Scott challenges traditional meeting formats, urging us to create authentic connections and achieve productive meeting outcomes. From ancient Rome to the present, the importance of effective meetings has remained constant. Discover how Logitech is redefining the meeting experience and get inspired to transform your own meetings.
Scott Wharton is a seasoned executive and visionary leader renowned for his instrumental role as the General Manager of Logitech's Video Collaboration Group. With a profound understanding of technology and a keen eye for market trends, Wharton has been a driving force behind Logitech's prominence in the video collaboration landscape.
Watch the Video
Listen to the Podcast Episode on Your Favorite Platform
.svg.png)
Introduction to the episode
(00:00-01:20)
AS: Welcome to an exciting episode of the Experience-Focused Leaders podcast. I am thrilled to introduce Scott Wharton, who is the general manager of Logitech B2B Business. This is a $2 billion business. I repeat: $2 billion in revenue, not some funky valuation, but a $2 billion dollar business.
Probably everybody who has been in Zoom in the last few years has been using the products of Logitech. Everybody who's been in a video conference room or facility has been using those products, and you've probably been using software and other amazing products that you didn't even realize you were using. So Scott has been a kind of industry luminary.
He's been in Davos, and he's been at CES, and he'll share with us all sorts of exciting things about what it's going to take to create the future of digital and hybrid experiences that will take your breath away. Without further ado, Scott, we would love to hear your story and how you got to your current role, and that would be really fascinating for our audience to just understand your journey.
About Scott Wharton
(01:22 - 04:00)
SW: Thanks for having me. It's a great topic. I mean, I’m at Logitech right now, but my background is really more in startups.
After business school, I was looking to get into renewable energy, but it was too early at the time, so I had to have a backup plan, and I found this thing called the internet, and that seemed to have worked out.
I ended up as the first voice for an IP company and started with a very small group. We were the first ones to basically allow you to make free phone calls over the internet through your computer. We went from a very early stage to an IPO in the crazy times of the Dot-com boom and eventually became the head of marketing for this public company.
My wife was from California, so she said, "Hey, we should go move there." I got recruited for the startup in the Washington, DC, area, and they were just getting going. I said, "You know what, it's a startup, honey. It'll fail. We'll do it for a year or two and then move." And then, nine years later, we're getting ready to go public with two kids in the house. And she's like, "Dude, you told me we were going to California."
So we ended up moving to Cali Silicon Valley and starting a company. It was the first cloud video conferencing service, so it was three years before Zoom. We were running video on, you know, this new thing called Amazon Web Services, and we ended up selling that company to one of our biggest customers. People think that Logitech bought us, but they didn’t actually. Then I took a year and a half off, backpacked around the world, and got rid of my house, cars, and most of our stuff with our kids.
AS: How many kids did you have when you backpacked?
SW: There are two. They were 10 and 13 when we did it.
AS: That’s impressive. I thought it was impressive that I backpacked after business school all by myself, but that is an underperformance. Well done, Scott.
SW: And when I got back, there was this opportunity at Launch Attack, and I had been the CEO of a company that was running a video cloud service with all the hardware, and Launch was making hardware that worked with all the cloud services.
I thought it was a great fit, although, frankly, I had never worked for a big company before. I wasn't even sure if I would like it to be successful, and the recruiters were screening me out of this job because, on paper, they said I was not qualified. So the short version is that I went around, everyone went to the CEO, and we ended up falling in love, and he hired me. And then I took the relatively small $62 million business and turned it into over a billion dollars at Logitech.
How leadership styles changed to fit a larger company
This often applies when starting something new; you need to know where you're going, even if the path to reaching it isn't yet clear.
(03:48 - 06:28)
AS: So how so? This has been an amazing journey, like one that very few people ever experience, right? Whether it's starting from the early stages or joining a larger company when it comes to leaders, where do you find yourself? How did you adjust your leadership style when transitioning from zero to one in some cases or when growing something that already had some degree of scale?
