Seth Marrs: Hello everyone,
welcome back to the Innovative
Revenue Leader Podcast.
Today we're going to talk
through insight around agents
and no code in B2B revenue,
which is all the rage
everybody's talking about
agents, what they mean, how they
work, and this will go into that
in a little bit more detail and
also talked around how
executives are thinking about
them in company.
So we're going to go through
that with the survey that
FreeHio did with 560 Fitzgat.
With me today to talk about this
is John Arnold.
He's the head of product
marketing and strategic advisory
at Creatio.
I've worked with John for years.
We were together at Forrester.
He's a pragmatic B2B thought
leader, an industry value
consultant, and someone who's
worked with executives at many
of the world's largest
organizations.
Along with also working with
high-growth startups.
At Creatio, he helps large
companies develop at scale,
develop and scale no code and
agentic CRM strategies, and
helps them also drive efficient
growth and differentiated
customer experience.
Prior to Creatio, John was at
Forrester, as I previously
mentioned, he's worked at a lot
of the big firms around how
marketing works with Adobe,
Demand-Based, Full Contact, and
Google.
So, John, really great to have
you on.
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, thanks for
inviting me.
Great to see you uh again, and
and uh we'll have a great
conversation, I'm sure.
Seth Marrs: Yeah, yeah.
Well, let's jump in.
We'll have some fun with this.
So, uh what I want to start with
is just discussing one of the
reports' themes.
So the theme was they genetic AI
as a strategy and an executive
boardroom priority.
So this this report is different
in terms of a lot of them are
focusing on AI, but you're
focusing specifically on agents.
So I think we could all agree
that AI is a topic of discussion
in every single boardroom, but
you guys talked about it in a
differentiated way where you
said 45% of boardrooms are
talking specifically around AI
agents in general.
What does that mean in terms of
the process of AI and agents'
role in that process for how
companies doing?
Like what it's it's interesting
because I think we say 100% are
doing it in AI, and then that
45%.
Like, what does that mean in
terms of the difference between
how a boardroom would talk about
AI in general versus agent
specific?
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah, it's a
great question.
Let me back up a little bit,
maybe and just talk about the
survey.
Um, so uh when I joined Creatio,
we all realized that we have an
incredible gold mine of um
proactive uh organizational
leaders who are willing to try
new things.
You know, everybody is having to
become an AI expert overnight.
AI is so new, or at least
generative AI and agentic AI is
new enough that, you know,
everybody's trying to figure it
out.
And there's no um, there's
nobody who's been doing that for
20 years, you know.
So um all of these companies
that are using agents and no
code at Creatio are um, you
know, in the trenches learning
things and trying to be first
and their first movers.
So we wanted to get in touch
with that vibe and just talk
about, you know, how are you
using AI and no code and and
what are these proactive like
frame breakers doing uh who are
being innovative and changing
their businesses?
So that's sort of the spirit of
the survey, and um, we got an
incredible response from it.
So uh one of the things that the
survey came out to your question
is that you know, AI is no
longer a back office experiment,
it's really a strategic lever,
and um, it's being discussed at
the highest levels, as you as
you can imagine.
And some of that is the
boardroom sort of coming to the
rest of the business and saying,
what's your AI strategy?
And the business is going to
have to come up with that.
But with agentic AI
specifically, what we found is
that there are really two
conversations going on.
One is around co-pilots and
assistance, you know, and that's
sort of what people think
agentic AI is, and it just
amounts to those chatbots, if
you will, that you kind of can
ask it a question or maybe ask
it to do something for you.
And there's a little bit of back
and forth between humans and
agents.
Um, but what we're really
talking about is autonomous
agents and those assistants and
even agent-to-agent networks.
And so there's some
conversations around that that
are really interesting.
And um, the the spirit of that
at the board level is that it
becomes a financial
conversation.
So, you know, what do you do
when agents can do some of the
work that either people or
legacy software were doing
before?
And that isn't an easy answer.
It's not just, well, you just
pocket the savings, you know.
Uh, you could say, well, I'd
like to invest in the human
touch.
Let's have humans do something
different than they were doing
before.
Um, or some companies do decide
that they want the agents out
front and they want the agent
experience to lead and the human
experiences in the background.
So that's a huge strategic
decision, and it's one that we
help clients make all the time.
Seth Marrs: Got it.
Now, would you say like those
45%?
Like if you've got a boardroom
that's talking agents, that
that's probably an audience of
companies that are more advanced
in AI than the general, hey,
tell me an AI story and make
sure that our when I talk to my
board members, that I can tell a
good AI story.
