Jared Robin on Building Human-Native AI - Ep 32
What if the future of AI is not about learning more tools, building more workflows, or becoming more technical at all?
In this episode of PROMPTED we sits down with Jared Robin, Co-Founder of RevGenius, a global community of more than 60,000 go-to-market professionals, to explore where AI adoption is actually headed and why 2026 needs to be the year AI becomes human native.
Jared brings a rare vantage point, shaped by daily conversations with sales, marketing, RevOps, and customer success leaders who are navigating AI mandates, tool overload, and rising complexity. Together, they unpack why forcing GTM teams to become AI builders is the wrong long-term bet, why so many AI pilots fail, and how the next wave of AI tools must remove friction instead of adding it.
This conversation goes beyond tactics to focus on first principles. You will hear why creativity is becoming a competitive advantage, how human-native AI changes workflows for revenue leaders, and what strategic thinkers should focus on now as AI becomes easier to build but harder to stay ahead with.
This episode is especially relevant for GTM professionals who want clarity without hype, practical insight without heavy technical depth, and a clearer mental model for evaluating AI and agentic tools in the years ahead.
Topics covered include:
- Why 2025 forced humans to become AI native and why that model breaks
- What human-native AI actually means in day-to-day GTM work
- The hidden cost and complexity of current AI tooling
- Why data foundations still matter more than new tools
- How creativity, category design, and strategy shape the future of AI adoption
Learn more and connect with Jared Robin:
- Jared’s LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaredrobin/
- His personal website: https://jaredrobin.com/
- The RevGenius Website: https://www.revgenius.com/
- The Post that kicked off this conversation: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jaredrobin_2025-humans-need-to-be-ai-native-2026-activity-7402395343184699392-0KQR/
Subscribe for more conversations with builders, operators, and thinkers shaping the future of AI and go-to-market work.
Learn more about Agent.ai and explore practical AI agents at agent.ai.
Transcript
community leader of 60,000 GTM professionals.
::So a lot comes across my plate.
::This year, technologies like Clay and N8N in particular in the go-to-market world have taken over.
::And the reason why is because they're allowing people to do more, do things that they haven't been able to do.
::Aren't you afraid AI is going to take over the world?
::And he's like, not really.
::I think AI might be one step ahead of humans, but it won't be 10.
::You got to keep in mind this happened many times.
::AI only has what humans have given it.
::doesn't have what humans haven't.
::Like you don't need all these point solutions.
::There's going to be far less tools.
::I think a tool like an NANN, but that's easier to use
::is going to be potentially the core tool that could build agents, workflows, et cetera.
::In this episode of Prompted by Agent AI, I sit down with Jared Robin, co-founder of RevGenius, a global community of more than 50,000 revenue professionals.
::We unpack a simple but uncomfortable idea.
::In 2025, humans were forced to become AI natives.
::In 2026,
::AI has to become more human-native, and the platforms that embrace that will win.
::We dig into why forcing GTM leaders to become technical AI builders is the wrong long-term bet.
::Why 2026 will be the year AI becomes human-native, and what that really means for how work gets done.
::This one will challenge how you think about AI, creativity, and the future of GTM.
::So let's get into it.
::Jared, thank you so much for joining me on this conversation today.
::I'm really looking forward to this because you kind of came into my radar, something you posted on LinkedIn that was kind of shared by the agent AI team.
::I was like, oh, wait a minute.
::This is interesting.
::Let me dive in a little bit deeper.
::And then DM'd you on LinkedIn and said, hey, let's have a conversation about this.
::So to kind of queue it up for the audience here, let me
::Let me share my screen and paraphrase some of this, and then I'm going to like hand it over to you and be like, all right, tell me what you're thinking here, buddy.
::All right, here's the post.
::2025, humans need to be an AI native.
::2026, AI needs to be human native.
::The era of GTM pros having to do the heavy lifting to build complex AI systems is ending.
::You know, why?
::Because 90% of revenue leaders are not going to build, are not going to learn how to build agents or AI workflows, period.
::Right, that's the big thing.
::My prediction for 2026, AI tools will be human native.
::The winners will be strategic thinkers, superpowers.
::We'll give strategic thinkers superpowers, not make them feel obsolete.
::Companies that win, they'll build for the human doing the work, not just the engineers.
::Companies like Agent AI and Orbi AI, I'm always saying that because clearly I have a vested interest in that.
::And that really got us started.
::So like,
::I want to dive into this with you.
::What sparked the thinking behind this?
::Like, why did you decide to share this out there?
::Yeah, so I've been speaking to a lot of founders.
::So I'm community leader of 60,000 GTM professionals.
::So a lot comes across my plate.
::This year, technologies like Clay and NAN in particular in the go-to-market world have taken over.
::And the reason why
::is because they're allowing people to do more and do things that they haven't been able to do.
::With that has come a steep learning curve.
