(2025-12-22) Zeigler My Personal Strategy Guide To Do Lesss In 2026

Matt Zeigler: My Personal Strategy Guide To Do LESSS In 2026. Year-end lookbacks mean year-ahead planning. You’re probably there right now, too. I know I am. I figured it might be worth writing my framework down and sharing it here.

here’s the official Cultish Creative year ahead strategy-framing guide. I call it LESSS is MORE.

Doing LESSS, on purpose, so transformations hit harder is good work. At the social good level, and it’s something I believe in. LESSS stands for Logical, Emotional, Secure, Sexy-Status, and if you apply it to anything you’re working on, I assure you, you’ll do more with it.

Start by considering what you do and why.
This gets the general ideas flowing.

The ultimate combo question, planted in my head long ago by Seth Godin and now springing eternal, is asking:

• What’s it do, and who’s it for?
• Whatever it does is a transformation.
• Whoever it’s for wants that transformation.
  Actually wants it.
  No maybes here.

Every transformation hits at least one of these in a memorable way:

• It's logical. The transformation makes you feel smarter. Or at ease with new knowledge you know how to apply.
• It's emotional. The transformation makes you feel loved, connected, or like you belong to some person or group.
• It's secure. The transformation makes you feel content on a survival basis. Not gluttonous, but satisfied in the moment, with the ability to feel secure about future consumption too.
• It's status-sexy. The transformation makes you feel good about yourself. You get a confidence boost and something tells your brain the world around you can tell.

Once you know what it does, who’s it for, and what transformation it offers, you’re ready to answer the last question:
Is this an enterprise offering or a boutique offering?

It’s an extension of the “scaling vs. spreading” idea I’ve written about (inspired by Kevin Alexander). I also borrowed the framing from the Acquired podcast guys. (2024-07-23-ZeiglerScalingVsScales)

Enterprise ideas, and profits, come from eking out a gain over loads and loads of repetitive turns. The transformation is earned by the reliability of the experience at volume. It’s Amazon deliveries always showing up in short order. (Is "mass" a better term?)

Boutique ideas, and profits, come from only making a gain one experiential step at a time. The transformation is earned by the reliability of the experience at the smallest deliverable scale possible. It’s everything luxury and everything custom-tailor-made with some fantastic story you can’t wait to tell your friends about next time you see them. (social object)

With this last step, you’re trying to avoid mis-framing the transformation

I land here because that last bit is really hard. I have made that mistake too many times. I’ve helped others figure out how to fix just this last step a million times too. It belongs at the end. It also tees us up to start at the beginning, with “why” on our next pass, too.

Just Press Record...
Why do I do it? I like introducing people who I think might help or inspire each other. I like the feeling that I can see patterns they might not, and bridge gaps between personalities.

See how that’s good on a general level, but not great on a “what do I do with that” level?
What’s it do? 1 interesting person gets to meet 1 other interesting person that they’ve never met before, hand curated by me.

Who’s it for? Interesting people in my network. Indirectly it’s for other members of my network, too, but technically speaking, I am learning to approach the show as exclusively for the people getting paired. (interestingness)

Note that this part isn’t for a million people or a mass audience. I have other podcasts trying to get lots of eyeballs and attention on stuff. On this show, I just want one person to meet one other person and I’m ok letting the world watch because - the internet means it might help a third or a fifth or a 100th person too.

What transformation is at its core? It’s emotional, in that it’s connective. These people trust me to show up to a blind intro.

is it enterprise or boutique?
Just Press Record is extremely boutique. 2 guests. Technically, the audience is 2 people too

Your version of this might be to add one high-touch client dinner per quarter to your advisory practice. Or maybe you’ll insert one weird project with your smartest professional colleagues into your hobby-calendar. The form doesn’t really matter here. It’s all about the clarity on what it does and who it’s for, so you can put something of transformative value back in the world. The world needs you to do this, by the way. Think about the positivity potential. Whether it’s enterprise or boutique, there’s a social good here I believe in.

Marketing is Sales At Scale.

I got a few (appropriate) "and then what?" responses to my LESSS is More post. So, this had to be done. Whenever somebody uses the term “marketing,” I've learned to remind myself of this Christopher Lochhead quote: "Marketing is sales at scale."

It's a reminder that marketing is just the retelling of the transformation the brand offers - the story that drives actual decisions, actual business, and actual outcomes

There are only 4 business relationships you need to worry about.

For the more creatively minded types here, and the investor types too, you've probably already noted the differences between what "sales" and "scale" mean in different contexts.

if you confuse them or swap one in for another, you'll be frustrated, confused, or worse - customer-less (or fired).

I don't want that for you. I really don't want that for me. That’s why I wrote this down.