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, I think
they're maybe, at least from a
vision perspective, maybe
they're more advanced, right?
So the fact that they're even
considering that one of their
top priorities, or they're
thinking about um autonomous
agents as part of their
strategy, part of their business
strategy, I think makes them
more advanced.
But clearly, and I'm sure you've
seen this in your client base
too, that there is a gap between
the aspirations that these
executives have and the actual
willingness and ability to
implement some of these agents.
And that so that's partly
because of some legacy software
or data or you know, realities
around your infrastructure.
It could be because your
organization, just from a you
know, a willingness perspective,
is not ready for AI or they're
still confused about it, or they
don't like it, or there's people
who won't use it or reject it.
Um there's all kinds of
challenges to getting that to
work.
But clearly there's
accountability being passed from
the C-suite down to leaders who
are being asked to figure it
out.
And that's the key theme is that
um there are a whole lot of
executives who need to have an
AI strategy, they need to have
an AI plan.
And when they look at the ROI of
some of the different options
they have for AI, um, they fall
very quickly into a gentic AI
because co-pilots can only give
you so much ROI.
But you know, the agents working
behind the scenes doing some of
the work that, again, either
people used to do or legacy
software used to do.
And if agents can do it better,
there's big ROI behind the
scenes there.
Seth Marrs: Yeah, yeah.
It's interesting because this is
a weird dynamic with boardrooms.
Now, getting visibility and
interest from the boardroom,
even investment dollars, is much
easier, but connecting what the
boardroom thinks they want to
what the reality is of what you
want to deliver is a lot harder
than be careful what you wish
for.
To a certain degree, everyone
wanted funding for SaaS products
and had trouble getting it.
Now they're getting funding, but
the expectations are so bloated
and and kind of all over the
place, it's hard to connect
those dots, and it leads to like
really weird decisions and and
and it's to a certain extent bad
decisions where you're talking
about I'm showing you I'm doing
AI rather than I'm showing you
how to get an ROI from it.
So it's interesting, like
exactly.
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, yeah, it's
causing some of those really um
interesting conversations around
how you either deploy people or
redeploy people in the world of
AI?
You know, um, when it comes to
salespeople, for example, we get
questions at creature all the
time from sales leaders who say
something like, How can I sell
more without hiring more
salespeople?
Or how can I reduce my headcount
because I've been forced to do
that?
Can AI make up some of that
ground?
Um, and then yeah, you do get a
couple of companies who are
actually planning to use AI and
cut headcount, even though they
don't need to do that.
There's no business pressure to
do that.
They just think that's a good
idea.
Um, but there's a lot of
different strategies there,
right?
So you could also hire more
salespeople, but hire very
productive salespeople, and that
changes the game.
You don't have to hire one
salesperson per million dollars
of quota or whatever those
metrics are.
Maybe you can hire one
salesperson for every$1.2
million of quota if you use AI
effectively.
So those kinds of equations and
and math is happening at the
border level.
Seth Marrs: Yeah, it's good
because that's needed to change
for forever.
So I think some of the behavior,
like one of the questions that
that you asked, I think brought
out some of the behavioral
changes within different
industries.
And I think that's since you you
looked at executives, you you
talked about 82% of of tech
decision makers think agents
will be a critical or important
will be critical or important to
their organization's goals.
That that makes total sense to
me.
The part that I want to dig in a
little bit on was only 40% of
professional services
organizations said that, said
this to you.
So this is an industry that's
been struggling recently.
I mean, not all because of AI,
but AI kind of is starting to
play a role in that.
Like, can I do all the
professional services my can I
do consulting myself using Chat
GPT versus a consulting
organization?
I'm not sure that's that's true
or any of that, but like later
in the report, you talk uh to
the areas that are preventing
adoption and professional
services seem to be similar in
terms of their challenges or
things that are preventing to
them, like in the top areas.
Like, did you go a layer deeper
in that to indicate why
professional services was so
much lower?
Like they stood out to me like a
sore thumb compared to everybody
else.
Like it, like, why did that
happen?
And it like, could you provide
any deeper detail and and like
what's keeping that industry
from adopting?
Is it just like you're it's
existential for me, so I don't
want to touch it?
Or like, how do you see that?
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, there's a lot
of nuance in there.
So I'm glad you caught that
because it kind of uh caught our
attention as well.
And I think there's two things
going on as we work with our
partner network and talk to
professional services providers.
Um, there's sort of two sides to
this coin.
