AI Isn’t a Tool. It’s Infrastructure

AI Isn’t a Tool. It’s Infrastructure

A couple of weeks ago I gave a talk to the Southern California chapter of the Counselors of Real Estate. Seasoned operators. People who have financed, built, and managed commercial real estate through multiple cycles. Smart, experienced, skeptical. When I shared a slide showing that five technology companies plan to spend nearly $700 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026 alone, the room went quiet. Thanks for reading Uphoff on Media! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. Not skeptical quiet. Stunned quiet. During the Q&A session, someone said what everyone was thinking: “Those numbers can’t be real.” They are real. And understanding why they’re real, and what they mean, matters for every business leader working in B2B markets right now. We Have Seen This Before. Just Not at This Scale. The human mind has trouble processing numbers beyond a certain size. $700 billion is difficult to put into context. It doesn’t connect to lived experience the way a house price or a company budget does. So let’s anchor it. The U.S. Interstate Highway System remains the benchmark for transformative American infrastructure. Eisenhower signed it into law in 1956. It took more than 35 years to complete. Its final cost, in 1991 dollars, was $128.9 billion. That investment is credited with generating $1.80 in economic output for every dollar spent. The foundation of American commerce for half a century. The AI infrastructure build will exceed that total in a single year. The Hoover Dam, one of the engineering wonders of the 20th century, cost $49 million in 1931 dollars, roughly $811 million today. It powered the American Southwest and enabled the growth of cities like Las Vegas and Phoenix. Its construction required an act of Congress, years of planning, and thousands of workers. Amazon alone is projecting $200 billion in capital expenditure this year. That’s roughly 250 Hoover Dams. In one year. By one company. The Manhattan Project, which produced the atomic bomb and reshaped the post-war world order, cost approximately $24 billion in today’s dollars. The five largest AI infrastructure investors: Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle, will spend that amount every few weeks. This Is Not a Tech Story. It’s an Infrastructure Story. The numbers become comprehensible when you stop thinking about them as technology spending and start thinking about them as infrastructure investment. Every transformative infrastructure build in history produced numbers that seemed disconnected from reality at the time. Because they were. They were civilization-scale investments, not household-scale ones. The people financing the transcontinental railroad or rural electrification weren’t spending money in the same category as a business investment. They were building the foundation an entire future economy would run on top of. That is exactly what is happening now. Goldman Sachs projects total hyperscaler capital expenditure from 2025 through 2027 will reach $1.15 trillion. More than double the $477 billion spent from 2022 through 2024. Global AI spending is projected to reach nearly $1.5 trillion this year and exceed $2 trillion in 2026. This is not a bubble narrative or a FOMO story. It is a recognition that compute, in the machine age, is what roads and rails and electrical grids were in prior eras. It is the foundation everything else gets built on. And building that foundation at civilizational scale costs civilizational money. The Nearest Comp: The Fiber Buildout of the Late 1990s There is one prior episode that maps to this moment more closely than any government project. Not the dot-com stock bubble. The actual physical buildout underneath it. Between 1996 and 2001, telecom companies spent more than $500 billion laying fiber optic cable across the United States, with global totals estimated as high as $1 trillion to $2 trillion once equipment, acquisitions, and debt-financed expansion are included. Telecom companies issued more than $500 billion in new bonds in that window alone, betting that internet traffic would grow fast enough to fill the capacity they were building. It didn’t. Not on that timeline. By 2001, an estimated 95 percent of the fiber laid during the boom was dark, built, buried, and unused. The companies that built it mostly went bankrupt. Capital markets had financed a buildout years ahead of the demand curve. Here is the part that matters most for this conversation: the infrastructure was not the mistake. The financing structure and the timeline were the mistake. And the dark fiber didn’t just eventually get used, it changed what was economically possible. Bandwidth costs collapsed so far, so fast, that companies could build business models that made no sense at 1999 prices. Netflix could not have pivoted from DVDs-by-mail to streaming in 2007 if it had been paying 1999 bandwidth rates. Amazon Web Services launched in 2006 by renting out infrastructure capacity that existed only because so much had been overbuilt. YouTube’s 2005 bet that ordinary people would upload and stream video at scale only worked because bandwidth was nearly free. None of this was the plan in 1999. It was the byproduct of a trillion-dollar overbuild that bankrupted the companies that financed it and then handed the next generation of entrepreneurs capacity at a fraction of its true cost. It would be an overstatement to say none of this happens without the fiber bust. Someone, eventually, would have built the bandwidth the modern internet needed. What the overbuild actually bought was time and price. Cloud computing, SaaS, and streaming video arrived years earlier, and at a dramatically lower cost basis, because a previous generation of investors had already paid for capacity the market wasn't ready to use. The infrastructure outlived the investors who built it. The value accrued downstream, to companies and business models that didn’t exist yet when the fiber went into the ground. That is the precedent that matters here. Not as proof the AI buildout is a bubble. Not as proof it isn’t. As a reminder that physical buildout and financial outcome are two different questions, and history answers them on different timelines. The fiber was real. The capacity was real. The mistake was assuming the company that laid the cable would be the company that profited from it. The Valuation Numbers Follow the Same Logic The IPO and valuation numbers circulating right now are equally disorienting. OpenAI closed a funding round in March 2026 at a post-money valuation of $852 billion, with a public listing targeting above $1 trillion. SpaceX has confidentially filed for an IPO at a reported target valuation of $1.75 trillion to above $2 trillion. For context: the largest IPO in history remains Saudi Aramco’s 2019 listing at a valuation of roughly $1.7 trillion. Aramco sits on the largest proven oil reserves on the planet. It was built over decades with the backing of a sovereign government. AI companies are approaching those numbers in years, not decades, with private capital. That either means the market is pricing the AI infrastructure build as one of comparable civilizational importance to the petroleum economy. Or it means the market is wrong Both are possible. History will settle it. But the framing matters: these are not tech stock valuations. They are bets on which companies will own the infrastructure layer of the next economic era. What B2B Markets Need to Understand I’ve made two arguments here on Uphoff on Media that this build puts to the test. The first: The Vertical Intelligence Company [https://tonyuphoff.substack.com/p/the-vertical-intelligence-company], not the traditional media company, is the sustainable model, one that lets business information companies scale at software margins. The second: brand is the one thing AI cannot manufacture, the case I made in Your B2B Marketing Career in the Age of Agentic AI. [https://tonyuphoff.substack.com/p/your-b2b-marketing-career-in-the] The infrastructure build makes both arguments more urgent. For B2B Marketing, this build is what makes agentic