The claim that “95% of AI projects fail” has become one of the most repeated talking points in enterprise AI. But where did it come from, and does it actually hold up?

In this episode, Dave "CAC" Kellogg and Ray "Growth" Rike take a detailed, data-driven look at the MIT NANDA report, titled The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025. They break down how the "95% fail rate" statistic went viral, why it stuck, and why the underlying evidence does not support such a sweeping conclusion.

What Ray and Dave cover:

• Why the NANDA report is often mistaken for a peer-reviewed academic study when it is not
• How ambiguous definitions of “failure” turn partial adoption into sensational headlines
• Data inconsistencies and methodological gaps that undermine the 95% claim
• The difference between failed AI initiatives and early-stage pilots or experiments
• Why measuring AI success by the percent of projects is misleading compared to the business value created
• The rise of Shadow AI and employee-driven adoption, and why that may be a feature, not a flaw
• How the report’s conclusions conveniently align with the authors’ proposed NANDA architecture
• The real issues enterprises face with AI: workflow integration, governance, and change management

The episode also discusses why personal productivity gains still matter to the P&L, even if they do not appear as a clear line item, and why fear-driven AI narratives can do real damage within organizations.

Key takeaway:

The NANDA report raises some legitimate concerns about scaling AI from pilot to production, but the infamous “95% of AI projects fail” claim does not survive close inspection. Leaders should read the report skeptically and push back when flawed statistics begin to drive decisions and strategy.

Recommended for:

CFOs, operators, AI leaders, and anyone tired of scary AI statistics that fall apart under scrutiny.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Brand vs Demand: Why B2B Marketing Is Stuck in a Measurement Trap

In this episode of The Metrics Brothers, Dave "CAC" Kellogg and Ray "Growth" Rike tackle one of the most persistent and controversial questions in B2B marketing: Brand vs. Demand.

The discussion is grounded in new data from the 2026 B2B Brand vs Demand Benchmark Report. While most marketing teams say they believe brand and demand are complementary, the numbers tell a more complicated story.

Today’s reality?

Marketing budgets are still heavily skewed toward short-term demand generation, with roughly 70% of spend allocated to demand and only ~25% to brand. Yet when asked how they want to invest, marketing leaders overwhelmingly say they’d prefer a much more balanced future, closer to 50% demand and 40% brand.

So why the disconnect?

Ray and Dave dig into the root cause: measurement.

Demand generation is tied to metrics CFOs understand like pipeline dollars, opportunities, and ARR. Brand, on the other hand, is still largely measured using proxy metrics like website traffic and awareness, leaving many executives unable to confidently link brand investments to revenue outcomes. Only 28% of companies say they can directly tie brand activity to pipeline, and when budgets are cut, brand is sacrificed five times more often than demand.

The episode also explores:

• Why performance marketing struggles are pushing CMOs back toward brand
• The growing inefficiency of demand spend aimed at “future buyers”
• How much of the “demand” budget is effectively unmeasured brand spend
• The dangerous gap between belief in brand and proof of impact
• Why AEO, AI search, and LLM visibility will make brand ROI even harder and more urgent to measure

Ray and Dave don’t just highlight the findings, they discuss the reality of Chief Marketing Officers making the Brand vs Demand budget allocation trade-offs.

One key takeaway? Until brand investments can be credibly connected to pipeline efficiency, win rates, and ARR, it will remain more a faith-based investment instead of a financial one the CFOs understand.

If you’re a CMO trying to defend brand spend, or a CFO trying to understand where marketing dollars truly drive growth, this episode is required listening.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this episode of The Metrics Brothers, Dave "CAC" Kellogg and Ray "Growth" Rike break down the 2025 Tidemark Vertical & SMB SaaS Benchmark Report. Drawing from data across 200+ companies, the report explores control points, multi-product expansion, fintech monetization, and AI adoption, but not all conclusions hold up under scrutiny as they are sometimes take on the tone of a narrative summary rather than insights purely from data-backed research.

Ray and Dave dig into what the data actually supports versus where narrative may be running ahead of evidence. They unpack the concept of “control points,” examine why fintech (especially payments) continues to dominate expansion strategies, and challenge whether multi-product really delivers the retention and growth advantages many assume. Along the way, they highlight where benchmarks are useful, where definitions blur, and why context matters more than ever.

The episode also explores the rapid rise of AI inside Vertical SaaS, from attach rates to monetization models and asks the hard question: "Does AI actually drive better performance, or is it simply becoming table stakes?"

If you’re building, investing in, or operating a vertical SaaS business, this episode helps separate signal from story.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.