Data as the Ultimate Truth in Creative Decisions

Henry Ford, America’s first billionaire (I had no idea until writing this blog out he was the first), would invite potential hires to lunch and observe their behavior. If they salted their food before tasting it, he wouldn’t hire them. Why? Because Ford valued those who tested before making decisions.

Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Harvey Firestone, and naturalist John Burroughs, took annual camping trips between 1916 and 1924.

Ford’s philosophy about testing applies to creative work as well—something I learned as a video producer at Golden Hippo, an advertising agency. As a former video editor, I initially approached projects with an instinct-driven mindset: I’d watch a movie or get inspired by art, and that would inform my next creative editing choice. But I quickly learned that in advertising, instinct isn’t enough. The single most important lesson I took from my time at Golden Hippo is this: no one is right, and everyone has opinions, but data is the only thing that matters.

In the world of advertising, where creative teams are filled with passionate individuals brimming with ideas, disagreements are inevitable. To address this, we developed a key interview question for potential hires: What would you do if you wanted to make an edit to a creative, and the other person—whether it be the director or editor—disagreed?

The answer we were looking for wasn’t about asserting dominance or sticking to one’s opinion. Instead, we wanted candidates who could embrace a mindset focused on results over ego. The ideal response boiled down to three core principles:

1. It Doesn’t Matter Who’s Right

A strong creative isn’t about validating anyone’s opinion—it’s about crafting something that works. Candidates who understood this knew that their personal attachment to an idea was irrelevant. At the end of the day, it wasn’t their creative; it was just one piece in a library of creatives meant to generate insights. The ultimate goal was to “ship” the work, gather learnings, and optimize for better results.

2. Let the Data Speak

The best way to resolve creative disputes is to let the data decide. What does the data of similar creatives tell us? What insights can we draw from them? For example, if someone wanted to experiment with a different hook, the first question was always, “Why?” If the response was tied to performance—like improving thumb-stopper rates—it became part of the test plan.

We also operated with a balance: 75% of what works and 25% experimenting with ideas we thought might fail. Often, it was those “won’t work” ideas that surprised us and drove breakthroughs (though most of the money is made in the 75%).

3. Always Test

When disagreements couldn’t be resolved or someone felt strongly about their idea, the solution was simple: test both versions. Testing removes personal bias from the equation and allows performance data to guide the decision. If an editor wanted to try something I disagreed with, we’d test both versions. It didn’t cost us anything, and both of us got our way.

This focus on outcomes over ego created an environment where ideas were tested, refined, and improved—not stifled by hierarchy or opinion.

Margaret Hamilton stands next to a stack of program listings from the Apollo Guidance Computer in a photograph taken in 1969. She led the NASA Software Team That Landed Astronauts on the Moon. (Go Blue)

Outcomes, Not Output

At the core of this philosophy is a profound understanding: success isn’t about the volume of work—it’s about the impact of the work. My mentor, Chris Do, used to remind me of this constantly: “It doesn’t matter if you make 100 videos and they get 2 views. But if you make one video in a month, and it gets 10 million views, you’ve won.” Outcomes, not output, are what drive success.

Brad Ziegler, a master of the submarine pitching style, known for his exceptional ground-ball rate and effectiveness in run prevention during his MLB career.