Hi Reader

I have spent much of my career on the buying side of a deal, and one thing never changes: a business can tell you it is valuable, but a buyer only pays for what it can prove. The story wins the meeting, the evidence wins the price. This Sunday that same tension turned up almost everywhere I looked, so here is the thread running through today's issue: proof beats a good story, nearly every time.

Enjoy!

A £3bn deal shows what buyers will still pay up for

Mitie, a name that has been on the London market for close to four decades, has agreed a £3.1bn takeover by its private-equity-backed rival OCS. Facilities management is about as unglamorous as business gets, cleaning, security, maintenance, the plumbing of everyone else's operations. And that is precisely the point. What OCS is buying is not a growth story, it is a book of long, sticky, contracted revenue that keeps paying whether the economy is up or down. Buyers pay the biggest premiums for provable, durable income, not for the exciting bits. Read it here.

The founder who thinks his old company is being sold too cheaply

Jim Flavin built DCC into a FTSE 100 group, and now, holding a small stake, he is publicly fighting the board's decision to back a private-equity takeover he calls a sale "on the cheap." Big shareholders including Fidelity and Aviva have joined him, arguing the roughly £5.7bn offer undervalues the business. Whether Flavin is right or simply attached to what he created, the row is a useful reminder for any owner: worth is not a single number a buyer hands you, it is a case you have to be able to argue with evidence. The strongest sellers turn up to that argument with proof, not sentiment. Get the story here.

🧰 Exit Mode Toolkit · Limited-time launch Every tool a founder needs to build a business worth buying. One payment. Lifetime access, including every new tool we ship. ✓ Business Valuation Calculator ✓ Exit Readiness Scorecard ✓ Investor Finder ✓ Deal Structure Simulator ✓ Acquisition Target Finder ✓ Strategic Acquirer Finder ✓ Deal Comps Engine ✓ Business Navigator AI ✓ Templates and Frameworks ✓ Plus all 3 books All for only $99 increasing to $250 soon Get the Toolkit →

People say they are miserable, then keep spending anyway

Here is a gap worth sitting with. Consumer sentiment surveys have been grim for months, yet actual spending has refused to crack, with retail sales up more than six per cent on the year in the second quarter. What people tell a pollster and what they do at the till are two different data sets, and only one of them pays your invoices. Sentiment is a claim, behaviour is the proof. If you want to know whether customers value you, watch what they buy, not what they say when someone asks how they feel about the economy. Find out more here.

Marketing still cannot prove itself to the people holding the money

A new study from the World Federation of Advertisers and Ebiquity, drawn from marketers responsible for some $40bn of spend, found that just 14 per cent say marketing and finance actually agree on what "effectiveness" even means. Two-thirds of brand owners admit they are behind on measuring paid media. This is the oldest problem in the discipline wearing new clothes: if you cannot define what working looks like, you cannot prove it is working, and the budget becomes an argument you keep losing. Worth reading if you have ever watched a good marketing case fall apart the moment finance asked, reasonably, "and what did that actually get us?" Read the report here.

The confidence to strip an advert back to almost nothing

McDonald's in New Zealand ran outdoor advertising that was little more than the names of menu items, no burgers, no logos doing somersaults, just words and the assumption that you already know the rest. It is the kind of minimalism that looks effortless and is actually the opposite: you can only strip a brand back that far once fame is already banked. Most businesses cannot pull this off, because the recognition is not there to lean on. It is a neat illustration of a truth founders underrate, that brand strength is proof built up over years, and it buys you a simplicity your competitors cannot copy. See it here.

Where AI is actually earning its keep

Against a run of gloomy surveys about AI failing to pay off, here is a sharper data point. A Salesforce study reported by ZDNet found that seventy per cent of companies deploying AI agents in customer service saw a return within sixty days. The contrast with the wider "we spent a fortune and cannot find the benefit" mood is the whole story. AI pays when it is pointed at a narrow, measurable job, resolving a support ticket, where you can see the before and the after. It disappoints when it is sprinkled everywhere as a slogan. Proof of value tends to come from scope, not scale, which is a handy rule for deciding where to start. Read the article here.

Hiring for what someone can do, not what they can claim

More employers are dropping degree requirements and testing for the skill the job actually needs. In one poll of US employers, around eighty per cent said they would rather take someone with relevant hands-on experience than a fresh graduate on paper, and Harvard research has long shown that degree screens filter out perfectly capable people without improving performance. A credential is a promise that someone can do the work, a demonstrated skill is the proof. For small firms that cannot outbid the giants on salary, hiring on provable ability is one of the few real edges available. Read more here.

As the fakes multiply, being real becomes the pitch

A look back at the strongest brand campaigns of the first half of the year found a common thread: as fake news, fake feeds and AI-generated everything pile up, brands from Coca-Cola to Dove leaned into being demonstrably, provably human. The interesting shift is not that honesty is nice, it is that authenticity has become a competitive position precisely because it is now scarce and hard to counterfeit. When anyone can generate a polished claim in seconds, the things you can actually prove, real people, real provenance, a real track record, are worth more. It is trust as a moat, and it compounds slowly. Read it here.

A price is a claim your product has to back up

Pricing pages are small psychology experiments, anchoring, decoy tiers, the tactful "most popular" nudge, all designed to shape how expensive something feels. The tactics genuinely work, and any founder should understand them. But there is a limit: pricing psychology sets the expectation, and the product then has to prove it deserves it. Charge a premium and the experience had better justify it, or you simply train customers to feel fooled, and they leave. The cleverest pricing in the world is still just a claim about value, and it only holds if the value is real when the customer turns up to collect. Find out more here.

AI prompt of the week: the proof audit

Every business makes claims, we are reliable, our customers stay, our marketing works. This prompt pressure-tests one of yours and tells you whether you could actually prove it to a sceptic, be that a buyer, an investor, or your own finance director.

Act as a sceptical due-diligence analyst. I run a [business type] and I want to stress-test one claim I make about it: [the claim, for example "our revenue is durable and recurring"]. My context is [customer type, rough size, how long I have been trading, and any numbers I have].

Create:

A ranked list of the specific evidence a serious buyer, investor or CFO would expect to see before they believed this claim, from most to least persuasive.

An honest assessment of which of that evidence I probably already have, which I could gather, and which would be hard or embarrassing to produce.

The three weakest points in my claim that a sharp outsider would attack first, and the exact question they would ask.

A short, concrete plan to close the single biggest evidence gap over the next ninety days.

Base this on how experienced acquirers and investors actually test a business, they trust verifiable evidence over narrative, and they discount anything that rests on one person or one large customer. Be blunt where my proof is thin.

Framework: what a buyer is really testing when they dig in

This ties the whole thread together, because due diligence is proof of value turned into a process. The graphic below sets out six things a buyer is actually testing when they open your business up, and none of them is really about the paperwork. Earnings quality asks whether profits are sustainable or flattered by one-offs. Revenue durability asks whether customers stay. Operational resilience asks whether the company runs without heroics. Then come legal and contractual strength, financial discipline, and leadership depth, is there a capable team beneath the founder, or does everything sit with one person. As the graphic puts it, due diligence is not document collection, it is risk assessment. The businesses that sail through are the ones that were provably good long before anyone came looking.

Drop me a line

The best part of writing this is the replies, especially the ones that disagree. So tell me: what is one claim your business makes that you could prove tomorrow, and one you would struggle to? I read every reply, and the honest answers are always the most interesting.

Cheers!

Adam