.

Score 1 to 5. A 1 means you are busy, but nothing you are doing is building on anything else. A 5 means this year is clearly building on last year, and next year will build on this one.

Ask yourself: What are you doing right now purely because it feels productive, not because it is actually building toward something?

The Scorecard

Fill this in honestly. Nobody sees it but you.

Under 2.5: You are in what I call the Bridge Round Trap, personally. You are surviving quarter to quarter, saying yes to whatever shows up because it is easier than sitting still long enough to see the leak.

2.5 to 3.5: Functional, but leaking. You are not in crisis. You are also not getting the return you should be, given what you are putting in.

3.5 and up: A genuinely efficient operator. Rare. Worth protecting, not just celebrating.

The Ego Tax

I have run growth audits where the biggest problem was never the market. It was the founder. A third of their engineering time was going toward features nobody asked for, built because the founder wanted them, not because the business needed them.

People do the exact same thing with their lives. We keep commitments alive that serve nothing, because ending them would mean admitting we were wrong to start them.

I did not cancel my sabbatical because the five thousand dollar opportunity was good. I canceled it because sitting still long enough to actually rest felt like losing, and some part of me still needed to prove I had not lost.

That is not ambition. That is an ego tax, and it is the most expensive line item most people never audit.

The threat that built the habit is usually long gone. I have been laid off before, more than once. The last time, my daughter was nine months old and we had nothing saved. I told myself never again, and spent the next decade building like I was still standing in that kitchen with an empty bank account.

We are not wealthy, but we are financially secure now. We could absorb a real income gap without blinking. The threat is gone. The reflex is not. That gap between the two is where the tax gets paid, every single week, usually without your permission.

The Action

Before you say yes to anything new, run it through these three questions.

1. Does this touch one of the things that actually drives results for me, or does it just feel productive?

2. Would I say yes to this today, knowing what I know now, or only because it showed up fast?

3. Am I solving a real problem, or am I still responding to a threat that is not there anymore?

I did not ask myself these before I took that five thousand dollar a month deal. I already knew what the answer would have been.

One Last Thing

Chris’s co-owner did not turn that opportunity down because he was disciplined. He turned it down because he knew, with precision, what his business was and was not, and he trusted that clarity more than the dollar signs in front of him.

That is not a personality trait. It is a filter. You can build one, even if your default setting has always been yes.

Run this audit again in thirty days. The line that changes the most is the one that was lying to you the first time.

What is the one line on your scorecard you already know is lying to you?

My goal this week was to get as much time with her as I could before she started classes. She was busy: friends, going-away plans, last errands that had nothing to do with me. I got a car ride here. A family lunch picnic there. Short conversations. Fragments.

The same week, I spent multiples days working on a client’s fundraising projections and a new strategy document for how my company plans to address the opportunity around tokenized money. For the client’s financial projections, we weren’t chasing upside. We were killing it, actually. Every time a number looked good, we stopped and asked what had to be true for it to hold up. We wanted assumptions a skeptical investor or lender couldn’t take apart in the first meeting. Conservative. Defensible. Built to survive contact with reality.

Here’s the tension I realized this morning: I ran that discipline for a stranger’s business all week, and never once ran it on my own life.

The Reality Check: I had assumed I’d have more time with my daughter than I actually had.

Not because I’m careless. Because time with your kid feels like an asset with unlimited runway, right up until the week it isn’t. I never stress-tested that assumption. I never asked “what has to be true for ‘we’ll have time later’ to actually hold?” I just believed it, the same way a founder believes his best-case revenue line, because believing it is easier than sitting with the alternative.

In a data room, the whole job is finding the assumption that’s really just a hope wearing a spreadsheet’s clothes. You go line by line. Growth rate: defensible, or wishful? Payback period: real, or rounded up to make the story prettier? You protect the founder from his own optimism, because an investor will find the soft spot in thirty seconds if you don’t find it first.

I never ran that exercise on “I’ll have plenty of time with my daughter before she leaves.” I let it sit in the model, unstressed, undefended. This week, it came due, and the number I got back wasn’t the one I’d modeled. The saying I had heard, and repeated to other parents countless times is coming true. By the time they are 18 years-old you’ve spent 90% of your time with them. There are no refunds and it hurts.

This isn’t really about my daughter, or it’s not only about her. It’s about which parts of a life get the discipline and which parts get to ride on hope, because hope is more comfortable than the audit.

I already know how to do this part. I do it at work without flinching. I ask “is this number defensible, or is it just what I want to be true” because showing an investor a number you can’t back up is the kind of embarrassing you feel in your chest. Take that same discomfort somewhere it actually costs you something. The assumption that you’ll have more time with the people you love, later. Stress-test it now, while there’s still room to act on what you find.

I got a car ride and car picnic this week. Not the number I modeled. The real one.

Next time, I’m not waiting for the fundraising instinct to remind me what a bad assumption looks like. I’m running the audit on my own life first.

I was on with my friend Todd Schuchart — future podcast co-host, unofficial therapist — and somewhere in the middle of catching up, he asked me a question I didn’t have a rehearsed answer for. Something like: what are you actually running from?

