The Label You Thought You Had to Add

You spent a weekend rewriting the homepage and it finally sounds like the company you think you're building. "AI-powered" in the headline. "Powered by AI" in the product tour. The sales emails got the same polish, because the team was proud of what you'd built and wanted the world to know there was something smart under the hood.

Then the quarter turned and the pipeline got heavier to push. Demos that used to book go unanswered. A couple of deals you'd have closed last year are parked in a maybe. Nothing about the business is broken. The product is better than it was six months ago, and you'd swear the pitch got sharper, because you sharpened it yourself.

That's the part that gets in your head. You can't point to the thing that changed, so you start running through the usual suspects: the market, the season, your reps, yourself. The homepage never makes that list, because the rewrite was the part you were surest you got right.

And the term you felt you had to add is the one making your buyer slow down. This is a positioning problem, and the copy is only where it surfaces. Underneath is a harder question: are you selling the machine you built, or the outcome your buyer came for?

That’s 6 sales in 7 months. 29 all time. And the performance?

16.5%, 17.6%, and 17.8%, net annualized returns on sold works held longer than one year (See all 29 at Masterworks.com)

It’s not from stocks, private equity, or real estate… it’s from contemporary and post war art. Crazy, right?

With Masterworks, you don’t need to be a BILLIONAIRE to invest in multi-million dollar art anymore.

Historically, the segment overall has had attractive appreciation and low correlation to stocks.*

Masterworks targets works featuring legends like Banksy, Basquiat, and Picasso, identifying what they believe to have significant long-term appreciation potential, not just at the artist level but at the level of individual artworks.

As one of the largest players in the art market, with $1.3 billion invested over 500 artworks, they pass critical advantages through to their 70,000+ members to add art to their portfolios strategically.

Looking to diversify your investments in 2026?

Click here to skip the waitlist

^{*According to Masterworks data. Investing involves risk. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. See important Reg A disclosures at masterworks.com/cd.}

You're not imagining the slowdown. A survey from WordPress VIP, the enterprise arm of Automattic, reported by TechCrunch in June, polled 2,000 people on the use of AI in marketing: 800 enterprise decision-makers and CMOs alongside 1,200 U.S. adults. Sixty percent of those consumers said a brand using "AI" in its messaging is a turnoff, a reason to trust it less. Close to three in four respondents said the internet feels less human than it did 10 years ago, and that's the climate your "AI-powered" headline is landing in.

A survey catches a mood. So set a second source next to it, one built to test cause rather than opinion. Researchers led by Mesut Cicek at Washington State University ran controlled experiments with more than 1,000 U.S. adults and published the results in the Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management. They showed two groups identical descriptions, a smart television in one test, with a single difference: one version included the words "artificial intelligence" and the other left them out. The half that saw the term was less likely to buy. The team ran it across eight different product and service categories, and the result held in every one.

Same product, same price, two words added, and fewer people reached for it.

Cicek's finding was that mentioning the technology "tends to lower emotional trust, which in turn decreases purchase intentions." Emotional trust is the unspoken bet a buyer makes that the thing will work and that the people behind it have it handled.

Walk it from the buyer's side. When you say "AI," you are describing a piece of machinery they cannot inspect. They can't read the model. They can't audit the training data. They can't tell your careful system from the slapdash ones that have burned them before: the support bot that made up a policy on a live call, the "smart" feature that mangled a customer list and called it learning. So they fall back on the only gauge they have left, their own gut, and a person will not hand trust to a claim they have no way to check.

None of this was true 18 months ago. Back then "AI" on your site was a green light. Investors wanted to hear it, reporters rewarded it, and buyers took it as proof you were keeping pace, so every company raced to stamp it on the homepage. Then the culture around AI soured. A year of overpromises and ugly headlines in the mainstream media did the damage, and your buyer reads that coverage on nights and weekends like everyone else. They carry the skepticism into Monday's vendor call, whether or not a single piece of business software ever let them down. The tailwind became a headwind, and most companies are still flying straight into it.

A specific outcome behaves the opposite way. "Cuts your month-end close from five days to one" is a promise the buyer can picture, test, and hold you to, which is more than a label like "AI" ever offered them.

That is the hidden cost of the label. You spent two years building something that works; a competitor slapped a chatbot on top and called it the same thing. You both wrote "AI-powered" on the homepage, so the buyer can't tell your work from their hype and discounts both.

A smart-television shopper and an enterprise software buyer are not the same animal, so it's fair to ask whether any of this applies to you. The WSU team found the part that closes that gap. The trust penalty got stronger for what they called high-risk purchases, the ones people feel uncertain or anxious buying, where a wrong call costs serious money or carries lasting consequences. Their examples: expensive electronics, medical devices, financial services.

Now look at what you sell. A growth-stage software contract is among the higher-risk purchases a person makes at work. It runs five or six figures, and it takes months to rip out if it fails. Picture the buyer who has to choose it, a VP of operations standing in front of her boss and the finance team and vouching for your tool. She is staking her own credibility on it, for people who will remember if it goes to shit.