AI execution at scale possible in the first place. Content generation, campaign orchestration, and personalization down to the individual account are becoming nearly free. That should terrify anyone whose value proposition was “we can produce more content than you can.” It should not terrify anyone whose value proposition was trust, relationships, and brand. Execution is being industrialized. Judgment and brand are what’s left standing. Here is the pattern history keeps repeating: the companies that built the great infrastructure of each era rarely captured the most value from it. The railroad barons were real. So was the destruction of railroad economics once the infrastructure became commoditized. The fiber companies of the late 1990s built the network and mostly didn’t survive to use it. The electricity utilities built the grid. The consumer products companies, the manufacturers, the retailers — they built the businesses that ran on the grid. AI infrastructure is being built at a scale and speed that will make it a commodity faster than most people expect. The economics will shift to the companies that know how to use it — not the ones that own the pipes. For investors: it means the infrastructure bet is largely made. The application layer is where the next generation of value will be created. The Numbers Are Real. The Question Is What You Do With Them. The CRE professionals in that room were right to be stunned. These numbers are stunning. What they shouldn’t be is paralyzing. Eisenhower’s highway system seemed incomprehensibly expensive in 1956. It became incomprehensibly valuable. The question for every business leader in that moment was not “are these numbers real?” It was “what do I build on these roads?” That is the right question now. The infrastructure is going in. The roads are being paved. The machine age is not arriving. It has arrived. The only remaining question is what you build on it. The views expressed in Uphoff on Media are entirely my own. They don’t represent the opinions of any company I’ve led, any board I’ve sat on, or any investor who’s had the pleasure of debating strategy with me over the years. If something I write here sounds brilliant, I’ll take full credit. If it turns out to be wrong, I was clearly misquoted by myself. “Uphoff on Media” is published by Tony Uphoff, Founder and Managing Partner of Uphoff Advisory, LLC [https://uphoffadvisory.com/]: a strategic advisory practice for founders, CEOs, and investors in B2B media, marketing, and technology. The businesses that drive business. Thanks for reading Uphoff on Media! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tonyuphoff.substack.com [https://tonyuphoff.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

“I Just Stumbled Across Your Profile and Thought We Should Connect”

Something has gone wrong with digital networking. It was already broken in 2020. I wrote about it then and the response was significant. Thousands of people read it, shared it, and the engagement was immediate. Hundreds responded with their own stories. Worst LinkedIn outreach messages. Cringe-worthy cold emails. Tales of digital networking gone horribly wrong. Six years later, the problem hasn’t been solved. It’s been industrialized. The clumsy, tone-deaf outreach messages that were already flooding LinkedIn and email in 2020 are now being generated, personalized, and sent at machine scale. The “I just stumbled across your profile” message didn’t go away. It got cloned. Your inbox isn’t receiving one bad pitch from one untrained sales rep. It’s receiving hundreds of AI-generated messages that sound like someone did their homework, reference the right things, use your name correctly, and are indistinguishable from the thousand other messages sent to a thousand other people that same morning. We have a new problem. And it requires a new response. WHAT AI CHANGED The original sin of digital networking was low friction. Before social media and email automation, you had to stop and think before reaching out. You left a voicemail. You got through to an assistant. You ran into someone at an event. Every touchpoint required intention. Digital tools eliminated that friction. Bad habits followed. AI hasn’t fixed the bad habits. It has scaled them. There is now an entire category of sales and marketing technology built around AI outreach. The pitch is seductive. Set it up, define your audience, and let the machine handle the rest. The machine writes the message, personalizes it with data from your LinkedIn profile, and sends it at volume. No human judgment required. The result is an inbox experience that has become one of the defining frustrations of professional life in 2026. Every B2B executive I know describes their LinkedIn DMs and email inbox the same way: exhausting. Most of it AI-generated. Almost none of it relevant. Here is the irony. AI has made outreach technically better and meaningfully worse at the same time. The messages are more grammatically correct. The personalization tokens are populated. The subject lines are optimized. And none of it matters, because the signal that something is real and human and worth paying attention to has been buried under a flood of content that merely impersonates those qualities. WHAT’S ACTUALLY IN YOUR INBOX RIGHT NOW What’s Actually in Your Inbox Right Now The examples from 2020 feel almost quaint now. Here’s the 2026 update. But first, let’s start with the title of this post. “I just stumbled across your profile and thought we should connect.” Literally stumbled. As if they tripped over me in a hallway. Would you walk up to someone at a conference, extend your hand, and say “I just stumbled across you and thought we should meet”? No. You would not. Because it would be bizarre. Yet this line, or some AI-generated variation of it, lands in my inbox multiple times a week. Here are a few more from the last 30 days. I am not making these up. * “Hi Tony, I came across your work at Uphoff Advisory and was really impressed by your perspective on B2B media transformation. I think there’s a real opportunity to connect.” The tell: “B2B media transformation” is lifted verbatim from my LinkedIn headline. No one who had actually read my work would describe it that way. The AI pulled a string of text and dropped it in. Ten seconds of work, zero seconds of thought. * “Tony, given your background leading companies through disruption, I think you’d have a strong take on what we’re building. Worth a 15-minute call?” The tell: “leading companies through disruption” is executive LinkedIn filler. It means nothing and applies to everyone. This message was sent to hundreds of people with the word “Tony” swapped in at the top. * “I noticed we’re both thinking about the future of B2B marketing. Would love to add you to my network.” The tell: No human noticed anything. A prompt noticed it. And “add you to my network” is the language of a database operation, not a relationship. The tell isn’t bad grammar anymore. It’s frictionless competence. Everything is correctly spelled. The personalization tokens are populated. Nothing is real. THE HUMAN SIGNAL HAS NEVER BEEN MORE VALUABLE Here is what the AI networking deluge has actually created: a massive opportunity for people who show up as human. When every inbox is full of AI doing a passable impression of a person, a message that is clearly, demonstrably human stands out completely. Not because it’s more clever. Because it’s real. I’ve spent over 35 years building business relationships. The relationships that have mattered, that have produced partnerships, deals, opportunities, and friendships, have all started with something specific. A shared experience. A direct reference to something I actually wrote or said. A question that only someone paying attention would think to ask. Proof that the other person saw me as a specific human being, not a job title in a database. That specificity is now the rarest thing in professional communication. And scarcity creates value. Look, I get it. After 35 years of leading companies and owning a P&L, I was usually on the receiving end of outreach. People wanted meetings with me. I had the luxury of being selective. That changed when I launched Uphoff Advisory earlier this year. Suddenly I was the one reaching out. Building a client base from scratch. Introducing myself to people who had no reason to take my call. It is hard. It requires research. It requires thought and judgment. It requires, at times, a thick skin. I’m not writing this from a position of someone who has never had to hustle. I’m writing it as someone who knows exactly how difficult genuine outreach is, and who believes that’s precisely the point. The difficulty is a filter. It separates the people who did the work from the people who let a machine do it for them. EIGHT PRACTICES FOR HUMAN-FIRST NETWORKING IN THE AI ERA These aren’t new. Some of them appeared in my 2020 post. What’s new is why they matter more now than they did then. 1. Do the work AI can’t fake. Before reaching out, read something the person actually wrote. Watch a talk they gave. Reference something specific. Not a headline. Not a job title. Something that demonstrates you paid attention. AI can pull data. It can’t demonstrate genuine curiosity. 