Last Week’s Conclusion Has a Hole in It. Raising the Barr Weekly Memo: Issue 710

This issue does not end with an answer. That is deliberate.

For more than thirteen years I have arrived in your inbox with a position. Something I had already worked out, tested, and was prepared to defend. This week I am arriving with a decision that is wide open, and tomorrow afternoon I am going to work it in front of a room of people with AI arguing against me the entire way.

Start with what I told you last week. I had planned to build a membership academy around the Digital Empire Creation Program and make it the center of my business. AI refused to let that plan pass and kept pressing the one question I had been avoiding: should this be the center at all, or one piece of something larger. I could not defend my answer, so I changed it. The AI Insider Lab became the umbrella over all four components: the Lab, Digital Empire Creation, Website, and Marketing. Each one weak without the others. The pieces are entry doors. The whole system is the destination.

I believed that when I wrote it. Then I sat down to prepare for Thursday, working with AI on what to put in front of the room, and I went back into last week’s conclusion to pressure test it one more time. It did not survive the second pass.

The Lab Appears Twice

Look at the structure I published. The system has four components: the Lab, Digital Empire Creation, Website, and Marketing. And sitting above all four, as the umbrella, is the AI Insider Lab.

The same thing cannot be the roof and one of the walls. That is not a wording problem I can fix with a better sentence. It means one of two things is true, and I do not yet know which.

Either the AI Insider Lab genuinely sits above the others, in which case Digital Empire Creation, website, and marketing are services delivered underneath it and I should stop calling them equal components. Or the AI Insider Lab is one of four peers, in which case something else sits above all of them, and that something currently has no name, no page, and no place in anything I have ever published.

I have been leaning toward the second.

What Is Not in Question

Let me be clear about what is not on the table. The Lab works. Members are producing results, and I see it as the future of this business. None of that changes on Thursday. What is in question is only its position: whether it is the roof or one of the walls.

What Each Path Actually Costs

If I name a new umbrella, nothing I have built disappears. The portal stays. The domain stays. Everything done under the Lab continues exactly as it is. The cost is not infrastructure. It is that I would be asking a market that has just started to recognize one name to learn a second one, and carrying both until the new one stands on its own.

If the Lab stays the roof, then an AI name sits on top of content work, website work, and marketing work, and that tells the market we have transformed into an AI company.

Part of me thinks that is exactly right. AI now runs through every piece of what we build, from applications to content to marketing initiatives, and web development is next. Naming that is honest, and today it separates us from most of the field.

But what I do is teach consultants, advisors, and thought leaders the courage to become visible, and AI happens to be the safest environment ever created for doing it.

I have argued both sides of that with myself and neither side has won.

Naming a new umbrella sounds like the more interesting answer. It gives me something new to build, and as you know, I am the kind of person who loves building new things. But interesting is not the same as correct. The other possibility, that the Lab really does sit on top and I simply need to be clearer about the hierarchy underneath it, deserves a fair hearing tomorrow and it will get one.

There is also a second question stacked behind the first. Do I market the umbrella, or the four components, or some combination? That decision determines pricing, entry points, and what a client understands they are buying. I am not going to pretend I can settle both in sixty minutes. I am going to settle the first one properly and let the second follow from it.

Now Look at Your Own Business

I see a version of this in nearly every practice I work with. A conclusion already reached, sitting untested and unacted on for months or even years.

The consultant who knows one of her service lines should be gone. Low margin, eats the calendar, distorts the week. She keeps it because it is how her best clients first found her, and she has never checked whether that is still true. Every hour it takes is an hour not spent on whatever should replace it.

The owner who decided three years ago that the business should be able to run without him. He is not confused about the goal. He has never counted how many decisions still route through him in a single week.

None of these people are confused. Each of them knows exactly what is unresolved, and each has found a way to live with it staying that way. So had I.

Most practices are running something larger than the services they sell. Almost none have named it, and fewer still have tested whether it holds.

Watch It Happen

Thursday, August 20, at 1:00 PM Eastern. Sixty minutes. AI Insider Lab: Live Working Session.

No slides. No presentation about what AI can theoretically do. I put this decision on the table and work it live so you see both sides of the argument as it happens. AI pushes, I push back, and you watch which one of us gives ground. Then I take a decision from someone in the room and run the opening moves on theirs.

Register at theaiinsiderlab.com

Next Wednesday you get the report. What held, what broke, and what I decided. If I end up exactly where I started, you get that too, along with the argument that kept me there. If nothing broke, I did not push hard enough.

Chad

This Week’s Carousel

Last Week’s Conclusion Has a Hole in It.

This Week on Youtube

Your AI Agrees With You. That Is the Problem.

Subscribe to the AI Insider Lab Channel so you never miss an episode.