And on the on the 40% side, you
know, the side that had the low
score for um, you know, adoption
of AI, I think a lot of
professional services firms were
caught off guard by AI, and
especially co-pilots, when um,
you know, the chat GPTs and the
Geminis and the uh anthropics of
the world started talking about
deep research and the ability to
do some of those jobs that maybe
professional services was doing.
And they sort of got really
cynical that some of the
marketplace speak was very
cynical about, you know, hey, AI
can create a PowerPoint deck too
and a strategic model.
And it sort of ignored all of
the really smart people that
have those conversations in the
walls of those institutions and
come up with great ideas that
actually work.
Um, so you know, I I think that
they have a perspective on it
that, you know, AI is not
smarter than me.
Um, it's a great tool, we can
use it, we do use it, um, but
it's not transforming the
industry from that perspective.
So that's one side of the coin.
And I think they're probably uh
probably right there.
You know, it's a tool, it's not
really a replacement for a
consulting institution.
But then there's the whole
agentic AI side of it and the
autonomous AI side of it.
And when it comes to that, I'm a
little bit surprised that
professional services haven't
seen the opportunity there.
So it's not really about
professional services firms
adopting AI, it's really about
them adopting new ways to help
their clients because there's a
myriad of problems that
professional services can help
to solve when it comes to
implementing AI agents in
organizations, right?
Everything from bettering their
data layers to uh helping them
decide what to do with legacy uh
legacy um software or platforms
and to other technologies, um,
helping them to construct the
agents and to think about how
the agents work with other
agents or other people, um, how
the agents are gonna navigate
all of their technology and data
objects, um, governance and
security and legal and all of
those things.
So there's a huge, we think,
industry that's going to emerge
for professional services firms,
um, but they're gonna have to
get their hands dirty and do
some of this work.
I don't think they can just um,
you know, come up with ideas
because the AI is really good at
that.
Um, but they're actually gonna
have to step in and solve some
of these problems to get
organizations up and running on
AI.
Seth Marrs: Yeah, so it's like
it, it's that classic change
thing, right?
Like there's a, I mean, people
are struggling everywhere to
actually get value from AI, even
though they know it's there,
they're struggling to do it.
So that should be a professional
services boom.
But if I understand what you're
saying, right, it's kind of
well, I don't want to do
professional services the way
that I need to do it in the
future.
I want to do professional
services the way I did it now.
And you're asking me to do this
big to to make this big change
to uh readapt the way that I
talk to customers in a world
where I have agents and I have
AI.
And I mean, is that kind of
that's the gap that needs to be
filled if if these scores were
gonna go or or if this awareness
is gonna go up?
SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
And if they think AI agents
aren't going to help them do
that, I guess I can see their
point, you know, because they
have their consulting models and
they have their ways of
implementing technology, and
maybe there's not that much
change that needs to happen
there.
Um, and so the way we asked the
question was, you know, is are
the agents going to be critical
to your organization's goals?
Um, and I think the way that
they interpreted that was for
their business, right?
So internally in the in the
halls of the company, are they
using a lot of AI agents?
Yeah, they're using them, but
they're not critical.
Um, but on the other side where
their clients are using the AI,
that's a huge opportunity.
And if we asked the question
that way, they probably would
have said, you know, 100% yes,
this is a huge opportunity, and
we're gonna go get that
opportunity.
Seth Marrs: Got it, got it.
Self-preservation.
I can't let an AI agent feel
like it's important to uh into
my job because I'm the I'm the
product, and I mean it can be my
assistant, but it can't be the
driver.
Let's let's move into like
another question.
So the report states that 84% of
organizations are unlikely to
reduce headcount.
Is that just wishful thinking?
Because like with so much money
being poured into AI to drive
productivity, an ROI is going to
have to happen.
So if it's not going to come
from headcount savings, where is
it going to come from?
Because uh there will be a
reckoning for the millions and
billions of dollars that are
going into these companies to
invest in this product.
Like, yeah, it is this just
wishful thinking or someone just
trying to say the right thing in
a survey?
Because the reality of that, I
don't know.
I guess I don't know.
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, so again, a
lot of nuance here, I think, in
the conversations.
And uh when when people say
reduce headcount, you know,
that's a that's a tricky one for
organizations.
You know, some of the politics
there, right?
So no one wants to really cut
their headcount.
You know, headcount's something
you always as a leader try to
maintain and try to keep uh keep
it moving forward.
So, you know, if you're going to
cut headcount, usually it's
because of a business reason,
you know, you've got to, you've
you have to cut headcount
because your business isn't
doing very well.
Or, you know, your your C-suite
or your finance side of the
house has decided there's a
better way to do something, and
you're gonna make that tough
decision to, you know, emphasize
technology and maybe cut some
people or some professional
services out of the equation.