2. Focus on the right person, not the top person. The myth that you should always reach the CEO has never been more wrong. AI outreach has made senior executive inboxes the most cluttered in any organization. The decision makers who can actually move things forward are often one or two levels down. Find them. Respect their role. 3. Understand what they’re actually trying to get done. Everyone in business has a set of real problems they are working on. Before you reach out, ask yourself: do I actually know what this person is trying to accomplish? If you can answer that clearly and connect it to why you’re reaching out, you have something worth sending. 4. Write the way you’d speak to them in person. Read your message out loud before sending it. If you would never say those words in a meeting or at an event, rewrite it. The test is simple: does this sound like a person, or does it sound like content? 5. Share before you ask. Sending someone a genuinely useful piece of research, a post that directly applies to a challenge they’re facing, or a connection to someone they should know, before making any request, is the most underused practice in B2B networking. It works because it’s real. And almost no one does it anymore. 6. Respect the inbox. Don’t automate follow-ups. Don’t escalate to email when LinkedIn goes unanswered. Don’t add people to sequences without permission. The volume of AI-powered follow-up has made persistence feel like aggression. One well-crafted message is worth more than seven automated ones. 7. Apply the Golden Rule, and mean it. Before you hit send, ask whether you would respond to this message if you received it. Not would someone respond. Would you. If the answer is no, rewrite it or don’t send it. 8. Never convert a new connection into an immediate sales target. When someone accepts your connection request, they have extended a form of professional trust. Responding with an immediate sales pitch converts that trust into a transaction before the relationship has drawn its first breath. It is the digital equivalent of shaking someone’s hand at a networking event and handing them a contract. Worse is what often follows. A pitch, then a follow-up, then another, each escalating in urgency, as if the problem is that the recipient hasn’t yet understood the offer. They understood it. They chose not to respond. Silence is an answer. Respect it. If you want to build a real relationship with a new connection, start by being a useful presence in their feed. Engage with their content. Share something relevant. Earn the conversation before you ask for the meeting. THE BIGGER POINT AI is not the problem with digital networking. The problem is what happens when tools designed to scale human connection are used as a substitute for it. The professionals who will build the best networks in the next five years won’t be the ones with the best AI outreach sequences. They’ll be the ones who understood that when everyone else automated their relationships, genuine human attention became the scarcest and most valuable thing you could offer. Show up as a human. It’s a competitive advantage. The views expressed in Uphoff on Media are entirely my own. They don’t represent the opinions of any company I’ve led, any board I’ve sat on, or any investor who’s had the pleasure of debating strategy with me over the years. If something I write here sounds brilliant, I’ll take full credit. If it turns out to be wrong, I was clearly misquoted by myself. “Uphoff on Media” is published by Tony Uphoff, Founder and Managing Partner of Uphoff Advisory, LLC [https://uphoffadvisory.com/]: a strategic advisory practice for founders, CEOs, and investors in B2B media, marketing, and technology. The businesses that drive business. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tonyuphoff.substack.com [https://tonyuphoff.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

When Agentic AI Meets the Physical Economy

I was recently asked to speak to the Southern California chapter of the Counselors of Real Estate about the impact AI is having on their industry. The irony hit me the moment I started preparing. The Counselors of Real Estate is one of the most selective professional organizations in the country. Membership requires a minimum of ten years in the commercial real estate business, a 31-page application, and four interviews. Members are expected to be at or near the top of their field. The roughly 900 members nationally and internationally include major commercial property owners, developers, architects, contractors, appraisers, agents, and consultants. Getting admitted is genuinely difficult. Thanks for reading Uphoff on Media! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. The talk drew sustained engagement, pointed questions, and requests for follow-up sessions from a room of about 20 of these professionals. That is not a room that nods along out of politeness. Here is what I told them. And what the response confirmed. A note before we start. If you know someone in commercial real estate, please share this post with them. The impact AI is having on the physical economy carries real lessons for those of us who operate in the digital economy too. So even if CRE is not your world, read on. Worlds Colliding To open the discussion, I acknowledged the irony. We were going to talk about the impact of an intangible, Artificial Intelligence, on the ultimate tangible asset. Commercial real estate is land, concrete, steel, and glass. You can walk through it. You can touch it. It generates cash flow you can underwrite and model. It sits at the most physical end of the business spectrum. And it is being reshaped by a technology that exists entirely as math. That irony is not unique to CRE. It is the defining tension of the next decade of business. Agentic AI is colliding with the physical economy. Industries organized around tangible assets, physical workflows, and on-the-ground operations are encountering a technology that restructures the knowledge work wrapped around those assets faster than most operators in those industries currently realize. This is a theme I will return to on Uphoff on Media: When Agentic AI Meets the Physical Economy. The industries I see most impacted include commercial real estate, logistics and warehousing and manufacturing. Not in any fixed sequence. When the data, the moment, or a conversation like the one I had with the Counselors of Real Estate makes the case for the next one, I will write it. The thesis underneath all of it: the conventional wisdom about which industries are protected because they deal in physical assets is wrong. Not because physical assets do not matter. Because the knowledge work organized around those assets is being substituted, not enhanced. And that distinction changes everything. Lets start with CRE. First: the AI distinction that actually matters There is an enormous amount of coverage of AI in the general media right now. Most of it is focused on Generative AI tools like ChatGPT. That technology is useful. I use it every day. But the impact