Jevons paradox won’t save marketers
A 160-year-old paradox offers a better lens for what’s coming next
👋 Hey, I’m George Chasiotis. Welcome to GrowthWaves, your weekly dose of B2B growth insights—featuring powerful case studies, emerging trends, and unconventional strategies you won’t find anywhere else.
This note is brought to you by Minuttia.
Most companies have no idea how they appear in AI search results.
The team at Minuttia built a free AEO report that shows how your brand appears across AI platforms like ChatGPT and Perplexity, based on real prompts, citations, and sentiment data.
You’ll get:
A visibility score and share of voice
Breakdown by topic, platform, and sentiment
A shareable report with clear next steps
It takes 30 seconds to request. Minuttia’s team does the rest.
Get the report. See how visible you really are. Then fix what’s broken.
This is the first note for the new year.
And I want to kick off the new year with a question that’s on many people’s minds:
Will AI replace humans?
The answer is more nuanced than a simple yes or no.
I like to examine things through the prism of mental models, frameworks, and historical analogies.
In that context, I’ll attempt to answer the above question using a paradox that was introduced nearly two centuries ago.
What is the Jevons paradox?
In 1865, William Stanley Jevons described what later became known as a paradox.
He argued that improving the efficiency of steam engines would not reduce coal consumption in British factories; rather, it would increase it.
As coal became cheaper, demand would rise, encouraging the construction of more engines.
To break it down for you:
At a time of technological revolution—similar to what we’re experiencing now with AI—some, like Jevons, argued the opposite of what many feared.
And that was that the transition from steam engines to coal would improve productivity and benefit workers rather than make them obsolete.
Throughout history, there have been several technological jumps, such as the one that sparked the paradox:
The mechanization of textile production during the Industrial Revolution
The introduction of electricity into manufacturing
The rise of assembly-line production in the early twentieth century
The spread of computers and automation in offices and factories
And these are the most popular ones!
Believe it or not, even frozen food once raised fears of job losses in farming, food processing, and retail.
Here’s a quick overview of the story:
In the 1920s and 1930s, Clarence Birdseye pioneered modern flash-freezing techniques, making frozen food commercially viable at scale.
Critics and unions worried that frozen foods would eliminate jobs in fresh food markets, canneries, small farms, and local distribution networks.
There were also fears that centralized freezing and storage would concentrate power in large corporations and deskill food-related labor.
In practice, frozen food expanded food distribution, logistics, cold-storage infrastructure, and retail, creating new kinds of jobs even as some older roles declined.
What’s important is that this episode was discussed more as a labor and market disruption than as a paradox in the strict economic sense.
Unlike Jevons’s argument that efficiency increases total consumption, debates over frozen food have focused on displacement, centralization, and changing skill requirements.
Sounds familiar?
That’s because it is.
As the great Mark Twain once said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”
And we can certainly hear the rhyme in what’s happening with AI.
A history of breakthroughs and economic uncertainty
The thing is, what’s going on with AI isn’t new.
We’ve been here before.
From frozen food to coal and electricity, technology sparks breakthroughs, along with social unrest and economic uncertainty.
With hindsight, we can see that many of those fears were justified—but often didn’t materialize.
In fact, most of these breakthroughs led to higher productivity, lower costs, and expanded production—enabling things previously thought impossible.
Just like we have hindsight on past technological jumps, future generations will have it for our time with AI.
Will they be led to the same conclusions? I guess that remains to be seen.
The most critical question is:
Is AI the same, or are we talking about something entirely different here?
Something that might truly displace jobs and render hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people obsolete in the name of progress.
There are two camps here—well, actually three:
AI is here to write down names and take our jobs; it’s the worst thing that could happen to humanity. These are anti-AI fear-mongers who spread only negativity about AI and have a very specific agenda around it. Needless to say, I’m not in that camp.
AI is the most significant development in human history. It can solve all problems, from health to productivity to longevity, and will ultimately lead to a euphoric state of existence for most of us. I’m not exactly in that camp either.
AI is a great tool and one of the greatest innovations ever. It can benefit humanity tremendously, but it also entails risks. We need to ensure that its deployment is safe and always prioritizes human benefit. I’m in that camp.
I believe that AI can be a net positive for humanity.
That is, unless we become reckless and create a Frankenstein version of it that can cause more harm than good.
Philosophical introspection aside, let’s get to the heart of this piece—why you’re here in the first place.
Marketing and the Jevons paradox at play
Before continuing, I should note that I’ll focus primarily on marketing through the lens of B2B SaaS companies, as this is where my expertise lies.
With that out of the way, let’s continue.
I believe many marketers have been too comfortable for too long.
ChatGPT’s introduction over three years ago was just a wake-up call.
It sparked anxiety among the always-on-easy-mode marketers, but others saw it for what it truly was (and is):
A great tool for productivity, creativity, and experimentation.
Practically speaking, many core marketing outputs—drawing the parallel with Jevons’s paradox—were hit by a wrecking ball.
What do I mean by that? Let’s take a look at the following table:
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
The reality is that many core marketing models and methods have been fundamentally disrupted.
You may have noticed that I’m using the term output rather than outcome here.
That’s because much of marketing has long been—and still is—focused on outputs, not outcomes.
That presents a big challenge when AI outputs can be (for many marketing tasks and activities) better, faster, and cheaper compared to human outputs.
We didn’t anticipate this new competition for marketing outputs, we weren’t prepared for it, and we can’t easily fight against it.
So, what do you do when you can’t win ‘em? That’s right. You join ‘em.
Marketers need to shift from an us-versus-AI mindset to one that embraces a symbiotic relationship.
At the same time, they need to be more focused on outcomes rather than outputs.
Outputs were the first to be commoditized.
And that’s okay.
If Jevons’s paradox teaches us anything, it’s that the cost of outputs will keep falling.
Which means that everyone will be able to…
Write content
Conduct marketing research
Design and test hundreds of ad variations
Analyze their competitors
Build marketing apps (e.g., for lead generation)
It’s how you orchestrate these activities to move beyond commoditized outputs and toward real outcomes.
That’s where the right equation for marketers comes into play:
Marketers should use AI to create better, faster, cheaper outputs—when it makes sense. That way, they can focus more on delivering the right outcomes.
But if our response to all this upheaval is to produce sub-par outputs using AI—and equate ourselves with factory workers pushing buttons (no disrespect; I’ve done that job myself)—then you don’t need me to tell you the future won’t look bright for us.
Either way, the decision is ours to make.
And we’ll have to live with the consequences (whatever they may be).
Final thoughts
The Jevons paradox won’t save marketers.
At least not by itself.
And certainly not without our active participation and initiative.
Now more than ever, marketers need to reflect, reset their mindset, and make sure they benefit from AI, rather than fall victim to its rapid evolution.
Thank you for reading today’s note, and see you again in two weeks.