Yesterday, former MK Michal Rozin was elected to the 8th position on the Democrats Knesset list, with 23,380 votes.

I had the privilege of managing her campaign — an extremely challenging one involving power-building, repositioning, organizing, GOTV, and the strategic use of technology and AI.

Go Back to Basics

Every campaign needs a clear differentiator — a compelling answer to: Why this candidate? Michal served a decade in the Knesset, passed more than 70 laws, chaired a parliamentary committee, and earned respect across the political spectrum. We focused on her greatest strength and encouraged voters to ask: What would this list be missing without her? The answer was experience. She received 23,380 votes.

Use Technology to Build What the Campaign Needs

Our most effective AI tool was a custom CRM I built with Codex — designed from scratch around GOTV. It enabled distributed phone banking with a single source of truth, relational lead scoring, rapid cohort assignment, and real-time analysis. AI-fluent staffers who combine technological literacy with political judgment are worth their weight in gold.

Political Campaigns Are About People

Over a month and a half, Michal traveled across the country and participated in more than 60 events. My favorite moment came during the final day phone-banking operation. Whenever volunteers encountered an undecided voter, Michal picked up the phone and spoke with them herself. We kept calling until the final minute. Every vote counts.

This campaign reaffirmed what I enjoy building most: the intersection of political strategy, organizing, data, and AI. It was a hard-earned and very sweet victory. Now, on to the next challenge.

Earlier this week I had the pleasure of holding a fireside conversation with Ronen Zur, one of the leading political campaign managers of Israel, who led the Hostages HQ struggle. We discussed the impact of AI on the political campaign manager — from AI-driven production to AI-powered stress-testing scenarios, using AI influencers in the public sphere, and the ethics of AI-powered mass networks creating echo chambers to affect public opinion.

I was moved when Ronen shared the moment the hostages families were attacked online by a synchronized AI-driven campaign, smearing their position and trying to paint this humanitarian struggle as a means for political change. He pinpointed blame on Qatar-funded professionals working with Prime Minister Netanyahu. Being the focus of such an attack is a real challenge. The attack failed, though. AI cannot beat everything.

For me it was an opportunity to discuss, reflect, and share some of the things I have been dealing with in my trade.

Thank you Reichman University and Karine Nahon for leading the important convention that hosted us.

Last weekend I was at a social gathering that found its way to the question of whether machines will replace all of us. This morning I taught at Reichman University, and the students asked what is the point of studying marketing if robots are going to replace everyone anyway. I gave the same answer in both cases, and I stand by it.

Enough. The machines will not replace all of us. They are changing the market — that is what happens when new technology arrives. I was 25 when social media exploded in Israel. We founded Days Marketing and were among the first to catch it. Yes, ad agencies hated social agencies at first. Yes, some were wiped out. But in practice the advertising industry only grew. The same happened to the music industry — streaming destroyed physical album sales, yet more people consume music than ever. Ask how many people are farmers today versus 150 years ago.

Technology changes reality. It sets new rules. What is happening now is that the rules have changed.

If you know how to ask questions, understand problems, and quickly grasp where new technology is taking things — you will find great success. There is a set of human capabilities needed to guide AI: deep thinking, problem solving, conversation, observing reality, planning, overseeing, understanding meaning. These are all part of the new capability basket required today.

So yes, some professions will disappear, but new ones will appear. Adapt or change careers to something you can handle.

This month I built three different agentic products: publishing, project management, animation production. AI gave me the ability to maximize my own capabilities. Where do I take it from here? That is where the human comes in.

So no, AI will not replace us. The machines are not coming to dispossess us. They will demand that we adapt. That is exactly what I am doing, and I invite you to do the same.

Some decisions have no objectively correct answer. The market won’t tell you which product line to prioritize. Your investors won’t tell you when to raise. Your team won’t tell you when to pivot. And yet, someone has to decide.

In two decades of working with startups, mid-size businesses, and nonprofits, I’ve noticed that the organizations that move best aren’t the ones with the clearest information — they’re the ones with the clearest decision-making frameworks.

The Paralysis of Optionality

Most of the time, the problem isn’t that we don’t know enough. It’s that we think we need to know more before we can commit. This is optionality paralysis — and it’s expensive.

Every week you don’t decide is a week your competitors might. Every month you delay is a month of runway you’re burning. The cost of not deciding is always real, even if it’s invisible on a spreadsheet.

A Framework That Actually Works

When there’s no right answer, ask three questions:

• What is the least reversible option? Treat that one with extra caution — and extra deliberation.
• What would a reasonable, well-informed person do with the information available today?
• What will you learn in 90 days that you can’t know now — and can you afford to wait?

Answer those three, and then decide. With the explicit understanding that you’ll revisit in 90 days, armed with new information.

Strategy isn’t about being right. It’s about being less wrong, faster.

The leaders I respect most aren’t the ones who never make mistakes. They’re the ones who build systems to catch mistakes early, correct course quickly, and move on without ego. The decision itself is less important than the quality of the process — and the speed of the correction.