I knew immediately. I just hadn’t said it out loud before.

Our daughter was nine months old the last time I got laid off. Zero savings. No other income. My wife wasn’t working yet. It remains one of the scariest stretches of my life, and I used to stand in a ring with other men who were intent on pummeling/choking me to death — so that’s saying something.

I had no idea, in that moment, that I’d land a better job within weeks. I remember the exact spot I was standing when the offer call came in: the landing on our stairs, half-turned toward our bedroom. My wife came around the corner to listen in, and the second I gave her the nod — deal’s done — she started crying right there in the hallway.

I made a promise on those stairs. Never again.

The Reality Check:

That promise is the real reason I work as hard as I do today. Not ambition. Not passion. Insurance.

I call it career insurance — and once I named it, I understood why “just chase the passion” has never once worked as advice for me.

Career insurance isn’t a savings account. It’s not a resume. It’s the sum of every proactive habit that makes you un-layoff-able — the stuff you build before you need it, so that when your role, your company, or your entire industry becomes obsolete (hi, AI 👋), you’re not standing on a staircase finding out whether the offer comes through in time.

After that layoff, I built mine on five pillars of career insurance:

• Cash runway. Not “an emergency fund” — a specific number of months you could survive at zero income, calculated, not guessed at. Today we have that and more. Back then, we had nada.

• A second income stream. Something small, something real, something that doesn’t depend on your employer’s org chart. I’m decades down the road of side hustling. It’s a small business, but it’s the fuel that built the most career insurance.

• Debt burned down. Every dollar of debt is a dollar of someone else’s leverage over your decisions. I went on a debt pay down streak…all funded by my side hustling.

• A network you maintain, not mine. People you talk to when you don’t need anything — so it’s not strange when you do. The reason I was only unemployed for a few weeks was my network. In fact, I had a job interview before I left the parking lot.

• A skill set that compounds. Not a certification. The kind of skill that makes you more valuable in a downturn, not just a boom. This one is huge. I’ve spent countless hours per week building new skills. Leveling up to stay relevant (hi, again, AI 👋).

None of these are novel. What’s novel is treating them like insurance instead of self-improvement. Insurance isn’t optional, and you don’t wait until the house is on fire to buy it.

Here’s what I didn’t expect: building career insurance didn’t make me less ambitious. My five pillars? ✅on all of them. Built up over more than a decade of being terrified I’d end up on that stairway landing again, this time without a job offer.

You would think that I’d be able to let go of my career insurance. But, I’m not. It’s engrained in who I am. The problem is—I still make decisions like I’m that same guy. Up until my call with Todd, I thought that was a bad thing. It’s not. My need for career insurance is what makes me who I am. It’s why I keep building on those five pillars even single week.

The life design version of this:

I think about this every time I’m gassed at the end of an training round and want to drop my hands or tap out. The fighters who fall apart in round three aren’t the ones with worse cardio. They’re the ones who never trained for round three — they trained to look good in round one.

Career insurance is round-three training for your income. You don’t build it in the emergency. You build it on the boring Tuesday, or in my case, I Sunday night at 9:42pm, when nothing’s wrong yet.

I still hustle. I probably always will. But I’ve stopped pretending it’s hunger.

It’s a promise I made on a staircase, to a nine-month-old who had no idea her dad was scared — and to the version of me who never wants to make his wife cry in a hallway from relief again.

Build the insurance before you need the claim.

P.S. Todd and I are in the middle of recording the opening episodes of our upcoming podcast—Sunday, Unedited. It’s an honest, transparent discussion with no script and no polish sounds interesting. Be sure you subscribe to the newsletter to get the episodes in your inbox.

I replied to a friend’s post on X this week. He had been exploring a new AI bot that sounded a lot like my first startup. Nothing more than a comment, the kind you leave and forget about thirty seconds later.

Then the bot, Boardy, replied to me.

I built my first company, GoGrabLunch, on a simple premise: put two like-minded professionals across a table with coffee between them and let the relationship do the rest. No algorithm. No agent. Just a human being who noticed you might get along with another human being, and made the connection.

Boardy is that idea with an AI running the matchmaking. It asks about you, learns what you’re building, and looks for people worth introducing you to.

The bot did slid into my DMs.

So naturally, I got on a call to see if it could do my old job.

For the first ten minutes, it was good. Genuinely good. It was honest that it was AI. It asked sharp follow-up questions, adjusted based on what I told it, and felt less like a chatbot script and more like a founder doing early customer discovery on me.

Then, near the end of the call, it froze. Not glitched, froze. It stopped responding, and I had to re-engage it myself before the conversation would move again.

You can watch the full interaction below.

Here’s the part that stuck with me more than the freeze.

I asked about pricing. It told me $100 a month, then added, almost sheepishly, that it drives a hard bargain and quickly changed the subject. You can see me smile in response.