Furthermore, when we talk about creating experiences, the experiences you create in the early stages are likely to be very different from those in a larger organization. How would you distinguish between the two, especially for leaders in predictive general management and CEO roles?
SW: It's a great question. I think there are some things that are constant and some that are not. First of all, the most common mistake people make is assuming that every experience will be the same based on a single previous experience. They tend to apply the same template without realizing that it may not always be applicable.
Therefore, the first thing to do is approach new situations with an open mind. Certainly, our prior experiences hold value, but we must acknowledge that there are aspects we don't know or that may differ in the current context. It's essential to assess what works from our background and, equally important, recognize what doesn't. That's number one.
And the second thing is, having a clear and easily understandable strategy is really important. It should be simple and not overly complicated. Additionally, surrounding oneself with competent people who know how to execute is crucial. As they say, a vision without execution is a mere hallucination. Therefore, it's crucial to surround oneself with really good people. I have been fortunate to find great people and empower them, allowing them to do what they do best. It's not entirely hands-off, but it involves letting them thrive. I believe that's the formula.
Part of it is sweating the details every day, being meticulous about what you're doing. When I started with Logitech, I had a vision of possibly building a billion-dollar business. Many people thought I was crazy, but we ended up achieving that goal, even though I had no idea how to get there initially. However, we did have a clear vision of how to get there. This often applies when starting something new; you need to know where you're going, even if the path to reaching it isn't yet clear.
About B2B platform
Another lesson I learned is that focus outweighs scale most of the time. If something receives less than 10% of one's time and attention, it is going to fail.
(06:28 - 09:44)
AS: For most people, when they think of Logitech, they associate it with something they buy as consumers, whether it's for their home, their kids, or as a consumer-prosumer in some cases. However, you have also built an incredible B2B platform that outperforms many pure-play B2B businesses. So could you share with us a bit about how you managed to create these two business segments within Logitech?
Tell us how you shaped the overall brand, considering that Logitech is not primarily perceived as a consumer brand by the general public or those outside the industry. What unique challenges did you face while incorporating the B2B platform, and what advantages did having a well-known consumer brand bring to the table?
SW: Well, when I started, it was about eight years ago, and Logitech was absolutely a consumer brand. Most of our sales were low-end mice and keyboards, it was about $2 billion a year, and we weren't really growing, we were growing about 2% a year. So it's kind of a low-growth mature company.
I think part of what I was able to do was really focus on the fact that we needed a small, dedicated team that had a different culture. I was fortunate enough to persuade the CEO to let us be incubated and run things in a very different way. So we're able to change fundamentally, and create this B2B, enterprise-oriented, software-oriented brand, team, and skill set that is different.
And then, once we were able to do that, we were able to show some success and build upon that. But I would say it was a constant challenge for me where I would work with people and they would go, “I don't get it. Why are you doing it this way? This is different from the consumer world.”
We'd have to explain to them that enterprise was different. I'm sure that almost everyone listening has some of their own experiences where they struggle from a cultural point of view. So I'd say the number one lesson I learned is, if you have anything that is different from the main thing, you've got to break it out. So the most important lesson I learned is that if you have something distinct from the main focus, it's crucial to separate it.
Another lesson I learned is that focus outweighs scale most of the time. If something receives less than 10% of one's time and attention, it is going to fail. Therefore, it is important to allocate dedicated resources and make it a 100% focus immediately, as that will generate impact. It's part of the reason why startups succeed, but I think it's a lesson that I learned that you can apply to big companies too.
The next step after acquiring companies
(09:44 - 11:38)
AS: That's so fascinating. With some of our clients, we've noticed that when they acquire multiple companies, they don't try to force immediate assimilation. Instead, they foster a culture of cultures, allowing some core themes while maintaining autonomy. It seems like what you're describing follows a similar path — having autonomy and maintaining it as a key factor in building a truly scalable business. If you were to go through it again, would you adopt the same approach? Or do you see the potential for another division that you would pursue in a similar manner?
