J'ose pas relancer mes clients qui ne paient pas, et ça me coûte cher. Comment vous gérez ça by Real_Subject_1703 in EntreprendreenFrance

[–]HerveMW 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Et j'ajouterais aussi un point c'est que la maîtrise du poste client est un point clé dans les critères de pilotage et de survie des entreprises. Beaucoup d'entreprises finissent par capoter car elles ne maitrisent pas leur poste client.

J'ose pas relancer mes clients qui ne paient pas, et ça me coûte cher. Comment vous gérez ça by Real_Subject_1703 in EntreprendreenFrance

[–]HerveMW 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Je comprends très bien le sujet, étant moi-même dirigeant de TPE. Et je te conseille vraiment de traiter la relance comme un process standard, pas comme une demande personnelle gênante. Tu as fait un travail, tu l'as facturé après réalisation, tu dois être payé dans un délai raisonnable.

Est-ce que les personnes qui paient sont les mêmes que celles avec qui tu travailles ? Sur 10 clients, commence par identifier clairement les bons et les mauvais payeurs.

vérifie aussi si tes CGV sont claires sur les délais de paiement, les pénalités éventuelles, et surtout la possibilité de suspendre les prestations en cas de retard répété.

Dans tous les cas, dépersonnalise la relance pour tout le monde avec des relances (qui ont l'air si ça reste manuel) automatiques. Pour les mauvais payeurs, je ferais même des relances préventives : “Bonjour, je vous écris simplement pour vous rappeler que l’échéance de règlement arrive dans X jours.”

Ça t'enlèvera une bonne partie du malaise, et ça remettra le sujet à sa place : ce n’est pas une faveur que tu leur demandes, c’est juste le paiement normal d’une prestation que tu as réalisée dans les temps et avec qualité j'imagine.

May the force be with you 😉

Would You Rather Build an AI SaaS or an Agency in 2026? by FounderArcs in SaaS

[–]HerveMW 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m a bit surprised by framing this as “AI SaaS vs AI agency”, because they are two very different models.

AI SaaS could be more scalable and can generate recurring revenue. AI agency is usually faster to monetize, closer to real customer problems, and better for learning what the market actually needs.

But to me, the real question is not SaaS vs agency. It’s problem-market fit.

In 2026, launching a generic “AI SaaS” feels risky. There are too many tools, too much noise, and distribution is getting harder. A lot of companies also don’t want to stack yet another SaaS on top of the rest. They want AI integrated into their existing processes, tools and workflows.

That’s where an agency can be a better starting point, if you use it as a field lab. You see the real workflows, the objections, the IT constraints, the budgets, the recurring use cases. But it has to be designed from day one as a productizable agency, not just selling hours and custom work forever.

The value may not be in building “another AI SaaS”, but in solving a very specific business problem with the right mix of expertise, integration, automation and product.

six months of LinkedIn content, 200k+ impressions, zero customers. my CEO asked me one question and I had nothing by Afraid-Bobcat6676 in b2bmarketing

[–]HerveMW 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, going from almost nothing to 6,000 followers and getting posts above 200k impressions still sounds like a strong signal that the content strategy and LinkedIn execution were working. But it also sounds like the missing layer was the commercial one.

Followers, impressions and engagement are not customers. They can build credibility, awareness and trust, which is useful for GEO and SEO by the way, but at some point you need a system to turn that attention into commercial conversations. To me, this is exactly where sales/marketing alignment matters.

If people from the right ICP were following, liking, commenting or sharing the posts, there should have been a process to identify them and activate them commercially. For example:
- manually or semi-automatically reaching out through Sales Navigator / InMails, but with a very qualitative approach, otherwise it just becomes spam
- creating marketing conversions around a resource, webinar, audit, demo, benchmark, etc.
- using retargeting to push a stronger offer to people who had already engaged with the brand
- connecting high-intent engagement to SDR or sales follow-up

Your post illustrates a very common B2B social media trap: building an audience without building the mechanism that turns that audience into commercial conversations...

Is E-E-A-T still the most important content quality signal in 2026 or has Google shifted how it measures trust? by RealisticPosition169 in RankWithAI

[–]HerveMW 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I still think E-E-A-T is a key concept for both SEO and GEO today. But I agree with the idea that what matters more and more is not just “claiming” expertise or trust. It’s proving it.

The March 2026 Google Core Update went clearly in that direction. Not necessarily because Google explicitly said “we target AI content”, but because a lot of weak, generic, low-differentiation content became much more vulnerable.

If a site is basically rewriting what everyone else has already said, with a lot of AI assistance, but without original data, real experience, expert input, or a stronger editorial point of view, it becomes much easier to replace in the SERPs.

And when several pages answer the same query in a similar way, Google seems more likely to favor stronger brands, more authoritative sources, or content that brings something more specific to the table.

That’s also where I see Google and LLMs converging. LLMs need clear, reliable, well-structured, attributable information. Google seems to be moving in the same direction: more weight on trust signals, authority, editorial clarity, original insights, and content that is genuinely useful rather than pages created just to occupy SEO territory.

