In 1850, a 35-year-old Prussian politician named Otto von Bismarck stood before Parliament and gave the most confusing speech of his career.
He argued passionately againstgoing to war with Austria. He praised Austria. He defended their actions. This baffled everyone who knew him—Bismarck wanted that war more than anyone in the room.
But he'd done the math. His army wasn't ready. If he fought now and lost, his career was over. So he said what he needed to say, won the king's trust, got appointed Prime Minister, quietly rebuilt the military, and a few years later led Prussia into the exact war he'd publicly opposed—from a position of total dominance.
Bismarck didn't abandon his goal. He timed it.
You're facing a version of his dilemma right now with AI.
The Vendor Trap
Every AI vendor you talk to this quarter will tell you the same thing: move now, or fall behind. Sign the enterprise agreement. Commit to our platform. Lock in this year's pricing before it goes up.
The urgency is real. AI capabilities aremoving fast. But there's a difference between moving fast and moving first into a commitment you don't fully understand.
Robert Greene puts it sharply in The 48 Laws of Power: “Half of your mastery of power comes from what you do notdo.”
The businesses getting burned right now aren't the ones who waited too long. They're the ones who committed too early to the wrong platform, the wrong contract terms, or the wrong architecture—and are now spending more to undo those decisions than they spent making them.
The Real Game
Greene opens his book with a claim that should guide every AI decision you make this year: “Power is a game. In games you do not judge your opponents by their intentions but by the effect of their actions.”
Your AI vendors have good intentions. They genuinely believe their product will help your business. But their incentives aren't aligned with yours. They want a multi-year commitment. You want maximum flexibility in a market where the best tool today may be obsolete in six months.
This isn't a technology decision. It's a positioning decision. And the companies playing it well are doing three things:
1. They're buying optionality, not platforms.
Short-term contracts. Modular integrations. Architecture that lets them swap providers without rewriting everything. The cost of flexibility is slightly higher today—but the cost of being locked into yesterday's technology is catastrophic.
2. They're watching the effects, not the pitches.
What did the last AI tool you bought actually change in your operations? Not what the demo showed. Not what the case study promised. What measurably shifted? If you can't answer that, you're making your next decision on the same incomplete information.
3. They're timing their commitments.
Bismarck didn't avoid war. He chose whento fight. The smartest AI adopters aren't sitting on the sidelines—they're running small experiments, learning what works, and waiting to make big bets until they have real data instead of vendor projections.
The Question to Ask This Quarter
Before your next AI purchase, vendor renewal, or platform decision, ask yourself Greene's question:
“What are the effects of my actions, regardless of my intentions?”
Your intention may be to modernize. To stay competitive. To give your team better tools. All good intentions.
But if the effectis a three-year contract with a vendor whose technology is being commoditized, or an architecture that marries you to a single provider in the most volatile market in decades—then your good intentions just cost you the one thing that matters most right now.
Optionality.
Bismarck knew. The best-positioned companies today know it too. The strongest move in a fast-changing game isn't to bet everything on one play. It's to make sure you're still at the table when the real opportunity arrives.
Geoff Price
Guthrie Blackwell & Co. LLC
Get the next client letter sent straight to your inbox.
Or, get in touch.