of Generative AI will be dwarfed by what comes next. Generative AI is reactive. You prompt it, it produces something. You ask it to summarize a lease abstract, draft a tenant response, produce a market overview. It waits for you at every step. It does not plan. It does not pursue goals. It does not act without you directing it. Agentic AI is goal-directed. You give it an objective and it figures out how to achieve it. It can browse the web, query databases, analyze documents, send communications, make decisions within defined parameters, and loop back to refine its own work. All without a human directing every step. The practical difference is not incremental. Wired into the right data sources, an Agentic AI system can be told: pull every industrial property in a 50-mile radius of Phoenix that has traded in the last 18 months from our CoStar and county recorder feeds, flag the assets with the steepest pricing moves, and draft a ranked memo on each one with the supporting comps attached. That is achievable today for a firm with the right data access wired in. The next layer, having the agent independently infer buyer identity and capital source where it is not disclosed, and reason about institutional capital flows behind a transaction, is harder and less reliable right now. It is also coming fast. Either way, the work runs overnight. The output is waiting in the morning. That is not an enhancement to the analyst function. For many firms, it replaces significant portions of it. These systems exist today and are being deployed in financial services, legal, logistics, and healthcare. They are coming to commercial real estate. In some forward-leaning firms, they are already here. The frame that will mislead you Before getting into the CRE data, there is a conceptual point worth establishing. Because how you think about this technology will determine how you respond to it. Almost every technology you have adopted in your career has been additive. It added a capability you did not have before without replacing what you were already doing. CRM systems. Email. Excel. CoStar. DocuSign. Zoom. In every case, the broker still brokered. The deal still closed because a human being with judgment, relationships, and accountability made it happen. Technology made that person faster, better informed, more organized. It did not replace them. That is the frame most operators bring to every new technology. When something new shows up, the instinct is to ask: what does this add? Where does it fit my existing workflow? That instinct will mislead you with Agentic AI. Substitutive technologies do not add to the existing workflow. They replace significant portions of it. The printing press did not improve the scribal system. It made scribes obsolete. The automobile did not augment horse-drawn carriages. It eliminated the carriage industry within a generation. The internet did not enhance physical retail, classified advertising, and travel agencies. It dismantled them. Across every technology disruption I have observed and led businesses through, intelligent and experienced professionals consistently underestimate substitutive change. Because their mental model is calibrated to a world where the core activity survives every technology wave. They look for the additive angle. They optimize the existing workflow. And by the time the substitutive reality becomes undeniable, the window for strategic advantage has already closed. Two stories running at the same time The AI story in commercial real estate is not one story. It is two very different stories running simultaneously, in different asset classes, on different timelines. Story one: AI as a massive demand driver. Data centers are the hottest asset class in commercial real estate right now, and AI is the primary engine. Jones Lang LaSalle projects that roughly 100 gigawatts of new data center capacity will come online between 2026 and 2030. That equates to $1.2 trillion in real estate asset value creation. CBRE’s 2026 Data Center Outlook puts it in sharper relief: preleasing rates on capacity now under construction are running in the mid-70% range, against a historical norm of 40% to 50%. That is not developers betting on demand. It is demand that is already under contract before the building exists. This sector is not demand-constrained. It is power-constrained. The ability to deliver 300-megawatt-plus power capacity in under 36 months has eclipsed fiber connectivity as the dominant site selection factor. Power is the new location variable. Utility relationships, behind-the-meter solutions, and powered land are driving investment decisions in ways that would have been unrecognizable to this industry five years ago. Data center construction has now surpassed office construction in the United States. If you own or manage industrial, flex, or large-footprint suburban assets, the conversation about data center conversion is a strategic question. Not a speculative one. Story two: AI as a potential demand destroyer. In Q1 2026, AI companies accounted for 22.7% of all office leasing across major US technology markets, per CBRE. That is 11.5 million square feet of demand from a tenant category that barely existed five years ago. In San Francisco, a market many wrote off, AI tenants have absorbed large blocks of Class A space that sat dark through the post-pandemic years. And yet. The same technology driving that demand is automating the entry-level workforce those companies hired into that space. As AI takes on the analytical, coordination, and processing work done by associates and junior staff, the companies currently expanding their footprint may need significantly less space per employee going forward. The signal is already visible. Meta eliminated 8,000 employees while simultaneously raising its 2026 data center budget to between $125 billion and $145 billion. Read that again. This is not a typo. It says $125b-to-$145b. That is the shape of the AI economy: fewer people, more infrastructure. The office opportunity is real but concentrated. The best buildings in the strongest markets with genuine amenity differentiation will capture AI-company tenants. The rest of the market faces the same structural headwinds it has navigated since 2020. AI may accelerate those headwinds rather than relieve them. What AI is doing inside CRE operations The productivity gains in underwriting and analytics are already measurable. Work that took analyst teams days is being completed in minutes. Rent roll analysis, lease abstract review, and market comps screening are being automated at speed across the industry’s leading firms. Morgan Stanley Research found that 37% of tasks currently performed by REITs and commercial real estate firms can be automated. That represents potential efficiency gains of $34 billion by 2030. A self-storage operator has already cut on-property labor hours by 30% through AI-powered staffing optimization. Morgan Stanley's research goes further: brokerage and services firms have the highest automation potential of any CRE sub-sector, with a possible 34% increase in operating cash flow, precisely because they are furthest along in adopting AI tools at scale. The capital markets priced the risk directly. In February 2026, shares of CBRE and JLL each fell 12% on AI disruption concerns. Cushman & Wakefield dropped 14%. The largest single-day drops for those firms since COVID. Investors were asking a specific question about how much of what the major brokerages do can be automated. The correct answer is: not all of it. The relationship-intensive, judgment-dependent, contextually complex work of CRE is genuinely resistant to AI substitution. Complex transactions require human accountability. Significant deals require human trust. That does not go away. But the analytical and administrative infrastructure supporting those transactions is a different story. And that infrastructure is significant cost and significant headcount. The agentic frontier adds another layer. Leading firms are already planning for AI systems to handle routine lease monitoring, portfolio reporting, tenant communication workflows, and initial screening. The broker of the future is a judgment and relationship layer built on top of AI infrastructure. Not an information gatherer. Eight recommendations Download this image to share with your team or keep as a reference. 