::True.
::Right?
::Like, and such a steep learning curve that we have new roles like the GTM engineer that were never around in GTM before to help manage this type of tooling.
::And GTM engineer, a more technical,
::go-to-market operator that knows how to connect systems in a way that we didn't have to know before when we were hitting numbers, before when we were, right?
::Like, I don't wanna say without these, we're gonna hit numbers anymore.
::I think there's been a lot of success with these tools and the ideas behind them.
::But these tools in 2025
::have put an extra tax, let's call it, on people, processes, they're more complicated than ever, time to set it up, and cost of the actual tools, right?
::Like, I just heard an anecdote, a real anecdote of somebody who
::look to see how much it would cost to enrich their full database using Clay and their data sources, and it was $500,000, which equaled about 1 to $5 a lead.
::Now, we could go off the street to data providers that'll be less, and understood that there's a waterfall aspect in all of this, but
::That same company was able to find somebody else for like 25,000.
::So there's a lot of complexity in the costs right now as well.
::And the reason why I feel like there needs to be an end point is because one, I've seen tools
::that are way easier to build with.
::It's funny, like in 2025, you had to be AI native.
::AI native meant like level one, know how to use the LLMs to certain for what you're looking for.
::Most people that have used an LLM more than a few times have figured that out.
::We've all got better at processing.
::Yes.
::Or at least figured out how to be better with that than they are with Google, at a minimum, right?
::Then there's
::knowing how to put together workflows.
::But you can't do that in natural language like you could with ChatGPT, finding out who are the top 10 podcast guests I should have that talk about GTM with a following of over 10,000 on LinkedIn, right?
::Like that you probably could.
::And by the way, there's a limit of 25 there, but I digress.
::But you couldn't.
::And
::And then a layer further, like you're bringing like data into the mix, there's another level of complexity like orchestrating all of this.
::And in the pre-AI world, these tools were absolutely needed.
::And to do harder things, you probably needed a more technical mind.
::And 2025 was very much a tipping point.
::2024, everyone was playing with AI.
::2025, everyone has mandates to use AI.
::Yeah.
::Mandates.
::Why do you think that is?
::Like, what changed?
::Because you've seen the reports out of like MIT that 95% of people rolling out AI, those projects have failed, right?
::So like, the buzz is there, but the success isn't there.
::So why do you feel like that mandate has really been pushed on people now?
::Here's why the mandate's been pushed.
::In 2022, I'm sorry, 2023,
::We went from growth at all costs to growth at lowest cost.
::Sure.
::Remember, like you're calling it sustainable, efficient.
::Money was not free, 0% interest rates were gone.
::Money was harder.
::Yes.
::So companies weren't growing as fast, but they were growing profitably slow.
::That was good businesses, but it wasn't exciting for the hyper-growth, right?
::AI comes about.
::And we could keep that profitable mandate in place, growth at the lowest cost.
::But now we see the lovables of the world hitting hundreds of millions of dollars, under 100 employees, and we say that's possible.
::Yeah.
::And we know part of it is because they're leveraging tools like AI to really scale.
::A big part of it is they've created a massive product that solves a massive
::Pain, keep in mind, Lovable is easier to build in than NAN.
::Yeah, Probably Clay.
::I think there's, see what I'm saying there?
::Yeah.
::And that's the company growing the fastest, or amongst the cluster of companies growing the fastest, the cursers of the world.
::So it's a mandate because, oh, we want that hypergrowth from 2022 and before, and we want that
::profitability that we forced in 2023.
::And AI is the way to get there.
::95% of AI pilots fail, I believe is partially because of this mandate.
::The budget that opened was around AI.
::So people were buying anything that sounded cool and looked cool and promised great results.
::And a majority of those products didn't deliver.
::So like, I think
::This whole idea of outcome-based, whether you want to price on it or whatever, but like having products in your stack that deliver outcomes, people on your team that deliver outcomes, we've known that one, but now the products are held responsible as well is a big thing.
::But in 2025, to use AI, it was put on the people.
::Okay, so we had these tools that were really good at allowing a technical person to build.
::So essentially it was like, we're giving it to you, you're the product person, build what you need.
::And technical people loved that.
::Yeah, yeah.
::Oh my gosh, kid in a candy store.
::Now they had, they didn't have to build it from Go and code it from Go.
::They had a tool that took them half the way there.
::On the other hand, the things,
::They're making tons of money this year because all these companies that don't know how to do it are hiring a GTM engineer or an A to N operator, right?
::Contractually, maybe full-time, some of them, but mostly like, so they're building agencies that are going from zero to $1,000,000 in 2025 because that skill set's not there.
::This adds an extra layer of cost and complexity in the use of AI.
::And
::You know, going back to the promise of AI, the promise of AI is making everything easier.
::And we're thinking about ChatGPT, now Claude, Gemini's taking the cake for the rest of the year, probably.
