English language Visionary Marketing Podcasts Titelbild

English language Visionary Marketing Podcasts

English language Visionary Marketing Podcasts

Von: Visionary Marketing
Jetzt kostenlos hören, ohne Abo

Visionary Marketing Podcasts in EnglishCreative Commons 1995-2022 Visionary Marketing Marketing & Vertrieb Politik & Regierungen Ökonomie
Folgen
  • Agentic E-Commerce, Could AI Become the Shopfront

    Agentic E-Commerce, Could AI Become the Shopfront
    Jun 4 2026
    Agentic e-commerce is already reshaping how consumers discover and buy products online, yet it still accounts for barely 0.2% of total e-commerce traffic. BASE France is the French arm of Base.com, a Polish-born SaaS scale-up that has spent nearly two decades building operational infrastructure for online retailers. Its CEO, Ben Hamilton, brings a practitioner’s perspective to this emerging model: measured, practical, and refreshingly free of the hype that surrounds most conversations on the topic. Agentic E-Commerce: Could AI Become the Shopfront? Imagine an agentic e-commerce world where e-commerce happens on smartphone screens and robots deliver your purchases. We might be on the brink of this future. This image was created using Midjourney. Commerce as conversation: the oldest model in the book Before there were shops, there was conversation. For thousands of years, trade was oral. A buyer expressed a need, a seller responded with what they had, and the two parties negotiated until a deal was struck. The self-service retail store, born roughly a century ago, was a radical departure from this model. It replaced dialogue with browsing. It handed the customer a trolley and pointed them at the shelves. E-commerce then took that self-service model and, as Ben Hamilton puts it, “multiplied it by about 100,000.” The online shopper today faces a near-infinite array of products across dozens of marketplaces, with no guide, no-one to talk to, and no memory of what they looked at three tabs ago. It is efficient in theory. In practice, it is exhausting. Back to future? The agentic model, Hamilton argues, represents something of a return to origins. Instead of browsing, the consumer talks. An agent listens, asks questions, proposes options, and eventually surfaces an answer to a need that the buyer may not even have been able to articulate clearly at the outset. “back to the future,” Hamilton explains, “that’s what I’m getting at. The agentic model takes us back to something closer to how human beings have traded over thousands of years compared to the last ten, twenty or even a hundred.” My own experience bears this out. I recently found a diagnostician for a property I am selling. As a matter of fact, I didn’t find them through a Google search, but through a conversation with an LLM. I clicked through two or three irrelevant links before landing on exactly the right provider. I then completed the transaction on their website. The research was agentic; the checkout was not. That distinction, as it happens, sits at the heart of what Hamilton believes will define the next phase of e-commerce. Ben Hamilton on agentic e-commerce: “I can totally imagine a portion of that market occurring directly on an LLM”. Agentic E-commerce: Where checkout will and won’t happen One of the more grounded contributions Hamilton makes to this debate is his refusal to conflate two distinct phenomena: AI influence over purchasing decisions, and AI completing the transaction itself. Much of the media discourse collapses the two. Hamilton does not. “I don’t think we’re heading to a world where 20, 50 or 80% of online transactions happen on an LLM,” he says. “I would draw the distinction between where the checkout occurs and how much an agent is involved in the buying process.” For the foreseeable future, he believes, most consumers will continue to research via LLMs and transact on familiar websites and marketplaces. The inertia in human purchasing behaviour is simply too great for the checkout itself to migrate rapidly to a chat interface. This view is supported by the data available. According to research by commercetools, 73% of consumers already use AI somewhere in their shopping journey. Yet only 36% are open to AI agents making purchases on their behalf. In the US, the figure for autonomous AI purchasing drops to 14%. The gap between AI as advisor and AI as buyer is vast, and it will narrow slowly. The risks associated with agentic e-commerce are high The risks of handing uncapped authority to an AI agent are no longer hypothetical. In late May 2026, an AI consultant reported to Axios that one of their enterprise clients had accidentally accumulated a $500 million bill on Anthropic’s Claude in a single month, simply by giving employees unrestricted access to the platform with no usage controls in place. Agentic workflows, which loop through tasks repeatedly, consume tokens at a rate orders of magnitude higher than a standard chat query. The bill was not the result of malicious use or a system failure. It was the predictable outcome of deploying autonomous agents without guardrails. The case is far from isolated: Uber reportedly exhausted its entire 2026 AI budget by April, with per-engineer costs running between $500 and $2,000 monthly. “You’ve got to be bold to give them no upper limit on transactions,” Hamilton observed, and the arithmetic proved him right. [Editor’s note: I...
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    38 Min.
  • GenAI in Higher Education, Legitimacy and Laziness