1. Get your data house in order first. Agentic AI is only as good as the data it can access. Fragmented, inconsistent, or siloed information will limit effective deployment. Run an audit of where your critical portfolio and operational data actually lives, whether it is accessible, and whether it is structured. This is the unglamorous prerequisite. Most firms are not ready. 2. Start with underwriting and analytics. This is the highest-ROI entry point for most CRE operations. Pilot AI tools in due diligence and underwriting workflows before touching anything client-facing or relationship-intensive. Build confidence in the output quality and develop institutional knowledge before expanding. 3. Redesign roles, not just workflows. The instinct is to bolt AI onto existing job descriptions. The strategic move is to ask what each role is actually for. Analysts become AI system directors. Property managers become exception handlers and relationship escalation points. Leasing teams become closers rather than initial contact points. This requires deliberate organizational design. Not just a software subscription. 4. Evaluate your portfolio for data center conversion potential. If you own or manage industrial, flex, or large-footprint suburban office assets, run a rigorous feasibility assessment focused on power access and fiber infrastructure. Not every asset qualifies. Missing it where it does is a significant opportunity cost. The positioning window is open now. 5. Identify and protect your high-value human functions. Relationship-intensive, judgment-dependent, contextually complex work is genuinely resistant to AI substitution. Name it explicitly. Invest in it. Do not let efficiency pressure lead you to automate or understaff the functions that AI cannot replace. These are your competitive moat. 6. Assign someone to track this full-time. AI in CRE is moving fast enough that passive monitoring is not sufficient. Someone in your organization, or a trusted external advisor, needs to be continuously tracking developments, evaluating tools, and connecting AI capabilities to your specific business model. This is a core operational function now. Not a side project. 7. Think in the 18-to-36-month window. The early majority of Agentic AI adoption in CRE arrives in the next 18 to 36 months. Pilot programs launched this year become institutional knowledge and workflow advantage by 2027. Waiting until the technology is fully mature means starting from zero when the competitive landscape has already shifted. 8. Do not let perfect be the enemy of deployed. Imperfect early adoption builds organizational learning. Waiting for certainty means starting from scratch at the moment of maximum competitive pressure. Five trends to keep on your radar * Power infrastructure as the new location variable. Sites capable of delivering 300 MW-plus in under 36 months are being repriced. Land near utility substations deserves a serious second look. * AI-driven lease negotiation and management agents. Early deployments are underway. Know what your counterparties are using before it appears across the table from you. * Automated property management. AI-managed maintenance scheduling, tenant communications, and facilities optimization are compressing operating costs. Underwriting assumptions built on today’s expense ratios need revisiting. * Synthetic market intelligence. AI-generated market data is beginning to compete with traditional data providers on speed and accessibility. The quality gap is closing faster than most operators in this space currently realize. * The AI immunity trade in capital markets. Institutional capital is distinguishing between AI-vulnerable and AI-resistant asset classes. Physical, power-intensive, infrastructure-grade assets are being repriced as scarce in an AI economy. This is a structural tailwind for the right CRE positions. If you understand which ones qualify. The bigger pattern CRE is where I’m starting because the irony is sharpest here. The most tangible asset class in the economy, being reshaped by the most intangible technology. But the pattern underneath it is not unique to real estate. Across the physical economy, the same dynamic is playing out. Knowledge work automation is hitting industries organized around physical operations. The analytical layers, the data processing, the document workflows, the coordination functions: these are being substituted by Agentic AI regardless of whether the underlying business deals in steel, logistics, farmland, or square footage. The professionals who navigate this best will not be the ones who waited for the story to be fully written. They will be the ones who made a clear-eyed assessment of what their work actually consists of, identified what is genuinely substitutable and what is not, and repositioned their value toward the judgment, relationships, and contextual intelligence that no AI system can replicate. That assessment is hard to make from inside an industry. It requires the right frame. I will return to this theme. The next industry I cover in this thread will likely be logistics and warehousing: a sector that is simultaneously the infrastructure layer for the AI economy and a primary target of its most aggressive automation. The tension is different from CRE. The urgency is higher. But I will get there when the moment is right. If there is an industry in the physical economy you would like to see covered, let me know in the comments. The views expressed in Uphoff on Media are entirely my own. They don’t represent the opinions of any company I’ve led, any board I’ve sat on, or any investor who’s had the pleasure of debating strategy with me over the years. If something I write here sounds brilliant, I’ll take full credit. If it turns out to be wrong, I was clearly misquoted by myself. “Uphoff on Media” is published by Tony Uphoff, Founder and Managing Partner of Uphoff Advisory, LLC [https://uphoffadvisory.com/]: a strategic advisory practice for founders, CEOs, and investors in B2B media, marketing, and technology. The businesses that drive business. Thanks for reading Uphoff on Media! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tonyuphoff.substack.com [https://tonyuphoff.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

The B2B Event Market Is Splitting in Two

Part 3 of B2B Media in the Machine Age A note on timing: This post is publishing on a Friday, a break from our usual Monday/Wednesday cadence. The reason is a good one. I'll be back Monday with a piece that came directly out of a presentation I gave this week to a commercial real estate leadership group. I was invited to speak on agentic AI and its impact on commercial real estate, and it clarified something important about where agentic AI is starting to reshape the physical economy. See you Monday. A few weeks ago, Apollo Global Management announced it was acquiring Emerald Holding for approximately $1.5 billion, a 42.1% premium, and simultaneously acquiring Questex, with the intention of combining the two into a platform of roughly 160 B2B events. The deal is the largest private equity bet on B2B events in years. Apollo’s rationale was stated plainly: “As AI and digital tools rapidly expand the ways professionals connect and share information, they are simultaneously elevating the value of trusted, in-person gatherings, where industries come together to do business, build relationships, and make consequential decisions.” That is either a very smart thesis or a very expensive rationalization. I've been involved in the B2B events market for most of my career: as a CEO, as a producer and operator who has built and run hundreds of events, including major technology trade shows. What I see happening right now is not a bull market in B2B events. It is a structural bifurcation. And the M&A activity, far from being a sign that the whole category is healthy, is actually a trailing indicator of a market in the middle of a painful sorting process. Let me