I expected a harder close. Every AI sales demo I’ve sat through tries to close harder, not softer. Boardy did the opposite. It let the awkwardness sit there for half a second and moved on, like it trusted the product to do the convincing instead of the pitch.

That’s the part everyone building AI-native GTM is getting backwards.

The instinct, when you hand a sales motion to an AI agent, is to make it relentless. Follow up more. Push harder. Never let a lead go cold. We built the entire outbound industry on the assumption that persistence wins, and now we’re teaching bots to be persistent at superhuman scale.

Boardy’s best moment was the opposite of persistence. It was restraint. It let a slightly awkward pricing conversation be awkward, then trusted the momentum of the relationship over the momentum of the close. That’s not a bot doing sales. That’s a bot doing the thing GoGrabLunch was built on: understanding that trust compounds when you don’t force it.

Then the follow-through fell apart.

The first introduction Boardy made me wasn’t a good fit. Not close. I said so, and it told me it was adjusting its model based on my feedback. When I asked for another introduction to test whether it had actually learned anything, it told me it wanted to slow down and get the next one right.

Beyond asking me to connect my calendar, I’ve not heard from it again. I suspect that it’s using my calendar to add more data points so that the next time it makes an introduction it has my real ICP dialed in.

Restraint isn’t the same as follow-through

Here’s the reframe I keep coming back to. Restraint, on that call, built trust in about four minutes. But, the silence is spending every bit of that trust back down to zero.

Those look like the same behavior from the outside. A pause. A pullback. But one is a deliberate GTM choice, and the other is just an unfinished product wearing the same body language.

If you’re building an AI agent into your own GTM motion right now, this is the distinction that actually matters. Knowing when not to push is a real, teachable skill, and Boardy nailed it in the moment. But restraint only works as a strategy if there’s a second act. A pause that never resolves isn’t patience. It’s just a broken promise with better manners.

I’ve made this mistake with humans, not just bots. I’ve told a prospect “let me come back to you properly” and meant it, then let three weeks slide by because something louder showed up on my calendar. The intent was good. The follow-through was the actual product. Nobody remembers your intent.

That’s a speed-to-experience issue. You can’t engage a prospect, pique their interest, and then leave them hanging.

Boardy showed me what the future of GTM conversations could feel like: patient, adaptive, willing to let a moment breathe instead of forcing it. Then it showed me why most AI GTM tools aren’t ready yet. The demo can be human. The operations behind it still have to be relentless.

If you’re evaluating any AI-native GTM tool right now, don’t just test how it opens. Test what it does after the first correction you give it. That’s where you’ll find out whether you’re looking at a product or a very well-mannered prototype.

Where in your own GTM motion are you mistaking a pause for a strategy?

A founder sent me his business plan last week. Eleven pages. Clean formatting. Not a single typo.

He’d generated it in two minutes with ChatGPT.

I read it twice. Market sizing, check. Competitive landscape, check. Go-to-market section that used the word “synergy” unironically — check, unfortunately. On paper, it looked like a business plan.

It wasn’t one.

The Reality Check: AI didn’t write a business plan. It wrote about a business plan. Those are two different documents, and only one of them raises money.

Here’s the thing nobody tells founders before they open a fundraising round: a business plan isn’t really a plan. It’s a written record of a hundred decisions you already made in your head, long before you opened the laptop. Your CAC assumptions aren’t a number you looked up — they’re a number you’re braced for, because you watched one blow up a company you ran. Your churn projections aren’t optimism. They’re the specific memory of the month everything went sideways and you had to explain it to your board.

AI doesn’t have that memory. It has the internet’s memory, which is a different thing entirely. It can tell you what a good SaaS churn rate looks like. It can’t tell you what it feels like to watch yours double in a quarter and have to decide, in real time, whether to cut headcount or cut runway.

I spent 20+ years in banking and fintech. I’ve raised $800M for companies. I’ve launched over $300M in products. That’s not to brag, it’s to make a point. My first startup had members in 45 countries and I shut it down two years later — GoGrabLunch, if you want the name attached to the scar tissue. Every plan I write now has that failure sitting quietly underneath it, whether I mention it or not. It’s why I know which assumptions are the ones an investor will actually poke at. Not because I read a framework. Because I’ve been on the other side of that exact question, in that exact meeting, with worse numbers than the founder across from me thinks he has.

AI can regurgitate what’s been written about banking and fintech. It has never had to sit in a room and defend a plan it built that convinced a company to fund the largest product build in its 50+ year history. That’s a real thing I had to do. It has never had to live with the plan after the round closed, when the assumptions stop being slides and start being a payroll run.

That’s the gap. Not intelligence. Implementation.

So here’s what I actually tell founders: use AI for the parts of the plan that don’t require having lived your life. Market research — let it pull the data. Structure — let it organize your sections so you’re not staring at a blank page. Editing and grammar — let it catch the sentence you’ve read so many times you can’t see it anymore. That’s real, useful work, and I use it too.

But the story — the reason this business needs to exist, told in a way that makes an investor lean forward instead of skim — that has to come from you. Nobody can outsource the translation of the thing that’s been living in your head for two years onto a page in a way that convinces a stranger to write a check. That translation is the actual skill. Everything else is formatting.

