We should be skeptical of narratives that push the idea of leveraging that particular technology to create extreme economic outcomes, realistic or otherwise. Who do these sorts of narratives serve? Why are they being pushed into our discourse so often? Who stands to gain from people attempting to create these kinds of companies or projects? Who stands to lose if this becomes a dominant operating framework for entrepreneurship or general creativity? How do we even thoughtfully differentiate the work that could theoretically be automated from the work that a human always needs to be part of? I have yet to see any particularly satisfying answers to any of these questions coming from companies in the tech sector or otherwise.
There are a few implied ideas underpinning discussions about using agents and AI generally: You don’t need to have certain skills or ideas to deliver an end product or experience that can be ‘rewarded’ in the market. You certainly don’t need to involve (read: pay) other human beings who might actually have the capacity to help you in meaningful ways in the enterprise. You don’t even need to have everything thought out because these technologies will help fill in the gaps. These mindsets could be interpreted as either liberating or socially problematic, possibly even extractive.
In a world of increasing economic precarity, vocational-spiritual misalignment, and public glorification of “financial freedom” through low-effort, high-leverage side hustles, I understand the appeal. Why would you not use agents or other tools that expand your capabilities if you wanted to run not just a functional CPG business but a highly financially successful one? For better or worse, the functional, successful brand using an AI-powered operating framework doesn’t actually exist. It’s not going to be an answer to people who are working through significant limitations in how they build out their vision. In fact, it’s a distraction. So, we need a better model when it comes to empowering people to build out their ideas. The high-flying, high-automation, startup-company-of-one model is a dead end path.
Most people were born to create in some way. Unfortunately, that possibility frequently manifests itself uniquely in our society (‘Western’, modern, capitalist, neoliberal, etc.) as creating a ‘business’ on top of an idea. However, a strange inversion often happens where the business becomes more important and more meaningful than the creative process or the idea itself. This is structural and from my perspective, a main driver of things going wrong. We need to avoid this inversion because truthfully, most things should probably look more like hobbies! What is a safer, alternative model that allows for creative exploration and helps us confront our limitations without forcing us onto paths that don’t align with our best interests? To be clear, I am absolutely saying that starting a business is not in everyone’s best interest.
Within the product creation process, the sampling phase offers a really interesting opportunity for the necessary learning and creative exploration journey. Therein also lies minor economic return in the service of future creativity. Creating a venture that exclusively runs in ‘sample mode’ could unlock a path that supports greater creative experimentation, fewer operational demands, lower costs, and a wider range of possible outcomes, most of which would be particularly satisfying. I’ve been kicking around the idea of a ‘Micro-CPG’. Many brands in fashion work similarly, showing only samples and producing the final inventory run when retail partners place orders. It’s perhaps even conceptually closer to what you might find in the art world. There's something really interesting about the idea of sampling that could provide a more reasonable access point for creative product development and even company building. Essentially, what if sampling or coming close to sampling was a possible endpoint? What if that was the norm in how most CPG founders operated?
What if you could easily launch a batch of 100 tubes of hand cream? After the tubes sell out, that’s it. You got your fill. Now, take this one step further. Imagine an entire fragrance brand that only produces 100 tubes of hand cream in one scent. Then it produces 100 ceramic candles in another scent. It’s a totally new product. Then you launch something else. The types of products your brand releases are completely unpredictable, yet always on-brand. Take that extreme example and make it the norm for similar types of small brands. What would the category look like? Why would these companies exist? What purpose would they serve? What if this became the norm in many consumer-facing industries? How many brands and companies could withstand the new norm of scrutiny as to why they really need to scale beyond a sampling framework? At what point does the central idea become less interesting than the operating business itself? Are we propagating an important idea or are we self-replicating just for the sake of it?
When I was running Ceylon, one of the core issues within the company was discovering what kinds of products our customers really wanted and found useful without taking on too much inventory risk. As it grew into retail, the issues multiplied. How could I manage limited budgets, keep pursuing product innovation, increase retail demand, increase DTC sales, and maintain what was ultimately an underfunded, omni-channel marketing funnel that showed increasingly stubborn effectiveness? Basically, how could I operate and grow the company effectively with limited resources? Most small CPG brands struggle with these issues. When thinking back to the idea of managing risk, opportunity and creativity within the brand, the central flaw in my mindset was the pursuit of growth being more important than anything else. It was a catalyst for Ceylon’s expansion and eventually its destruction. Only near the end of the company’s lifecycle did I question if that actual framework of operation was actually valid. Could I have built a version of the company that operated in sample mode before it grew too large and unwieldy?