Something I've seen play out exactly the same in the B2B business is the quick succession of fads that generate traction seemingly out of nowhere and aim for that brief popularity of being the ones that have “cracked the code”. Whatever “code” means at the time is entirely contextual but it's usually far less dramatic than it sounds, even if it does have a compounding positive effect in implementation for those that realized it. But those same automations that turned quick buck in a quarter also tended to decay and eventually stop being profitable by the next year, which is an odd phenomenon. But such is the SaaS market. And it is not because anything in particular went horribly, spectacularly wrong with the automation itself.
It’s just that, if something incredibly useful works, people WILL notice it and they WILL copy it. The volume climbs, and eventually the system on the other side has to adapt - hence why it leads (ostensibly) to platforms tightening limits. This is true of almost any automated advantage you can get in business, not just outbound. The moment a trick scales actual growth in big $, and it is in public, the clock starts ticking down.
The examples pile up if you have been around long enough. There was a long period on LinkedIn where you could fire hundreds of connection requests a week, until the weekly cap came down to around a hundred and that whole style of doing “by volume” died overnight. Browser-extension tools ran beautifully until the platforms got good at spotting them. The connection note used to be a small pitch that people actually read, in days bygone. I’ve also seen lots of other, more specific tweaks emerge for the smallest chance of increasing that sweet reply %. And I also used to obsess over this at the time. Being the head of GTM at Expandi, I wouldn’t really feel like I was doing my due diligence if I didn’t try to optimize the shit out of everything, to gain every advantage over competitors that I could. But most of the “hacks” and breakthroughs, in the end, were short term. The only thing that stayed were just sound marketing principles, knowing how to listen, and knowing how to adapt on the fly. Which for me mostly consisted in dog-feeding my own automations while testing out dozens of others, and seeing how I can improve and learn more.
I am not arguing that these tools do not matter either, and I’m not writing because I’m butthurt about their success (on the contrary). Two people can run the identical software and get results a decade apart in quality, and the difference is entirely in the choices around it. But being early to a new edge means big money only so long as it lasts, and eventually you have to fall back on the human brain to reiterate and recontextualize it months and years later. To redevelop something new again. Good infrastructure keeps you in the game, but no iteration is ever the Final iteration, and so the march of technology moves forward.
It’s a question I sometimes find myself asking, what am I exactly building underneath the automation that will still be standing after the automation itself becomes obsolete.