I think about this the same way I think about training. You can hire a coach to build your program. You can have someone plan every set and rep down to the minute. Nobody can do the reps for you. The fight doesn’t care how good your plan looked on paper — it cares whether you actually did the work the plan was describing. A business plan is the same. It’s not the pitch. It’s the receipt for work you’ve already done.

So when a founder tells me AI can write their business plan in two minutes, I don’t tell them it’s wrong. I tell them it’s unfinished. The document exists. The experience behind it doesn’t — yet. And investors can always tell which one they’re reading.

If you want a plan that raises money, don’t ask what a good business plan sounds like. Ask what you’ve actually lived that nobody else in that room has.

Start there. Let AI clean up the rest.

I’ve had a handful of conversations this week about the kind of people I like to surround myself with, and they’ve all pointed toward a pattern I didn’t expect.

For years I assumed I gravitated toward men who were like me. This week I realized the opposite is true — and it’s infinitely more powerful. Sure, my closest friends and I share some common interests. But my best friends are different from me in almost every way that matters, and somehow that’s exactly why it works.

Sean

I’ve known Sean for 25 years. We’re nothing alike, physically or in personality. I’m the taller, outgoing one; Sean is quieter. He’s a badass engineer, the handy type who’s renovated his entire house from the studs up. I couldn’t change the oil on my 4Runner without a YouTube tutorial open on my phone.

We had lunch this week and got to talking about our friendship. I asked him if we’d ever had a real disagreement in 25 years. Not once. I think I know why: we’re not competing for the same ground.

Todd

Today I recorded a podcast episode with my friend Todd (more on that soon). Todd’s from Rochester, New York. I’m a Southerner — he called me a redneck today, which, is fair. Like Sean, we share a few interests, but beyond that we’re built differently. Todd is a whip-smart sales guru, second only to my older brother in my mind, and he’s willing to take risks at a level I’ve never matched.

Imagine having to shut down a business because your partner stole from you — and responding by throwing caution to the wind and chasing the next passion anyway. That’s Todd. He told me today those risks keep him up at night. But he also has complete faith he’ll figure it out, because that’s what he’s done his entire life. I wouldn’t bet against the guy.

If you’d asked me years ago, I wouldn’t have called either Sean or Todd “my type of guy.” Even with what we had in common, they didn’t initially feel like the men who’d end up as my closest friends. But it works. And I think I finally understand why.

Stephen

My other closest friend is Stephen, who I met at work when he became my boss. He was a great one. Years later, I became his boss, and working together turned into a real friendship. Stephen is easily in my top three friendships — a brother, the same way Sean is.

Stephen is Scottish by descent. He loves soccer, BBC shows, and travel above almost everything else. None of that is me. And I adore that guy anyway. The hard part is he lives across the country in San Diego, so we don’t get much time together — this past September was the first time we’d been in the same room in years, and those three or four days were glorious. They reminded me why Stephen is worth investing in for the rest of my life. He once backed me up when I was about to get in a fight — I didn’t even ask. He just lined up behind me, knowing things were about to come to blows.

Why it works

Sean, Todd, and Stephen all feel different from how I see myself. And yet they’re my closest friends in the world. Here’s what I think is actually going on:

It’s precisely because they aren’t like me that the friendships work. With almost every other guy I’ve tried to be close with, competitiveness eventually creeps in. My best friend from high school spent years essentially trying to become me — same car, same taste in women, the whole thing. On nearly every front except maybe sprint speed, where he had me beat, he couldn’t compete and I think that is what drove a wedge between us.

Sean, Todd, and Stephen don’t compete with me, and I don’t compete with them. On plenty of fronts, we simply can’t — my strengths are their weaknesses, and vice versa. We’re not fighting to be the best at the same thing. We’re bringing different things to the table.

It’s easy, in life and in business, to fall into the pattern of surrounding yourself with people just like you. It feels familiar, comfortable, safe. But it’s a trap — because people who mirror you can’t help you grow.

Sean, Todd, and Stephen were never “my type of guy.” Turns out they’re exactly the type I need — whether they’re down the road, out in Greeneville, or all the way in San Diego.

So here's the question worth sitting with: look at your closest friends. Are they there because they're comfortable, or because they make you better? If every one of them could be your reflection, you might not have a friend group — you might have an echo chamber.

Fourteen years ago, we moved into this house. When we moved in, I was making $80,000 a year. Today I make…well…a lot more than that. It hasn’t been easy. By every external measure I was chasing when I was 80K-a-year-me, I won.

If that’s true, why don’t I feel like I’ve progressed? I still catch myself standing in the same kitchen, driving the same kind of car, running the same weekly errands, wondering why none of it feels like winning.

That sentence is uncomfortable to write, because it sounds ungrateful. I know some people would trade places with me in a heartbeat. I’m not blind to that. I do question if they’d put in the same amount of work I’ve put in over that period. I doubt it.