Every "AI" on your page is a question she now has to answer for that room. Is it going to leak our data? Is it going to make something up in front of a client? Is this a product with its own engineering, or a wrapper somebody stood up in an afternoon? The credential you intended reaches her as a list of new risks to carry into that meeting. The study tested consumers, but I'm extending it to your deal from the mechanism and from years of watching software get bought. Take it as reasoning rather than proof. Still, it points one way: the more a buyer stands to lose, the less an unverifiable label does for them, and yours has a great deal on the line.

Pull back from "AI" for a moment, because it is a symptom of something older and more useful to fix. There was a stretch when "cloud" did exactly what "AI" does now, then "big data," then "blockchain," then "machine learning," then "proprietary algorithm." Each one started as a signal that you were ahead but curdled into noise the buyer scrolled past. The buzzword turns over every few years. What's underneath outlasts every one of them.

The mistake is describing the machine when the buyer only wants the destination. You are proud of what you built, and you should be, because it's a serious piece of engineering. But pride pulls your eye to the part they care about least. They are paying to get somewhere, and to get there without being stranded halfway.

I have sat with founders who could walk me through their architecture for 20 minutes without notes and then go quiet when I asked, in one sentence, why a customer should care. The machine was vivid to them. The destination was a blur. That gap is where "AI" rushes in.

And the buzzword is the placeholder you grab when the sentence isn't finished. When you can say in one plain line what your product does for the person paying you, you have no reason to borrow shine from an acronym. When you can't, you reach for the term everyone's currently chasing, and it goes up in the exact spot where the clear promise belonged.

It just surpassed a $1B valuation, joining private US companies like SpaceX and OpenAI. Unlike them, you can invest in EnergyX today. General Motors already has. Why? EnergyX’s tech can recover up to 3X more lithium than traditional methods. Now, they hold rights to ~13M tons of lithium across North and South America. Invest in EnergyX at $13/share by 7/16.

Invest in EnergyX

^{Energy Exploration Technologies, Inc. (“EnergyX”) has engaged Beehiiv to publish this communication in connection with EnergyX’s ongoing Regulation A offering. Beehiiv has been paid in cash and may receive additional compensation. Beehiiv and/or its affiliates do not currently hold securities of EnergyX.}

^{This compensation and any current or future ownership interest could create a conflict of interest. Please consider this disclosure alongside EnergyX’s offering materials. EnergyX’s Regulation A offering has been qualified by the SEC. Offers and sales may be made only by means of the qualified offering circular. Before investing, carefully review the offering circular, including the risk factors. The offering circular is available at invest.energyx.com/.}

^{Comparisons to other companies are for informational purposes only and should not imply similar results. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Market shortfall are forward‑looking estimates and are subject to substantial uncertainty.}

The fair objection has teeth. Some rooms want it. Your investors ask for the AI story and read its absence as a founder asleep at the wheel. Some technical buyers expect you to speak the language fluently and dock you when you don't. So the term is a signal in one room and a warning in another.

The error was stamping one line onto every surface at once: the site, the sales emails, the product tour. A marketing chief, a wary buyer and your lead investor each hear it a different way. Your investor and your buyer rarely read the same sentence anyway, so let the deck carry the AI story and the homepage carry the outcome, and stop handing one line to two rooms that take it in opposite directions.

There's a second catch: when everybody in your category is an "AI company," nobody is. A claim every competitor also makes is doing none of the work you think it is.

Say what the product does for the buyer, and prove it. The label comes second, or not at all.

Lead with the outcome the buyer can picture. Open with what changes for them, in their words, with a number where you have one. Trade "AI-powered financial close" for "close the books in a day instead of a week, with errors caught before they reach the board." One headline describes the machine. The other tells the buyer what Monday looks like. The how earns its place once the what has landed.

Replace the adjective with proof. "AI-powered" is an adjective. "Reads every support ticket overnight and flags the three accounts about to churn" is a concrete claim the buyer can evaluate. Cicek's own advice to companies was to describe the features and the benefits and skip the buzzwords. Say what the thing does and let the reader infer the intelligence from what it produces.

Reserve the term for the room that wants it. Put "AI" in the investor deck, where it reads as a signal. Use it with the technical buyer who asked a technical question. Keep it off the homepage, where a wary, high-stakes buyer meets you first and it costs more than it earns.

Then run the test. You have the traffic to settle this without taking my word for it, or the survey's. Stand up two versions of your page, one leading with the label and one leading with the outcome, and see which books more demos. Hand it to the product manager who lives for an A/B test, and you'll have an answer in two weeks instead of another argument in a meeting where no one is your customer. The researchers proved the effect with a pair of near-identical descriptions and a big enough crowd to tell them apart, and you have the same setup in your analytics already.

The better version of that page is shorter than the one you spent a weekend on. It opens with the reason the product exists at all: the outcome the buyer gets, and the proof you deliver it. The machinery moves lower, into plain words, doing a job rather than waving a flag. "AI" either earns its place by helping a specific reader trust you, or it comes off the headline.

The person who vouched for you came for the result, and for the belief that it holds when their reputation is on the line. The machine was only ever how you delivered that. The label you added to win them over is the reason they trust you less.

So strip "AI" back out and read the line underneath it. In a market where everyone is shouting the same two letters, a plain sentence about what your product does is the sharpest signal you have, and it was your strongest asset the whole time. You buried it to keep pace with a crowd doing the same thing. The founder who digs it back out first is the one who stops sounding like the rest of them.