explain what I mean. The Bull Case Is Real, But Incomplete Start with the data that supports the optimists. The U.S. B2B trade show market exceeded $15.78 billion in 2024 and is projected to surpass $17.3 billion by 2028. The post-COVID recovery in live events has been genuine. Eighty-three percent of marketing decision-makers expect marketing investments to grow in 2026. According Content Marketing Institute research, B2B marketers rank in-person events as their most effective content distribution channel, ahead of webinars, email, and social media. Apollo is not wrong that AI is paradoxically making great live events more valuable. When an AI agent can attend a webinar, summarize a panel, and extract every lead from a virtual event in minutes, the irreplaceable asset becomes physical presence in a high-trust, high-context environment. The things that cannot be digitized: the hallway conversation, the dinner where deals actually happen, the moment when a buyer and seller read each other across a table, become more scarce and therefore more valuable. That logic is sound. The problem is that it applies to some events, not to the category as a whole. And institutional capital has a way of buying the category rather than the distinction. The pendulum swung hard toward events, and for good reason. When digital disruption hit B2B media, the path forward wasn’t obvious. Audiences fragmented. Attention scattered. Display and programmatic commoditized everything they touched. Events were the one line that didn’t behave like the rest of the business. They were tangible, defensible, and they made money in a way that felt increasingly rare. At the end of the day, events are a far simpler business. Sell a booth, sell a sponsorship, fill a room. Until they’re not. That retreat into simplicity wasn’t wrong. But it wasn’t a strategy either. It was the path of least resistance in a category that had run out of easy answers everywhere else. And a business built on the path of least resistance tends to get exposed the moment the underlying conditions shift. They’re shifting now. The Bear Case Nobody Is Talking About Look past the headlines and the data tells a more complicated story. Sixty-nine percent of B2B events leaders saw their event budgets stay flat or decrease in 2025. The share of organizers expecting budget growth in 2026 dropped to 40%, down from 70% in 2025, a dramatic deceleration in a single year. And 75% of exhibitors report pressure to reduce exhibit costs, with nearly a third feeling that pressure directly from senior leadership. Meanwhile, the supply side is severely bloated. The past five years produced a proliferation of events across virtually every B2B vertical: many of them launched during the post-COVID bounce when demand was recovering and the bar for a “viable event” was temporarily very low. The market has not yet fully repriced that excess inventory. Here is the question I would ask any P/E investor underwriting a B2B events platform right now: Of those 160 events in the combined Emerald/Questex portfolio: how many are genuine category leaders with defensible market positions and profitable unit economics, and how many are subscale shows competing for the same shrinking pool of mid-market sponsorship dollars? Scale is not a strategy. It is a starting point. And aggregating subscale assets does not automatically produce a premium platform. They produce overhead. The Venue Directory data is telling: in the UK market, total event inquiries declined 4% in 2025, while the average RFP value increased 2%. Fewer companies asking. Bigger commitments from the ones who are. That's not a market in decline. That's a market concentrating around fewer, more serious buyers. Bifurcation, not a boom. The Sorting Is Already Underway Here is what I believe is actually happening, and what I see when I look at the data alongside my own operating experience: The B2B events market is sorting itself into two distinct tiers, and the gap between them is widening. * Tier One: The Category-Defining Show. In most verticals, one or two large-scale trade shows will survive and likely strengthen. These events have established brand equity, dominant market share among exhibitors and attendees, and the network effect that makes them self-reinforcing. If your industry peers are there, you have to be there. Sponsors know it, which is why top-tier sponsorships command premium pricing that smaller shows simply cannot match. The research confirms the logic: a single Tier-1 sponsorship producing 30 ICP-fit meetings outperforms eight Tier-3 sponsorships producing a handful of meetings each. Concentration produces leverage. Spread produces noise. * Tier Two: The Subscale Middle. This is where the pain is happening. Events with a few hundred to a thousand attendees, modest sponsor rosters, undifferentiated programming, and no clear reason for a senior buyer to travel and spend two days away from the office. Many of these events were viable when the market was growing fast enough to carry marginal players. That grace period is over. Planning for large-scale events dropped 12% year over year in 2026, and the budget rationalization happening inside B2B marketing departments is accelerating the winnowing. These events do not need better marketing. They need a fundamentally different model or an exit. What is emerging in the space left by the subscale middle is something altogether different, and it may be the most interesting development in B2B events right now. The Return of the Intimate Event There is a third format quietly gaining traction that does not fit neatly into the traditional event industry model, and it deserves its own analysis. Call it the intimate conference, the executive summit, the hosted roundtable, the closed-door dinner. The format varies, but the defining characteristics are consistent: small by design (25 to 150 attendees), curated ruthlessly, content-rich, and structured specifically to create real buyer-seller engagement in an environment where both parties actually want to be in the room. These are not the scaled-down version of a trade show. They are a fundamentally different product. Sixty-three percent of event organizers report increased demand for micro-events and intimate gatherings. Planning for small, hosted events is up 59% year over year. And the research on why is unambiguous: executives who will not attend a five-hundred-person conference will often accept an invitation to a closed-door peer discussion. The signal-to-noise ratio is entirely different. One trend piece from the events industry captured the format precisely: dinners of twenty-five to thirty carefully selected peers, no stage, no slides, no formal presentations, just honest, peer-level discussion about what is actually working, guided by a respected industry leader. That format reflects a broader shift in what senior buyers actually value when they give up two days of their calendar. The content richness matters as much as the intimacy. The events that are thriving in this format are not networking events with a thin content wrapper. They are substantive: built around real intellectual engagement, genuine industry debate, and a programming philosophy that treats attendees as practitioners, not audiences. The Budget That Moved Here is the insight I have not seen written clearly anywhere, and it changes the economics of the intimate event model significantly. The conventional assumption is that B2B event sponsorship comes from the marketing budget: specifically the events or demand generation line, controlled by the CMO or VP of Marketing. That assumption is increasingly wrong for the intimate conference segment. The high-value, curated event, the executive dinner, the invitation-only summit, the closed-door roundtable, is increasingly funded from field marketing budgets. And field marketing budgets are controlled by sales leaders, not corporate marketing. This matters enormously for several reasons. First, the ROI calculus is different. A sales leader evaluating a $25,000 sponsorship of an intimate roundtable with 40 qualified senior buyers is making a fundamentally different calculation than a CMO