And, it’s actually why understanding the difference between scaling and scales matters so much. Not everything that matters should be scaled. That’s slowly becoming the theme of my life. How did so many of us forget this? (SmallWorld)

After you've worked through the LESSS is More framework, and after you've understood the transformation you're offering at what level (enterprise or boutique), you're ready to drill into one of these four categories.

• Enterprise B2B: Sales at scale = repeatable playbooks that move P&L conversations
• Enterprise B2C: Sales at scale = narrative + performance channels that move behavior at volume
• Boutique B2B: Sales at scale = one reference call that opens three more doors (leverage, not volume)
• Boutique B2C: Sales at scale = the experience itself becomes the sales mechanism (word of mouth is the channel)

Those are all "marketing is sales at scale," but the nature of the sale and the kind of scale change in each box.

Four examples you’ll recognize

• Salesforce.com sells to companies. The transformation they offer is logical.
• Netflix sells to individuals. The transformation they offer is emotional.
• Louis Vuitton sells to individuals (and distribution strategy, sure, but that's a separate conversation). The transformation they offer is status-sexy.
• Louis V, the neighborhood handyman, sells to individuals. The transformation he offers is secure.

A quick extra note on “combos”: These exist and you’re right to already be thinking of them too. Imagine a specialist advisory firm selling services to companies. They’d have a small, focused team that works with a very specific kind of client on a very specific kind of problem. The transformation they offer is logical and emotional: "We see something in your situation nobody else sees, and we'll help you act on it." One delighted client turns into three more via a case study, a reference call, and a "you should talk to them" email. That's "reference at scale," not volume. A case like this checks multiple boxes, but would still probably be Boutique B2B (until a PE firm buys them and… another post I guess).

Figuring out where your business fits into these relationship types will tell you what your marketing plan - your version of sales at scale - actually looks like.

Here's a bonus question: What about businesses or ideas that hit multiple categories? I'm living this across all my ventures right now. That’s why I interjected that example above.

For the LESSS is More example: Just Press Record is a boutique, customer-to-customer solution (I sound so official now, don’t I?). I send emails to invite guests. It's extremely direct, meaning everything goes through me, and that makes it next to impossible to scale - but that detail is so (so, so) on purpose. These are one-on-one connections. My goal is to make sure the experience is so differentiated, strange, and hopefully fun - that guests will tell stories about being on the show. In many cases, they refer other interesting people too, which helps to further spreading the word (and not scaling it).

The more you sit on this, the more you’ll start to realize that most of us are actually living in multiple examples. The question isn't "pick one." It's "am I marketing each one appropriately, or am I trying to run enterprise playbooks on a boutique offering (and vice versa)?" I already see another post on category confusion in the making.

Running The Wrong Playbook.

Try to imagine the dumbest rebrand a marketer can do.

But just like it’s useful to play a good idea forward, it can be equally useful to play a bad idea forward.

think of it like this: if you can’t figure out a really good idea, you can always figure out a really bad idea and do the opposite

the framework we’ve been playing around with, of how LESSS is More and Marketing is Sales at Scale give us a great sandbox to dream up anti-examples in.

What if… an Enterprise B2B company marketed themselves as a Boutique B2B company? It’s the bespoke trap.

Think about Salesforce.

While the product has some customizable features, the only way it works, from a profitability standpoint, is if a big company can roll their mostly uniform product out to an army of active users.

If I can pitch Salesforce on a really bad idea for a moment – imagine me telling them, “You should make the product way more customizable. Boutique level. I want to see it bespoke. I want you to make the exact right rolodex for each end user so they think it’s magic, just for them.”

they'd destroy their profit margins and betray their core promise. They'd shift from offering a logical transformation – data tracking at scale – into a status-sexy one: bespoke magic, just for you. Never trust an institutional solution that promises that. It's still just a big, boring rolodex pretending to be a Rolex.

Example from the history books: Amazon Fire Phone.

A company who’s all about security (they are always there, and always ready to deliver) attempted to roll out a product to compete with Apple/luxury/status-sexy phone providers that people would show off owning. Not only did people not care – they couldn’t imagine Amazon that way.

Amazon couldn’t be status-sexy in smartphones because that’s not the transformation people already trusted them for - they were trying to sell a status upgrade they didn’t own.

What if… an Enterprise B2C company marketed themselves as a Boutique B2C company? It's the artisanal delusion.

Think about Netflix. They sell stories, as a subscription, to millions of people, the world over. The transformation they offer is emotional.

*Netflix is Enterprise B2C at its finest: narrative plus performance channels moving behavior at volume.

