Article Directory
Generated Title: McKinsey's "AI Revolution" is Just Another Way to Fleece Clients
Okay, so McKinsey & Company is "rethinking the nature of the work" they do, huh? Let's be real, that's corporate speak for "we found a new way to charge you more for the same crap."
The "Outcomes-Based" Scam
This whole "outcomes-based pricing" model they're pushing? Give me a break. It's not some altruistic move to share risk with clients; it's about McKinsey covering their asses while simultaneously jacking up the fees when (and if) things go well. About a quarter of their global fees come from this model? Expect that to climb as they figure out how to game the system even more.
They claim clients doing "big career bets" appreciate the shared scorecard thing. Yeah, maybe. Or maybe those clients are just too deep in the Kool-Aid to realize they're being played. The scorecard includes "investor targets, hitting revenue or profit goals"? So, basically, the same metrics every company already cares about? Groundbreaking.
And let's not forget the AI angle. They're acting like AI is some magical unicorn that suddenly makes "outcomes-based" pricing viable. Newsflash: consulting firms have been trying to tie fees to results for decades. AI is just the latest buzzword they're using to justify it. AI is reshaping how McKinsey makes money
The "Partnership" Illusion
"We're not a supplier, we're not a vendor, we're a genuine partner," says Kate Smaje, global leader of technology and AI at McKinsey. Oh, please. They're a supplier of advice, plain and simple. A very expensive one at that. This whole "partner" charade is just to make clients feel warm and fuzzy while McKinsey raids their bank accounts.
EY is considering a "service-as-a-software" approach. Great. More jargon. More ways to obfuscate what's really going on: charging exorbitant fees for advice that may or may not be worth the PowerPoint slides it's printed on.
But wait, are we really supposed to believe that these firms are actually changing their fundamental business models? Or are they just slapping an "AI" label on the same old strategies and hoping no one notices?
And while we're at it, how much of this is actually driven by client demand versus McKinsey trying to stay ahead of the curve (and ahead of their competitors like BCG and Bain)? Details on the actual client feedback are suspiciously absent.
CFOs Protecting Their Butts
Speaking of money, CFOs are apparently "protecting the downside" this year. No surprise there. With geopolitical uncertainty and the ever-present threat of economic meltdown, who isn't trying to hoard cash? McKinsey exec Kevin Carmody says CFOs are being careful about what they must spend versus what's a "nice-to-have." Guess which category McKinsey's consulting fees fall into? CFOs are reaching for downside budget protections, McKinsey exec says
Carmody also thinks it's important to set realistic stretch targets. You know, because nothing says "innovation" like lowering your expectations. It's like telling your kid "Hey, don't worry about getting an A, a C is fine."
The budgeting process is still happening in November, even with all this fancy tech? Huh. So much for "instant data updates." Some things never change, I guess. And a static budget is a good thing because... people are all rowing in the same direction? That's the best argument they could come up with? Honestly...