evaluating the same investment. The sales leader wants pipeline. The CMO wants brand reach and lead volume. Intimate events are almost perfectly calibrated to the sales leader’s criteria and poorly suited to the CMO’s. When more of the sponsorship dollars for these events comes from field marketing, the events become more durable, because they are being funded by the part of the organization that measures outcomes most directly. Second, field marketing budgets are growing even as corporate marketing budgets flatten. The pressure on CMOs to demonstrate brand-level ROI from events has never been higher. The pressure on sales leaders to find efficient pipeline has never been higher. Intimate, curated events serve both, but they particularly serve sales, which is why the budget is shifting. Third, and most importantly for event operators: this means the buyer for your intimate event sponsorship is often sitting in a different seat than the buyer for your trade show sponsorship. If you are selling intimate event sponsorships the same way you sell trade show booths: to the same contacts, with the same collateral, at the same price points, you are leaving money on the table and probably losing deals you should be winning. What Agentic AI Changes About All of This The Apollo thesis, that AI makes in-person more valuable, not less, is correct in principle. But it is incomplete. The more precise version of the thesis is this: AI makes the right in-person experiences dramatically more valuable, while making the wrong ones far easier to skip. Here is why. When an AI agent can synthesize the proceedings of a three-day conference, extract every relevant insight, identify every vendor worth evaluating, and deliver a crisp briefing document, the value proposition of attending a mediocre event collapses. Why would a senior executive spend two days and several thousand dollars to attend an event whose intellectual output can be captured and distilled by an AI with a quick prompt? The answer is: they will not. And they are already rationalizing their event calendars on exactly this basis. What AI cannot replicate is presence. Physical presence in a room of thirty senior practitioners who are all wrestling with the same problems. The relationship that forms over dinner. The conversation that happens in the fifteen minutes between sessions when two people realize they should be doing business together. The trust that is built when a buyer watches a seller engage honestly with a peer-level challenge rather than defaulting to a pitch. Agentic AI does not threaten those experiences. It actually elevates their scarcity value. But it will ruthlessly expose and accelerate the decline of the events that were always surviving on convenience and inertia rather than genuine value. Takeaways For B2B event operators and producers: Your portfolio strategy needs to reflect the bifurcation, not pretend it does not exist. If you own or operate a Tier-1 show in your vertical, invest aggressively in defending and extending that position. The network effects are real and the window to cement category dominance is narrowing. If you operate subscale events in the middle tier, the question is not how to market your way out. It is whether the event has a genuine reason to exist, and if so, whether it can be repositioned as a premium intimate format rather than a smaller version of a trade show. Those are very different events and require very different operating models. The intimate format is not a budget trade show. It is a distinct product that requires different programming philosophy, different sponsor relationships, different pricing, and often a different internal champion at the sponsor company. For B2B information and media companies: Events are increasingly the one revenue line that AI cannot directly disintermediate. Your content can be summarized. Your newsletters can be replicated. Your SEO can be outranked. Your in-person community cannot be cloned. The strategic imperative is to develop a deliberate events architecture, not a collection of shows, but a portfolio designed around specific audience segments and intentional format choices. The companies that figure out how to build category-defining shows in their verticals, while simultaneously running curated intimate formats for senior practitioner audiences, are creating a defensible revenue model. The ones running a handful of subscale shows alongside declining digital revenues are in a structurally deteriorating position. For P/E investors: The Apollo/Emerald/Questex bet may prove right over time. The thesis is sound. But the execution risk is significant, and the questions worth pressure-testing are: What is the quality distribution within that portfolio of 160 events? How many are genuine Tier-1 category leaders versus subscale assets that are being carried by the platform? What is the plan for the middle tier: rationalization, repositioning, or hope? The more interesting investment thesis in B2B events right now may not be the large-scale consolidation play. It may be the premium intimate format operator who has figured out the field marketing budget unlock, built authentic practitioner communities, and is running events that senior buyers actually want to attend. That is a smaller company, a harder business to find, and a much better risk-adjusted investment. The B2B events market is not dying. But it is splitting into winners and losers faster than most of the institutional capital entering the space appears to understand. The events that survive will do so because they are genuinely irreplaceable: because the experience cannot be synthesized, compressed, or skipped. Everything else is in a slow motion decline that more M&A will not fix. The views expressed in Uphoff on Media are entirely my own. They don’t represent the opinions of any company I’ve led, any board I’ve sat on, or any investor who’s had the pleasure of debating strategy with me over the years. If something I write here sounds brilliant, I’ll take full credit. If it turns out to be wrong, I was clearly misquoted by myself. “Uphoff on Media” is published by Tony Uphoff, Founder and Managing Partner of Uphoff Advisory, LLC [https://uphoffadvisory.com/]: a strategic advisory practice for founders, CEOs, and investors in B2B media, marketing, and technology. The businesses that drive business. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tonyuphoff.substack.com [https://tonyuphoff.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

The Vertical Intelligence Company

Part 2 of B2B Media in the Machine Age Something significant is being built from the ruins of ad-supported B2B media. Not a replacement for what was lost. Something more valuable and sustainable. Call it the vertical intelligence company. These businesses don’t look much like the B2B media companies that came before them. They’re not chasing page views and declining CPMs. They’re not dependent on programmatic advertising, platform algorithms, or the next trade show cycle. They’re building something that professional buyers, executives, and operators have always needed and rarely had: trusted, domain-specific intelligence that’s hard to find anywhere else, delivered efficiently, priced appropriately, and designed for the way business professionals actually work today. The irony is sharp. The forces that destroyed the old model are the same forces enabling the new one. The Trends That Changed the Market Three structural shifts have converged to create an opening that didn’t exist five years ago. * The professional trust deficit reached a breaking point. Business professionals have always been skeptical of general business media when it comes to decisions that actually matter. But the gap between what general media can deliver and what domain experts actually need has never been wider. When a procurement executive needs to understand how agentic AI is reshaping supplier selection, or when a payments operator needs current intelligence on cross-border settlement, Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal are not the answer. They were never the answer. What’s changed is that the alternatives can