::We'll see what happens next year.
::My bet is they double down and they continue it.
::I think so too.
::That's a whole other discussion though.
::They're super easy to use.
::Can I ask them to just do the workflow?
::And the answer is ChatGPT is starting to go in that world.
::I don't think that they're there yet, but they're advertising that you could do it.
::Yeah.
::Claude has an MCP that you could essentially query whatever data you want from your systems, from third-party systems that have MCP, et cetera.
::So now that's kind of got the interface positioning, right, going.
::Claude is.
::And it's like, why can't Clay and NAN do this?
::And it's because I truly believe they're not AI at the core, they're AI on top, meaning you could query what you want, but like the workflows still break and a human still has to put them back together versus the AI putting it back together.
::I think that's a core thing.
::That's the starting of the, I don't want to say the breaking of the current way, because I think that they've gotten big.
::I think they'll still be around, but the Agent.AI's, Orbi, phenomenal tool.
::I don't know if you've ever played with it.
::Have you?
::A little bit, just a little bit.
::Company gets acquired after raising 50 million without formally going to market because their tech is so fire.
::Like, I want to connect HubSpot with this system, with this system, with this system.
::You can put a natural language prompt in Orbi.
::log into all those systems, you say what you want, it prompts you back for the mapping and stuff to that effect, right?
::Like everything that simple prompt is going to run into a problem with.
::Like, okay, where do you want the account?
::This data is unstructured.
::And you walk through that, even if it takes you 45 minutes to do that.
::And I don't think it takes that long, but even if it does, that could be,
::one-tenth, 4 hours, 50 minutes of what it would cost to put that together, maybe more, right?
::So that's magnificent.
::Well, let me throw this at you, Jared, because just to kind of, I want to make sure I'm understanding some of this.
::What I'm hearing you say is, like,
::If you look at an S-curve in early adopters, right?
::Like we've got those early adopters that are killing it right now because they're the creative, like think out-of-the-box, try all this new stuff.
::But most people aren't like that, right?
::And those people are like, what the hell do I do with this stuff?
::I know how to do my job.
::You haven't trained or taught me how to do anything and you're just throwing this stuff at me and expecting exponential stuff out of it.
::Is that kind of like the way to think about this?
::Yeah, and also, I think,
::I think this time is bringing something really cool because pre-2024, let's say, you were using tools, points of view.
::You were buying tools and then having to utilize their point of view.
::They're built for, sure, maybe they got feedback from people and the majority of people said to build this way, fine, but that's not necessarily your way.
::So you're stuck using...
::a product that's the best fit instead of the right fit, like the best fit against the alternatives.
::And now you could build whatever you want.
::Let's use the NANN example.
::It'll just take you time and maybe resources.
::So that's the first hump.
::So now you're able to go first principles and say, do we really need all of the bells and whistles of gong as an example?
::Or do we just need the call to get recorded
::and put it into our system our way, repurpose that, transcribe that into an LLM, have it come up with social posts our way, filter some of that into our outbound sequences.
::Yeah, you don't need to pay for all that bloat around it.
::You just have the core functionality features that you need.
::Right.
::So in 2025, the unlock to build that,
::came about.
::So you're able to think first principles about what you actually need, what you're actually trying to accomplish.
::And I believe in 2026, that doesn't go anywhere, but building on your first principles becomes hella easier.
::So let's expand upon that.
::You are kind of, you sit on top of a very large GTM community.
::How are they thinking about this?
::Is that kind of the consensus that like, all right, we can do things with a...
::I guess it's 5 coding, right?
::But maybe it's even simpler than that.
::Like, we know what we want, because that's the first problem.
::You can't build any of this stuff, a workflow or anything, or even expect an AI to do it if you don't know exactly what you want.
::So now that we've figured that out, it's like, we could just go spin up our own bespoke solution to this that does exactly what we need.
::And how do I do that without an engineer?
::Is that kind of what people are saying?
::They are, but they're also saying...
::We have so many problems without AI.
::Stop the AI noise.
::Our data problems have always been our problems.
::Can we focus on structuring this?
::Because for the AI to work exponentially well on top, we have to fix the root.
::And sure, we hope AI can help us easier.
::The people that we target,
::have multiple domains that they're sending from.
::And like every enrichment company is just giving us one and missing the full picture.
::Other people have bloat with multiples and duplicates of everything.
::And there's like half a dozen, five or six foundational data things that need to get done.
::And all of this AI talk
::they're into, but they're realizing it's even more important now to fix the foundational stuff as well.
::And I think ops people, there's still a school of thinking where some CROs bring in ops people to manage systems instead of be growth people.
::And I think that there's some,
::fundamental thinking changes.
::Sure.
::Because I think the head of RevOps should be your number one growth driver.
::I expanded on that.
::Not just a system.
