Business Strategy

This is the most underrated way to use Claude: (and it has nothing to do with writing or coding) It's competitive intelligence. Using data that's free, public, and updated every single week. Here's my extract step by step guide: Step 1. Go to claude .ai. Step 2. Select the new Claude "Opus 4.6." Step 3. Turn on "Extended Thinking." Step 4. Pick a competitor. Go to their careers page. Step 5. Copy every open job listing into one doc. (Title. Team name. Location. Full description) Step 6. Save it as one .txt or .docx file. Step 7. Search the company at EDGAR (sec .gov) Step 8. Download its recent 10-K or 10-Q filing. (Official strategy, risks, and financials - all public.) Step 9. Upload both files to Claude Opus 4.6. Step 10. Paste this exact prompt: "You are a competitive intelligence analyst at a rival company. I've uploaded [Company]'s complete current job listings and their most recent SEC filing. Perform a strategic intelligence analysis: → Cluster these roles by what they suggest is being built. Don't use the team names they've listed. Infer the actual product initiatives from the skills, tools, and responsibilities described. → Identify capabilities or teams that appear entirely new — not mentioned anywhere in the SEC filing. These are unreleased bets. → Find roles where seniority is disproportionately high for a new team. This signals executive-level priority. → Cross-reference the SEC filing's Risk Factors and Strategy sections with hiring patterns. Where are they investing against a stated risk? Where did they flag a risk but have zero hiring to address it? → Predict 3 product launches or strategic moves this company will make in the next 6-12 months. State your confidence level and cite specific job titles and filing sections as evidence. Format this as a 1-page competitive intelligence briefing for a CMO." What you'll find: → Products that don't exist yet but will in 6 months. → Priorities that contradict what the CEO said. → Risks they told the SEC but aren't addressing. This is what consulting firms charge $200K for. It took me 10 minutes. I used the new Claude 'Opus 4.6' for a reason: ✦ It read 60 job listing & a 200-page filing together.  ✦ And connects dots across both. ✦ It is superior in thinking and context retrieval. That's why I didn't use ChatGPT for this.

Separate reports by the publicity firm Edelman and Pew Research (links in orig text, below) show that Americans, and more broadly large parts of Europe and the western world, do not trust AI and are not excited about it. Despite the AI community’s optimism about the tremendous benefits AI will bring, we should take this seriously and not dismiss it. The public’s concerns about AI can be a significant drag on progress, and we can do a lot to address them. According to Edelman’s survey, in the U.S., 49% of people reject the growing use of AI, and 17% embrace it. In China, 10% reject it and 54% embrace it. Pew’s data also shows many other nations much more enthusiastic than the U.S. about AI adoption. Positive sentiment toward AI is a huge national advantage. On the other hand, widespread distrust of AI means: - Individuals will be slow to adopt it. For example, Edelman’s data shows that, in the U.S., those who rarely use AI cite Trust (70%) more than lack of Motivation and Access (55%) or Intimidation by the technology (12%) as an issue. - Valuable projects that need societal support will be stymied. For example, local protests in Indiana brought down Google’s plan to build a data center there. Hampering construction of data centers will hurt AI’s growth. Communities do have concerns about data centers beyond the general dislike of AI; I will address this in a later letter. - Populist anger against AI raises the risk that laws will be passed that hamper AI development. To be clear, all of us working in AI should look carefully at both the benefits and harmful effects of AI (such as deepfakes polluting social media and biased or inaccurate AI outputs misleading users), speak truthfully about both benefits and harms, and work to ameliorate problems even as we work to grow the benefits. But hype about AI’s danger has done real damage to trust in our field. Much of this hype has come from leading AI companies that aim to make their technology seem extraordinarily powerful by, say, comparing it to nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, a significant fraction of the public has taken this seriously and thinks AI could bring about the end of the world. The AI community has to stop self-inflicting these wounds and work to win back society’s trust. Where do we go from here? First, to win people’s trust, we have a lot of work ahead to make sure AI broadly benefits everyone. “Higher productivity” is often viewed by general audiences as a codeword for “my boss will make more money,” or worse, layoffs. As amazing as ChatGPT is, we still have a lot of work to do to build applications that make an even bigger positive impact on people’s lives. I believe providing training to people will be a key piece of the puzzle. DeepLearning.AI will continue to lead the charge on AI training, but we will need more than this. [Truncated for length. Full text, with links: https://lnkd.in/gUgMDMGS ]

