Full transcript
0:00I won't even use that most popular
0:02argument that these guys have never run
0:04a real business , yet are ready to dish
0:06out their little bits of advice for
0:08hours on end . It's funny that they
0:10couldn't care less what kind of
0:11business it is , how things are with the
0:13staff , what the market state is , or if
0:15there's even any potential there at all
0:16. Just a couple of introductory
0:19questions for the sake of decency . And
0:20then off they go , spewing their
0:22standard templates . The main thing is
0:23to pay for the breakdown and don't
0:25forget to put a deposit down for the
0:26next course . The main and obvious point
0:29about these business coaches is that
0:31none of them will ever take
0:32responsibility for their advice . But
0:35they will gladly take payment for it ,
0:37and a hefty one at that . In reality ,
0:39one could harp on about various
0:40Grebenkas and Sokolovskys for a very
0:42long time . There are people who have
0:44built entire social media channels just
0:46by generating this hate . But the sad
0:47part is that you can't defeat them . One
0:49disappears , and another one immediately
0:51pops up . This is also a market , and as
0:52long as there is demand , the circus
0:54will keep running . I’m not talking
0:55about outright fraudsters . There’s no
0:57point in even talking about them if
0:59someone is willing to pay 800,000 to
1:01some clown from TV to remove a curse .
1:03>> Go look for a green fence .
1:06>> Whoever the fool is here , they know it
1:08themselves . I’m talking about those
1:11who disguise their advice and mechanics
1:12as working methods , generously hand out
1:14seemingly adequate recommendations ,
1:16promise to teach people how to make
1:17money , and tens of thousands of
1:19recipients bring them their cash in the
1:20hope that they’ll be helped to launch
1:22or grow a business . And , of course , it
1:25will all happen with total ease . They
1:27write down the action plan , follow all
1:28the recommendations , but for some
1:30reason , nothing happens at all . For the
1:32record , it must be said that there is a
1:34small , tiny percentage of those who
1:36succeed . But why don't the others ? Are
1:38they not working hard enough , or are
1:40they doing something wrong ? Or maybe
1:42this tiny percentage is actually the
1:44real effectiveness of these coaches ,
1:46because effectiveness is far from the
1:48main criterion for selecting such
1:49recommendations . These fellows often
1:52talk about something that doesn't work
1:53at all . And sometimes it’s even
1:55harmful . Nowadays , the main criterion
1:57is just how good such advice sounds and
1:59how beautiful it looks . Let’s explain
2:01. Take a successful music producer who
2:03has been in the market for a long time .
2:05He’s experienced , he knows every
2:07trick in the book , but even he cannot
2:09produce exclusively hits . Moreover , he
2:11sometimes has failures , and entire
2:13albums just don't click . It’s the
2:15same situation with books and movies .
2:17Top actors , writers , an award-winning
2:19director , and a budget the size of an
2:21island nation . They filmed everything
2:23according to the rules of the current
2:25agenda , but nobody came to see it . And
2:27now the film studio is sitting there ,
2:28counting its losses . And how did that
2:30happen ? The problem is that success is
2:32too often completely random . And there
2:34is even proof of this . In 2006 , they
2:36conducted an experiment to try and
2:38predict the behavior of the music
2:40market . They took 14,000 volunteers and
2:43gave them 48 songs by completely
2:45unknown bands . The goal was to ensure
2:47people were hearing these songs for the
2:49first time . The volunteers were then
2:50divided into two groups . The first
2:52group could see how often a track was
2:53downloaded , while the second could not .
2:55The experimenters wanted to test just
2:57how much society influences our
2:59behavior . And spoiler alert : it
3:01influences us a hell of a lot . The
3:02experiment was conducted eight times .
3:03That is , one group of volunteers would
3:05vote , then they would leave , and the
3:07next group would start voting . Roughly
3:09speaking , each song had eight attempts
3:11to become a hit from scratch . Indeed ,
3:15good songs never failed , and those that
3:17were , well , frankly awful , never
3:19reached the top spots . However , all the
3:22others lived completely random lives .
3:25Meaning the same song could take first
3:27place in one case , and simply get lost
3:28in the next iteration . But the charts
3:31were most drastically reshaped when
3:32people could see the number of
3:34downloads . Then the gap between the
3:36leaders and the less popular songs
3:38became absolutely colossal . And that is
3:40the influence of one small download
3:42count . In the real world , the social
3:44pressure on us is much greater . It
3:46includes media , advertising , social
3:47networks , and our environment . In the
3:49end , by releasing the same set of
3:51tracks onto a hypothetical market eight
3:53times , different winners emerged each
3:55time . The authors concluded that
3:56quality is not the most important
3:58criterion for success . It’s more like
4:00a lottery , where the winner is whoever
4:02happens to get the first 10 downloads .