::So they should be optimizing for everything from, and they are the best ones from, you know, you have your territory alignment, which you don't necessarily need AI to solve.
::You have the compensation things, but like how can we orchestrate all of the tools
::to really drive growth.
::And do we even need a CRM?
::I made a post after.
::Like the answer is today we probably do.
::But like what do we really need?
::If we're using the CRM as a database, that's an expensive database.
::Yeah.
::I could spend with HubSpot $100 a user.
::If I have 50 or 100 users, I could promise you a database with the same data is going to be less, maybe far less.
::We can maybe structure it easier our way instead of doing all the updates and certainly Salesforce, HubSpot, et cetera.
::But they're thinking about how to be as efficient as possible.
::Let's double click into that though, right?
::Because what you're talking about is really fundamentally re-engineering A custom-built CRM for each company, right?
::But it's a data warehouse, it's a data structure, they store whatever they need, which to your point, would have been impossible.
::Not that long ago.
::You need to go buy one of these things.
::But now, the barrier to entry, figure out your database, what you care about, and being able to get the data into the right place is so much easier now, right?
::Yeah, and think about this.
::People are evolving their definition of ICP.
::It used to be a static definition.
::Anybody who could buy our product.
::It evolved to a little more nuance, like who can buy our product this quarter?
::what signals, what things are happening in the market that make this subset of these thousand, 10,000 people, right?
::And then CRM was just like a store, it's kind of like in its worst form, a data graveyard, in its best form, people are in there all the time.
::I just spoke to one new VP of RevOps,
::His number one job was cutting their ICP from 40,000 to 10,000, because they just had everyone that had a partner program, and then they dropped it down to everyone who had a partner program with greater than six partners.
::He figured out a signal for that.
::And then the next step is, okay, of that 10,000, who should we focus on now?
::Yeah.
::Who should we focus on now?
::So again, we're back in the data.
::And then once, so
::to get all the signals and stuff, that's probably going into like a data lake, an unstructured spot.
::And then it just needs to go to a structured database.
::And that could be the CRM, right?
::That seems like the easy short-term answer.
::And then we rethink that at a later.
::100%, but I spoke to somebody else and I need to find exactly who I spoke to because I tried to follow this path and the path I thought, and it wasn't that person.
::But I heard at a dinner somebody who said,
::their ops team hasn't logged like a new edit or whatever in HubSpot, like a significant rollout, because they were doing it all through Claude.
::So what does that mean?
::They're not making changes into the workload.
::Like new processes and stuff, like in HubSpot was done through like an FCP connection.
::Oh, interesting.
::So they're building externally and just piping it all back as the database, not really a CRM.
::Because it was easier to do it outside HubSpot than inside HubSpot.
::I could see that.
::Because that's your native language that you're talking to on top of it.
::just, it has its own MCP into HubSpot and it could do the translation to build the workflows and properties and whatever else inside of that.
::I could see that.
::I mean, everybody used Google Sheets before they got a formal CRM.
::Now, there was no complexity or intelligence behind it.
::was just probably manually putting in a dozen or 100 accounts that you're working on.
::But
::I'm just suggesting what if, and we're getting back to first principles.
::What do you need?
::Do you need a CRM?
::I need a store of record that's structured, that's able to do this and this.
::Is there anything outside of CRM could do it?
::Maybe not today.
::Yeah.
::Or maybe not easy.
::Or maybe they need a blueprint for how to do it.
::I'm not sure.
::But I think revenue teams, they're focused on AI, but I think they're quickly
::focusing again to revenue.
::And AI for AI's sake sometimes holds you back from that.
::Okay.
::Well, do you have a framework or a blueprint as you kind of think and evaluate AI tools or people you talk to and how they think about how they evaluate these tools with kind of that
::native first, human native first, layer on top of it, instead of thinking about, all right, how are the engineers going to use it?
::Have y'all started doing some of that?
::And does it impact what decisions you're making as you think what to do and what not to use?
::So I think there's going to be far less tools.
::I think a tool like an NAN, but that's easier to use is going to be potentially the core tool.
::that could build agents, workflows, et cetera.
::Like you don't need all these point solutions.
::I spoke to a client of ours, nrev.ai, and they've dealt with everybody from series A to like 100 million plus companies.
::Now, not quite bigger, but like big enough to like start like testing it.
::Yeah.
::And they're seeing
::They're able to build all these point solutions, the RB2Bs of the world, the bird dogs, the clay tables for like 50 to 75% less and have it all in a single system so easily.
::And then everything sits on top of it is as simple as this kind of chat interface to get access to it and chat or dictate or whatever your preference to spit it out.
::That's it.
::So
::These tools, because there's some tools that like you need to make sure that the tool itself has taken the technical load off of you.
::So like in any end, the humans doing the technical stuff and some of the people are like pretty close to actual engineers that use it.
::They're able to see like all the records, you know, behind the scenes and really understand that this is sound.