I once lived at distributor’s home in a small town because I had no choice... When Marico Limited was nascent, Bombay Oil Industries was still the family’s backbone. In those early days, I wanted our business to transform from a commodity trade into a branded consumer company. To do that, I had to understand the ground truth. There were no fancy hotels in the towns we visited. I stayed in dusty and small guest rooms. I sat with distributors over chai and samosas. I watched how coconut oil was stored, how shopkeepers priced it, how packaging changed hands. One day, a retailer told me matter-of-factly: “You always sell big tins. When people come back to buy, they carry a few kilos. If your packet is small, they will pick your brand at convenience.” That simple insight was a turning point. It nudged us to expand SKU ranges, introduce smaller packs, and think about how to become a “grab-and-go” brand, rather than just a bulk commodity supplier. If you ask me where innovation begins, it begins in the least glamorous places. In the musty shelves of neighbourhood stores, in conversations that feel insignificant, in paying attention to what people don’t say aloud. Takeaway for entrepreneurs: Your real research lab isn’t spreadsheets or agencies. It’s the ground. If you go build empathy for your customer at the shelf level, the brand strategy almost builds itself. #entrepreneurship #business #resilience #mindset #growth

People sometimes see Acumen raising large amounts of commercial capital and assume we no longer need philanthropy. No sooner had we announced $250M for our Hardest-to-Reach fund — to bring off-grid light and electricity to 70 million people across 17 of Africa’s most challenging markets — than some concluded Acumen must be set. In fact, the opposite is true. First, let me acknowledge how tough this fundraising environment is. I couldn’t be prouder of the team and partners who made our Hardest-to-Reach announcement possible after 2.5 years of relentless effort. And yet it’s worth underscoring: none of this would have been possible without philanthropy. Philanthropy is the first mover. It allows us to place early bets in fragile markets like Malawi and Benin, cover the development costs needed to structure and raise investment across the capital spectrum and provide the technical assistance that builds capacity. To put a finer point on it: of the nearly $250M raised for Hardest-to-Reach, more than $80M is philanthropic. That risk-taking anchor made it possible to prove new models — and ultimately unlock institutional investment. During Climate Week last month, I met philanthropists who see this as the time to pivot from grantmaking toward impact investing. While I understand the instinct, I want to offer a reframing: it’s not either/or. If you want your capital to have lasting impact, there may be no better use than catalytic philanthropy — especially when deployed through blended finance models like Hardest-to-Reach. Philanthropy cannot see itself at the margins. It is catalytic capital — risk-taking, patient, and unabashedly impact-first — creating the conditions for commercial capital to follow. And it's more important now than ever as traditional aid shrinks and many governments shift from grants to investment approaches. At Acumen, philanthropy from donors at all levels remains our bedrock. It enables us to reach the hardest-to-reach, build inclusive markets where none exist, and keep social impact at the center of everything we do. And because solving problems of poverty is Acumen’s mission, raising philanthropic capital will remain essential to our work.

The disconnect between sales managers and reps in 2025 is wild. Manager: "Just pick up the phone!" Rep: *sends 47 emails, 12 texts, 3 LinkedIn messages, and a carrier pigeon* Sound familiar? 😅 After 20+ years in sales, I've watched this communication gap grow wider every year. But here's what both sides are missing: It's not about choosing ONE channel. It's about understanding WHICH channel works WHEN. The most successful reps I've seen? They've cracked the code: **First 24 hours:** • Email → Sets professional tone • LinkedIn → Shows you've done homework • Text → Only if they've given permission **Days 2-5:** • Phone call → NOW it's time (they know who you are) • Voice note → Personal touch that stands out • Video message → Shows real effort **The truth?** Your manager's right - calls DO convert better. You're also right - cold calling blind is dead. The magic happens when you warm them up FIRST. Think of it like dating: You wouldn't propose on the first date. So why are we calling strangers without context? **My top 3 strategies that actually work:** 1. The "Permission Play" End every email with: "Would a quick call tomorrow at 2pm work to discuss?" (They expect it now = higher answer rate) 2. The "Multi-Touch Warm-Up" Email → LinkedIn view → Call within 48 hours (They recognize your name = 3x more likely to answer) 3. The "Context Creator" Reference their LinkedIn post before calling "Saw your post about X, had a thought..." (You're not a stranger = conversation not pitch) Here's the brutal truth: Managers: Your reps aren't lazy. They're adapting to how buyers ACTUALLY buy in 2025. Reps: Your manager isn't wrong. The phone still closes more deals than any other channel. Bridge the gap. Use both. Win more. What's your take - Team Phone or Team Omnichannel? P.S I'm running a FREE 6-week LinkedIn Social Selling Bootcamp starting Monday 15th Sept, grab a free spot here https://lnkd.in/eVmxsMbM

