A board director asks why we aren't pursuing an aggressive 'AI-first' strategy like competitor Peer X, which has been heavily marketing AI features. Internally, your view is that Peer X's announcements are mostly marketing on top of mediocre fundamentals.

Concepts in play

Economic moat Unit economics Pricing power

Strong answer · Executive casual MODEL

Two answers — one about Peer X, one about us. On Peer X, the marketing is louder than the substance; their last release was a thin wrapper with a launch event, and their retention numbers haven't moved. On us, the question I want to be ready for is the right one: where does AI change the unit economics of our specific business? We've identified two areas where it does — support deflection and document workflows — and both are in the roadmap with measurable targets. Where I'd push back is on the framing that 'AI-first' is itself a strategy. It's a capability. The strategy is what we use it for, and that has to be specific to our customer's job.

If they push back · reframe

The risk of looking flat-footed is real. The risk of theatrically launching a half-baked feature is bigger — that's what's happening at Peer X.

If they push back · concede & redirect

Visibility matters. A short, credible communication of what we are doing — with metrics — would be reasonable; a launch event without substance would not.

Traps to avoid

Adopting a buzzword as strategy.
Letting peer-press define the agenda.
Skipping the unit-economics test for AI features.

What you'd verify next

Concrete deflection or productivity numbers from the two roadmap items.
Peer X's actual retention and revenue impact, if disclosed.
Customer signal: are they asking for AI features, or are sales asking for talking points?

Use it · save a phrase to your Playbook

Briefs touched

1 / 31

Concepts opened

0 / 103

Playbook entries