I’ve spent decades delivering software training, and I’ve never seen disruption this fast—or this sharp.
- AI & on-demand learning: Tools like ChatGPT and YouTube can teach software skills instantly, anytime, anywhere.
- Vendor pushback: I recently received a lawyer letter from Articulate demanding I stop using the words “certification” or “certificate”—and to stop using their software logos, a practice common in our industry for decades.
- Vendor exclusivity: Articulate only partners with one U.S. training provider and won’t consider others.
- Vendors going direct: Adobe now delivers its own Captivate training, taking over a market that independent trainers used to serve.
These changes aren’t minor. They’ve pushed my revenue from certain software training offerings down to anemic levels—and I’m not alone.
So the question is: What’s next for live, instructor-led training?
The Numbers Behind the Shift
Decline in Traditional Training Providers
Chegg, once a staple in the academic and training world, saw a 30% drop in revenue and 31% fewer subscribers in 2025, leading to a 22% workforce reduction—largely due to students turning to AI-powered tools for learning (source).
Corporate Training Is Growing—but Not in the Same Ways
The corporate training market was valued at $164 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach $487 billion by 2031 (source). But how that money is spent is shifting:
- Only 35% of employers now use business schools for training.
- 57% use online learning providers.
- 51% use private training companies.
- Many are moving toward internal, on-demand content rather than external, live instruction (source).
AI’s Impact on Learning Models
The AI in Learning & Development market was valued at $9.3 billion in 2024 and is expected to hit $97 billion by 2034, with a 26% annual growth rate (source).
Meanwhile, 93% of U.S. businesses report using AI tools, but only about 50% of employees have been trained to use them effectively (source).
This mismatch raises an important question: if AI is replacing some training, who is ensuring workers get quality, context-specific instruction?
Why This Matters
Live, instructor-led training offers things AI can’t (at least not yet):
- Context tailored to the learner’s specific role and challenges
- Real-time feedback and the ability to troubleshoot unique issues
- Human connection that motivates and engages
If the market continues shifting toward vendor-controlled and AI-driven learning without room for independent, live training, we risk losing these benefits.
Closing Thought
This isn’t about resisting change—it’s about recognizing that some forms of learning are worth preserving. The challenge ahead is finding space for live instruction in a world that increasingly values speed, scale, and automation.
What do you see happening in your corner of the industry? Is live training still in demand, or are we watching the end of an era?