£322M in revenue. £120M cash in the bank. And still family-owned after 130 years. That’s Barbour. Most fashion brands chase growth at all costs. Barbour never has. A century-old and quietly spinning out £30m+ profit every year. The antithesis of the modern fashion playbook. → Revenue: £322m last year – compounding at 7% a year over 5 years → Gross margin: ~50%, among the strongest in fashion → Profit after tax of : £34m last year → Cash: £120m in the bank, balance sheet strength unrivalled They call themselves a Premium Niche. Jackets built to last decades, not seasons. So what’s the playbook? 1️⃣ Brand without dilution → Barbour does not discount — not online, not abroad → Instead they push sales via story-led branding 2️⃣ Heritage with a future → Same CEO for 25 years. Dame Margaret Barbour as Chair for 50. Jackets still made in South Shields since 1894 → Paired with reinvention: collabs with Erdem, Alexa Chung, Ganni. → Wax for Life, repairs and eco-materials - before Patagonia made it cool. 3️⃣ Global appeal → 130th anniversary campaign hit 1B impressions in 10 days across Asia → Early into China, Japan and the US - leveraging British heritage abroad → But adapted for local climates (eg. a 52-week summer range in the Gulf) Fashion loves disruption. Barbour proves discipline disrupts harder. If “boring” means £30M+ profit and £120M in cash… Maybe more brands should try being boring. -- I’m John - a CFO who loves brand and co-owner of Traction. Follow for insights on how - and why - brand building belongs on the balance sheet.

Who are Europe’s biggest banks – and what drives their standing? 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 — Spanish banks lead because Santander and BBVA earn a big share of profits in faster-growing markets like Latin America and the US - diversification investors reward more than purely domestic scale. — BNP Paribas and Crédit Agricole run some of the world’s largest balance sheets, yet trade below much smaller peers - a reflection of heavy regulation, thin margins, and close government ties that weigh on valuations. — Nordic banks earn an efficiency premium: lean cost structures, steady profitability, and reliable dividends lift valuations well above what balance sheet size alone would suggest. — German banks remain valued below their scale, reflecting years of restructuring and modest returns, even as Deutsche Bank has made real progress in stabilising profitability. — Central and Eastern European banks such as OTP and PKO benefit from faster-growing domestic markets, while Erste leverages strong positions across the region - giving CEE lenders momentum that Western peers often lack. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 — EU banks are among the most capitalised globally, with strong CET1 ratios and liquidity buffers. Yet they trade at lower price-to-book multiples than US peers - reflecting investor scepticism about long-term profitability. — European banks typically deliver return on equity (RoE) in the 7–9% range, versus 12–15% for US peers. Higher capital requirements, fragmented markets, and slower revenue growth explain the gap. — Europe still lacks a true single banking market. Barriers to cross-border mergers keep the system dominated by national champions rather than continental players, limiting scale efficiencies. — Nordic banks lead in digital adoption; Southern European banks leverage global footprints. But across the board, EU banks face margin pressure from fintechs, Big Tech, and payment specialists. — ESG and green finance are rising priorities, with French banks in particular positioning themselves as leaders in sustainable lending and investment. — Cost-cutting and restructuring remain central themes, especially in Germany and the Netherlands.   Opinions: my own, Graphic source: MarketCapWatch Subscribe to my newsletter: https://lnkd.in/dkqhnxdg

