Most discussions about predictive intent focus on models and machine learning. What’s more interesting is what they imply about how organizations make decisions.

For us, this piece by Karol Kucharski in The Drum landed in that category.

At a surface level, it’s about predictive intent. Machine learning. Early signals. Better timing. All true. But how is the response to this work being done currently, especially inside large, complex organizations?

Someone visits. Someone downloads. Someone fills out a form. Then marketing moves. By the time creative is briefed, built, reviewed, revised, approved, and launched, the buyer’s context has already shifted. Often without you.

Kucharski’s core argument is that growth increasingly belongs to companies that can anticipate demand instead of chasing it. Predictive intent models look for faint, early signals that suggest buying readiness before it becomes obvious. That changes when you show up, how you show up, and what you say.

As creatives and marketers working in enterprise environments today, one of the biggest obstacles we see to making this shift isn’t data or technology. It’s time. Specifically, the time it takes to move from signal to approved creative.

If intent is detected early but creative is locked behind layers of hierarchy, the advantage evaporates. You’re technically “predictive,” but operationally still reactive.

Anticipating demand requires a different posture inside organizations. More autonomy closer to the work. Faster decision-making on messaging. Greater trust in systems, people, or agents to act without waiting for C-suite or director-level sign-off on every iteration.

That autonomy might be delegated to AI agents that adapt creative dynamically. Or it might mean empowering creatives and marketers further down the org chart to respond to signals in near real time.

Either way, the shift is cultural as much as technical.

Predictive intent only creates a growth advantage if organizations can act on it fast enough.

Without changes to decision-making and approval structures, better signals simply arrive earlier and then stall.

Messaging buyers trust. Creative decisions that show judgment. Systems built for speed without losing signal. That’s how we help B2B teams compete.

Two of Forrester’s 2026 predictions sit in quiet tension with each other, and the overlap is where things get interesting.

On one hand, Forrester expects human expertise to regain influence as buyers look for deeper validation. As AI floods the buying process with information, confidence will come from people who have context, experience, and something at stake.

On the other hand, Forrester also predicts that AI agents will increasingly sit on the other side of the table. Negotiating prices. Managing procurement. Executing payments. In some cases, buying without a human ever showing up.

Taken together, this points to a market shift most enterprises aren’t fully prepared for:

Sales and buying gets more automated.
Trust gets more human.

This is where the “taste gap” people are starting to talk about shows up in B2B. When machines can generate endless competent output, what stands out is discernment. Taste. The ability to say, “this matters” and mean it.

AI agents may handle transactions, but they don’t remove risk from decisions. That risk still lives with people. And when the stakes are high, buyers look for experts, practitioners, and brands that signal confidence through clarity, not just efficiency.

Thus the paradox that will create significant growth barriers. You’re selling into systems that expect speed, structure, and automation, while simultaneously reassuring humans who want proof, perspective, and trust.

Growth in 2026 means designing your engine for humans and machines.

Automated where it makes sense. Human where it counts.

The latest 2025 B2B Buyer Experience Study from 6sense gives us one of the clearest looks we’ve had in a while at how B2B buying behavior is actually shifting, not how we hope it is.

A few things stand out.

This is not surprising to anyone who reads this newsletter, but the numbers show how drastic the shift is. Globally, the average B2B buying cycle dropped to 10.1 months, down from 11.3 months the year prior. Nearly half of buyers (49%) say economic uncertainty is the reason. Let’s call that a… manmade phenomenon. Budgets aren’t frozen. They’re being committed faster, often with less patience for indecision.

This is more surprising. First contact with vendors now happens when buyers are 61% through the buying process, down from 69% in previous studies. Two drivers dominate this shift: pressure to evaluate how vendors are using AI (58%) and broader economic uncertainty (~62%).

What hasn’t changed is where decisions really get made.
Despite earlier engagement, buyers are not exploring more options. They’re narrowing faster.

Buyers are moving faster, but they’re not becoming more open-minded. Earlier engagement isn’t an invitation to shape demand. It’s a checkpoint. Validation, not discovery.

Timing and clarity in 2026 is going to be far more unforgiving. If you’re not already understood, already trusted, already preferred before that first conversation, speed works against you.

The dark funnel isn’t getting darker. It’s getting shorter.

Most organizations already have enough data. They already have intent signals, dashboards, and forecasts telling them where demand is forming. What they don’t have is confidence in the people closest to the work.

—Jay