::So giving somebody the confidence that like, this is sound and this is gonna work is step one, because taking that off the person and putting it internally and doing all, you know, building that into your product is key.
::And then that's like the biggest thing.
::That's why I don't think people trust.
::ChatGPT yet, because I don't think it's as sound, their workflows and stuff, as like...
::Because.
::It's hallucinating or because it's not tied strong enough to their data or what?
::Great question.
::I don't know for sure.
::I've just heard that it's not there yet.
::Okay.
::And I would guess it's because it's hallucinating, but that's a guess.
::Well, I want to take a step back too, because like, clarify, like, when I hear you now, now that we've had a little bit of a
::You're talking about human-first AI, native human AI.
::That is as simple as like, just give me a chat window.
::I don't need any complicated thing.
::That's the definition of that.
::We're building towards that because, and I'm taking a break to talk about current state,
::But yeah, I've seen people, native language, and I remember this one company that I suggested, I said, how long does it take to build that workflow in NAN?
::And they said five hours.
::How long does it take in your system?
::They said one hour, and then they grimaced.
::And they said, we're getting it down to 10 minutes.
::Nice.
::So saving all that time, but like an hour was too much.
::What's run with that then?
::Let's say
::VP, let's say you're a GTM professional, VP of sales in 2026.
::How does your world look like in a truly human native AI space?
::Like what does your day-to-day look like?
::What are you doing?
::Like if you could do these things that fast, is it all spending time in a relationship building, collaborating with humans and the LLMs, the take all of that transcript or whatever and are able to process and push the data on the background?
::for you or what?
::So you need to know what you want, right?
::And that's key.
::But if you know the playbooks that you want and all this nuance, you're going to be talking to a chat interface, telling it what you want, like optimize all the territories.
::So that sounds like challenge one.
::It's like you have to know what you want.
::You can't expect this thing to help you get there.
::100%.
::But let's take a, if you've made it to the VP level, you probably know what's worked in the past.
::Let's hope so.
::Let's hope so.
::I do think creativity in general is becoming the moat, not distribution.
::Yes, distribution is important.
::But if you're distributing the same thing as everybody else, you're going into the noise.
::You're going into the void, right?
::So the creativity is the unlock.
::So like creativity plus distribution, oh, now you're creating something different.
::You're naming, framing, and claiming this villain.
::Like, you know how Salesforce said no more software.
::Salesforce didn't just say, and we're going to an old generation, but this still holds true today.
::They didn't just say we're building a better software.
::Yeah.
::They didn't.
::They said software is clunky.
::It's expensive.
::It's heavy.
::It's cumbersome.
::It requires an on-prem person.
::IT department, servers, racks.
::IT department, hardware.
::God forbid the servers go down.
::I mean, jeez, in this cloud world, when the servers go down, oh my gosh, when Cloudflare went down for like half a day or whatever, and ChatGPT went down with it, oh my gosh, that was hilarious.
::Now,
::Imagine it going down more frequently than it goes down and all these expenses, right?
::No.
::Software doesn't work.
::You need to be in the cloud.
::And CRM was their product in the cloud, right?
::Yeah.
::And then what happened?
::Everyone else said, you're right.
::They were literally saying no more software.
::So they weren't saying that they were better.
::They were saying to fight that better battle,
::is kind of silly because this doesn't work.
::So they were creative and they were different and then they built a fine product, right?
::So that creativity today is even more important because I'd venture to guess, if I said there's 10 times more tools, you'd probably laugh at me.
::I'd say there's 100 times more tools, Jared.
::They're so great.
::So there's probably,
::a dozen formidable tools in any category on Gartner.
::And I might have given you 1/3 of the actual answer, right?
::Like there could very well be 30 to 50 tools in any category on Gartner, even a niche one.
::Okay.
::So is that going to collapse or do you see that even worse?
::Because we don't need them because we could build our own tools.
::No, So first off, that's going to get even worse.
::Okay.
::But the creativity of those that say,
::that due to CRM, what Salesforce did to software, that's going to be an unlock.
::And then the creativity in GTM.
::Okay, so like understanding, you know, GTM without that creativity and only going for revenue, I believe is just adding to the noise machine.
::The second and third goals, and this tangent, I'll bring it back, but the second and third goals for GTM,
::I believe are to increase category potential and also to increase market cap and valuation.
::Anybody who says, you know, we're in this category, we're going to, we're in Clay's category, we're going to get a 10X valuation or 5X or 15X, nobody's saying 20X.
::I don't think people are saying 15 anymore.
::Those days are gone, yeah.
::Are competing in somebody else's category for a slice of the pie.
::A clay is like a 40X valuation.
::Why?
::They're creative.
::they realized this whole GTM engineering was needed and they built this category at the right time.
::Now, if that category lasts a dozen years, I think it's going to evolve way before then.
::I think things are evolving.