I often come across resumes and LinkedIn headlines that use the word “seasoned”, such as: “Seasoned executive with over 20 years of experience in the manufacturing space.” On the surface, it might sound strong. In reality, it raises several concerns. First, this statement is not a clear differentiator. Experience alone does not make someone unique. What matters most is how that experience has been applied, what has been learned, and the results achieved. Next, the term seasoned is vague. It does not communicate specific skills, achievements, or expertise. It has also become an overused cliché in resumes, which makes it less impactful. Finally, trust me when I say that employers and recruiters are not searching for the word seasoned when evaluating candidates. They are scanning for evidence of capability, examples of impact, and quantifiable results. Instead of describing yourself as seasoned, show the details that prove your value. For example: Rather than “seasoned operations director,” consider: “Director of operations who drives operational excellence across global manufacturing organizations, overseeing multi-site production valued at $500M+. Generated over $75M in efficiency gains." That paints a far stronger picture of what you bring to the table. Lastly, there is a risk that the word seasoned can invite age bias. Whether intentional or not, highlighting age or lengthy years of experience can trigger assumptions. Eliminating terms that are vague or loaded can help reduce this risk. In your career materials, focus on what sets you apart. Share the skills, insights, and measurable outcomes that showcase why you are the right fit. Food can be seasoned. Careers should be defined by value.

"Is $20/month too much for our product?" Instead of guessing, we used the Van Westendorp method to find our pricing sweet spot. 4 questions revealed exactly what users would pay (and we haven't touched our pricing since). Here's the framework any founder can steal: 1. Send a survey to actual users, not prospects We surveyed people already using Gamma. They understood the real value of our product, not hypothetical value. Too many founders survey their waitlist or randomly select people who have never used their product. That's like asking someone who's never driven about car prices. 2. Ask these 4 specific questions - At what price would this be too expensive for you to consider it? - At what price is it expensive but still delivering value? - At what price does it feel like a bargain? - At what price is it so cheap you'd question if it's reliable? These create bookends for perceived value. You're mapping the entire spectrum of price psychology, not just asking "what would you pay?" 3. Plot the responses and find where the lines intersect Graph responses from lots of users. Where "too expensive" and "too cheap" lines cross: that's your acceptable range. Where "expensive but fair" meets "bargain": this is your optimal price point. 4. Test within the range, don't just pick the middle The intersection gives you a range, not a number. We ran pricing experiments within that range to see actual conversion rates. A survey shows willingness to pay; testing reveals actual behavior. 5. Lean towards generous (especially for product-led growth) We chose to be more generous with AI usage than our "optimal" price suggested. Word-of-mouth growth matters more than maximizing initial revenue. Not everything shows up in the numbers. 6. Lock it in and stop tinkering Once you find the sweet spot through data, stick with it. We haven't changed pricing in 2 years. Every month debating pricing is a month not improving product. Remember: pricing is a signal, not just a number (Image: First Principles)

A promising Indian health-tech startup I invested in just shut down. Hard lessons inside… I invested in Onco back in 2020. It was basically an aggregator for cancer hospitals. Patients could visit their website or app, see all the hospitals and treatment options, get online consultations with doctors, and then choose where they wanted to get treated. They raised over $7 million from top investors like Accel, Chiratae, and others. They also built a strong brand. At their peak, they had 25,000+ visitors and over 1000 unique leads (cancer patients) every month - all organic, across their website, app, and social channels. We really thought hospitals would see the value in owning or partnering with a brand like this. But it didn’t work out that way. I’m sharing some lessons I learned watching this journey. Might be useful for founders (and investors) trying to crack India’s healthcare market: 1. Hospitals in India hold all the power. If you’re trying to aggregate them, you’re basically at their mercy. They will delay payments, ignore contracts, and squeeze every bit of margin out of you. They don’t really need you. Your margins get eaten alive by collections and compliance costs. 2. Digital only healthcare sounds great in pitch decks, but it doesn’t work here yet. People don’t pay enough for online-only services. Digital is great for leads, but it can’t be your whole business. Unit economics just don’t work with digital-only solutions because of low ARPU. 3. Offline is necessary. And brutally capital-intensive. Healthcare in India is still very much offline. Patients want to see a real centre and talk to doctors in person. Building those offline centres isn’t cheap. Each one takes at least 12–24 months to break even. You need serious money upfront. If you can’t fund that, you’re stuck. So, if you are building an aggregator only business in Indian healthcare, think twice. If you don’t have strong answers for these challenges, you’re just setting yourself up to be a middleman with no leverage, no margins, and no way out. That’s business suicide. #HarshRealities