Now imagine if Netflix decided to go in an different direction. What if I pitched them, terribly (is it bad that I’m good at bad advice?), with, “You know what? We're going to hand-curate queues for a tiny set of users, ONLY. Most of these people have terrible taste and we should subtly, or not so subtly, call them out on it. We’ll re-educate and save some people in the process too*

If Netflix forgot they were Enterprise B2C and deluded themselves into thinking they should provide an artisanal, hand-crafted experience to each subscriber, customer acquisition costs would explode.

And worse – they'd shift from offering an emotional transformation (connection, escape, processing feelings) into something logical to shareholders (“we know best”), and status-sexy to the very small number of users who they would hit the bullseye for, if anyone (Fire Phone all over again).

What if… a Boutique B2C company marketed themselves as an Enterprise B2C company? It's the algorithm trap.

Think about Louis Vuitton. For decades, they've sold status-sexy.

Now imagine if Louis Vuitton decided to go mass-market.

more exposure is the antithesis of status-sexy. Status-sexy requires an understanding of scarcity. More reach, in this sense, doesn't mean more storytelling. The more you optimize for algorithm and volume, the less special it inevitably feels.

Even at smaller scale, this happens all the time. Think about a neighborhood restaurant that's famous because it's “hard to get a table.” Imagine you’re cool, and the owner knows you from way back, and loves how you’ve discovered how great that spot is. Every time you walk in – there’s a special nod and excitement. But then, the owner decides to expand, opens three more locations, starts talking franchise money

Or think about a creator who goes viral for something weird and specific, then chases virality harder – more content, more algorithms, more optimization. The weirdness was the point. The specificity was the magic.

Example from the history books: The Gap logo redesign.

The Gap was a fixture, a reliable option

They felt pressure to signal “new, modern, cool” to draw people back to them. So they hired a design firm and rolled out a new logo, with a clean, minimal, corporate, generic, “did you make this in Microsoft Word” vibe. All of a sudden The Gap could have been any other brand.

The backlash was immediate and fierce. Customers didn't recognize it.

What happened was Gap confused its relationship. They had a boutique-feeling brand – emotionally tied to belonging in people's lives across decades. But they tried to execute it like enterprise: optimize for modernity, signal “we're still relevant.” They weren't trying to make it secure or logical or status-sexy with any clarity either.

If you're running a Boutique B2C play, don't chase the algorithm. Don't optimize away the weirdness, or at least the specialness of your relationship with your customer base.

What if… a Boutique B2B company marketed themselves as an Enterprise B2B company? It's the premature scale trap.

Think about a specialist advisory firm. Small, focused team. They work with a very specific kind of client on a very specific kind of problem. The transformation they offer is logical and emotional combined: “We see something in your situation nobody else sees, and we'll help you act on it.”

Now imagine if that specialist firm decided to go enterprise. Here's one more bad pitch from yours truly: “You know what you guys could do here? I think you need to professionalize. We need a more predictable pipeline to drive this next wave of growth.

Boutique B2B doesn't win on reach or volume or scalable playbooks. It wins on the specific insight, the trusted relationship, the fact that you're weird in exactly the right way for your niche, with a quality aspect over a luxury angle

Real-world example: any specialist agency or boutique consulting firm that got addicted to pitch decks and “business development” instead of protecting the referral core.

The clearest paired example I can definitely talk about publicly is probably the differences in two of my podcasts, Excess Returns and Just Press Record.

Excess Returns is about a logical transformation. It’s investor education, and it most rhymes with an enterprise to consumer / B2C distribution framework. If I think about the best media examples of this, I think about news and sports content.

We’d go wrong with Excess Returns if we put emotional first. We’d definitely get a subscriber bump by going straight doomer, but – that’s also not who we are.

Just Press Record is a totally different beast. Which is part of the fun of running three podcasts side by side, because I can play with the breadth of this framework. The Intentional Investor sits somewhere between these two - in the way that it's got the emotional connection of JPR but the logical clarity of Excess Returns. JPR being a 2-guest show makes it totally different from the slightly more standard interview show format that Intentional Investor inhabits.

We’d go wrong with Just Press Record if we put logical first. There’s not a clean logic or “learn these lessons” formula here. It’s too unpredictable.

If Just Press Record is to focus on anything in 2026, it’s how to make sure the guests who come on know my goal is to facilitate a genuine connection with another authentic individual I believe, at an emotional level, will be valuable for them to know going forward.

I used these examples because I want to showcase the differences in strategy for two projects I’m running in real time. Excess Returns lives and dies on logical clarity. Just Press Record lives and dies on emotional authenticity. If I run the Excess Returns playbook on JPR, I kill the thing that makes it work. If I run the JPR playbook on Excess Returns, I end up as a niche podcast that reaches 12 people and never scales enough to serve anyone.

The power of the framework is in having a system to work out which playbook you should be running plays from, and then to have the discipline to not switch midstream just because one feels easier or more scalable than the other, especially if it comes from some outside consultant pitching a complete makeover.