^{CHITTER CHATTER}

Hey CEO - It’s Not About The Price of Coffee

Xero is discovering that the psychology of a price rise has little to do with whether customers can afford it. The accounting software company is facing backlash over its latest increases, with customers arguing they’re paying more without seeing enough meaningful improvement. Research on price fairness shows people are far more accepting of price increases when there’s a credible reason, such as higher costs, obvious improvements, or additional value. They react badly when they suspect a company is simply charging more because it can. That perception is harder to manage when Xero’s share price has fallen, and large executive remuneration is under scrutiny. Which makes CEO Sukhinder Singh Cassidy’s defence that the price increase is less than the cost of a cup of coffee particularly galling. Customers aren’t necessarily saying they can’t afford it. They’re asking whether it’s fair. The communication lesson? Never tell customers how little extra they’re paying; instead, tell them why paying more is justified.

Robots Can Run Fast. Can They Make a Sandwich?

Lots of hype from the Chinese state media and media generally re the five-day World Humanoid Robot Games, where “China's humanoid robots have ​shown they can run quicker than the fastest humans”, though unlike Usain Bolt, “braking was an issue, as the machines slammed into ​a thick mat that organizers placed several metres after the finish line.” Before everyone gets too excited about robots, here’s a bunch of things they still can’t do that we humans can: separate two stuck-together plastic bags, knowing whether an avocado is ripe, removing a stain, or drunkenly navigating a messy room. Yep, we’re better than robots at weaving through furniture in the dark, even with a full-tank of beer in our belly.

Tech Fails

People Use AI. But They Don’t Trust AI Companies.

AI companies have a trust problem, mostly self-inflicted. OpenAI and Anthropic CEOs warning us about job losses and safety risks doesn’t instil confidence, plus we’re not trusting AI because it needs noisy and expensive-to-run data centres. AI companies have been woeful in their PR about the positives of AI in areas like healthcare. More about the trust problem in this post from Peter H. Diamandis on his Discover Metatrends Substack newsletter.

Mark Zuckerberg & Meta: Total Losers in Every Way

Meta keeps losing in court over child safety, yet still seem determined to fight rather than settle. A former employee has testified that Zuckerberg didn’t prioritise youth safety, describing a culture where growth ideas were easy to test but potential harms were “near impossible” to screen. Meta has already been ordered to pay more than US$940 million in New Mexico. What all these court cases say is that Meta’s leadership is all about protecting growth and profit; damn the lawsuits, and let’s see if we can avoid paying the hefty fines. Paying lawyers is good to go, though.

Weird Tech

Not Super Intelligent But Very Emotional

A four-foot-tall Unitree G1 humanoid called Edward Warchocki is building a following in Poland, wandering around, interacting with people, and basically becoming an ‘Influencer’. “In April, a video of it chasing away wild boars in Warsaw, armed with a backpack and a Rolex, went viral worldwide. By now, Edward has over 1 million followers and 4 billion views across social media. So 2026: Robots may still struggle to complete everyday human tasks, but apparently they’re qualified to create content, attract followers, and develop a personal brand.

^SUBTEXT

What They’re Really Saying

Analysing Sam Altman’s Recent AI Comments

This week, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said he worries about AI ending up controlled by “a handful of companies, models, or people”, arguing that society needs to remain “deeply in control of the future”.  Mind you, this is the CEO of one of the handful of companies currently accumulating enormous influence over AI warning us about… a handful of companies accumulating enormous influence over AI. Hmm.

What he’s really doing is positioning OpenAI on the right side of the centralisation debate. The message beneath the message is: AI concentration is dangerous, but OpenAI isn’t the kind of concentration you should be worried about. Altman also argues that too much protection could itself concentrate power. (That’s a little dig at Anthropic’s CEO Dario Amodei's take on ‘safety’ above AI progress).

Tech Waffle Torture

The Waffle: ““Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout.” – Liza Crenshaw, spokesperson for Meta

(Quoted in relation to the latest “blockbuster trial” accusing Meta of designing addictive sites and violating laws protecting children’s privacy).

Translation:
“We’ve just been ordered to pay nearly US$1 billion in another child-safety case, but clearly the real problem is that everyone is obviously being unreasonable.”

A condition affecting people who loudly declare that AI is a dangerous, dumb invention and is possibly the end of civilisation, then use it to write emails, summarise documents, plan holidays and decide what to cook for dinner. Symptoms: Frequent declarations of “I hate AI”, immediately followed by “I’ll just ask ChatGPT”. Cure: Either stop complaining or stop using AI. If using AI, keep your critical faculties switched on. And whatever you do, don’t rely on AI CEOs to tell you whether AI is safe.

Grindslop: Performative hustle posts by tech bros glorifying extreme work, sleep deprivation and relentless productivity, usually to signal ambition rather than share anything useful.

^{THE SHALLOW END}

Spotify is Labelling AI Artists

Spotify will soon label synthetic performers as ‘AI Personas’, which is useful, because we need help identifying whether our favourite new artist has ever actually breathed. It’s a good move for transparency and gives human musicians a clearer distinction. What I’m curious about is this: Once listeners know they’re choosing an AI musician, will they care? Or will a catchy tune or addictive beat outperform human artists?

Dear Dr Comms
I’m a highly paid tech CEO and customers are complaining about a tiny price increase. Apparently, saying it costs less than a cup of coffee hasn’t helped. Now the market is obsessing over my salary too. Honestly, I deserve millions. I’m constantly finding ingenious ways to keep profits up, like charging customers more. Duh. How can I appear caring and vaguely human without compromising shareholder returns? Yours, Misunderstood Money-Making Machine

Dear Money Machine
This sounds less like a pricing problem and more like an empathy-performance problem. Let’s ask the experts:

🚘 Their Chauffeur
“Have someone drive you past an ordinary café. Look through the tinted window and observe customers purchasing coffee. This will help you understand their primitive financial concerns.”

🛋️ Their Psychotherapist
“Try saying: ‘I hear your frustration.’ Then stop. Under no circumstances actually absorb what they’re saying. Emotional boundaries are important.”

🧖 The Guy Who Built Their Sauna Room
“People want warmth. Before announcing the next price rise, film yourself sitting in the sauna talking about ‘community’, ‘value’ and ‘listening’. Perspiration looks remarkably similar to sincerity.”

Just another day at the office: The CEO tests the Synthetic Empathy implant.

^{BIN THIS…}

Know someone who lives for this kind of nonsense? Forward this email to them and help me spread the dysfunction.

You can also subscribe to my other newsletter, Lead Different, for a serious take on strategic communications in B2B tech.