4:04Even a small initial lead turns into
4:06disproportionate success in the future .
4:09This is the so-called superstar theory
4:12from 1981 . In short , the rich just keep
4:14getting richer . So , some business
4:16thesis by pure chance . Goes viral on
4:19social media and gets tons of reach .
4:21And people see this and think , " I want
4:23likes too , I'll push this idea as well .
4:26" And they start filming this content .
4:28As a result , the snowball effect leads
4:30to this thesis becoming an undeniable
4:32baseline . Our social media feed is the
4:35same experiment , but with expanded
4:37capabilities , involving not 14,000
4:40people , but several million . Not 14,000
4:43, but several million . Not X , but Y.
4:45How do we even unsee this now ? And how
4:47do we stop noticing this in every
4:49single contrast ? There are millions of
4:52participants , and the number of
4:53business ideas is not limited to
4:54forty-eight ; it is infinite . You can
4:57comment , you can like , you can send it
4:59to friends , and all of this is governed
5:01by an algorithm that couldn't care less
5:03if the idea actually works or if it's
5:05just some trash generated by a neural
5:07network . He sees that people are
5:09reacting and goes , " Great , let's ramp
5:11it up . " By the way , the music industry
5:13is a great example of how modern
5:15filtering systems work . A 2024 report
5:18showed that the number of audio streams
5:20is increasing , meaning the pie is
5:22growing year over year . Out of 200
5:24million tracks available on various
5:26platforms , 93 million have been played
5:29fewer than 10 times . Another 47 million
5:31tracks have been played fewer than 100
5:33times . At the very top , there are only
5:3533 tracks , each with over a billion
5:37streams . So , out of all 200 million ,
5:40only 33 tracks became successful , while
5:43no one even noticed the rest . I’m
5:46afraid to even imagine the incredible
5:48volume of AI-generated music being
5:50uploaded to these platforms right now .
5:52If there were 200 million tracks
5:54yesterday , tomorrow there will be 40
5:56times that many . It is completely
5:58unclear how live musicians are supposed
5:59to work in such a field . That is the
6:01new reality . Choice is determined
6:03purely mathematically , based on numbers
6:05. The same mechanics apply to advice on
6:08how to conduct business . What about the
6:10wisdom of the crowd and all that ? If a
6:12thesis has made it through such a
6:14massive filter of so many people , while
6:16others haven't , maybe it’s the most
6:18correct one . In 2021 , a term appeared
6:21that provides a clue : " algorithmic
6:24monoculture . " The idea is that if all
6:26market participants make decisions
6:28based on the same algorithm , the
6:30overall quality of those decisions
6:31drops . Even if such an algorithm makes
6:34an individual much smarter , the lack of
6:37alternative options makes the entire
6:39collective dumber . So , it turns out
6:41that variability and accessible
6:43diversity are incredibly important . In
6:462024 , there was a study on the impact
6:48of AI on writing . They took three
6:50hundred people and had them write short
6:51stories for teenagers . Some of these
6:54people used AI , others wrote in the
6:56old-fashioned way , and then six hundred
6:58readers rated the resulting work . The
7:01work of authors with low creativity
7:03improved the most . For good authors ,
7:05nothing changed . In the end , AI seemed
7:08to level the playing field , raising the
7:10average bar . The texts individually
7:12seemed to get better , but the
7:13similarity of the stories increased
7:15significantly . People are writing
7:16better , but they are writing the same
7:17things . A funny detail : when readers
7:20were told the text they read was
7:22created using AI , they instantly
7:24lowered the author's rating by at least
7:2625 % from the original score . Well ,
7:29that’s because people are willing to
7:31put up with a certain level of
7:32inefficiency for the chance to see new
7:34ideas . For example , the entire patent
7:36system is built on this scheme . A
7:38person invents something , and the state
7:40grants them a temporary monopoly on the
7:42use of that invention . And , naturally ,
7:44at that moment , the value of the
7:46invention shoots through the roof . A
7:47huge number of people won't be able to
7:49afford to buy it , even if they really
7:51need it . It would be beneficial for
7:53both the state and society if patents
7:56didn't exist at all , but then inventors
7:58would have no incentive to come up with
8:00anything new . By the way , there are
8:02counterexamples in human history where
8:05high efficiency is achieved by reducing
8:07diversity . For example , under
8:09capitalism , dozens of companies try to
8:11enter the market simultaneously to
8:13launch a product , but along the way , 90
8:16% of them lose and drop out of the race .
