The Internet Tricked Us, and Now We're Worse at Resonating with Decision-Makers
The strongest thinkers have gone underground.
Okay, I'm being dramatic. What I mean by that is, the distribution techniques rewarded today mostly reward people with basic ideas, 101-level tips, and the level of expertise you might expect for people who share that kind of material.
I just watched a YouTube pre-roll ad from a guy I pegged as being in the early steps of his career who had a beautifully polished ad all about how to auto-DM people on social media. Woof.
Earlier today, I saw an IG ad from someone who swore the biggest secret in podcasting was some point-solution software tool that used AI to clean up your audio. Yikes.
And who hasn't seen the social media profile of some dude that starts: "16 Years Old. Entrepreneur. Agency Owner." Then all they do is teach people how to repurpose 1 piece of content into 10 more
(Yes, this person is always a dude, because this person is a mindless clone of people like Gary Vaynerchunk and Alex Harmezi and those guys.)
(Coming this fall, a new conference I'm organizing: Non-Awful Men in Business.)
(Way to set the bar real high for the rest of us, business bros.)
Anyway, it seems like the more visible you get today, the less serious and strategic and genuinely useful you are—or at least have to become.
And this makes sense, actually.
Social media needs inventory, created for free, to fuel ad-supported business models. Saying something basic appealing to 1,000 people is more useful to them than saying something profound or strategic or insightful appealing to 10 people. Naturally, these platforms are going to subtly and often not-so-subtly incentivize us to create that kind of nonsense.
Social networks need you to passively reach 1,000 Anybodies.
But my business needs me to deeply resonate with 10 Somebodies.
I charge a nontrivial amount of money to work with me on a nontrivial part of your business. That means you need a nontrivial amount of trust in me, which means the ideas and content I share must feel ... wait for it ... nontrivial.
(Aren't words fun?)
But LinkedIn doesn't care. Meta doesn't care. TikTok doesn't care. They want you shoveling content onto their platforms like you're dumping out (AI) slop for pigs. Maybe that's why they're called feeds.
(Words: still fun!)
So why did I say the strongest thinkers have gone underground? It feels that way, because the most visible people are often not them, partly due to where we show up, and partly due to the fact that stronger thinkers with sturdier businesses don't NEED to play this ridiculous attention game.
They don't need to resort to the tactics used by trivial thinkers, lo-fi posters, and commodity content creators.
They communicate with greater power, so they need less volume.
They don't need tons of followers because they have true influence.
They matter more, so they need to hustle for attention less.
It's not magic. It's a craft. But mostly, it's a choice.
Don't market more. Matter more.
* * *
SEO and social media has messed up your marketing. AI is about to make it worse.
If you were to teach a 101-level class at a university, you'd have more students in your class than the professors teaching 301-level classes.
Likewise, if I hosted a webinar about how to get over the fear of public speaking, I'd probably have more attendees than a session on how to move from breakout speaker to main stage keynote.
The thing is, I don't sell to people who just need to get over their fear of speaking. I sell 1:1 coaching and advisory services, plus team trainings and retainers, for folks who are already out there, sharing their expertise, stuck projecting a "wall of smarts" at the audience, and now they need to differentiate and resonate better. They need stronger premises and stronger IP. They need more of a presence through their voice and their stories than they do a technique to get over the fear.
My business does not benefit from teaching the basics.
But everywhere I turn, I see people who sell things for nontrivial amounts of money to people with nontrivial amounts of experience ... as if they were beginners. They've been tricked. They've been tricked by SEO and social media and increasingly by AI companies into thinking that sharing infinite amounts of basic content is "what works." They've been tricked into thinking that growing traffic and followers will somehow magically create qualified leads and real revenue. In short, they've been tricked into thinking that bigger totals equals more value. When that's not the case.
Because teaching a 101-level class makes no sense when you sell to decision-makers.
If your market is similar to mine and you target owners, executives, and more experienced people, producing a glut of informational and instructional content makes little sense. Discerning decision-makers need deeper insights. They need strategic ideas. They want to think differently and better about things, not just download a list of steps or tips for getting started. They're beyond starting.
Do you speak to that reality?
Typically, we don't, and for a very specific reason: the marketing channels on which we play have convinced us all into teaching 101-level classes. Because it's good for their businesses.