What This Looks Like in Practice

A client of mine — a Series A founder — spent three months debating which enterprise vertical to focus on. Both options had merit. Both had risk. The analysis kept expanding. More data, more consultants, more workshops.

We stopped the process and asked: if we had to choose by Friday, what would we choose? The answer came in ten minutes. We launched into that vertical two weeks later. Six months on, it was the right call — not because the data finally proved it, but because the team had clarity to execute.

There is no perfect decision. There is only the decision you make, and how well you execute on it.

The Channel 13 deal is done. The Merit Fund, whose members include Assaf Rappaport and other investors, has acquired control of the channel. But to understand the real significance you need to understand one thing: this is not just an acquisition. It is a rehabilitation plan.

The deal is valued at approximately 20 million — about 5 million for purchasing shares and securing control, and the remaining 5 million earmarked to inject activity: around 5 million in the first year, and another 0 million over the following two years.

The reason is simple: Channel 13 financial situation is dire. Cumulative losses are approaching half a billion shekels, with around 340 million in the last three years alone. On top of that, there are legacy debts, commitments to original productions, and an operating loss of roughly 12 to 15 million shekels per month. In other words: the money is primarily buying time.

A Crowded Field

The Israeli media landscape is already very crowded. Channel 12 targets the mainstream with strong reality programming and aggressive news. Channel 14 targets a clear right-wing niche. i24 targets a professional news audience, primarily center-right. Channel 13, by contrast, spent recent years trying to be a copy of Channel 12 — without the financial backing and production capabilities of Keshet. That strategy did not work.

Meanwhile, media consumption has become non-linear. Journalists are building audiences on social networks. Influencers are creating communities. New formats like micro-dramas and short content are growing fast. Television share of the advertising pie has fallen to around 34%, while digital stands at approximately 52%.

Three Possible Scenarios

First: continue on the same track. Invest in news and big productions and hope for ratings successes. In my view, this is very dangerous — it assumes the television market has not changed.

Second: audience or ideological differentiation. That is what Channel 14 did with the right-wing audience. But the center-left audience in Israel is largely mainstream — it already finds itself on Channel 12 or in independent media.

Third — and in my view the most plausible — is to reimagine what a channel is in Israel today. Not just a television channel, but a hybrid media entity that understands its core audience is under 45 and consumes media both on television and online. In this model, digital becomes the growth engine.

What That Looks Like in Practice

• Web series and micro-formats
• Managed influencer networks
• Thinking of the channel as a data and IP machine that builds audiences
• Television remains an anchor that generates depth

But every program must ask a new question: how does it behave in the digital world? What does a newsroom that thinks social-first look like? What does a talent contract look like when social media activity is also part of the asset?

This is no longer just a question of content. It is a question of business model. If the goal is to build a sustainable media asset, Channel 13 cannot remain just a television channel. It will need to become a completely different animal. And if that does not happen, the end is probably inevitable. Channel 13 will simply die.

Over the past few months, I have focused on researching and developing methods for creating agentic businesses. My vision for the next venture involves collaborating with a group of AI bots working together effectively. Here are my key takeaways.

A. Learn

To understand how agentic-led businesses operate, it is essential to have a deep grasp of the industry you are targeting. Recognizing nuances and professional behaviors that develop over years of practice is crucial. Comprehensive learning should not be underestimated.

B. Plan

With solid industry understanding and a clear vision, planning is next. Outline the manufacturing process, quality assurance, artistic elements, and infrastructure. Engage with your preferred AI to determine how the system will function and what the expected outcomes will be.

C. Triple Check

Ensure each idea is thoroughly examined by you and the AI, ideally using two different language models for validation.

D. Decide on Agent Roles

Within each role, consider potential sub-missions. Break down tasks and assess whether multiple agents are needed. Determine how tasks pass between agents and whether a waterfall approach is suitable, or if an orchestrator is necessary.

E. Build a POC

It is important to build something that gives you a feel for the end result before diving into full production. Start with a breakdown of what worked, what failed, and ensure the human-in-the-loop element is at crucial checkpoints. Quality review matters: an agent is not a human, and what seems trivial to us can be overlooked by machines.

F. Legal

Triple check that your product is compliant with legal requirements. Ensure your instructions for the agent prevent any misconduct during operation.

G. Develop

Check for loopholes, safety gaps, and code quality. Once in alpha mode, stress test it, iterate, and only when everything works properly progress to beta.

I really recommend taking the time. AI is fast, but it is not magic. It allows you to develop a lot alone, but a good product requires tons of thinking, planning, and imagining all kinds of scenarios. Share with friends, consult, and you might discover you were off track. If so, go back to the AI and restart. That is part of the fun.

Fractional business development is having a moment. And like most things that are having a moment, there’s a lot of noise around what it actually means to do it well.

I’ve been doing fractional BD work for over a decade — before it had a name, back when we just called it “consulting” or “advisory.” Here’s what separates people who create real value from the ones who just look expensive on a pitch deck.