But there’s a specific, quiet dread underneath the number-tripling — the fear that maybe I’m just bad at this. That somewhere along the way I let money slip through my hands without noticing, that a more disciplined version of me would already be somewhere else by now, and the fact that I’m not means I failed some test I didn’t know I was taking.

So, what triggered this confession? House shopping and realizing that you can’t afford the type of house you really want. The type of house you’ve saved for over the past 14-years.

I sat with that longer than I want to admit. Then I did what I actually know how to do — I pulled the data instead of trusting the feeling. And it turns out I’m not crazy, and I’m not uniquely bad at this.

There are two forces working against nearly everyone who’s had a “good” decade of earning, and almost nobody ever sees either one named out loud. One is economic. One is psychological. The second one is the part that actually stung to write, because it means the problem isn’t “out there” — it’s partly a pattern running quietly inside my own head, on repeat, for fourteen years, without my permission.

Force One: The Floor Kept Rising Under You

Start with the simple version. A dollar from 2012 buys about 69 cents of 2026 goods — cumulative inflation over that stretch is roughly 46%. That’s the baseline tax on every dollar sitting in a savings account or a fixed salary that didn’t move, or barely moved with inflation.

But headline inflation understates what actually happened to your specific expenses, because the categories that matter most to a homeowner, with a family, didn’t just track CPI — they blew past it.

Housing. The median U.S. home price rose from roughly $157,000 in 2000 to $412,000 in 2026 — a 162% nominal increase, about 35% after adjusting for inflation. If you bought before that curve steepened, you got a break on the mortgage itself, but everything attached to the house — insurance, property tax, maintenance, the contractor you call when something breaks — rode the same curve upward, in real time, every year you’ve lived there. Add to the mix that our neck of the American woods regularly makes the top ten desirable places to live list and you have a recipe for people moving in, from places with higher costs of living, and negatively impacting the housing market.

Healthcare. This is the one nobody budgets for correctly. Family health insurance premiums have surged roughly 297% since 2000. The worker’s own contribution toward that premium has nearly quadrupled over the same period — and employer surveys are projecting the steepest single-year jump in 15 years for 2026 alone, running at roughly double the general inflation rate. This is a cost that rises faster than your paycheck almost every single year, regardless of what the economy is doing. I’m lucky. The health insurance costs at my company have barely risen. Everyone else isn’t so lucky.

Wages, for most people, didn’t move. For the median American worker, real (inflation-adjusted) hourly wages today have almost exactly the same purchasing power they had in the late 1970s. That’s fifty year with no real adjustment. Zero. Real median household income barely budges year over year once you strip out inflation — in some recent years it’s actually gone slightly negative. Most of the wage gains of the last two decades have concentrated at the very top of the income distribution.

So the standard story is: costs rose, wages didn’t, and the average household is treading water. That’s real, and it’s well documented, and if that were my whole story I could write this essay, feel vindicated, and move on.

But it’s not my story, and pretending it is would be a lie by omission. I’ve received merit increases every year. My income is 3x what it was when we moved here, through a decade of effort I’m genuinely proud of, but one that has also exhausted me.

Which means the math above accounts for maybe half of what I’m feeling standing in that kitchen. The other half doesn’t have an external villain. It’s happening inside my own head, and that’s the part I almost didn’t include, because it’s a lot easier to blame the economy than to admit the gap is partly mine.

Force Two: The Treadmill You Can’t See While You’re Running On It

There’s a well-established concept in behavioral economics called hedonic adaptation — the tendency for humans to return to a stable baseline level of satisfaction after any positive (or negative) change in circumstances. Win the lottery, get the promotion, move into the bigger house: the boost is real, but it’s temporary. Within months, the upgrade isn’t an upgrade anymore. It’s just Tuesday.

Applied to income specifically, this has a name: lifestyle creep. A raise feels transformative in the moment. Spending quietly rises to match it. Within a year, the new income level is the new normal, the new spending level is the new floor, and the feeling of having more has evaporated — even though the bank balance says otherwise. The mechanism isn’t a willpower failure. It’s not that you’re bad with money. It’s that your nervous system is doing exactly what it evolved to do: stabilize around whatever your current circumstances are, so you can keep functioning instead of staying permanently elated or devastated by every life event.

This is why the two forces compound instead of just adding together. Inflation quietly taxes the raise before it ever reaches you. Hedonic adaptation quietly taxes whatever’s left, by resetting your internal baseline to match it. You end up in the same felt place you started, even though every objective number on the page moved in your favor.

Here’s the honest version of what that looked like for me: every time I hit a new number, I told myself this was the one that would change things. The next raise. The next product launch. The next consulting gig. I remember exactly where I was the day I crossed a milestone I’d been chasing for years — and I remember, just as clearly, waking up the next morning and reaching for my phone the same way I always had, worrying about the same things I’d worried about the week before. Nothing shifted. Not the anxiety, not the sense of enoughness, not the actual texture of a Tuesday. I just quietly recalibrated to the new number and started looking for the next one, like an animal on a treadmill that keeps insisting the horizon is still ahead of it. I didn’t tell anyone that, because it felt like admitting the last decade of work hadn’t “worked” — when really, it worked exactly as advertised. I just never adjusted my expectations to match how the mechanism actually functions.