Google says, "These keywords are getting search volume," and, "People search using terms like 'how-to' and 'what-is,'" so we fall all over ourselves trying to flood our websites with that material. But who is searching matters more. The value of who is searching matters more than the total searches. We never parse it that way, do we?
Social media companies say, "THIS is the kind of content that works. You need engagement. If you get engagement, we'll show you to more people." So we fall in-line. We use the techniques that apparently work, even though anyone with taste sees right through the overpromising and the clickbait. Anyone with experience sees the lack of nuance.
And here come the AI companies. They've watched us from the back row of our entry-level seminars. They've trained their tools on what we've preached, but it's not enough. Of course it's not. They need more. They dangle the idea that we can get cited and recommended in search results on their platforms too. So we'll continue to stand there lecturing away in our 101-level classes until our feet bleed.
Ask yourself: "Am I teaching entry-level classes when I should be running executive forums?"
Are you worshipping at the altar of algorithms? Success doing that might be more closely correlated to success selling to the masses. But I don't sell to the masses. Do you?
We've Been Tricked. Now We're Worse at Marketing to Decision-Makers.
The strongest thinkers today are not the most visible thinkers. Mostly, I think the strongest thinkers have gone underground.
Okay, I'm being dramatic, but just think about the people we mostly see appearing online today. For instance, earlier today, I saw a pre-roll ad on YouTube from a guy I pegged as being in the first few steps of his career. He appeared in this highly-produced, animated caption-ridden ad to sell me on an app that lets you auto-DM people at scale on social media.
Woof.
Yesterday, I saw an Instagram ad from someone who swore that the biggest secret to success for the world's biggest podcasters was this tool that used AI to clean up your audio.
Yikes.
And who hasn't seen the social media profile of a guy that starts: "16 Years Old. Entrepreneur. Agency Owner." Then they constantly tell you that if you're not turning 1 piece of content into 10 pieces of content, you're terrible at marketing. Thanks, dude! (Yes, this person is always a dude, because this person is a mindless clone of people like Gary Vaynerchunk and Alex Harmezi and those guys.)
Sure, maybe you are actively avoiding tactics like these, but think about the most common advice and approaches for SEO and social media marketing. High-traffic keywords are often the "what..." or "how-to" queries. Meanwhile, social media rewards the gimmicks, the clickbait, the lack of nuance that you and I see straight through, but even on our best days, we feel drawn towards producing more content that drives search traffic and gets engagement on social.
Here's what's happening: We've been tricked into teaching 101-level classes, when we should be running executive forums.
If you were to teach a 101-level class at a university, you'd have more students than the professors teaching 301-level classes. Likewise, if I hosted a webinar about how to get over the fear of public speaking, I'd probably have more attendees than a session on how to move from breakout speaker to main stage keynote. Promising the outcome ("how to get more attention" and "how to be charming") will be more popular than preaching the skillset needed to see those outcomes.
But we have to ask: more popular ... with whom? This stuff "works" ... in what way?
To what end are we doing this stuff?
My business doesn't benefit from teaching the basics. My clients are actively repelled by the gimmicks. I don't sell to people who just need to get over their fear of speaking. I sell 1:1 coaching and advisory services, plus team trainings and retainers, for folks who are already out there sharing their expertise—people who need stronger premises, stronger IP, and more presence through their voice and stories. They have experience. Taste. Bumps and bruises. Vision.
To serve those people, I charge a nontrivial amount of money and work with them on a nontrivial part of their business. That means they need a nontrivial amount of trust in me, which means the ideas and content I share must feel... wait for it... nontrivial.
How We Got Tricked
The distribution techniques rewarded today mostly reward people with basic ideas, 101-level tips, and the level of expertise you might expect from people who share that kind of material. And there's a very specific reason for this.
Google tricked us first. They let us know, loud and clear, "Target the keywords with the most traffic in your space." So we tripped all over ourselves trying to flood our websites with that material. But who is searching actually matters to your business's success, not just the fact that people are searching. We don't need to increase our totals. We need to pursue greater value. But we never parse it that way, do we?
Then social media companies piled on. They said, "THIS is the kind of content that 'works.' It's what gets engagement, and we will reward posts with engagement, showing it to more people." So we fall in-line. We crave engagement. (What even is that, anyway?) We want to be in front of more people. (Why?) To play this game, we resort to using the techniques that "work" (works for WHAT?), even though anyone with taste sees right through the overpromising and the clickbait. Anyone with experience sees the lack of nuance.
