Why I built this
I never trusted B2B content, but I make a living from it, so I tried my best not to be a hypocrite. I did everything by the book. I'd use original data, I'd make sure our points were fair about the trade-offs, I'd interview experts to get practical advice from them… Every box you can think of, I checked. When AI came along, every panicking content marketer suddenly started worshipping the idea of having a unique POV, and so I focused on that as well. I platformed execs and their opinions, thinking I'd get the famous POV everyone's on about. Then I'd read what I wrote and feel: "This is complete bullshit."
But why? Why does it sound so fake and slimy? I went down a rabbit hole with Claude and GPT for weeks on end to find out. I ended up developing an entire framework about POVs from first principles. Long story short, vendor content feels fake because it is. There's no genuine perspective in it, nothing that stands on its own. It’s just one long sales pitch (i.e., an ad) made to sound like serious thinking. It might have a thought leadershippy tone and vibes. It might talk about the state of the industry, or maybe what your job should look like, so it feels like it's about YOU instead of the product. There might be a COO on the byline reminding you of his 20 years in the industry every other sentence and throwing out a bunch of scary stats. It's still a fucking ad through and through.
Nobody wrote it because they realized something interesting. They started by deciding what you have to believe before you'll buy (e.g., "X is dead, so I need product Y"), and then they worked backwards to pull a "POV" out of their ass to corner you until accepting that belief feels like the only sane choice. But if you take out the commercial case for whatever the vendor's pushing you to buy, adopt, rip out, replace, prefer, or change, you'll see that there's nothing left. I'm not talking about performative tactical tips or stats. Anyone can sprinkle those in. I'm asking whether there's still a bigger idea about your world beyond the vendor's agenda. Nope. This content has zero substance on its own. If you don't toe the line, then it's basically noise. A real POV is worth your time even if you never swallow the pitch. This isn't. Marketers call it a POV anyway. If you think it is, okay, then my barber's POV is: "Cutting your hair three times a month is the future."
A POV isn't a marketing tactic, and it's definitely not a psyop for overfunded startups that know they're solving problems no one cares about. It's the opposite. Marketing is by definition strategic. A POV is authentic. You follow it wherever it leads. Marketing messages have only a few implications (like "buy my stuff", "our way is better than theirs", …) but a POV has dozens. They're bigger than what you sell. A lot of times they have nothing to do with buying anything at all! Your buyers would talk about them and use them even if you disappeared. A genuine POV can absolutely help you sell. But that's a byproduct, not the point. That's why you can't just decide to have a POV. You can only earn it by being deeply tapped into your work / industry / buyer's world. If you try to force it, you just end up with another circular marketing message.
That's why I built this tool. If AI sees your content for what it really is (and breaks it down for you), what makes you think buyers with 10+ years of experience don't? Come on. You're insulting their intelligence.
No one needs a POV. If you naturally have one, amazing! It’s a huge multiplier. But you can grow your company on nothing but the most boring direct tactics like LinkedIn Ads, Google Ads, SEO, case studies, product videos, etc. All that stuff works! That's good marketing! Do it. Launch an ad. Tell me what you offer and how much it costs. Keep your strategic messaging. Nail your positioning. All those "salesy" things have a time and place. Look, I'm literally pitching you my tool right now!
Just don't hop on LinkedIn to call your CEO's disguised pitch an "industry POV". Don't go on podcasts bragging that your rigged research reports are "thought leadership".
You’re lying to yourself and everyone else.
