正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
Unleashing our full Marketers Only lineup and day programming! Check out who’s joining us on Feb 28th and get ready for gud marketing alpha Bringing the heat with some talks from leaders who are in the trenches! Crypto Marketing X AI • xkonjin [@nufflelabs] • Tomer Sharoni [Addressable 🎯]... show more
10 条评论
A bear market is coming? Worried? Do not worry. Be a Smart Investor. Get Ready. Subscribe to “Market Twists & Turns” (it's free) & follow @BraVoCycles to profit in bull and bear markets. Daily to your mailbox.
@xkonjin @nufflelabs @TomerSharoni so excitedddddd
@xkonjin @nufflelabs @TomerSharoni Coachella of marketers but I’m missing it :/
@xkonjin @nufflelabs @TomerSharoni Damn it’s like the only thing missing is, me 😭
@xkonjin @nufflelabs @TomerSharoni Gmate
@xkonjin @nufflelabs @TomerSharoni The real Yap alpha
@xkonjin @nufflelabs @TomerSharoni I’ll be streaming every minute 🫡😎
@xkonjin @nufflelabs @TomerSharoni kindly upload the videos on youtube too.
@xkonjin @nufflelabs @TomerSharoni 🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤🤤
@xkonjin @nufflelabs @TomerSharoni This looks amazing, fomo is real
![Drew Bredvick compressed Vercel's sales team from 20 people to 2. And I think it's one of the best case studies in the history of AI and GTM. the problem: Sales development doesn't compound. Headcount does. Every additional SDR brings another salary, another ramp period, another personal definition of what "qualified" actually means. the solution: Drew built an AI agent that evaluates every inbound lead: researching the company, scoring intent, and routing only the credible opportunities to the sales team. Everything else is handled automatically. the result: Now two people, focused exclusively on edge cases and high-touch accounts handle the entire sales operation at the $10B company. Andddd the previous team wasn't let go. They were moved into "higher-value work" within the company. here's the play in six steps: 1. Shadow your best performer 2. Pull 90 days of historical data 3. Iterate until 95% agreement 4. Run in parallel with people 5. Get co-sign 6. Hand your top dogs the controller 1. shadow your best performer Sit next to your best SDR for a full day and document every decision: when they qualify, when they disqualify, every signal they check, every button they click. Drew found the real qualification criteria was not in process docs. Reps were checking LinkedIn profiles, scanning websites for tech stack indicators, and pattern-matching on how leads found Vercel. None of it was documented. 2. pull 90 days of historical data Export 90 days of contact form submissions with outcomes attached. Did they close? Ghost? Become a $500K whale? 3. iterate until 95% agreement Open any code editor with AI built in. Drop your CSV into a new project and start a conversation: "Look at this lead data. I'm going to give you a prompt to evaluate leads. Tell me if each one is qualified or not." Run this prompt against a batch. Compare the agent's calls to what actually happened—not what humans decided, but whether the lead converted. Find disagreements. Fix the prompt. Repeat. You're aiming for 95%+ agreement with historical outcomes. starter prompt: You are a lead qualification agent. For each lead, analyze the following signals and provide your reasoning BEFORE your decision: Company signals: website quality, tech stack, company stage, employee count Intent signals: how they found us, what they asked for, urgency indicators Fit signals: ICP match, use case alignment, budget indicators Structure your response as: REASONING: [Your analysis of each signal category] CONFIDENCE: [High/Medium/Low] DECISION: [Qualified/Not Qualified] NEXT ACTION: [Route to sales / Auto-respond / Request more info] Be conservative. You naturally want to qualify leads to make humans happy. Resist that urge. A false positive wastes sales time. A false negative just means we follow up later. 4. run in parallel with people Once the prompt works with historical data, prove it works live with your sales team: Here's what to track: - agreement rate: Agent vs. human decisions. - accuracy rate: Agent vs. actual outcomes. - processing time: Lead received → decision made. - confidence distribution: How often the agent is certain vs. uncertain - error log: When it got it wrong, and why. 5. get co-sign Drew started chatting with individual contributors. He got them to validate that the agent was making good calls. Then he partnered closely with the leader of the SDR team. He then let leaders of the sales team tweak qualification criteria, the leaders of the marketing team adjust scoring weights, and let leaders of the ops team define routing rules. b/c when leadership builds alongside you, they stop being gatekeepers and start being advocates. 6. hand your top dog the controller Flip the switch!! The agent processes every lead, makes a qualification decision, and even drafts the response. But a person reviews before anything goes out and has more time to check the genuinely f******* tough and weird cases. The system recommends; humans decide. The same loop should work In other parts of the org too: customer support triage, contract review, expense approvals, and even content moderation. Full playbook below w/ prompts and Drew's handholding. 👇](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2014000574195261730/amplify_video_thumb/2013993080546865152/img/7NvFFePIizJUtyIx.jpg)
