Why paying more doesn't mean getting more

Expensive masterminds are a curious phenomenon.

People shell out $10,000 to join groups that promise career-changing insights.

But why?

It's not about the content. It's not always about the network either.

The real appeal is more subtle: validation.

When you pay $10,000 to join a group, you're buying the belief that you belong with high achievers.

It's a psychological hack, a way to convince yourself you're on the right track.

But there's a problem with this approach.

It confuses price with value.

And it ignores a fundamental truth about professional growth: these masterminds should be about peer insights, but often fail because of poor curation and mismatched groups.

You've likely experienced the frustration: you're facing a complex career challenge, and you know you could benefit from outside perspectives.

But your options are limited.

You could join a pricey mastermind group and hope to connect with the right peers, but it's a gamble.

You might land in a well-curated group that truly gets your situation, or you might find yourself in a room of random professionals, struggling to find common ground.

In an ideal world, you'd be able to open your laptop and instantly connect with a thoughtfully selected group of peers who are navigating challenges similar to yours.

You'd have the same ease and specificity that you do when booking a mentor or a coach, but with the ongoing support and camaraderie of a group.

But that doesn't really exist today, does it?

The current options are either prohibitively expensive, poorly curated, or both.

And even if you do take the plunge, there's no guarantee you'll find the right fit.

It's too much left to chance, with your money and your valuable time on the line.

I've encountered numerous stories of disappointment in these high-priced groups.

One person paid $10K for a 'high-powered' mastermind, only to receive a lightweight PDF and instructions to self-organise.

Another joined a year-old group with established dynamics and members from entirely different domains.

What they actually needed was the total opposite of this experience.

Some faced constantly changing facilitators, leaving the group in a cycle of restarting and stalling.

Many have asked to leave, finding no alignment with other members.

These mismatches offer little value for specific work challenges, yet they happen more often than you'd think

That's $10K spent on just vibes, with people who aren't aligned with your specific needs.

The fragmented nature of the industry exacerbates these issues.

Different providers operate in isolation, with varying methods and standards.

There's no central approach to ensure consistent quality.

This leads to inefficient matching.

A head of design might find herself grouped with a real estate mogul and a non-profit director.

They're all successful, but are they facing similar challenges?

This question led me to experiment with a new approach to peer learning and masterminds.

The difficulties are obvious.

Knowledge is messy. People are complicated. Trust is hard to scale.

Historically this approach has been expensive to execute and scale.

So I’ve spent years studying how people actually learn from each other, watching hundreds of groups form, evolve, and sometimes fall apart.

Here's what I’ve learned:

1. Relevance beats prestige: A peer who just solved your problem is more valuable than a distant expert.

2. Diversity matters, but context is key: Product managers from different industries spark insights; random 'successful people' often don't.

3. Vulnerability builds trust: Sharing failures outperforms showcasing wins.

4. Frequency beats intensity: Regular, short interactions trump occasional day-long retreats.

5. The best facilitators are invisible: They create conditions for great conversations, then step back.

6. It doesn’t have to cost $10K. While the high price is often justified as a way to ensure commitment, I've found that with the right groups and environment, you can achieve the same level of commitment for 80% less.

These insights challenge conventional wisdom about professional development.

But the real challenge is applying them systematically at scale.

Can we build a system that consistently creates valuable connections between professionals?

I’m testing this idea with a platform that matches people based on their current challenges, not just job titles.

It encourages regular check-ins and sharing of both successes and setbacks.

And it’s built on all the learnings from the last few years of curating these groups manually.

From professional groups for peer learning to deeply curated design leadership dinners all over the world.

I don't know if it will work. But I believe it's a problem worth solving.

In September, I’m running a limited test with 200 participants and I’m looking for professionals who are frustrated with traditional development programs and excited by the potential of peer learning.

People like Tim, a UX Strategist, who said: "Three years in, and our Coho group of 6 is still going strong!"

If you're tired of advice that doesn't apply to your situation, want to advance your career without sacrificing your principles, and believe your peers' experiences are more valuable than an expert's opinion, this is for you.

But let's address the elephant in the room: exclusivity.

Because exclusivity is often the sell and it's how you get people in the door.

Once they're in, they should receive value.

But the combination of limited spots and high prices makes something so needed and valuable exclusive to most people who should be benefiting from it.

So, you might read that I’m running a test with 200 people and say, "Well, you're doing it cheaper, but it's still exclusive."

And you're right. Here's why:

We need this first group to open the doors for others.

Step by step, group by group, they will help us build a scalable system.

And the more people that join, the better the curation.

There might still be situations where we include some factors to ensure that groups are well-matched, which might mean that some people don't get in, even when it's more widely open and accessible.

We need to learn more about the dynamics and results first, and build from there.

Here's what you need to know:

• 12 weeks, starting September 15th

• You'll be matched with 5 peers at your exact career level

• $99 for the full program (this is a discounted beta price and will increase for future cohorts)

• Full refund if we don't hit 200 sign-ups by September 1st

• FAQ here

Risa, a Sr Product Designer at Netflix, found a close friend through Coho.

Chloe, a Data & AI leader, felt empowered to take her career progress into her own hands. You could be next.

Spots are limited, and I expect them to fill up quickly.

Don't miss this opportunity to be part of our first cohort and experience the power of peer-to-peer growth.

If you're ready to solve real problems with people who understand your daily realities, click the button below to sign up now.

My promise: if we don't hit 200 sign-ups by September 1st, you get your money back.

Simple.

Join and let's make peer learning work for you.

FAQ here.