SW: I think that's true. Even as our group has gotten bigger, I've had to confront some of the same things. Take, for example, our current market leadership in video conferencing with Logitech. We beat Cisco and Polly, and we've got about 32% market share, but when I started, it was almost zero.
So we now have this big group and a culture of stability within the company. But when I sought to cultivate new initiatives, such as creating a services business, it became apparent that transitioning from a hardware-focused company to a services-oriented one posed significant challenges.
The shift in thinking and approach was fundamentally different. To overcome this, I had to establish a separate, dedicated group that operated independently and focused solely on services. By isolating this team from the hardware mindset, we launched our services business successfully.
Similarly, we recently introduced a flexible desk business, which diverges significantly from the hardware and conference room domains. The key is to ensure that these ventures are not merely a small fraction of people's responsibilities or a small group but that they have dedicated teams who wake up each day focused on their specific objectives. While they operate under an overarching umbrella and strategy, having individuals fully committed to these endeavors is critical. It may seem like a simple approach, yet it's astonishing how often it is overlooked or not properly implemented.
Two thoughts on launching new platforms in Toronto
(11:38 - 14:28)
AS: So, if I translate this, it sounds like you started with understanding who your customers are and what's on offer for them and then worked backward to create the right organization and the right culture to address that need. Is that kind of another way of thinking about this?
In a service business, you have one type of service experience to create, whereas in a hardware business, such as B2B distribution channels, it requires a different mindset and caters to different customers. So, starting with the customer and working backward is a good approach. Is that how you approached it, or did you have something specific in mind when launching these new platforms in Toronto?
SW: Well, I think there are two things. One is the understanding of the culture and skill set required for your group, which is different from separating them. But I would also say that a good idea, in general, is to answer the question for yourself and your team: What business are you in? Often, the answer is too narrow.
For example, when I started, people would say, "Oh, we make cameras." My response was, "No, we don't make cameras. We make meetings or help people with meetings." When you think about meetings, involve more than just cameras— including audio, video, cabling, and even the time it takes to start a meeting, the so-called 15 minutes. That's why we developed a computer touch controller and expanded into new areas, such as making computers because it's part of the meeting business.
If you start with a narrow technical perspective, it can limit your ability to solve the customer's problem effectively. It's a classic example of Geoffrey Moore's idea of the whole product — what does your customer actually need to solve the problem?
Often, people focus on features rather than addressing the underlying problem. It also opened our minds to the realization that we don't have to do everything ourselves. For instance, we developed the idea of a kit where we partnered with the channel. We were already providing video conferencing audio and video, but we didn't want to make computers since companies like Lenovo and Dell existed. However, we knew we needed to collaborate with them to make purchasing, consumption, and integration easier. So we introduced the kit concept.
I remember some people being upset, saying, "What are you doing? You're making us like a systems integrator." Ironically, after that, everyone in the industry started copying us because we significantly reduced the friction involved in adopting solutions. This concept, along with Geoffrey Moore's Crossing the Chasm, serves as one of my guiding principles.
How Logitech seized the opportunity during the pandemic
That's why my advice to others would be to always be prepared and ready, as you never know when external factors or acceleration will occur. Being in the right place at the right time does involve some luck, but it's not solely dependent on luck.
(14:28 - 16:05)
AS: So it seems that one of the advantages is that you have redefined the market's definition. We have observed remarkable momentum in video conferencing and meeting spaces. How would you differentiate between external developments and the market's demand, and how does your approach align with meeting those needs? Did you anticipate what was going to happen, or was it a surprise, particularly considering the COVID situation? And how were you able to seize that opportunity when it arose?
SW: Yeah, I think you're always going to hear people say, “Oh, during COVID, our business tripled in a year.” It was a terrible time but unbelievably rewarding from a professional standpoint. Like many other companies, we faced incredible shortages and had to spend a significant amount of time sourcing materials, sometimes even up to the eighth source. It was really crazy.
