What happens when your product team suddenly moves six times faster at delivering features, but your sales and business traction is unchanged? AI, and particularly AI for coding, has made it easier than ever to ship features, but faster development doesn’t automatically create better products or better outcomes. The real question is whether what you’re building changes anything for the people who buy, use, and benefit from your product.

Today, I get into why AI evals and acceptance criteria measure the product, not its impact, and why your buyers are probably judging your POC on success metrics your team never wrote down. Toward the end, I make the concepts concrete by applying them to a fictional AI-powered pricing tool to show what defining quality looks like for both the fiscal buyer and the end user, and what to do with all that extra engineering velocity instead.

Your goal? Better; not just faster.

Links

• Episode 192: Analytics Product Usage Does Not Equal Value
• Episode 202: Surface Tension

What makes an analytics or intelligence product indispensable when technical sophistication alone isn’t enough to drive adoption, renewals, or sales? Why do POCs stall, why does adoption stay flat, and why aren’t prospects nearly as excited about your (impressive) analytics tech as you are?

It’s that the value never becomes obvious to the humans in the loop who do the buying, using, and justifying.

In this episode, I provide a framework for identifying the personas (roles) and experiences that can turn sophisticated analytical capability into perceived value. We’ll explore the five essential control surfaces you’ll need to address in your product and why founders and product leaders need to look beyond technical development (e.g., the delivery of AI models, dashboards, MCP connectors, agentic capabilities, and traditional interfaces).

I also examine the tensions that can emerge when incentives and goals for end users are not aligned with those of management and executive/fiscal buyers. Why does the efficiency ROI you sell to a management champion get read as a job threat to the operator/user whose adoption you need to succeed? I’ll answer this, plus the reasons AI can complicate those dynamics, how to prevent your product from creating an Invisible Intelligence Gap for customers, and why one past podcast guest’s “shipping the meter” matters much more than another feature. (That will also explain why I don’t think dashboards are dead in the age of AI.)

Highlights / Skip to:

• Short-term stakeholders you shouldn’t forget to satisfy (particularly during POCs/Demos) such as legal, compliance, and the game of defense “value be damned” they are playing (4:14)
• Not every mouth is equally hungry: deciding which personas deserve the most product attention (8:23)
• End users of your product such as developers, analysts, business users (often ICs) operating your product daily—and why the real bar is whether they would complain to the C-suite if your product went away (9:12)
• How managers of ICs (e.g., sales directors, customer service managers, VPs of data, etc.) might need something very different than end users, and why the manager’s needs might be a threat to those very IC users. The 3-part fix? Making all parties look successful to their superiors; improving the lives of those stakeholders; and arming champions with the evidence fiscal buyers need (11:08)
• The unique needs of executive and financial stakeholders who might have the most decision power while using your product the least (15:59)
• Why “shipping the meter” and the Invisible Intelligence Gap decide whether your product survives the next budget cut (17:07)
• The “AI Agent” as a “user” of your product: Why I think agents ride in a sidecar attached to humans and what you need to do to enable your customers and their AI agents to be successful (21:23)
• Why figuring out what control surfaces/UIs/UXs you may need to improve is the easy part if you know what they are a response to (26:37)

Links

• 197 - Agentic AI Isn't a Moat for Analytics Products.This is. - My episode on viable moats for BI/Analytics products in the age of AI
• The Invisible Intelligence Gap
• Behavioral Signals CEO Rana Gujral on “Shipping the Meter” is in Episode 198
• Need help identifying the 5 control surfaces in your product and satisfying the human users behind them? Schedule a free discovery call with me

Recently, I met David Krauza, VP of Enterprise Data Strategy and Products & Governance at Comcast, at the 2026 CDOIQ symposium, and after chatting for a bit, he agreed to come on the show to talk about how he, as an enterprise buyer, thinks about B2B software purchases in the age of AI. As vibe coding makes internal development more accessible, David explains why the buy-versus-build decision isn’t simply about whether a company can build a solution itself. Leaders need to weigh long-term roadmaps, maintenance, integrations, and whether they want to take on the responsibility of becoming a software company. The real question is not just what can be built, but what makes the most strategic sense to own.

David also highlights an important consideration vendors frequently overlook: the data their own products create and the possible importance of that to an enterprise data leader. This is particularly true when the product’s primary intended purpose is not analytics itself. In a complex sales environment, which may include a senior data leader as a champion or decision maker, product metadata, or what you might currently be thinking of as a byproduct, might actually be a primary decision point in an enterprise purchasing conversation. David then outlines the pre-implementation work required before any of this can be evaluated: establishing shared definitions, explicit success metrics, and a documented “before-picture” you can run at renewal time to understand the ROI of the product.

We also explored the hidden costs that can undermine an otherwise compelling product. A polished UI may still create UX friction if users have to constantly move between systems, while complex data integrations can introduce additional labor and operational burdens. This friction should be considered during the evaluation rather than discovered after development. David says vendors can stand out by demonstrating that they understand where a customer’s business is headed and how their roadmap supports that direction. He also dropped some real gold about the difference he sees as a buyer when being pitched by a founder vs. a B2B salesperson—and what the latter is missing when they pitch him.

• Why buy any products when AI allows you to build them yourself? (2:03)
• Allowing use cases and goals to dictate the adoption of internal solutions (4:03)
• Making data capture, accessibility, and ecosystem fit part of the buying decision (5:54)
• Is data missing in sales conversations due to a lack of marketing or of results? (8:36)
• Comcast’s method for deciding to renew when the intelligence is invisible (11:22)
• The importance of pre-post analysis when making a renewal argument (14:02)
• Where David sees the most time being wasted in the pitch process and why vendors who did _____ win more often (16:36)
• The hidden costs that often go undiscussed during the sales process (20:07)
• How Comcast evaluates UX friction (back-and-forth of switching between applications to accomplish work) (22:22)
• Other hidden factors that can prevent your sale from closing (25:13)
• Differences David sees between founder-led sales and sales-led sales (26:41)
• David’s advice for founders selling in the analytics and data space right now (28:14)

• David Krauza’s LinkedIn
• David Krauza’s Substack