::And then looking at your GTM, you know, what worked, it's funny, we used to say what worked 10 years ago doesn't work today.
::I'd go as far as to say what worked 10 months ago doesn't work today.
::Because it's changing so fast.
::Some people, the crazies will say, will work 10 weeks ago doesn't work today.
::Okay, maybe so.
::the VPs, the C-level, like, okay, you can't get lost in that in just trying to do different things.
::But how can we look at the recent data with our company, see the market, and make really good
::projections of doubling down on what's working and also what to test and use that chat interface to help us.
::Yeah.
::And then with the what to test, how can we stand that up at the lowest cost with the team that we have without having to bring extra headcount?
::Yeah.
::How can we enable our team?
::Like, do we enable people to learn how to use AI?
::Do we enable people to learn
::how to qualify better.
::Light bulb moment.
::Like, do we double down on relationships and all of that?
::I think those could all be data-driven approaches.
::I mean, heck, we've done it so far.
::We've done it from intuition, but now I think that leader having the data isn't the problem.
::Using the data is.
::And I think this more human native, like, will give people way easier
::ways to use the data.
::Like imagine if, so right now we're in the signal world.
::Okay.
::And you have tools that do hiring change signals and the smarter people say you need to stack that and another one.
::And the smartest people say, yeah, but here's a custom signal.
::What if you're able to just prompt and say like, what should I build?
::Like, what should I experiment with?
::You worry, though, about giving that much of the, like, you still need the human to come up with the creative, interesting stuff.
::Yes, it could give you ideas of stuff, but you still need to be the one that makes the decision, right?
::And even then, it's just going to give you derivatives of stuff that's already existing.
::It's not going to necessarily.
::Come up with that.
::You're 100% correct.
::Like, you'd need ideas.
::Maybe you pin them and expand on one, but.
::I listened to Joe Rogan interviewing the video's founder lately.
::It was a big interview.
::And Joe Rogan's like, aren't you afraid AI is going to take over the world?
::And he's like, not really.
::I think AI might be one step ahead of humans, but it won't be 10.
::You got to keep in mind this happened many times.
::And AI only has what humans have given it.
::doesn't have what humans haven't.
::So to your point,
::the GTM leaders that are the most creative will be a step ahead.
::And then once they do it, then others will have their examples to close that gap quickly.
::Yeah, it's going to be constantly chasing, it sounds like.
::So as it becomes more human native, it's going to become easier to build and harder to stay ahead, I think.
::So the cycles just continue to get faster and faster because the copycat is so much cheaper and so much faster.
::So if I created like this incredible community-led growth motion and I went from zero to 100 million faster than anybody, somewhere that's getting recorded, you know, and somebody else will be able to do it, will 100 people be able to do it?
::No.
::But like the life of a tactic,
::is so, short.
::So that's why I think the strategic thinkers and, going back to, giving people with the strategy, now the tools to execute their strategy faster.
::And I gave a couple anecdotes of looking at like history and data to make decisions.
::But to your point, like I have a hypothesis.
::I've never tried it before.
::This is all based on intuition, but now I'm going to put it down and figure out how to execute it.
::Yeah.
::You're going to be able to put that thing into ChatGPT.
::And you might take some logic from other things you've seen.
::Like I know ChatGPT went to market community first.
::Sure.
::I know that their API was really big in getting it out there.
::Can I duplicate some of that?
::And then what's my special sauce that I can put on top?
::So what is the simplest way for people to start preparing for this?
::Right?
::Like, it sounds like it's how do you expand your ability to think creatively?
::But is there other stuff?
::Like, if we believe that all of this is going to become super simple and you've just got to have creative ideas and be able to think through them and present them, it's almost like you could jump the line and not have to worry about
::vibe coding or any of this other stuff, because that's going to become obsolete in six, nine months, what months anyway, right?
::So why try to learn that?
::Go read philosophy and whatever to help you be more creative.
::This is why I'm building and always thinking about how to be different.
::Not different for different sake, although I like that.
::I love that.
::But different because status quo,
::has a core challenge that's going to create a ceiling and not help the customers, the users, the potential users get to a future state.
::Like I just, you know, at the beginning of this conversation, I just gave you a really good answer to why CRM could, you know, I gave it up to somebody who's looking to disrupt the CRM space with some of that framing.
::Now, you have to have a product that works and does it.
::But the person that disrupts CRM isn't going to be a better CRM.
::Nobody is going to beat Salesforce and HubSpot in the CRM game.
::Salesforce did not beat Sable and SAP in the software game.
::They still haven't.
::They still haven't beat them.
::But I'll tell you what, in the cloud game, not only did they win, not only did they win,
::but they pulled Sable and SAP into the cloud game, into their new game.
::You've got to change the rules.
::So whoever the CRM breaker is, you call it structured database 8.0, guess what?
::Salesforce one day, if they do it right, is going to announce, I created a structured database 8.0, and now we're playing in here too.