However, I would say that while some people attribute our success to luck, we were prepared and ready. Our business tripled, whereas many of our competitors experienced a decline. I don't think it was a coincidence. We positioned ourselves strategically to seize the opportunities presented by hypergrowth. That's why my advice to others would be to always be prepared and ready, as you never know when external factors or acceleration will occur. Being in the right place at the right time does involve some luck, but it's not solely dependent on luck.
Fostering Vision and Innovation in Meeting Experiences for the Future
As I listened to him talk, I realized that up until that time, the conventional wisdom surrounding video conferencing was that while video is good, meeting someone in person would provide a better experience, right? So here was my 12-year-old son telling me that it's all nonsense. Being remote can be better.
if you were to ask most people to rate their meetings on a scale of one to ten, they would typically respond with a meager three. Essentially, most people agree that meetings suck. Furthermore, despite all the technological advancements, such as ChatGPT and airplanes, meetings haven't undergone significant changes. If you were transported back 2,500 years to ancient Rome, your meeting would look strikingly similar to how meetings are conducted today.
(16:05 - 22:15)
AS: So, this covers a bit of the past, and speaking of being prepared for the future, I noticed the work you did in Dallas regarding what the future might look like in 2030. Could you guide our audience on your vision of the future, considering that Facebook or Meta have already established their vision?
You may have a different approach. Given your impressive track record of creating $2 billion worth of meeting experiences, what can we expect? Additionally, what do we need to prepare for, beyond purchasing Logitech products, as individuals to enhance meeting experiences and outcomes?
I would say that you're not solely in the meeting business but in the business of achieving productive meeting outcomes. It's about making meetings seamless or extraordinary. So, could you provide some insight into that? What should we be concerned about if we're not already addressing it, considering that the future is already shaping up? And what are the leading customers doing that you see as the best practices?
SW: Sometimes, inspiration comes from unexpected sources, while other times, it is deliberately sought after. I’ll tell you two stories. Shortly after joining Logitech, I used to watch a lot of basketball games with my 12-year-old son, particularly the Golden State Warriors, during their best season ever.
We enjoyed watching the games together at home, and I thought it would be a great idea to take him to a live game. Now, bear with me as this story relates to video conferencing. I asked him, "How would you like to go to a game?" To my surprise, he looked at me, pondered for a moment, and replied, "No, I don't want to go." I was taken aback and asked him why. He explained, "Well, Dad, first of all, I think you're a bit of a cheapskate, so we'll probably end up in the nosebleed seats. The view won't be as good as watching it on TV.
AS: Startup experience, huh?
SW: Yeah. And then he said, “Well, you also get the statistics and multiple cameras. So you get better views. Plus, I can pause the game when I need to go to the bathroom, unlike sitting in traffic. I love listening to the announcers and the analysis.” As I listened to him talk, I realized that up until that time, the conventional wisdom surrounding video conferencing was that while video is good, meeting someone in person would provide a better experience, right? So here was my 12-year-old son telling me that it's all nonsense. Being remote can be better.
I contemplated this idea, questioning why that was the case. He essentially presented the concept that became the North Star and vision for our video group. This led us to the notion that we want the video to surpass the experience of being there.
We aimed for something beyond just being good — our goal was for it to be even better than being physically present. We drew inspiration from sports with its multiple cameras, insights, analytics, and the ability to pause. Over the past eight years, we have been steadily building towards this vision.
Recently, we launched a solution featuring multiple cameras, AI integration, dynamic director insights, and analytics. While we still have a way to go to fully achieve our vision, we are reaching a point where the view from a home may surpass sitting in a lengthy conference room.
Listening to my 12-year-old son ultimately gave us the vision, proving that inspiration can come from unexpected sources. Now, onto another endeavor. Before the pandemic, I gathered a group of interdisciplinary experts to challenge the notion of meetings and explore ways to improve them. The motivation behind this was the observation that if you were to ask most people to rate their meetings on a scale of one to ten, they would typically respond with a meager three. Essentially, most people agree that meetings suck. Furthermore, despite all the technological advancements, such as ChatGPT and airplanes, meetings haven't undergone significant changes. If you were transported back 2,500 years to ancient Rome, your meeting would look strikingly similar to how meetings are conducted today.