    GenAI in Higher Education, Legitimacy and Laziness
    May 21 2026
    Alain Goudey is Associate Dean for Digital Innovation at Neoma Business School and co-author of a peer-reviewed study on GenAI in Higher Education. The survey focused on how students, faculty, and deans perceive the legitimacy of generative AI in French management education. His findings are both reassuring and unsettling. GenAI in Higher Education, Legitimacy and Laziness, and the Exam That No Longer Makes Sense The picture that emerges from a study on GenAI in Higher Education is less a battlefield than a hall of mirrors, where every stakeholder sees a different problem and reaches for a different solution. All illustrations in text made with Midjourney When Alain Goudey and his colleagues began surveying French higher education in early 2024, they were not trying to settle the question of whether generative AI was good or bad. They were trying to understand something more precise: why the same tool could be simultaneously valued, feared, accepted, and denounced, sometimes by the same person in the same breath. Their study sits at the heart of what makes GenAI in higher education such a contested terrain. The resulting study, published in the Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS), drew on surveys of 668 students, 204 faculty members, and 29 deans, completed by 22 in-depth interviews with early-adopter professors. The picture that emerges is less a battlefield than a hall of mirrors, where every stakeholder sees a different problem and reaches for a different solution. The starting point is a number that should have settled the debate. Between 80 and 92 per cent of students, depending on the institution surveyed, are already using GenAI tools in their academic work. ChatGPT’s public release produced that figure within roughly 18 months. The tool did not wait for institutional permission. It deployed itself. And higher education is still, in many places, writing the policy. The productivity trap Alain identifies the central tension plainly. Students value GenAI for speed, idea generation, and study support. They also fear, and their institutions fear with them, what the research calls “metacognitive laziness”: the gradual erosion of the cognitive effort that produces real learning. He believes this is not a contradiction to resolve but a course architecture challenge. “The resolution of this problem lies in course design, where we need to deliberately reintroduce cognitive effort and reflection into GenAI as a tool, not as a replacement for human cognition.” The issue, as he puts it, is not the technology but the posture the user brings to it. Someone who submits what he calls a “naive prompt” receives a naive answer, smoothly formatted and perfectly mediocre. The tool is capable of something far more useful, if the user brings enough domain knowledge and critical intent to the conversation. “You have to nurture your own thinking process instead of delegating the whole process to the machine.” This is, as I noted during our conversation, less a matter of prompt engineering than of basic intellectual discipline: the capacity to question the question before asking it, something philosophy departments have been teaching for centuries under less fashionable names. GenAI in Higher Education: faculty should train students in GenAI tools and their limitations. They also teach Homer’s Odyssey and Shelley’s Frankenstein as part of the management curriculum. Image made with Midjourney That observation prompted Alain to make a point about AI literacy that differs from what is generally proffered. The debate is not simply about knowing how the tools work technically. It is, equally, about knowing enough about the subject matter to judge whether the output is any good. The observation that AI is most powerful in the hands of people who already know the business resonates here. GenAI does not replace expertise. It amplifies whatever expertise the user already brings. Which raises an uncomfortable question for institutions producing graduates who may never have had the chance to develop that expertise in the first place. At Neoma, the response has been deliberately dual. Faculty train students in GenAI tools and their limitations. They also teach Homer’s Odyssey and Shelley’s Frankenstein as part of the management curriculum. The goal is not cultural enrichment for its own sake. It is to give students mental models for envisioning what leadership looks like, or what happens when creation escapes the intentions of its creator. Alain describes this as “building cognitive infrastructure”: “We need students to be able to envision the world through different models, different kinds of processes and theoretical frameworks, in order to develop genuine critical thinking about what AI generates.” A degree in management that skips that foundation produces graduates who can operate the tool but cannot judge its output. Exams that assessed the wrong thing The ...
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    1 Std. und 5 Min.
  • AI Will Not Kill Marketing