Now AI companies are making it worse. They've watched us from the back row of our entry-level seminars. They've trained their tools on what we've shared, but it's not enough. They need more. They dangle the idea that we can get cited and recommended in search results on their platforms too. So we'll continue to stand there lecturing away in our 101-level classes until our feet bleed.
This makes sense when you understand the business models. Platforms and channels need content to create demand and usage. If you're thinking of posting on LinkedIn today, just remember: they want you to say something basic appealing to 1,000 people, not say something profound or strategic or memorable appealing to 10 people. Over time, these platforms subtly—and often not-so-subtly—incentivize us to create their preferred form of nonsense, but given our business models, this makes no sense.
Social networks need you to passively reach 1,000 Anybodies.
But my business needs me to deeply resonate with 10 Somebodies.
What about you?
If your market is similar to mine and you target owners, executives, and more experienced people, producing a glut of informational and instructional content makes little sense. Of course there's a time and a place for it, but we've been tricked into thinking the time is ALWAYS and the place is EVERYWHERE. The thing is, discerning decision-makers need deeper insights. They need strategic ideas. They don't need a ton of how-tos. They need ideas on how to think. They're beyond starting, and they're looking for ideas, stories, and advice to meet that reality.
These platforms don't care. They want you shoveling content onto their platforms like you're dumping out (AI) slop for pigs.
Maybe that's why they're called feeds.
Where Are the Strongest Thinkers Now?
Paradoxically, the strongest thinkers today are not often the most visible voices. This happens partly due to the forums where people are visible being run by private corporations with the business models and incentives I described earlier. But this is also due to the fact that stronger thinkers and communicators with more influential ideas and sturdier businesses don't NEED to play this ridiculous attention game. And it's gotten so bad, they're starting to opt out.
They don't need to resort to the tactics used by trivial thinkers, lo-fi posters, and commodity content creators.
They communicate with greater power, so they need less volume.
They don't need tons of followers because they have true influence.
They matter more, so they need to hustle for attention less
This is a skill you can learn. I absolutely believe that (and teach that). But mostly, this is a choice.
We don't seek to transact. We're here to transform. But you can't charge a premium for basic advice. You won't stand out or serve anyone by shoveling more slop into the trough.
Some suggestions for what to do instead:
Share more "how to think" ideas, not just how-to advice. For instance, analyze WHY things work, or WHY a problem exists. Don't just tell us what works or how to solve a problem.
Dig deeper than informational or instructional content. Find and develop deeper insights, then color everything you do with them.
Tell more nuanced stories. Stories of big brands we've all heard about and oversimplified hero's journey stories turn off discerning audiences. Acknowledge the gray. In keeping with that theme...
Frame your ideas as "a" solution, not "the" solution. More nuanced thinkers recognize that more experienced pros no longer believe in magic solutions. Admit that what you're sharing (an idea, a method, a framework) is ONE way, and perhaps a way others haven't considered before. But you know it's not THE way to solve all problems everywhere for everyone.
Go through gatekeepers. Get off social media, pitch yourself to podcasts, community groups, events, and industry publications and associations. Find densities of your audience, because mostly, the most discerning buyers (with the most amount of money to spend on your services) do not follow tons of people on social media, subscribe to lots of newsletters and podcasts, or fall victim to your website's constant prompt to download something for free (your "lead magnets").
Premium people need premium ideas. Premium ideas aren't found broadly on the internet. They're shared in the quiet, typically, behind closed doors. Those doors aren't locked, but they do have some friction when you push. So bring a Big Idea, and keep developing it until one or two doors open up. But you can't fire off more and more content onto the internet and expect senior people or experienced clients to come your way.
Worshipping at the altar of the algorithms is more closely correlated to selling cheap things to the masses. Being successful on a platform might help a business grow if you sell commodities just anyone can buy. But when you appeal to people who dislike the gimmicks and don't need the basics, what then? You can't teach 101-level tips, and you can't resort to the grimy growth tactics. (It's quite nice, actually.)
We've been tricked into thinking "what works" on various channels is what works for our businesses. It's time to take back our ability to connect with the right people for the right reasons. Ask yourself:
Am I teaching entry-level classes when I should be running executive forums?