![Apple’s iPad “Crush” Ad Is Bleak, Ominous and Threatening I don’t know if you’ve seen Apple’s just-released commercial for the “New” iPad Pro, but it’s pretty awful. It is dark, humorless, and feels like a not-so-thinly veiled threat to writers, musicians, game makers, developers, and artists of all kinds. …and children, even. I’ve watched it at least five times today alone, and I’m left with one big question. “Who on earth approved this?” It’s absolutely baffling that the world’s largest technology company, with the world’s biggest marketing budget, thought this would be a good idea. What kind of idiot—or idiots, since dozens or hundreds of people had to be involved in the writing, staging, producing, recording, and editing—felt this kind of ad would somehow create a positive emotional connection with consumers? Seriously, it’s terrifying. In a dank, cold warehouse, devoid of all life and humanity, an industrial crusher comes to life, and slowly starts destroying a collection of musical, philosophical, and artistic devices and instruments. For no apparent reason, everything starts getting smashed: first, a trumpet, then an arcade video game, then cans of paint, a piano, a globe, a metronome, a guitar… on and on it goes, obliterating everything in sight into a colorful, gooey, explosive mess. Books, camera lenses, lamps, a guitar, a sculpture, and a typewriter—all tools of the liberal arts—get mangled into a garbage heap as Sonny & Cher cheerfully sing, “All I ever need is you.” In the penultimate moment, a goofy yellow smiley emoji becomes a bug-eyed scary-clown freak as it, too, is crushed to death. Worse, if you enable closed captions like I do by default, the video says: “[POPPING] [SPLAT]” right as its eyeballs pop out of its head when Cher sings, “Give me a reason to build my world around you.” It’s enough to make a child cry. It has all the comforting vibes of the burnt pink teddy bear floating in the swimming pool on Breaking Bad after two planes crash in mid-air. I have so many questions (aside from simply wondering the names of the soon-to-be ex-employees who greenlit this abomination). First of all, as a trumpet player myself, I am personally offended that they made me watch a perfectly good trumpet get smashed to smithereens like it’s no big deal. Why would they torture me like this? Second of all, what is the message here? No, not that “the most powerful iPad ever is also the thinnest,” as the voiceover artist states in the last few seconds of the clip. I mean: what is the message? Ostensibly, pulverizing children’s toys, arcade games, architectural models, and ceramic Angry Birds into a paste implies something like “We’re taking all the best of humanity; all the collective works of Western Civilization, smashing it into pieces and putting it inside this remarkably thin device so you can have all of it in the palm of your hand.” But my oh my, is there an elephant in this room… he’s hiding behind the monstrous destroying machine. Did anyone inside Apple realize that everyone outside Apple will recognize this imagery in a metaphorical sense, but not the one Apple intended? We don’t see a crushing machine gently consolidating the greatest output of all our artistic endeavors, simply reformatted for a digital age and consumed by everyone with instant, fingertip access. We see what is painstakingly obvious to us, and the timing couldn’t possibly be worse. We see a giant, soulless machine consuming our work in a very different way. Right now, AI models are training themselves on our intellectual property and even our very own personally-identifying data. We aren’t the ones doing the consuming. We’re the ones being consumed. The tech industry has become one massive gaping maw, opening wide and swallowing everything in sight, chewing it up into little bits and pieces of comminuted waste, like a paper shredder or a garbage disposal. It’s destruction in its most literal form. And for what? For a newer version of the iPad that is only slightly thinner than its predecessor? For an only marginally improved version of Apple’s tablet device that has been around for 14 years? For increased profits? This is a terrible look for Apple. They may as well be saying: “All your work are belong to us.” Personally, I am a fan of artificial intelligence. I am eagerly embracing our robot overlords and I welcome our new CSV god (as the actual developers of AI models like to say). I look forward to the freedom and innovation that will come as a result of humanity augmenting our intelligence with AI like a force multiplier on a battlefield. But if Apple has the same perspective I do, they’re selling it in the worst possible way. When I see this video, I see that Apple is definitely crushing something… but I’m not sure what. -Crushing small companies that develop apps for the extremely heavy-handed App Store, which imposes byzantine restrictions on what they can and can’t do with their own apps? -Crushing competitors by limiting what they can do on the iOS and MacOS platforms with arbitrary and capricious rules about enabling functionalities that Apple doesn’t like, even if users do? -Crushing publishers and content creators with a punitive 30% fee on all subscriptions and in-app purchases? -Crushing choice and competition by not allowing app makers to make apps and programs that do the same thing that native apps already do, even if they do it better? -Crushing all human creativity and innovation by automating and systematizing everything? In the early days of the “Google vs. Apple” fight over the web and app stores, I was really concerned that Google was becoming