So um, when all these uh groups
say they're unlikely to reduce
headcount, I think what they
mean is we don't see people's
jobs being eliminated, we see
people's jobs changing.
And we're going to ask the
people to do things maybe that
they weren't doing before uh to
fill in their time that's been
saved by some of the AI.
But I also think some of that
has to do with uh a lot of
people, again, still think that
AI is co-pilots and assistance.
Yeah.
And when you add the autonomous
agents in, I think the impact on
the business from a process
perspective is much greater.
And maybe uh they are gonna have
a lot more time on their hands,
so to speak, in the people side
of the business, and they're
gonna have to figure out do they
really mean what they say when
they're not going to um uh
reduce the headcount.
And that means redeploying those
people in jobs that maybe they
aren't used to doing today, or
you know, reskilling them in
some areas where they can impact
the business in ways that only
humans can do it.
So I'll give you a couple of
examples of that, things that
we've seen at Creatio, for
example, a lot of banking and
financial services companies
have a lot of back office
processes, you know, they
process a lot of loan
applications, or they collect a
lot of um information from loan
applicants, or they open a lot
of card uh credit card accounts,
or they open a lot of savings
accounts, or they renew a lot of
CDs or deposits, you know,
there's a lot of paperwork, if
you will, involved in some of
those uh those motions.
And for a lot of banks and
credit unions, for example,
there's there's a lot of people
who do that.
And uh if AI can automate a lot
of those processes, um, it sort
of forces the conversation.
Do you want to um emphasize the
human touch?
You know, redeploy those people
in more of a customer-facing
role where they're going to uh
help you do that credit
application or that loan
application or open that
account.
And you want to have a human in
that transaction because that's
how you differentiate.
You want it to be a great human
experience.
And all the while the the
background is being taken care
of by the autonomous agents, but
out front you've got a smiling
human face doing that.
Uh, and boy, can they do a lot
of those because you you know
you used to maybe not be able to
do that for small accounts
because there's too many of
them.
Well, now maybe you can because
so much of the work in the
background is getting done.
So some you know, financial
institutions are going to decide
to emphasize the human touch and
maybe they won't reduce
headcount, they'll just put
those people out front and
center.
Um, other organizations might
look at that and say, well, you
know, we've surveyed our
customers and they said they
don't really want to talk to a
person.
They just want their account
opened really fast, and the AI
agent can do that really well.
Um, and if the customer says
they don't want to talk to a
person, then the AI agent does
the job.
Uh, and then they're gonna have
to maybe get rid of, you know,
get rid of some people and they
can't use them anymore.
And and the whole um, you know,
the the mix of people and
technology and AI agents and and
programs kind of all changes
around that.
So again, big strategic decision
back to our start of the
conversation.
That's why it's a boardroom
topic.
You know, it's not just as
simple as saying, I'm gonna
employ some AI and then hey, I
don't need these people anymore.
It really confronts your
strategy and the mix of of
humans and technology totally
changes.
Seth Marrs: Yeah, it's it's uh
it's it's encouraging to a
certain degree, because that's
kind of where my head is is you
the you should be looking to
redeploy.
I don't know a single company
pre-AI, even during AI, that
doesn't have a ton of stuff
they're trying to do, they can't
do because of headcount
constraints.
So if you're a company that's
able to really think through and
strategically say, my goal is
not to reduce people, my goal is
to do all the things I couldn't
do before, and then build that,
that that's encouraging.
But practically it always seems
to end up in headcount.
So I'm hoping this age and this
change actually leads to
something different.
SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
So yeah, you're right.
Like, you know, uh the long
term.
Of the customer base, for
example, you know, oftentimes
organizations would outsource
that to the partner network,
right?
Like we don't have enough people
to sell to these smaller
accounts and the deals are too
small.
And so we're just going to
outsource that.
And I think there are some
companies who are rethinking
those kinds of decisions because
they can say, well, wait a
second, maybe we can have a
person handle these.
And uh, you know, a salesperson
who used to uh think that 20
calls a day was a lot, maybe
they can do 30 now, and it's not
really that much harder.
Seth Marrs: Yeah, it's a great
example.
Great example.
Okay, so you talk about no code
already being mainstream.
In the report, it says 67% of
people are already using it.
I I think there's a lot of
differences in how people
perceive no code from vide
coding to any number of things.
You're really focusing on it
from the perspective of being
able to use no code in an
enterprise environment.
Can can you can you talk about
how like what Creatio does that
makes things less complex in
these complex worlds and allows
users to more easily adapt?
