The Metrics Brothers (fka SaaS Talk)

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.

In this episode of The Metrics Brothers, Ray Rike and Dave Kellogg unpack Benedict Evans’ latest landmark presentation, AI Eats the World, and explore why this moment may rival or even surpass the original “software is eating the world” era. Drawing parallels to Marc Andreessen’s 2011 thesis, they examine how AI is no longer just another platform shift, but a force capable of reshaping labor, capital allocation, and entire industries at once.
The conversation spans the explosive rise in AI infrastructure spending, from hyperscaler capex surging past $400B to the growing strain on power, compute, and supply chains. Ray and Dave discuss why this moment feels different from past tech cycles, not just because of scale, but because AI directly targets labor, which represents more than half of global GDP. They explore whether AI is creating real moats or accelerating commoditization, and why many enterprises are still stuck in experimentation rather than true deployment.
The episode also dives into historical parallels from elevators and telephone operators to cloud computing highlighting how software enabled automation always feels threatening before it quietly becomes invisible.
Along the way, they unpack the strategic tension facing AI leaders: go down the stack for scale or up the stack for value capture. With insights on hyperscalers, OpenAI, Oracle, and the economics of AI adoption, this episode challenges leaders to rethink how value will actually be created and captured in the age of AI.
If you want to understand what’s hype, what’s durable, and why “AI eating the world” may be the most consequential shift since the internet itself, this episode is a must-listen.
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, hosts Ray “Growth” Rike and Dave “CAC” Kellogg provide a critical deep dive into the 2025 SaaS Benchmark Report published by High Alpha. Known for their analytical, and sometimes "crusty" approach, the metrics brothers dissect the data behind 800+ SaaS companies to separate real market trends from report commentary.
Key Highlights & Benchmarks
The brothers break down the report’s most significant findings with their signature skepticism regarding "correlation vs. causation."
The AI Growth Premium: Companies with AI at their core are growing significantly faster than those using AI as a supporting feature. For instance, in the $1–5M ARR band, AI-core companies achieved a median growth of 110%, compared to 40% for their peers

The "Lean Team" Era: Efficiency is surging as headcount falls. Median revenue per employee has jumped to $129K–$173K, with top-tier public companies hitting over $283K. The hosts note that engineering and support have seen the largest headcount reductions due to AI automation

Venture Rebound (with a Caveat): While quarterly VC deal value has returned to near 2021 levels (~$80B), the capital is highly concentrated. Over half of all VC funding is currently flowing into AI startups, often in massive "mega-rounds."

In-Office vs. Remote: For the second consecutive year, the data suggests that in-office or hybrid teams are growing faster (42% median) than fully remote teams (31% median).

As always, Ray and Dave offer practical advice for founders and GTM leaders:
"Read the data, but watch out for the commentary." While the data is good, some commentary and conclusions in the report imply causation where there is at best some level of correlation, such as why companies stay private longer or how AI "drives" growth.
Retention is King: The strongest growth outcomes are found where high Net Revenue Retention (NRR) meets short CAC payback periods.
Outcome-Based Pricing: The brothers highlight the shift toward outcome-based and hybrid pricing models as a primary driver for best-in-class NRR in 2025.

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