::And everyone's like, oh, are they going to take over?
::Well, if the person that did it first,
::Has their foot on the gas?
::No.
::Okay.
::Netflix didn't, we'll never beat Blockbuster, Kyle.
::They'll never beat Blockbuster at the in-person video rental game.
::Never.
::Blockbuster's out of business because that game's no longer around.
::Yeah.
::Now, in the Blockbuster didn't even try to compete in the ship to you game.
::And then Netflix said, okay, they use that as a middle ground.
::And this is why I believe category design is part of that ****** moat.
::This is the big thing.
::It's not creating a better tactic that other people haven't done yet.
::That will work for a day, a week, a month.
::I don't think it'll work for a year.
::Interesting.
::Okay.
::I don't think it will.
::So you win for a month.
::What a great month.
::And then somebody else copies you.
::I don't even know if it'll be that long.
::Netflix then,
::After they did the DVD to you, so they disrupted them in two ways.
::One, product being different.
::Two, pricing being different.
::You ever rent, anyone who watches, ever rent a video for $7 and pay $35 in late fees?
::Oh, those were the days.
::I remember those days.
::Yeah.
::Or pay more in late fees than you paid for the rental.
::Anybody that rented something in person has had one experience of that, maybe more than they'll ever admit.
::Hopefully not more than one.
::And they learned their lesson and never did it again.
::So Netflix made it simple.
::They said, we'll deliver to you at home.
::You pay $7.99 a month or whatever it was, $6.99.
::And when you return it, you can get something else out.
::Right.
::But if you return within 30 days, it's $7.99, which is okay, maybe a
::It's probably the same price as it was to rent it in person, right?
::And then they said, okay, now that we have everybody here, let's disrupt ourselves.
::Because this e-commerce video rental is great, but streaming is really where it's at.
::So with streaming, Netflix essentially said you can have unlimited from the same price as the one at a time.
::We don't care, unlimited.
::They negotiated a ton of stuff and that was difficult, but it was possible.
::We wouldn't be here if it wasn't possible.
::And now they're going after cable, essentially, right?
::Yeah.
::Cable.
::Netflix will never beat HBO in cable.
::Well, they own HBO now, so they don't need to beat them.
::Is the point made?
::Everybody else went, HBO Max went streaming, everyone's streaming, then they bought them.
::Yeah, yeah.
::That.
::is the creativity.
::That is, I don't want to use the word meta, but that's the biggest unlock in creativity that I've seen.
::Uber is not competing against cabs or black cars.
::They're solving customer pain better.
::Those cabs of black cars took a long time and they were really expensive to get, if they could get them at all.
::Sure.
::So they built a bigger pie.
::They got all of that, sure, or they got enough of it.
::And now they have people in cities like LA abandoning their cars because Uber every month is cheaper than their car payments.
::They have people, and anyone who's listening to this remembers those days of running in the rain 10 blocks.
::That was, who's now calling an Uber for those 10 blocks?
::Also, people who live in cities used to huff it with bags, blocks and blocks.
::And
::Some of them are now calling Ubers for that, right?
::So they made a bigger market.
::Shall we go into Airbnb?
::You get it, right?
::Like the hotel market was finite.
::Now it's way bigger.
::Yeah.
::Way bigger.
::Somebody will say, oh, Airbnb is in the hotel game now.
::Yeah, of course.
::They're growing, growing, growing.
::So
::I believe that's the biggest unlock because if you do that and then you do best practices with GTM or you're just normal creative with that.
::But the unlock is them building something different.
::Thinking creativity, thinking outside of the box, solving a problem differently.
::But it's connecting with the people and like 1 core named and framed pain.
::Yeah.
::Like what you'll notice is I talked about AI being human native.
::I've done nothing but talk about pains this whole time, right?
::Like waiting for others to take it.
::You're like, oh, that's what agent AI, good.
::Take it.
::And talk about why, you know, HubSpot talked about inbound initially.
::But more specifically, they talked about how hard it was to drive traffic.
::And how all of this and there were no systems.
::So they built a solution and they built a motion really.
::And, that was cool.
::It was a lot of positioning, marketing too, like, hey, it's outbound, inbound, but it was really push pull.
::So positioning is positioning.
::I define it as positioning yourself in somebody else's category.
::How do you position yourself against something, against competitors?
::When you're building something new, Netflix created something new.
::Like, so there was no Redbox, which is like an easier video rental in person than Netflix.
::I'm sorry, than Blockbuster.
::They shut down recently.
::Do you know that?
::I think there's like one location left at this point.
::So when you build something new and you change the world with it,
::How many black car companies do you think shut down?
::How many taxis now?
::Well, I know the answer.
::I don't know the number answer, but I know the, anecdotally, like spoken to many people that used to drive cars that are now driving for Uber.
