Zerotrillion Interview Series: The Questions We’re Hearing in the C-Suite Right Now

A conversation between Aubrey Podolsky and Chantelle Brinkley .

1. Are we as an industry asking the wrong question when we talk about “brand vs. performance”?

The right use of language is pretty important here. There’s an argument that when you frame it as “brand vs. performance,” you’ve kinda already lost? Few executives are going to choose “brand” when you frame it as a zero-sum game.

We’ve been thinking about it more as demand generation vs. demand harvesting. One introduces, informs, and persuades. The other converts, reinforces, drives action. How do you think leaders ought to think about that balance?

Chantelle: That reframing is critical. Because what’s happened is people are comparing the worst version of brand, the navel-gazing, five-minute “purpose-washing” manifesto films, with the best era of performance, where data was clean and returns were easy.

That’s not reality anymore. Performance has been severely commoditized. Platforms like Meta and Google have leveled the playing field. You don’t win just by spending more or “optimizing harder.”

At the same time, we are seeing that a lot of brands (and agencies) seem to have over-rotated their teams toward performance-only skillsets. And now they’re a bit stuck, because they’ve engineered out some of the skills you need to make sure the right thing is being communicated. You need data, but you also need creativity in how you use the data to lay a foundation to create value for the people you are trying to connect with.

Aubrey: Exactly. The best “brand” has always been grounded in product truth.

Think about Apple (I know, I know, bear with me). Shot on iPhone is a brand campaign, but it’s fundamentally demonstrating product capability. Even their most iconic work had a job to do. It wasn’t just “we believe in this.”

That’s where brand needs to come back to, not expression for its own sake, but expression rooted in a legitimate advantage for the business.

Chantelle: And that’s the balance. It’s not either/or. It’s smart, experienced people, better data, thoughtful ecosystems, and clear go-to-market strategy working together.

2. How do you make decisions in an age where you can do anything?

AI has created this strange paradox. We now have the ability to analyze anything, at any time, from any angle. But we’re seeing kinda the opposite of clarity. It seems like teams are reopening decisions endlessly because they can. And it’s creating this massive inefficiency.

Chantelle: Yeah, honestly it seems that way. Data has become the answer, not an input. Everyone says, “we have all this data,” but they’re not really asking the real question:

What decisions are you making from it, and why? Because if you don’t have a point of view, data just leads to more questions.

Aubrey: So decisions get deferred, diluted, or never made.

Chantelle: And there’s a strange kind of safety in that? If no one makes the call, no one owns the outcome. But the irony is, you still get judged on results.

3. Have marketing teams overcorrected toward performance?

Chantelle: Completely. Over the past 5–7 years, teams have been rebuilt around performance because it felt safer, more measurable, easier to justify. But now we’re seeing the consequence: teams with a single skillset, solving increasingly complex problems.

And at the same time, AI and platform automation are taking over a lot of that execution layer. So the question becomes: Where is your edge now?

Aubrey: And that edge isn’t in the tools. It’s in judgment. It’s in knowing what to do, not just how to optimize what’s already happening.

Chantelle: Right. You still need data. You need modeling. You need performance. But without intuition, creativity… god, even good taste…, you’re just producing more of the same outputs as everyone else.

4. What about “test and learn” culture?

Aubrey: One thing I think we’ve both noticed is that there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what testing actually means. Companies say they want to “test and learn,” but they run these underpowered pilots. It’s like they spend the same time preparing them as a full campaign, but with none of the upside.

Chantelle: It’s risk aversion disguised as experimentation. Programs or campaigns, if you do a pilot, need to have sufficient scale to make a decision in a meaningful way.

Aubrey: Teach you something at scale.

5. Are companies overestimating the downside of bold marketing?

Chantelle: Massively. There’s this perception that if something doesn’t land perfectly, it’s catastrophic.

But the reality is: Most campaigns don’t break through, but they also don’t cause damage.

Aubrey: The real downside is usually just… nothingness?. More people saw your brand. It didn’t fully land. But it didn’t hurt you either. And yet people behave as if every decision carries existential risk.

Chantelle: Which leads to ultimately, no real growth.

6. So what actually works now?

Chantelle: Understand where the business is at and calibrate a balance. Same brand in two different parts of the cycle needs a different balance.

Not brand or performance. Not data or intuition. Not testing or conviction. All of it, working together, intentionally.

And truthfully it requires a different kind of partner. Not just execution. Not just campaigns. But teams that can come in, diagnose the problem, and solve for it with a real point of view.

Because the hardest part right now isn’t doing things. It’s knowing what’s actually worth doing.