now be built. * The cost structure for building vertical intelligence collapsed. Proprietary data collection, analysis, content production, distribution, and subscriber management used to require enterprise-scale infrastructure. That’s no longer true. A well-run team of three to five people can now build a meaningful data asset, publish at a professional cadence, reach a targeted professional audience, and manage subscriber relationships, at a fraction of the cost that would have been required a decade ago. The barriers that kept this model the exclusive domain of large research firms like Gartner and Forrester are down. * The monetization stack expanded. The old B2B media model ran on two revenue lines: advertising and events. The vertical intelligence company runs on five or six. Subscriptions. Tiered data access. Benchmarking reports. Sponsored research. Community and membership. Consulting adjacencies. None of these revenue streams is new in isolation. What’s new is the ability to stack them at small-company scale, without the overhead that used to make multi-revenue-line businesses the province of large media conglomerates. The Accelerant: Agentic AI Here is where the story gets interesting for operators and investors paying close attention. The AI moment is broadly understood as a threat to media businesses. That framing is correct for one type of media business. It’s incorrect — and actually inverted — for another. Agentic AI is devastating to commodity information. If your business model depends on aggregating, packaging, and distributing information that can be found elsewhere, AI has already begun to erode that value. Search behavior is changing. Attention is shifting. The traffic model that kept general digital media alive is under structural pressure that will not reverse. But agentic AI amplifies the value of what it cannot replicate: irreplaceable domain expertise, proprietary data, and trusted professional community. A language model can synthesize publicly available information about B2B payments trends. It cannot replace a team with deep relationships inside the payments industry, producing original research, running proprietary surveys, and hosting conversations that shape how practitioners think about the problems in front of them. The vertical intelligence company is structurally positioned to benefit from exactly the shift that is accelerating the decline of general media. That’s not a coincidence. It’s a function of what these businesses are actually built on. What This Looks Like in Practice The model is already operating. You can see it clearly in businesses that have made the transition, whether or not they would describe themselves in these terms. * PYMNTS [https://www.pymnts.com/] is not a payments news site. It’s a payments intelligence company with original data, proprietary research, and direct subscriber relationships. Its value to readers and sponsors comes from domain depth and data, not from traffic volume or display advertising. * Art of Procurement [https://artofprocurement.com/] is not a procurement podcast. It’s a professional intelligence and community platform for procurement leaders, with content, events, benchmarking, and advisory services built around a specific professional audience with real budget authority and unmet intelligence needs. * ThomasNet [https://www.thomasnet.com/?utm_term=thomasnet&utm_campaign=PB%3AG%7CNT%3ASN%7CAN%3AThomasNet%7CCN%3ABranded&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&hsa_acc=2612745988&hsa_cam=21280982770&hsa_grp=163774556842&hsa_ad=699105707981&hsa_src=g&hsa_tgt=kwd-316144171195&hsa_kw=thomasnet&hsa_mt=e&hsa_net=adwords&hsa_ver=3&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=21280982770&gbraid=0AAAAACzAVrtQLB2sUs-QWd7_5k1njpsLG&gclid=Cj0KCQjwi8nRBhDhARIsAHZf_pbfeZFfHVcpoWGe98wWuQYy93aqULynS79pKQUp0Ur1lURnXtnZorcaAhhCEALw_wcB], through its acquisition by Xometry, demonstrated a version of this at industrial scale: a directory and information platform that became a vertical intelligence infrastructure for manufacturing sourcing: embedding data, analytics, and transactional capability into a single professional ecosystem. These businesses share a structure. They have domain expertise that took years to accumulate. They have proprietary data that can’t be replicated by scraping public sources. They have deep, trusted relationships with a specific professional community. And they have multiple ways to monetize all three. The Implications For operators: The question is no longer how to protect ad revenue. It’s whether you have the domain expertise, audience trust, and data assets to make the transition to vertical intelligence. Many current B2B media businesses do not. The ones that do have the foundation for something more valuable than B2B media has produced in a generation. The transition requires discipline, and a willingness to reject the instinct that drove many B2B media businesses further into the trap. Faced with revenue pressure, the natural move was to go broader: more topics, more verticals, more audience segments. The logic was intuitive. More reach means more inventory means more revenue. What operators discovered was the opposite. Each step out diluted the demographic precision, the audience engagement, and the domain authority that had made them valuable in the first place. They traded their core asset for scale that turned out not to be worth much. The vertical intelligence company runs the opposite play. It goes deeper, not broader. And depth, executed with the right technology and data capability, turns out to be the mechanism for scale, not the obstacle to it. You are not trying to be everything to a broad industry. You are building deep credibility with a specific professional community and creating data and intelligence that community cannot get anywhere else. That is a different editorial strategy, a different commercial model, and a different organizational design than the one most B2B media operators are running today. For investors: The valuation framework for vertical intelligence companies should not be built on CPM multiples or traditional media metrics. The right comparables are SaaS businesses and research platforms: recurring revenue, data asset value, community lock-in, and net revenue retention. These are the metrics that reflect what these businesses actually are. The market has not fully priced this yet. Businesses that look like small B2B media companies on the surface are sometimes sitting on data assets, subscriber relationships, and domain authority that are worth considerably more than their current revenue multiples suggest. The investors who develop a sharper lens for this category before it becomes consensus will have an advantage. The Larger Irony Business professionals have always needed what the vertical intelligence company delivers. Domain-specific, trustworthy intelligence that helps them make better decisions, stay ahead of their markets, and do their jobs at a higher level. That need didn’t emerge with the internet or with AI. It has always been there. What has changed is the ability to serve it efficiently, at scale, and profitably. The technology that is collapsing one model of information business is simultaneously making it possible to build a better one. The B2B media company of the future is already here. It just doesn’t call itself a media company. The views expressed in Uphoff on Media are entirely my own. They don’t represent the opinions of any company I’ve led, any board I’ve sat on, or any investor who’s had the pleasure of debating strategy with me over the years. If something I write here sounds brilliant, I’ll take full credit. If it turns out to be wrong, I was clearly misquoted by myself. “Uphoff on Media” is published by Tony Uphoff, Founder and Managing Partner of Uphoff Advisory, LLC [https://uphoffadvisory.com/]: a strategic advisory practice for founders, CEOs, and investors in B2B media, marketing, and technology. The businesses that drive business. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tonyuphoff.substack.com [https://tonyuphoff.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]