Like the way you talked about
that, like no code in an
enterprise environment, I think
is is your sweet spot.
And I think it'd be good to
understand the difference
between, hey, I'm vibe coding
this cool app for that I'm gonna
use at home versus actually
doing no code work in a
mainstream enterprise
organization, because I I think
that's very different.
SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
Yeah, let me kind of uh get
start from the top.
So when I talk about Creatio,
usually, you know, in uh when
I'm on stage at a conference or
something like that, and people
ask about no code.
It's this is really about um the
ability to build three things.
One is you want to be able to
build applications uh or
customize applications because
your business processes and the
way that your customers uh buy
from you and the way you sell
and the way you market and the
way you service your customers
shouldn't have to adapt to your
software, the way your software
works.
You should adapt your software
to the way you want to sell and
you want to do those things.
So no code is gives you the
ability to build and maintain
and change applications very
easily.
And then there's also workflows.
So things that automate
processes, um, you want to be
able to change those and you
don't want to have to rely on
professional developers to maybe
want to make changes to those
processes.
And then the third thing to
build is AI agents.
So you want to be able to build
agents, customize agents.
And again, you know, your uh
reliance on professional
developers, we think, uh,
shouldn't be that those
professional developers are
doing minor use cases like
building a dashboard for a
marketing team or updating some
records, right?
Or building an application that
does something that has some
business value to the team, but
not to the organization.
So when you look at the
opportunities that are available
to make those customizations and
to build those applications, you
sort of have, you know, the uh
sale SaaS, you know, software as
a service model, which is you
know, you kind of wait for those
updates to happen and uh and
then you get professional
developers or partners or
professional services to
customize the applications for
you, and it's a great big
effort, and there's a lot of
expense around that.
And every time the software as a
service uh solution releases a
new product, it all gets
disrupted and you have to do it
again and you have to change.
Um, and so there's a couple of
different ways you can handle
that.
You can go with a pro code or an
uh uh low code platform, and
that helps your developers to do
some of that work faster, but
it's really for developers,
right?
So developers still use those
tools, they're still software
engineers, and they can speed up
that work and get it done faster
with pro code or low code.
When it comes to no code, it's
not that there's no code, right?
There's there's code behind the
scenes.
But someone who's not a software
developer, if they just have
technical skills, you know, if
they can assemble spreadsheets
or if they have operational
skills or they know how to do
some technical things, they can
actually build agents, build
applications, customize
applications.
And you can decide as an IT
organization how you want to
handle that, right?
For some IT organizations, they
keep it in IT, but they don't
have to hire full stack
developers for every single use
case and they can take on more
use cases because some junior
people with technical skills can
handle a lot of the requests
that are coming in from the
organization and they do more of
that in IT.
Other organizations will
actually create some sort of a
working model where there are no
code developers or no code
creators on staff, and they
don't sit in IT.
They're in the business teams,
they're in operations, or
they're in actually sales
marketing or service, and they
work together with IT either as
a center of excellence model, or
in some cases we call them
fusion teams.
So you have sort of a couple of
developers and a couple of
no-code creators working
together to develop, let's say,
marketing dashboards for
everyone, or something like
that.
Um, and uh you also have some
cases where their IT is
completely enabling the
organization to do their own no
code development and they have
some guardrails around that, but
they essentially, you know,
allow citizen developers, if you
will, to go out and uh and do
their own applications.
So your the choice is yours.
There's a lot of freedom and
flexibility in that model, and
that's the spirit behind no code
versus low code or or pro code.
It's really about the no code
creators.
Seth Marrs: Yeah, it kind of
levels up every person along the
chain.
So if I'm in operations, I could
I could use the the no code to
do more than I could before, and
so on and so forth all the way
through to a hardcore developer,
would still be able to do more
than they did before.
SPEAKER_00: Exactly.
And for some of those use cases,
like uh, you know, marketing
needs a dashboard.
Okay, well, uh IT traditionally
might just say no to that.
It's not high enough on the
priority list, you know, and
then you know they have an
agency do it or something.
Um now they can say yes to that.
And it doesn't just uh it's not
just for small use cases like
that.
Um sometimes marketing says we
need an application that can do
all kinds of things around an
event, for example.
And um, you know, the no code
creators can create an entire
event management application
from scratch or you know, take
something off the shelf from
let's say you know a marketplace
developer, or um, they can take
an existing application and
customize it.
Seth Marrs: John, thank you so
much for joining.
Fantastic insight.
Um I really appreciate you
providing more context around
the report for it.
SPEAKER_00: Absolutely a
pleasure, as always.