8:18This results in monstrous , inefficient
8:21duplication . The USSR had a plan that
8:23eliminated this problem , but it led to
8:26a lag in consumer innovation . So , here
8:29you have a super-efficient galosh
8:31factory . Well , in one color , three
8:33sizes . No New Balances for you . And as
8:35practice has shown , society agrees to a
8:37certain level of inefficiency for the
8:39sake of new ideas and products . I think
8:41you can already guess how this whole
8:43story affects the theses of business
8:45coaches . And we will go through them
8:46further with examples . But we need to
8:48pay attention to one more point . This
8:50whole story with algorithms has long
8:52gone beyond social networks and is
8:53heavily influencing real entrepreneurs .
8:55Karel Chayka describes a curious
8:57observation . Wherever he is , in Seoul ,
8:59in Moscow , in Berlin . Coffee shop
9:01interiors are almost always the same in
9:03all locations around the world today .
9:05Lots of wood , exposed concrete , brick ,
9:07Edison bulbs , white tiles , Scandinavian
9:10furniture — a basic set . All these
9:13owners , while in completely different
9:15corners of the planet , sit in the same
9:17algorithmic feed and see the same viral
9:19reels . So , an image of an ideal coffee
9:21shop forms in their heads , which they
9:23implement more or less the same way .
9:25And the exact same thing happened with
9:26this whole " successful success " culture
9:28. Out of dozens of possible courses of
9:31action , these guys today offer us
9:33literally one universal one . And do you
9:35know which advice is voiced most often ?
9:37You have 100 % heard it . Find a
9:39customer's pain , remove it , and you
9:41will become incredibly rich . I'm sure
9:43there is no one who hasn't heard this
9:44text . You can't argue with it , right ? A
9:46person has excess weight . Well , sell
9:48them a book or weight-loss courses ; in
9:50an extreme case , I don't know , drag
9:51them to a surgeon for liposuction . They
9:53have pain , and they will be ready to
9:55pay to solve that pain . And actually ,
9:57yes , the scheme with this pain does
9:59work in some areas , but it is far from
10:00universal , and sometimes it is harmful .
10:02It is extremely convenient for
10:04algorithms . A simple , clear answer to
10:06the question : " What should I do ? " " Just
10:08look for pains and resolve them . " This
10:10format is perfect for a one-minute
10:12explanation . And there is simply no
10:13advice more popular than this right now
10:15. The rampant algorithm has spread this
10:16idea far and wide . And now thousands of
10:17people are desperately trying to find
10:19some sort of pain where none exists .
10:21Well , for example , what pain does hand
10:23soap solve ? It has been with us
10:25throughout human history , successfully
10:27helping us wash away dirt . A beautiful ,
10:29wonderful product . But the unhappy
10:31marketer is forced to look for some
10:32kind of pain . And so they pull
10:34nonexistent problems out of thin air
10:35and fragment their audience more and
10:37more . The result is something like
10:40liquid perfume soap for young moms who
10:42care about nature and love the
10:43Zelenskiy scent , but don't want to pay
10:45for the original . That is how some sort
10:48of marketing Frankenstein is born . What
10:50pain does an advertising agency solve ?
10:52It’s the pain of low sales . Or a
10:54grocery store — that’s the pain of a
10:56hungry belly . No , well , if you want ,
10:58you can certainly drag any stupid
11:00formulation in by the ears , but in most
11:02traditional businesses , there is no
11:04pain . Again , this is not some
11:06contrarian opinion of mine . There are
11:08statistics based on large data sets
11:10that experts have been collecting for
11:12over 15 years . Brands grow their
11:14revenue by expanding penetration ,
11:16through occasional , random buyers , not
11:18by milking their loyal audience . The
11:21basic rule is elementary : mental and
11:22physical availability , so that a person
11:24remembers you at the moment of purchase
11:26and can find you on a figurative shelf .
11:29And I really liked the funny term "
11:31meaningless distinctiveness . " This is
11:33when a brand stands out from
11:34competitors based on features that , in
11:36reality , do not affect quality or add
11:38any clear utility to the product . For
11:41example , you might remember the Pantene
11:42shampoo commercials with provitamin B5 .