What This Actually Means (and What to Do With It)

I want to be careful here, because there’s a version of this essay that turns into either “the economy is rigged” or “you just need better financial discipline,” and both of those miss the actual insight.

The real takeaway is this: income growth and quality-of-life growth are not the same variable, and most of us manage our lives as if they are. We chase the number assuming the feeling will follow automatically. It doesn’t — not because something’s broken, but because two entirely separate systems are eating the gap. One system is external (prices), and you have limited control over it. The other is internal (adaptation), and you have almost total control over it, if you design for it deliberately instead of letting it run on autopilot.

A few practical implications, for founders and operators specifically:

• Separate “nominal win” from “felt win” in your own head. When you land the raise, the funding round, the exit — budget for the fact that the emotional lift has a half-life of a few months. Plan your next move based on that reality, not on the assumption that this high is the new permanent state.

• Audit your fixed costs against the categories that outrun inflation, not the ones that track it. Housing-adjacent and healthcare-adjacent spending deserve more scrutiny than headline CPI suggests, because they’ve been compounding faster than “official” inflation for two decades running.

• Decide on purpose what gets to creep and what doesn’t. Lifestyle creep isn’t inherently bad — some of it is just enjoying success. The problem is when it’s unconscious and total, absorbing 100% of every gain so there’s never a compounding surplus left for the thing you actually wanted the money for in the first place (options, freedom, security, a real inflection point in how you live).

• Measure quality of life on its own axis. Don’t let income be the only dashboard you check. If the house, the car, and the routine haven’t changed in fourteen years, ask whether that’s contentment (genuinely fine) or drift (never actually decided, just defaulted).

I’m not writing this from the other side of it, fixed and enlightened. I’m writing it from the middle of finally noticing, which is its own kind of uncomfortable — you can’t unsee a pattern once you’ve named it, and I’m still standing in the same kitchen most mornings, doing the math on whether anything’s actually different this time or whether I’m about to do the same thing again with the next number.

But fourteen years of tripling my income taught me this much: the number on the paycheck was never the actual goal. It was always a stand-in for something else — time, optionality, the ability to stop pausing before a decision, maybe just the quiet feeling of having finally arrived somewhere. Inflation quietly took a bite of the number. My own adapted-to-it brain took the rest, and did it so smoothly I didn’t notice for over a decade. Naming both, out loud, in writing, where I can’t pretend I didn’t say it — that’s the only thing that’s actually made a dent. Not the money. The noticing.

The post was good. Genuinely contrarian. He’d called out a sacred cow in his category, dunked on the “best practice” everyone in his space repeats like scripture, and the internet rewarded him for it — thousands of likes, thirty-some reshares, thoughtful comments from people whose names he recognized.

Zero pipeline.

Not “low-quality pipeline.” Zero. I asked him what the post told a prospect to do differently, and he couldn’t answer. It told the internet he was smart. It didn’t tell his ICP what to buy, or why, or from whom.

That’s the trap almost every founder falls into with contrarian content: they optimize for the reaction, not the mechanism. Being the person who “says the thing nobody else will say” feels like a strategy. It’s actually just packaging. And packaging without a product behind it is just noise wearing a leather jacket.

The Consensus Trap Isn’t the Problem. Escaping It Without a Plan Is.

Every growth-stage market has a consensus. Something everyone in the category repeats so often it stops sounding like an opinion and starts sounding like physics.

In outbound sales right now, the consensus is: scale pipeline by scaling outbound volume via AI SDRs. Everyone’s heard it. Most people’s boards still ask for it.

There are existing playbooks for challenging a consensus like that, and I’ve used pieces of all of them over the years. It’s worth knowing where each one breaks down:

• The Thiel Question — “What important truth do very few people agree with you on?” Brilliant for shaping a new product’s founding thesis. Too abstract for a rep who needs to close a deal tomorrow. Nobody’s signing a PO because you have a philosophically interesting worldview.

• The Challenger Sale model — reintroduce a big insight that re-educates the buyer. Powerful, but it’s a top-of-funnel move. By the time a deal is mid-cycle, the “re-education” moment has already passed and the deal is lost.

• The Pattern Interrupt — declare a best practice dead or outdated. Gets attention fast. It’s also the fastest way to look like you’re chasing clicks instead of running a business, if it isn’t backed by anything.

None of these are wrong. They’re just incomplete on their own. Each one gets you attention to a contrarian idea. None of them, by themselves, gets you a pipeline.

The Hidden Tax Nobody Puts on the Balance Sheet

Here’s the piece most founders skip, and it’s the one that actually makes a contrarian take commercially useful: you have to quantify what the consensus is costing people right now, in this market, not in the abstract.

