I will repaste my past messages here for you on my comments on this topic. On Monday, June 5th, I said: "@Ray Young The source material is just not insightful. I am yet to see any real expertise. We spoke about this before with @Jo Detavernier on Tuesday, May 16. Jo said, in part, "If I am a potential investor, I would like to see numbers. I don't want to read about 'solid demand.'" We need insights rooted in expertise, not promotion. Imagine a promotion to expertise continuum to describe content viability: ```                        Non-viable       viable (reworkable)                      ↓-----------------↓↓-----------------↓ PROMOTION<--------------------------------------->EXPERTISE                             ↑                    Ronan is here                             ↑-----------↑                                   big gap ``` There needs to be a base level of expertise to work from. The gap is too big for GPT or one of us to make the jump (unless we are getting paid for research!); we are not experts. Moving forward, Ronan's expectations around source content should change, and we need to be more blunt and assertive with what's necessary to create high-quality content." There you have the problem: "We need insights rooted in expertise, not promotion." And my proposed solution: "Ronan's expectations around source content should change, and we need to be more blunt and assertive with what's necessary to create high-quality content." I would merely be repeating myself on a call. That is, unless you asked me how to rework his expectations, but you already know that would require a meeting with him to go over a timely subject + insightful angle. [[Thought Leadership]]