11:45Provitamin B5 is just regular panthenol
11:47, or sunflower oil labeled "
11:48cholesterol-free . " Cholesterol is found
11:50only in animal products ; in vegetable
11:52oil ... ... it cannot exist by definition .
11:54Five-blade razors or various
11:55pseudo-scientific ingredients in
11:57cosmetics . It's funny that all these
12:00fabricated , empty attributes actually
12:02work . The effect is explained simply .
12:04If the manufacturer puts such a
12:05powerful emphasis on it , then there
12:07must be some point to it . It must be
12:09important . That’s how buyers think .
12:11And such distinctiveness easily
12:12justifies a high price premium for the
12:14product . These are exactly the examples
12:16of " pain " pulled out of thin air , where
12:18large corporations invent a problem and
12:20sell its solution . Well , a classic . But
12:22as I see it , for most people today ,
12:24such a classic comes with a negative
12:26sign . And this scheme is completely
12:28unsuitable for small businesses , which
12:29is exactly who all these Instagram
12:31business coaches are targeting . To
12:33educate people about pains they don't
12:34even know they have , you need massive
12:36budgets that an average sole proprietor
12:38simply doesn't have . The advice is , of
12:40course , nonsense , because it wasn't
12:42born for the human world , but purely
12:43for Reels . But you have to admit , they
12:45sound incredibly pleasant . Step out of
12:48your comfort zone , find some pain ,
12:50solve it , and that's it . People get
12:52hooked on this because it sounds so
12:54incredibly simple . A grown , smart guy
12:55has figured out how to make you rich . I
12:58believe the essence of business is
12:59creating value to generate profit , in
13:01order to scale that creation . A service
13:04or a new product that provides value to
13:05people . That is nowhere near a synonym
13:07for pain . The scale and the vector of
13:08thinking here are in completely
13:09different planes . There’s this
13:11CrossFit race , HYROX , that started
13:13almost 10 years ago in Germany . Only
13:15600 people took part in the first
13:17competition . It’s a tough endurance
13:19test : 8 km of running with a strength
13:21station every kilometer . Pushing sleds ,
13:24doing lunges with 20 kg on your
13:26shoulders . So , it all started with six
13:27hundred participants . But the last
13:30competition already drew 1.5 million
13:32people in 1,000 gyms worldwide . And
13:34what kind of pain does this
13:36organization solve ? Does it help all
13:38these fit , trained athletes lose weight
13:40? Businesses shouldn't constantly look
13:43for some pain or invent problems . They
13:46should organize something society needs
13:47, even if it’s just a scoreboard and
13:49a stopwatch . Yes , usually it doesn't
13:51happen as simply as they preach on
13:53TikTok . And ChatGPT doesn't suggest a
13:55flawless , correct direction . You will
13:58have to take on high risks of losing
14:00time and money . And by the way , have
14:02you often heard about risks on
14:03Instagram ? Well , that's because such
14:06Reels upset vulnerable future
14:07millionaires and don't get their likes .
14:10Nobody wants to hear about unpleasant
14:12things like loans , bankruptcy , or debt .
14:14That doesn't hype people up .
14:15Unfortunately , the trend of information
14:17homogenization will only continue to
14:19gain momentum . Right now , people are
14:21still resisting generative AI , but it's
14:23like digital cameras , e-readers , or
14:25streaming services . At first , we
14:27grumble and complain that there's no
14:29soul in it , then we join the rest of
14:31the users . Selection of ideas and
14:33thoughts now happens not through a
14:35filter of real-life applicability , but
14:37through shareability on phones . A
14:39universal answer is convenient and
14:40socially acceptable , and more and more
14:42people will settle for them . A long
14:44time ago , search engines gave users a
14:46list of sources from which the person
14:48chose for themselves . Now , the top line
14:50shows a single synthesized answer ,
14:52literally an average of everything
14:54found . By the beginning of 2026 , almost
14:5670 % of Google searches ended without a
14:58single click . Meaning the user got an
15:00averaged generation and didn't look any
15:02further . The shapes of modern cars are
15:04increasingly merging , differing only by
15:07their emblems . An averaged pretty
15:09female face on Instagram under a filter
15:11or averaged chart music created more
15:14for algorithms than for people . And the
15:16exact same thing is happening with
15:17business advice . Yes , alternative
15:19options will not disappear and will
15:21continue to exist , but not as the first
15:23link or in the bestselling book . More
15:26and more , you will have to put in
15:28effort to reach them . Well , who is to
15:30blame that they don't fit into that
15:32coveted minute of vertical video ? Ma