Take that outbound example. The consensus says scale outbound volume by leveraging AI SDRs. Nobody disputes that this works…in some capacities. The tax is what it costs today: low response rates, torched domain reputations, ballooning data-vendor bills. Teams think they’re building a pipeline. They’re actually paying a tax.

That tax is invisible on most dashboards. It shows up as “CAC creeping up” or “reps missing quota” — never as the line item it actually is. Naming it, with a number attached, is what turns “here’s a hot take” into “here’s a problem costing you money you can see.”

A contrarian point without a quantified tax is an opinion. A contrarian point with a quantified tax is a diagnosis. Buyers act on diagnoses. They argue with opinions.

The Commercial Contrarian Matrix

In one sentence: a contrarian take only builds pipeline if it targets a real ICP bottleneck, translates cleanly across every channel you actually use, and leads directly back to your product’s core value proposition.

I started calling this the Commercial Contrarian Matrix because “just be more authentic” isn’t a framework — it’s a vibe. Vibes don’t survive contact with a quota. Three constraints do the actual work:

1. ICP Relevance. The take has to hit a painful, expensive, operational bottleneck that your specific buyer feels — not a bottleneck that’s interesting in general. “Marketing attribution is broken” is true and useless. “Your Series B board is about to ask why CAC payback blew past 18 months and nobody on your team can answer in one sentence” is a bottleneck a VP of Growth recognizes by the second clause.

2. Channel Portability. If the insight only works as a 280-character post, it’s a tweet, not a thesis. A real contrarian take should survive being stretched into a LinkedIn thread, compressed into a single slide in a pitch deck, and explained out loud on a discovery call without losing its shape. If it can’t make that trip, it’s a soundbite, not a strategy.

3. The Commercial Bridge. This is the one people skip, and it’s the one that actually pays the bills. The alternative path you’re proposing has to require your product or methodology to execute. If a prospect agrees with your contrarian take and then goes and solves it with a spreadsheet, you gave away a great insight for free. The insight should make your offer feel inevitable, not optional.

Here’s the four-step version I’ve used:

1. Deconstruct the consensus trap. Name the “best practice” everyone in your category repeats without questioning.

2. Expose the hidden tax. Put a number or a concrete cost on what following that best practice is quietly doing to the business today.

3. Introduce the paradigm shift. State the counterintuitive alternative in one clean sentence — this becomes your thesis across every channel.

4. Build the commercial bridge. Make sure agreeing with the shift requires the thing you sell to actually execute it.

Skip step four, and you’ve written a great essay. Include it, and you’ve written a pipeline generator.

I’ve used that framework multiple times to convince large organizations to do things like 1) commission the largest product build in the company’s history; 2) build out entirely new divisions; 3) pivot from a product that looked like a cash cow into unknown territory.

What This Looks Like in Practice

Back to the outbound example, run through all four steps:

• Consensus: Scale pipeline by scaling AI SDRs.

• Hidden tax: Sub-1% response rates. Burned domain reputation. Massive data-vendor spend for lists that barely convert.

• Paradigm shift: Pipeline growth isn’t a volume problem — it’s an intent-data routing problem. The best teams are shrinking target lists by 80% and increasing personalization by 5x.

• Commercial bridge: If a prospect buys that shift, they now need a way to identify intent signals and route them with precision — which is, not coincidentally, exactly what you sell.

Notice what didn’t happen: nobody had to manufacture outrage or invent a fake enemy. The tension was already sitting in the market. The framework just gave it a shape a sales team could use tomorrow morning.

The Takeaway

Contrarian for contrarian’s sake gets you likes. The Commercial Contrarian Matrix gets you meetings.

Before you publish your next “unpopular opinion,” run it through all three constraints. Does it hit a bottleneck your ICP actually loses sleep over? Does it survive being told in a tweet, a deck, and a live pitch without losing its edge? And if someone fully agrees with you — does the next logical step require what you sell, or does it require nothing at all?

If you can’t answer yes to all three, you don’t have a GTM motion yet. You have a hot take with good engagement metrics.

What’s the best practice in your category that everyone still repeats — and what’s it actually costing the people who follow it?

Why I can’t say no — and what it’s actually costing me

My friend Chris Marr runs The Question First Group. He wrote something last week that stopped me mid-scroll.

An opportunity landed on his desk. The kind his company would have said yes to a month earlier, no questions asked. This time, one of the owners turned it down. Wrong fit. Not the niche. Not the direction they’d chosen.

One sentence. And I couldn’t stop thinking about it.

Because I can’t do what that owner did.

I say yes to everything. And I know exactly why.

Today I called my friend Tom. Thirty seconds in, I could hear it — that low-grade burnout hum in his voice. I asked what was going on. He described his week like a man trying to grab six things falling off a shelf at once. Arms everywhere. Nothing caught.

I wasn’t in a position to help him. I was living his week.

That same morning, I’d admitted something to myself. Again. For maybe the tenth time this year.

I can’t say no.

The sabbatical that lasted three weeks

Back in June, I published an essay announcing my summer side-hustle sabbatical. It’s my normal summer break to step back, simplify, breathe.

This one lasted three weeks.