way, way too powerful. Specifically, in 2015, when Google came up with “app streaming,” they announced a desire to form a “web of apps.” This was concerning. Especially when coupled with Google’s efforts to steal content from other websites and provide it to users via the “knowledge graph” results, ending up with the creation of “zero-click” search results pages, which absolutely punished website owners and content creators. By taking the most valuable content off a website and showing it to Google users without them needing to click through to the website itself, Google had essentially stolen everybody’s intellectual property with only the most minimal attribution possible (to fend off lawsuits no doubt, but with no intention of users actually visiting the website in question anymore). “Google is eating the internet,” I thought, and said out loud, (although I probably wasn’t the first person to use that phrase) But what I meant was purely an analogy. It was vague and ambiguous, almost silly. Maybe I was wrong, though: maybe it’s Apple that’s doing the eating. Maybe Apple is not only gobbling up everyone else’s work, but also homogenizing it—and us—and forcing us to use their platform, pay their fees, abide by their rules, and constantly keep upgrading, upgrading, upgrading, to an ever-thinner iPad in order to use it. Watch the video again. This is the stuff of nightmares. To be perfectly fair, even if I were to take the commercial at face value and ignore it’s off-the-charts creepiness and just stick to its one stated claim—that the new iPad Pro is thinner—it still fails as a commercial. Why? Because nobody cares how thin an iPad is. Seriously. I’ve owned an iPad since 2010: that means I’ve carried around a version of Apple’s already-thin tablet every day for over a dozen years. Never once have I said to myself: “You know what improvement I’d really like to see in this thing? I wish it were thinner.” Never. That thought has never crossed my mind, even once. You know what has? -Better battery life. -I’d like my iPad to not get hot to the touch when I use the Apple Pencil to take notes. -I wish it wasn’t so fragile: I dropped my brand-new iPad 2 back in the day when it slipped out of the arm-hold I was carrying it in, it bounced on the pavement, and the screen shattered into a thousand pieces, making it unusable. -I wish it had more storage. -I wish Apple would stop changing the type of cable connector it uses: I’ve gone from the original 30-pin connector to the Lightning connector, and now to the current USB-C/Thunderbolt connector. -I wish I could view the screen in direct sunlight. -I wish it wouldn’t overheat and turn off automatically when I use it outdoors in the summertime. Those are announcements I would welcome in a new iPad Pro commercial. None of this “now even thinner” nonsense nobody needs or cares about. So, back to the commercial. In my opinion, whoever made this ad should be fired. I almost never say that about other companies, especially for good-faith marketing efforts gone wrong… those of us who work in marketing make mistakes sometimes, and we learn from them. But cases like this warrant a special exception. Marketing and advertising are designed to make people want to buy your products. This commercial doesn’t just not make me want to buy Apple’s products. It makes me not want to buy Apple’s products, which is something altogether different. It turns me from someone who likes iPads into someone who is almost rethinking iPads entirely. That’s not just a bad advertisement; it’s a harmful advertisement. Apple’s usually known for great commercials. The legendary 1984 Super Bowl commercial was, of course, their best. I thought “Hello, I’m a Mac” was absolutely brilliant. They have made some missteps along the way, but this one is really bad. Not even their nauseatingly preachy and woke “Mother Nature” ad from a few years ago was this bad. Steve Jobs once said, “Technology alone is not enough—it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our heart sing.” My goodness, that last line alone is poetry itself! This ad seems to be Apple signaling that they don’t believe in that anymore. And I don’t think all this handwringing is an overreaction to where you could say “Oh, c’mon, it’s just a commercial! What’s the big deal?” It is a big deal. It tells you about the values of the company, and what they intend to communicate. Really, how is this the same company that used to sell iPhones by showing grandmas using FaceTime to connect with their baby grandchildren from afar during the holidays? Everything about it is wrong: even the thumbnail they chose for it (the bulging-eyed smiley face) and the fact that they gave it the title “Crush!” It was fun to see the reactions to the video online today. I find it fascinating that Apple shared it on YouTube but turned off the comments. On X, Tim Cook shared it Tuesday, and the video, which so richly deserves to be mocked, is getting it in spades. Some people are calling it “anti-art.” One user called it “soul-crushing,” which was about as literal and logical a response as you’d expect. It turns out Apple actually made an announcement about the commercial. In response to the (apparently unexpected) poor welcome it got, Apple wrote: “We missed the mark with this video, and we’re sorry.” Lame response from a tone-deaf tech behemoth, but still, they hopefully got the message. C’mon, Apple. I have seen the future, and this ain’t it.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1788740167194579387/media/GNLjSOOaEAAZ6VT.jpg)