The study regarding meeting improvements
We determined that 25% of improvement would require an AI agent, even before ChatGPT, who could analyze our meetings and provide suggestions for improvement. Lastly, there was a 5% aspect, acknowledging that our thought processes can sometimes be sluggish.
"What's the best experience?" It's about envisioning something that may not even exist today and working your way backward to create it.
(22:15 - 24:38)
AS: I'm curious, did you have a study that compared the meetings that include presentation software and the meetings without it? Was it all three? Did you notice the difference in that research?
SW: Well, I believe our approach to meetings is more basic. We brought together a diverse group of individuals from various disciplines. We had a meeting with scientists, technologists, Andrew Huberman, who wasn't yet famous on this podcast discussing neurology, professionals from the world of sports, including the general manager of the San Antonio Spurs, military personnel accustomed to delivering high performance, and even someone from the clergy.
Our goal was to gather insights from different areas of expertise. Here's what we discovered: 70% of making meetings better involves practices we already know, such as utilizing video conferencing, having an agenda, and promoting inclusivity. We determined that 25% of improvement would require an AI agent, even before ChatGPT, that could analyze our meetings and provide suggestions for improvement. Lastly, there was a 5% aspect, acknowledging that our thought processes can sometimes be sluggish.
We discussed the idea of having an Elon Musk-like neural link implanted in our brains to enhance communication speed. While the latter idea may be further in the future, we were surprisingly close in predicting the advancements in AI, particularly with generative AI. This was a deliberate effort to consider the direction in which things are headed and identify the necessary components.
AS: Well, both topics are truly fascinating. Reflecting on our own journey, I'd like to share something that everyone can relate to. We often joke about presentations, which are frequently part of meetings.
However, there hasn't been much innovation in the realm of presentations, whether they're in-person or consumed through e-books. The most notable development in this area was Jeff Bezos's introduction of the Kindle, which offered a convenient but limited black-and-white reading experience. Many people have expressed their dissatisfaction, as they feel it lacks the immersive and enriching qualities they desire.
That's why we are deeply invested in creating on-screen reading experiences that are not only compelling but surpass the traditional book, which has long been seen as the gold standard for concentrated engagement. I find what you're describing highly relevant because it aligns with our goals. It's about making the reading experience on screen as captivating, if not more so, than reading a physical book.
This conversation resonates as a universal truth, urging us to strive for significant change and set our standards against the highest benchmarks. It's not about competing with others; it's about rethinking a fundamental human activity like meetings.
SW: Absolutely. And I think part of what you're saying is to look backward and ask, "What's the best experience?" It's about envisioning something that may not even exist today and working your way backward to create it. I find that approach valuable because many people tend to focus on incremental improvements.
For example, in your case, it could have been about making slight improvements to the PDF format. However, that would have missed the larger point. PDFs, in their current form, may not provide a great experience and have various shortcomings.
By looking at it from a future perspective, you were able to identify what greatness should look like. It's an exercise that allows you to free yourself from constraints and critically assess your current state. This realization helps you understand that what you're doing today, even if it seems good, may not actually be that good.
How Logitech keeps reinventing
(24:38 - 28:15)
AS: So when you're coming up with these futuristic experiences and introducing innovation, how do you think about who the early adopters are, especially at the scale of your business? Considering that you're rolling out a lot of new things and have a broad product portfolio, how do you find them? Do you apply some of the startup methodologies? It would be really interesting for our audience to hear how you stay agile and innovative, even with a $2 billion-scale company, and how you continue to find innovators.
SW: Well, I can give you a few recent examples of how we keep reinventing ourselves. First of all, I think you should really go out and talk to customers. I mean, part of what my team and I do is we try to minimize the amount of time we spend on planning documents and five-year strategies and all these internal things. You're not going to learn very much from that. In fact, you'll be in a bit of an echo chamber. So just get out there and engage with customers.
