u/Early-Application672

We have a private academy and public docs for our platform, but are curious about making it public as well.

It's been a very useful lead magnet + conversion tool for leads exploring what we do and I feel like there's a way to do it even better.

We work with a a number of partners who are auditing their help docs and exploring options with building new customer academies.

The idea is that you can both build a network of customers who use your app and have a community where people help each other, and provide more useful feedback.

It's quite a bit more work to manage at the start, but we've seen some work out very well.

These are all enterprise groups BTW.

Anyone else have experience with this?

Thoughts on this article?

This idea seems come up often as the core value and future of edtech. Personalized mentorship/tutoring at scale is supposed to be the solution to online content libraries and even traditional classrooms.

I like the idea of robots doing most of the annoying work in education and letting human educators focus more on connection and emotional support.

I work at a learning platform company. Over the past year, 247 training businesses moved to us from another tool or setup.

We went back through every deal to figure out why and audit each conversation we had with them + emails etc.

Interestingly, it wasn't price, AI related or any specific feature.

Most of the time, buyers said some version of: "we need everything in one place."

Most of them were running a course platform, a community tool like Discord, Zoom for live sessions, Copilot org plans and email/Slack to connect everything. Some had an LMS on top of that too.

They basically kept getting complaints from members and often felt like they couldn't charge high ticket because of the collection of tools.

Every time a member has to switch tools, some of them just gave up. Not an exaggeration, this is what most of them said happens.

The admin/operators we talked were tired of maintaining a stack too.

The people who came to us "one place" were easy to work with and stuck around. Anyone who came in with a feature checklist were harder to close and more likely to leave six months later.

We did more research on this at the end of 2025 and found similar points, but on the learner side.

Self-paced content spread across multiple tools is less effective and perceived as less valuable. It's mostly a friction problem and has less to do with motivation.

So before you rewrite your curriculum or rethink your pricing, count how many places your members have to log into. Realistically if it's anything more than 2, fixing that should be a priority.

I work at a learning platform company. Over the past year, 247 training businesses moved to us from another tool or setup.

We went back through every deal to figure out why and audit each conversation we had with them + emails etc.

Interestingly, it wasn't price, AI related or any specific feature.

Most of the time, buyers said some version of: "we need everything in one place."

Most of them were running a course platform, a community tool like Discord, Zoom for live sessions, Copilot org plans and email/Slack to connect everything. Some had an LMS on top of that too.

They basically kept getting complaints from members and often felt like they couldn't charge high ticket because of the collection of tools.

Every time a member has to switch tools, some of them just gave up. Not an exaggeration, this is what most of them said happens.

The admin/operators we talked were tired of maintaining a stack too.

The people who came to us "one place" were easy to work with and stuck around. Anyone who came in with a feature checklist were harder to close and more likely to leave six months later.

We did more research on this at the end of 2025 and found similar points, but on the learner side.

Self-paced content spread across multiple tools is less effective and perceived as less valuable. It's mostly a friction problem and has less to do with motivation.

So before you rewrite your curriculum or rethink your pricing, count how many places your members have to log into. Realistically if it's anything more than 2, fixing that should be a priority.

I had a conversation with some teachers about this who are very pro AI and mostly use stuff like Replit or Loveable to make games and turn this lessons into more interactive sites that students can use.

Some are super keen on it and love making mini AI websites and want to get their schools to cover the costs for stuff like this. But there's an outspoken other side who are very against.

I feel like it's pretty harmless and a good way to engage students in most cases, but am I missing anything?

IMO the other side of the argument just doesn't understand how these tools work and equate it with students using AI to cheat. But maybe I'm not getting their view.

I remember when chatgpt came out a few years ago, but since then schools went from 'ban AI in class' to 'AI literacy as a graduation requirement'.

Just had a unesco link (Artificial intelligence in education) circulate among a group of instructors and people are pretty split on it.

I'm sure AI can be useful for teachers and students, but is there a real playbook for this? Anyone have success stories? Or things to be cautious of?