1. It Doesn’t Chase Metrics That Don’t Matter

The number of meetings booked is not a BD metric. The number of LinkedIn connections added is not a pipeline. Decks sent are not progress.

Good fractional BD is ruthlessly focused on qualified conversations that are likely to lead somewhere — and honest, in writing, when they don’t. That honesty is one of the most underrated parts of the job. A fractional BD person who tells you “that lead is dead, here’s why” saves you six months of false hope.

2. It Doesn’t Work in Isolation

The worst BD practitioners operate as if sales is something that happens to an organization — an external force you hire and unleash. The best ones integrate. They talk to the product team about what’s actually buildable. They talk to the finance team about what’s actually profitable. They bring the market inside the building.

When a fractional BD person generates a partnership opportunity, the first call should be with your product lead, not your lawyer. The deal that fits your product roadmap is worth ten times the deal that doesn’t — even if the latter looks better on paper.

3. It Doesn’t Overstay

This is the one that separates good fractional BD from great fractional BD: the goal is to create capacity, not dependency.

If you’re doing it right, you’re building systems, playbooks, and relationships that survive your exit. The measure of a successful fractional engagement is what the organization can do after you leave that it couldn’t do before you arrived.

If the pipeline collapses when you leave, you weren’t doing BD. You were doing sales.

The handoff is part of the job. Always.

Running a nonprofit has always required a particular kind of clarity. You’re accountable to funders, to beneficiaries, to a board, and to a mission — all at once, all with limited resources. But something has changed in the last few years: the noise level.

Impact metrics are being questioned. ESG is politically contested. Foundation priorities are shifting faster than grant cycles. And every organization with a cause is competing for attention in a media environment that rewards volume over nuance.

The Case for Strategic Retreat

In a noisy environment, the first instinct is to get louder. Post more. Report more. Claim more. But I’ve watched too many nonprofits compromise their strategy trying to stay relevant to every conversation.

The organizations that survive disruption — and there have been several rounds of it in the past decade — are the ones that know exactly what they’re not doing. Strategic retreat isn’t about giving up. It’s about concentrating force. Deciding to be excellent at three things instead of adequate at ten is a strategic choice. In the current environment, it may be the most important one you make this year.

What Funders Actually Want Right Now

Here’s something counterintuitive that I’ve observed across the boards and foundations I work with: in times of uncertainty, many funders want fewer, larger bets. They want to back organizations that have a point of view, that have chosen their lane, and that can explain — clearly, in under two minutes — why they are the right vehicle for the change they’re trying to make.

The organizations that are struggling to raise right now often have the opposite problem: they’ve expanded their theory of change to chase every open grant window. The result is an organization that can justify anything to any funder, but can’t tell a coherent story to any of them.

Your theory of change shouldn’t fit on a slide deck. It should fit in a sentence. Everything else is execution.

A Practical Starting Point

If your board hasn’t had an honest conversation about what you’re going to stop doing in the next 18 months, that’s the first meeting to schedule. Not a retreat. Not a strategic planning process. A focused, two-hour conversation about what comes off the plate — and why.

Clarity is a fundraising strategy. It’s also a talent strategy, a partnership strategy, and a resilience strategy. It’s the thing that makes everything else work.

Most founders think about intellectual property the way they think about insurance: something you buy once, file away, and hope you never need. This is a costly mistake — and one I’ve seen derail deals, partnerships, and exits at the worst possible moment.

IP — whether it’s patents, trademarks, trade secrets, or licensing agreements — is infrastructure. It shapes what you can build, who you can partner with, what you can charge, and how you can exit. Getting it wrong early creates problems that are expensive and sometimes impossible to unwind at Series B or in an M&A process.

The Licensing Opportunity Nobody Talks About

Most founders either ignore their IP or treat it as a defensive moat — something that keeps competitors out. Very few think about it as an active revenue channel.

Licensing, done well, can generate meaningful income from assets you’ve already built, with partners who take on distribution risk you don’t want to carry. I’ve helped companies turn dormant IP portfolios into partnerships that funded their next product cycle. The economics are often better than another funding round — without the dilution.

I’ve also watched companies sign licensing deals that looked good on paper and quietly destroyed their negotiating position with future acquirers. The difference is almost always in the structuring — specifically, in what rights you retain, what territories you carve out, and what performance milestones you attach.

Three Questions Every Founder Should Answer

Before your next board meeting or fundraising conversation, ask yourself:

• What do we own that someone else would pay to use? Most founders underestimate this. A methodology, a dataset, a brand reputation, a technical process — these can all be licensed.
• What are we doing that we’d be exposed if a competitor copied? If the answer is “everything,” you have no IP. If the answer is specific and concrete, you have something worth protecting.
• What are we using that we haven’t properly licensed? This is the one that kills deals. Open-source licenses, third-party datasets, white-labeled tools — due diligence finds all of it.

IP isn’t just about protection. It’s about positioning — in the market, with partners, and on the cap table.

The founders who build IP strategy into their roadmap early don’t just sleep better. They negotiate better, partner better, and exit better. And when the acquirer’s lawyers show up, they’re ready.