AS: So you heard it here? At tech, you don't hold internal meetings that much. It's really focused.
SW: No, there's stuff you have to do. I wish I could avoid that, but for the most part, we try to spend as much time outside, which is hard because, in my experience, the larger the company you are, the more pressure there is to have just internal conversations.
Then I would say be very careful about market research because the problem with that is, a lot of times, there's garbage in, garbage out, or the person asking the questions as a proxy for you doesn't know how to follow up. So if you're an expert in an area, I mean, one of the most powerful things is when somebody says something to you, and you're with them, and you can say, “Tell me more.” You can drill down, and sometimes you get really unexpected answers, and they'll get it.
The other thing we do is build prototypes and see if the idea works. For example, we just launched a camera that is in the center of a conference room. And the reason why we did that is because we started with something that one of our competitors did. Cisco, who we really admired as a market leader, had a video conferencing camera with four cameras in the front. So we built a prototype, thinking, “Well, this guy's really smart, this must be the right way to go.”
We realized if you think about the angle, it doesn't really add a lot of value to have an angle a few inches apart. So we said, “What you really want to do is have a camera that has a completely different angle.” So we jerry-rigged a prototype with a bunch of webcams in the middle of the room, and then we recorded it, and we said, “This is much better. It just gives you a different angle.”
So now we're launching a camera that has cameras in the middle of the room and cameras in the front of the room. And there was a debate, and some people said, 'Which one do you want?' And we said, “You kind of want both because human beings move their heads around, you can't control them, right?” So we ended up coming up with a system that we just launched. It has cameras in the front of the room and cameras in the center.
Again, it goes back to our Multicam vision. Because the idea is that it should be like a sporting event, you always want the best view. So sometimes looking at your competitors doesn't work because you assume they're smart, but maybe they're not. And then the second thing is to build a real prototype, and have people use it, rather than going straight to building the whole product and realizing that you wasted your time. Actually, building the prototype helped us realize that we would have made a terrible mistake if we had pursued the product.
Where most inspirations come from
So I love the idea of design thinking, which is often an overused, generic term, but fundamentally it's about thinking like a designer. You understand what someone does and what their pain points are, and then you design around that.
(28:15 - 31:54)
AS: That's really fascinating. So, like, if you don't trust the market research and the competitors necessarily, right, who inspires you? I immediately thought of Steve Jobs and his approach to inventing new categories of experiences and devices. But I'm also curious to know where you get your inspiration from, aside from your son and the customers. You already have a pretty good range, but is there anything else?
SW: Yeah, I mean, I think Steve Jobs is a good example of, you know, if you think of the iPhone, he didn't invent anything, but he repackaged and improved things that already existed. I like the phrase, I don't know who said it, but you know, if Henry Ford had done market research, people wouldn't have only wanted a faster horse.
The reality is, most end users don't know what they want. They'll just tell you to give them more of something else. Like, “Oh, I have a camera that does 8x Zoom, I need 16x.” Because bigger is better, right? And I've worked with a lot of product people who think that way, that more is always better. But it's not always the case.
So I love the idea of design thinking, which is often an overused, generic term, but fundamentally it's about thinking like a designer. You understand what someone does and what their pain points are, and then you design around that. Let me give you an example. There's this product I'm using right now called Logi Dock. At the beginning of the pandemic, people were telling us we needed to build another webcam. But when we looked at our webcams, we realized they were already pretty good. I wasn't even sure what we could do to make a better one.
So instead, we asked ourselves, what are the problems people are facing while working from home? And in order to figure out who the early adopters were, we actually looked at Logitech. We said, “We are early adopters of hybrid work with people working from home, so let's take some pictures of people's desks.” We gathered about 80 pictures of people working remotely, and what we found was fascinating. First of all, their desks were super ugly, with cables and wires everywhere. That was a big problem. Secondly, their audio was awful. They were using the laptop audio, and in some cases, their camera was in the wrong place, like on the side of their monitor.
