Steve Potash's 37-Page Masterclass in Corporate Bullshit

The Testimony: 37 Pages of Misdirection

Steve Potash, CEO of OverDrive, submitted 55 pages of testimony to the DC Council opposing the Library E-book Pricing Fairness Act. It's thorough: appendices, charts, Shark Tank references, sports trivia. It reads like evidence.

I spent 90 minutes working through it. An AI took four seconds to identify the core pattern: selective data, emotional reframing, and fear-based speculation with no evidentiary support.

This matters beyond DC. This is the blueprint every vendor uses when they need to kill legislation. Understanding the tactics here teaches you how to evaluate their arguments and how to help your board see through them.

Why This Matters: AI as a Vendor Evaluation Tool

You don't need to spend 90 minutes parsing vendor testimony. Upload the document. Ask the right question.

You get the core misdirection, the missing context, and what the author buried, all in seconds instead of hours.

This is why AI literacy matters for your library. Not for creative writing. Not for fun. For cutting through corporate manipulation.

Tactic 1: Emotional Reframing

The bill is called the "Library E-book Pricing Fairness Act." Potash calls it a "Book Banning bill." He even puts the logic in a footnote: the bill doesn't deserve capital B status.

He weaponized the most emotionally loaded phrase in library culture to describe a pricing bill. This works because "book banning" triggers a visceral response. The actual policy details get lost in the emotional reaction.

Tactic 2: Selective Data Presentation

Potash highlights DCPL's cost per circulation dropping from $4.75 to $0.85 over 16 years, figures he presents in his testimony. He bolds it. Emphasizes it. Frames it as proof the system works.

But his own numbers show total ebook spending went from $120,000 (2010) to $1.6 million (2025). The cost per circulation only dropped because usage exploded, which is the entire reason this bill exists.

He's showing you the problem and calling it the solution.

Also missing: what OverDrive takes from each $0.85 transaction. His company is the middleman on every sale, but this never gets disclosed.

Tactic 3: Fear Without Evidence

When data runs out, fear takes over. Potash's testimony predicts: eighty percent of bestsellers will vanish, patrons will abandon libraries, foreign publishers will flee, anti-DEI amendments will get attached, innovation will die.

None of these predictions have supporting evidence. No studies. No citations. No data. Just catastrophic scenarios presented as if they're inevitable consequences.

When you run this, you get page after page of: no supporting evidence. This is fear-based argumentation. It works because emotional arousal shuts down critical evaluation.

The Valid Points (Yes, There Are Some)

Potash has a few defensible arguments buried in the 55 pages: international publisher coordination is complex, Connecticut's experience with similar legislation is relevant, and the student reading data is solid.

Good analysis means acknowledging the legitimate points, not dunking on everything.

What's Actually At Stake?

Use this prompt to cut to the actual argument:

When you strip away the rhetorical flourishes, the fear-mongering, and the selective data, you often find there isn't much there.

More Prompts for Deeper Analysis

Once you've identified the basic tactics, dig deeper:

For Your Board Meeting

You've dealt with this before. A vendor sends a "partnership opportunity" email. Someone publishes a "research report" showing their product solves everything. A consultant drops a deck on your desk.

You evaluate all of it using skills you've been building for years: critical thinking, spotting bias, weighing evidence, checking sources.

AI doesn't replace that judgment. It just lets you do it faster.

Instead of spending 90 minutes reading a 55-page testimony and leaving confused, upload it and get the key findings in seconds. Then apply the critical thinking where it matters most.