    AI Will Not Kill Marketing
    May 4 2026
    Shall AI kill marketing? Sounds like a hackneyed question, yet it’s on any marketer’s lips these days. Thomas Husson, Vice President and Principal Analyst at Forrester Research, covers the intersection of marketing, technology, and consumer behaviour from his base in Paris. In a wide-ranging conversation, he cuts through the European Gen AI paradox, the persistent CMO-CIO divide, the gap between POC enthusiasm and production reality, and the thorny question of what AI actually means for the next generation of marketing professionals and CMOs. His answers are measured, occasionally blunt, and consistently grounded in Forrester Research data. AI Will Not Threaten the Existence of Marketing But It Will Reshape It Beyond Recognition Thomas Husson believes that Marketing will be changed profoundly. But he doesn’t believe in the death of Marketing. Photo: Thomas Husson at Paris Retail Week, in late 2023 My first question was the obvious one: are CMOs going to be made redundant by artificial intelligence? Thomas Husson’s response is categorical, and worth stating plainly at the outset. It’s a blatant ‘No’. The role will change. The how will change. But the existence of marketing as a discipline is not, according to him, in question. “Marketing is still going to be about understanding your customer, defining a brand strategy, and delivering the brand promise through customer experience.” Thomas Husson, Forrester Research Unclear prospects, obvious pressures That said, Husson is not naive about the pressures building on marketing organisations. Some tasks will be automated; that much is not in dispute. The real questions are which tasks, how quickly, and whether automation of a task necessarily kills the job around it. His answer to that last question is no, at least not in any simple mechanical sense. “Jobs will evolve for sure. New jobs will be created. Most jobs will change. The way we work will change. The way we work with agencies, with external partners, the processes, the workflow. It is the shape of work that is being reshaped, not work itself,” he added. For those expecting a more dramatic verdict, Husson’s framing may feel anti-climactic. But it reflects what Forrester Research data actually shows, and it points to the most important practical challenge for AI and CMOs alike: managing a profound transformation without either catastrophising or sleepwalking through it. AI Will Not Kill Marketing according to Forrester’s Thomas Husson, there is light at the end of the tunnel. The European Paradox, Overhyped and Exciting at the Same Time Forrester Research produced a result that initially looks contradictory, Husson stressed in our interview. Fifty-five percent of European B2B marketers consider generative AI overhyped. Yet 81% of European frontline marketers describe themselves as enthusiastic about it. How can both be true simultaneously? Husson explains the split without difficulty. At the decision-maker level, scepticism is entirely rational. AI is inescapable at conferences, in vendor pitches, and in media coverage. “There is AI fatigue. And more importantly, some of the vendors are indeed over-pitching, and the productivity gains they promise are not happening,” he stated. The gap between the pitch and what we actually experience in the field is wide enough to breed genuine frustration. Saving Time and Working Differently But the people actually using these tools, often through shadow AI channels their organisations have not officially sanctioned, are discovering something different. They are saving time and are doing their jobs differently. They are finding capabilities they did not expect. “In the short term, everything is overhyped, including the number of job losses. In the longer term, things are underestimated, because AI will be linked to other technologies, and yes, it will reinvent many things.” Thomas Husson, Forrester Research This is a precise restatement of Amara’s Law. Roy Amara, former president of the Institute for the Future, observed that we tend to overestimate the short-term impact of new technology and underestimate its long-term impact. The quote is frequently misattributed to Bill Gates, but Husson is careful to restore proper credit. He applies it directly to the AI and CMOs conversation: the short-term noise is drowning out a more important long-term signal. When asked how long “long term” actually means in an era of accelerating AI development, Husson was specific: probably closer to five to seven years than to ten or fifteen, but still not tomorrow. From POC to Production, Europe’s Real AI Problem The Forrester Research State of AI Survey 2025 contains a figure that deserves more attention than it typically receives. European organisations lag behind their non-European peers in production use of generative AI: 62% versus 72%. The gap is not in experimentation. It is in execution. Regulation is the explanation most commonly ...
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    35 Min.
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
Noch keine Rezensionen vorhanden