So we built this product that I like to joke nobody asked us for. We created a collaboration dock that addressed these issues. It had great audio, and speakerphone controls for video, and we even added a little light indicator that would signal when your next meeting was coming up. Because at the beginning of the pandemic, I would often get engrossed in a conversation and end up missing my next meeting.
The dock also had a button that automatically scraped your calendar and started your meeting, so you didn't have to remember those annoying URLs and passcodes. And we designed the dock to clean up all the cables in the back. We created a product that nobody specifically requested, but it solved a problem that people had. It ended up being recognized as one of TIME Magazine's Top 200 Inventions of the Year. It was amazing. Nobody told us to go build a collaboration dock, but through talking to people and understanding their needs, as well as looking at early adopters, we arrived at that solution.
Two things need to be considered while reaching a saturation point in the rise of hybrid presence
(31:54 - 35:08)
AS: This is a fantastic reminder. Also, I want to let you know that our time together is wrapping up. Now, Scott, I have one last question for you. For our audience members who have made investments in their digital experiences — let's say they have Logitech products or have upgraded their working space — what do you think will be the next investment in creating a great digital experience? Specifically, in a use case where they are presenting something, what should we, as communicators who want to connect with our audience through video screens, be concerned about? Now that we have reached a saturation point and there is a rise in hybrid presences, what are one or two things we should start thinking about individually
SW: Well, based on my experience with video, I would say that anything purchased more than a year ago is now obsolete. We are transitioning to a multi-camera AI model, and if you're still using outdated technology where remote participants are not properly seen or heard and there are visibility issues, then it's time to upgrade to the new multi-camera AI-driven camera technology. It's similar to upgrading from a BlackBerry to an iPhone — the BlackBerry was great until it wasn't. The same applies to older video technology, including some of our own products.
The second point, which may sound cliché, is the integration of AI. I believe that all software will eventually incorporate AI, disrupting various workflows. Personally, I don't find it threatening; in fact, I think it's beneficial. Many of us have tasks that can be tedious, such as creating PowerPoint presentations, working with Excel, or writing and editing content.
Using AI tools to offload some of these tasks can be a game-changer. Let me provide an example from my team. We used to have a dedicated training department responsible for content creation and curriculum development. However, with the help of AI, our content creators now directly write scripts and provide them with an AI avatar, which can instantly present the material in any language without the need for translation. We no longer require a team of trainers because we use AI avatars. This approach is faster, more efficient, and allows for seamless updates. If any changes are needed, we can simply modify the text, and the presentation is automatically updated without requiring additional editing or formatting.
This is just one example among many where AI is already revolutionizing the workforce. Content management, translations, and presentation updates are all areas that will undergo significant transformation. I'm genuinely excited about the possibilities that AI brings.
Parting Words
(35:08 - 36:09)
AS: Got it. So I have an idea for one of the upcoming episodes. We can have the avatar kick it off and drive the original introduction, and then we'll take over in multiple languages. This is great! Scott, thank you so much for sharing your insights with us. Congratulations on an amazing journey, from startup to driving a niche, brand-new offering to $2 billion in revenue.
I hope our audience truly takes the advice of a practitioner who has created amazing experiences. I'm really rooting for Logitech to continue redefining meetings and transforming them into truly human experiences, as they once were. Thank you again for your time.
SW: Thanks a lot, Alex. It's great to be with you, and it's wonderful to be able to share some of these ideas with your audience. Thanks a lot.
Other Episodes
Godard Abel | CEO of G2
S 01 | Ep 6 Where You Go for Software: Reach Your Peak
Dean Stocker | CEO of Alteryx
S 01 | Ep 8 Turning Your Customers Into Your Biggest Champions
Peter Fader | Co-Founder of ThetaCLV
S 01 | Ep 10 Turning Your Marketing Into Dollars
Author
The fastest way to build digital experiences. We empower businesses to convert PDFs, presentations, and other content into interactive experiences & webpages with instant branding, analytics & more