Three genuinely great weeks. Calm. No inbox anxiety. No “just one more opportunity.”

Then I got restless, and restlessness always disguises itself as productivity. So I did what any founder with an addiction to the chase does — I called it “strategic planning” and got back to work.

I looked at where my side-hustle income actually came from. 95% of it traced back to two channels. Two. Out of a dozen things I was spending time on.

The math was obvious: stop touching the other ten. Go all in on the two that work.

So naturally, the next day, I got offered a $5K/month opportunity built entirely on one piece of unrelated content.

I canceled the sabbatical. I said yes.

And within 48 hours, I regretted it.

Regret isn’t about the work. It’s about the mismatch.

Here’s the part that took me two phone calls and an email to actually understand: I didn’t regret the work itself. I regretted being untrue to what I’d previously decided mattered.

The first call was from my friend Todd. He wanted to walk me through his new venture — the one he’s actually passionate about, not the big agency he’s spent a years building. He was lit up in a way I hadn’t heard from him before.

Normally, in our friendship, I’m the one chasing the thing that energizes me — writing, ideas, ownership over my time. Todd’s the empire builder. This time the roles flipped, and it rattled me enough to ask myself why.

Then Tom, days later. Same conversation, different words.

Then Chris’s email hit my inbox. About saying no.

Three signals in a short period, pointing at the same blind spot.

Where the “yes” actually comes from

I know exactly where mine started.

I’ve been laid off multiple times. The last time, our daughter was nine months old. We had zero saved. No side income. No cushion. Just a mortgage and a newborn and a very bad month.

I told myself, never again. And I spent the next decade building like it was still that month — every “no” felt like the version of me standing in that kitchen with an empty bank account.

Here’s the uncomfortable part: we’re not wealthy, but we’re financially secure now. We could absorb a real income gap without blinking.

The threat is gone. The reflex isn’t.

That’s the trap. The behavior outlives the reason for the behavior. You keep running from a fire that’s already out, and you call it ambition.

Saying no is a business decision before it’s a personal one

Chris’s co-owner didn’t turn down that opportunity because he was disciplined. He turned it down because he knew, with precision, what his business was and wasn’t — and he trusted that clarity more than the dollar signs in front of him.

That’s not a personality trait. It’s a filter. And you can build one even if, like me, your default setting is yes.

Before I say yes to anything now, I’m forcing myself through three questions:

1. Does this touch one of the channels that actually drives results — or does it just feel productive? Doing something creative because I want to is one think. Doing something just to feel productive is a yes that should be a no.

2. Would I have said yes to this a month ago, before I knew what I know now — or am I only saying yes because it showed up fast?

3. Am I solving a real problem, or am I still responding to a threat that isn’t there anymore? I love this question in particular. It makes me think of my MMA days. When judging between an opponent’s faints and real attacks was second nature.

If I’d asked myself those three questions before that $5K/month call, I already know the answer.

The personal reasons you can’t say no and the professional reasons you keep taking the wrong prospects aren’t different conversations. They’re the same conversation, wearing different clothes.

So — what old threat are you still running from that isn’t actually chasing you anymore?

P.S. This post may not feel GTM advice. But it is. Look deep. What clients are you saying yes to where they aren’t your ICP?

I watched our user count climb. To this day I remember the moment 656 Peruvian signed up because we were featured on the front of one of their top blogs.

I watched our social engagement climb. As it should, we had done a good job gamifying user interaction.

I told myself…

Read more

Every year I take a multi-month sabbatical. I actually do this twice a year, i…

Read more

His logistics and transportation consulting business had been scaling rapidly ($75M in assets managed) and the thought was that I’d eventually join the company (I never did. More on that another…

Read more

I’ve tried to be an early-morning person (waking up before 630am) lots of times in my life.

But, it’s never stuck, permanently.

Every now and then I’ll naturally wake up early, but that’s normally due to poor sleep.

The mornings where I do wake up early, especially if a busy schedule demands it, I knock out my w…

Read more

They’re moving from click-optimization to identity-optimization. The algorithm no longer rewards the post that gets the most clicks — it rewards the account that consistently signals expertise in a specific domain over time.

If LinkedIn is part of your …

Read more

He won the case.

And six months later, a competitor built around it anyway — not by violating the patent, but by so…

Read more

Look at Zynga. It had experienced hypergrowth fueled by hits like FarmVille and Mafia Wars. That growth came, largely, from leveraging viral distribution on Facebook. Then Facebook changed their algorithms and growth plummeted.

Have you heard of Crumb’s Bake…

Read more

I asked him one question: “Who is your ideal customer?”

He said, “Everyone in our community.”

That’s not a strategy. That’s hope.

I’ve now had some version of this conversation with dozens of banks — community banks, regional banks, credit unions, digital-…

Read more

I first met Chris, probably 5-6 years ago now, when I joined his Content Marketing Academy.

To this day, CMA was my all-time favorite community to be a part of. Virtually every other member was from Great Britain, but I felt closer to many of them than people in my home time “across the pond.”

Read more