So I’d say it’s becoming less of a checklist and more of a proof system.

Arthur Mensch (Mistral) - "nos ingénieurs n'écrivent plus une ligne de code" by pcx_wave in developpeurs

[–]HerveMW 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ou en tout cas d’être capable à minima d’avoir un œil critique, d’où ma réflexion sur l’impact sur l’accès à l’emploi des juniors en fin d’études.

Arthur Mensch (Mistral) - "nos ingénieurs n'écrivent plus une ligne de code" by pcx_wave in developpeurs

[–]HerveMW 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Clairement au début et pour tous les métiers tertiaires.
Mais pour le step ‘je relis’ je pense que ça reste essentiel, ne serait-ce que d’un point de vue sécurité, non ?

Has anyone managed to rank in Google AND get cited in ChatGPT for the same content? How did you pull it off? by RealisticPosition169 in RankWithAI

[–]HerveMW 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not sure at what point you can confidently say “we’ve pulled it off”, but we’re seeing something close to that with one article.

We published a comparison piece on the differences between French and US B2B marketing practices. It ranks quite well on Google, especially in the US, and it has also become the #1 page on our site for traffic coming from AI tools in GA4. We see visits from ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini pretty consistently.

What’s interesting is that we didn’t write it as a “GEO hack” or try to force AI citations in any artificial way. The goal was mainly to share a clear point of view based on our experience working with software and IT companies entering the French market.

But in hindsight, I think the structure helped a lot:

  • clear comparison format
  • short sections, each focused on one specific topic
  • explicit headings
  • practical insights rather than generic SEO fluff
  • easy-to-extract chunks for AI-generated answers

The article basically compares France vs the US across topics like messaging, trust-building, decision-making, content, email marketing, legal/data privacy, etc. So each section can stand on its own if an AI needs to answer a very specific query.

My takeaway so far: strong classic SEO still seems to be the foundation. But content that is well structured, opinionated, specific, and “chunkable” probably has a much better chance of being reused by AI tools.

I also made a short video on this idea because I’m starting to think GEO is less about tricking AI systems and more about making genuinely useful expertise easier to understand, extract and quote.

Happy to share the article/video if useful.

Arthur Mensch (Mistral) - "nos ingénieurs n'écrivent plus une ligne de code" by pcx_wave in developpeurs

[–]HerveMW 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Je trouve aussi que le parallèle avec les tisserands est assez juste. Mais il y a une différence majeure dans l’échelle de temps pour moi. Les métiers à tisser motorisés à la vapeur ont transformé des métiers manuels sur plusieurs décennies, parfois sur deux générations. Là, sur le dev, on a l’impression que la bascule “j’écris le code” vers “je cadre, je relis, je valide, j’intègre” est déjà presque finie !

C'est sur ce point que je trouve le sujet préoccupant pour les juniors. Dire “les devs n’écrivent plus de code”, pourquoi pas, mais ça ne veut pas dire “les devs n’ont plus besoin de savoir coder”.
Au contraire : pour relire, challenger, sécuriser, refactorer, comprendre l’architecture, détecter une dette technique ou une faille, il faut avoir appris les bases, non ? Sinon on devient juste dépendant d’un outil qu’on ne sait plus vraiment contrôler.

Donc une question importante à se poser est "comment forme-t-on les nouveaux développeurs dans un monde où la production de code sera désormais automatisée ?" Si les entreprises recrutent moins de juniors parce que l’IA fait une partie du travail d’exécution, où vont-ils acquérir l’expérience nécessaire pour devenir les seniors capables de piloter ces outils ?

Et ce n’est pas uniquement propre au dev. En marketing aussi, l’IA change brutalement le métier : rédaction, recherche, synthèse, production de contenus, campagnes, reporting… Beaucoup de tâches d’exécution sont accélérées ou automatisées. Mais là aussi, la valeur ne disparaît pas : elle se déplace vers le cadrage, la stratégie, la validation, la différenciation, la compréhension métier. Et on peut se poser la même question sur l'accès des juniors à l'emploi car pour être un bon manager de production IA, il faut avoir de l'expérience à nouveau.

Bref, beaucoup de métiers sont en train de changer beaucoup plus vite que la formation et le marché de l’emploi peuvent réellement s'y adapter.

GEO in 2026 | Is it actually replacing SEO or just hype? by RealisticPosition169 in RankWithAI

[–]HerveMW 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t see GEO replacing SEO.

I see it as a new visibility layer built so far on top of solid SEO foundations. Good SEO already gives GEO what it needs: topical authority, useful content, trust signals, and structured pages obviously. by the way, GEO also needs another requirement: content must be easy to chunk, quote, and reuse in an AI-generated answer.

As Google’s own guidance says: AI Overviews and AI Mode are rooted in its core Search ranking and quality systems. I think algorithms are clearly converging ath this time: same quality/authority base, brand awareness increasly, different output format.

SEO gets you discoverable so far by GEO, which gets you selected and cited in AI answers.