::And I'm sure you've been in at least one Uber in your life of somebody that used to be either a black car or a taxi driver, and now is doing this full-time.
::So they change the way the world works.
::That's
::what disruption is.
::Disruption is changing the way the world works.
::So creativity to your point, and so many people, and Clay included, who's a wonderful company, they take the out tactic point of view, like creativity and like thinking about a tactic first.
::And I think that that's a very difficult way to live because it's like, okay, what's next?
::All of this, like let's create loops.
::And I think all of those are great.
::But the biggest unlock, and do all of that after you unlock that new category, because then revenue's your number one goal.
::But if you're owning the category and increasing category potential, if revenue was the only goal of Uber, they'd be going after the taxi market.
::And that would be the revenue cap.
::They created something new and created a way higher cap, allowing them to get more revenue, their number one goal.
::And in the process, instead of that 10X valuation, I don't know Uber's valuation, but I would guess it's more than 10X, probably way more, right?
::So you get that.
::Now, if somebody started the next Uber now and they're playing in their category, they might get a paltry 10X, right?
::And same thing with the CRM category.
::Like as good as Pipedrive is, and it's a great company, they will never
::control that category potential.
::But when Salesforce launches Agent Force, guess what?
::They did it to try to grow the category.
::Yeah.
::And everybody under it benefits, but Salesforce, because of the category kings, are going to get the lion's share.
::And they've been around for a while, so typically it's like 75%.
::They're far below that.
::I've heard anything from 24% to 60%.
::I don't know what the number is.
::Because like what market?
::You're talking about, enterprise, small SMB, very different TAMs there.
::Yep.
::Yeah.
::So building something different, lovable, fastest growing company, right?
::Is it because they knew how to use AI better than everybody?
::Let's assume that they did.
::It made it easier to use AI.
::It did.
::Cursor, same thing.
::Cursor was the more technical version of that.
::Webflow wasn't competing against WordPress.
::Because WordPress was kind of clunky, difficult, super robust, still good, still around.
::But Webflow is the first no-code, or the first no-code CMS that we tied to it.
::If there was somebody before it, they're fine print, right?
::Like, so that is...
::How do I make it more native, more easy and accessible to more users?
::So, and then how can you rally the people around the problem, right?
::And I think this is how community is going to evolve in B2B.
::It's not just a place where your people are.
::I think that was community 1.0.
::And a place where your people are turned into how can we sell to a place where people are?
::Like, how could anybody, right?
::And that kind of ruined the stickiness of it.
::Community 2.0, whatever number, over one point of the creativity behind it is, okay, we're rallying against software.
::How can we get evangelists?
::to support this.
::HubSpot's phenomenal with Evangelist.
::You have your agency network and stuff.
::Yeah, But how can we activate the people who care about this that want to be the first movers, that want to wear that lovable with pride?
::How do we get them excited about this?
::Yeah.
::Clay did a great job.
::They did a great job with their GTM engineers.
::Now they have like 70 clay clubs worldwide.
::Notion did a great job.
::So
::Jared, as we kind of wrap up, because I want to be mindful of your time here, what is kind of one thing you want to leave people with closing, and then we'll kind of get to make sure that people can find you and follow up with you and connect with you.
::But what is kind of the one important thing that you want to make sure everybody takes away from you?
::I mean, I heard a bunch, creativity, be original, be thoughtful, you know, think outside the blocks.
::a soft customer pain.
::But do you have one final message you want to leave everybody?
::Yeah.
::So like combining some of these, like if you're going to build a product for the future, it needs to be human native.
::Like it needs to be easy to use.
::But if you're going to do that, the unlock outside of that, because that the product is one of the legs of the stool.
::The category is another.
::The business model is another, right?
::Like if Zapier was just MRR instead of usage, they would have lost a strategic, very strategic, like advantage, right?
::Like at a minimum and unlock, right?
::So all of those, you have the product, naming, framing, and claiming the problem, and then the category to solve it.
::and then rallying the people around it is going to be, and I hate, it's not really meta, but because it's not widely spoken about, it kind of appears that way, is going to take you way further.
::And that's more than just, and sure, talking about on LinkedIn is a great starting point, but really connecting with masses of people at scale or
::micro, but in lots of mounts, and activating them is going to help.
::I'm not going to use the word moat, but give you a distinct advantage.
::So how can listeners connect with you?
::What's the best way?
::Do you want everybody to come be part of your network?
::And I'll make sure we get all this in the show notes.
::Or how can people find you?
::Are you on LinkedIn?
::Where are you?
::LinkedIn.com forward slash in forward slash Jared Robin and join Rev Genius.
::RevGenius.com.
::There's a join button in the top right.
::No cost to join.
::We're going strong.
::We want to learn.
::Awesome.
::Well, I really appreciate you taking the time to have this conversation.
::We'll have to do it again in a year and see, you know, whether we're right or wrong.
