• LinkedIn
• Twitter
• Instagram
• YouTube
• RSS Feed

Apple •Spotify• Pocket Casts •Youtube •Overcast •RSS

What’s up everyone, today we have the pleasure of sitting down with Joshua Kanter, Co-Founder & Chief Data & Analytics Officer at ConvertML.

Summary: Joshua spent the earliest parts of his career buried in SQL, only to watch companies hand out dashboards and call it strategy. Teams skim charts to confirm hunches while ignoring what the data actually says. He believes access means nothing without translation. You need people who can turn vague business prompts into clear, interpretable answers. He built ConvertML to guide those decisions. GenAI only raises the stakes. Without structure and fluency, it becomes easier to sound confident and still be completely wrong. That risk scales fast.

In this Episode…

• Data Democratization Is Breaking More Than It’s Fixing
• How Confirmation Bias Corrupts Marketing Decisions at Scale
• You’re Thinking About Statistical Significance Completely Wrong
• Why B2B Marketing Tests Should Be Loud
• Why CMOs Who Speak Statistics Are the Ones Redefining the Role
• How to Write Better Prompts for Data Analysis with GenAI
• Redesigning Marketing Teams for a GenAI World
• How to Future Proof Your Martech Career Without Burning Out

About Joshua

Joshua started in data analytics at First Manhattan Consulting, then co-founded two ventures; Mindswift, focused on marketing experimentation, and Novantas, a consulting firm for financial services. From there, he rose to Associate Principal at McKinsey, where he helped companies make real decisions with messy data and imperfect information. Then he crossed into operating roles, leading marketing at Caesars Entertainment as SVP of Marketing, where budgets were wild.

After Caesars, he became a 3-time CMO (basically 4-time); at PetSmart, International Cruise & Excursions, and Encora. Each time walking into a different industry with new problems. He now co-leads ConvertML, where he’s focused on making machine learning and measurement actually usable for the people in the trenches.

Data Democratization Is Breaking More Than It’s Fixing

Data democratization has become one of those phrases people repeat without thinking. It shows up in mission statements and vendor decks, pitched like some moral imperative. Give everyone access to data, the story goes, and decision-making will become magically enlightened. But Joshua has seen what actually happens when this ideal collides with reality: chaos, confusion, and a lot of people confidently misreading the same spreadsheet in five different ways.

Joshua isn’t your typical out of the weeds CMO, he’s lived in the guts of enterprise data for 25 years. His first job out of college was grinding SQL for 16 hours a day. He’s been inside consulting rooms, behind marketing dashboards, and at the head of data science teams. Over and over, he’s seen the same pattern: leaders throwing raw dashboards at people who have no training in how to interpret them, then wondering why decisions keep going sideways.

There are several unspoken assumptions built into the data democratization pitch. People assume the data is clean. That it’s structured in a meaningful way. That it answers the right questions. Most importantly, they assume people can actually read it. Not just glance at a chart and nod along, but dig into the nuance, understand the context, question what’s missing, and resist the temptation to cherry-pick for whatever narrative they already had in mind.

“People bring their own hypotheses and they’re just looking for the data to confirm what they already believe.”

Joshua has watched this play out inside Fortune 500 boardrooms and small startup teams alike. People interpret the same report with totally different takeaways. Sometimes they miss what’s obvious. Other times they read too far into something that doesn’t mean anything. They rarely stop to ask what data is not present or whether it even makes sense to draw a conclusion at all.

Giving everyone access to data is great and all… but only works when people have the skills to use it responsibly. That means more than teaching Excel shortcut keys. It requires real investment in data literacy, mentorship from technical leads, and repeated, structured practice. Otherwise, what you end up with is a very expensive system that quietly fuels bias and bad decisions and just work for the sake of work.

Key takeaway: Widespread access to dashboards does not make your company data-informed. People need to know how to interpret what they see, challenge their assumptions, and recognize when data is incomplete or misleading. Before scaling access, invest in skills. Make data literacy a requirement. That way you can prevent costly misreads and costly data-driven decision-making.

Back to the top ⬆️

How Confirmation Bias Corrupts Marketing Decisions at Scale

Executives love to say they are “data-driven.” What they usually mean is “data-selective.” Joshua has seen the same story on repeat. Someone asks for a report. They already have an answer in mind. They skim the results, cherry-pick what supports their view, and ignore everything else. It is not just sloppy thinking. It’s organizational malpractice that scales fast when left unchecked.

To prevent that, someone needs to sit between business questions and raw data. Joshua calls for trained data translators; people who know how to turn vague executive prompts into structured queries. These translators understand the data architecture, the metrics that matter, and the business logic beneath the request. They return with a real answer, not just a number in bold font, but a sentence that says: “Here’s what we found. Here’s what the data does not cover. Here’s the confidence range. Here’s the nuance.”

“You want someone who can say, ‘The data supports this conclusion, but only under these conditions.’ That’s what makes the difference.”

Joshua has dealt with both extremes. There are instinct-heavy leaders who just want validation. There are also data purists who cannot move until the spreadsheet glows with statistical significance. At a $7 billion retailer, he once saw a merchandising exec demand 9,000 survey responses; just so he could slice and dice every subgroup imaginable later. That was not rigor. It was decision paralysis wearing a lab coat.

The answer is to build maturity around data use. That means investing in operators who can navigate ambiguity, reason through incomplete information, and explain caveats clearly. Data has power, but only when paired with skill. You need fluency, not dashboards. You need interpretation and above all, you need to train teams to ask better questions before they start fishing for answers.

Key takeaway: Every marketing org needs a data translation layer; real humans who understand the business problem, the structure of the data, and how to bridge the two with integrity. That way you can protect against confirmation bias, bring discipline to decision-making, and stop wasting time on reports that just echo someone’s hunch. Build that capability into your operations. It is the only way to scale sound judgment.

Back to the top ⬆️

You’re Thinking About Statistical Significance Completely Wrong

Too many marketers treat statistical significance like a ritual. Hit the 95 percent confidence threshold and it’s seen as divine truth. Miss it, and the whole test gets tossed in the trash. Joshua has zero patience for that kind of checkbox math. It turns experimentation into a binary trap, where nuance gets crushed under false certainty and anything under 0.05 is labeled a failure. That mindset is lazy, expensive, and wildly limiting.

95% statistical significance does not mean your result matters. It just means your result is probably not random, assuming your test is designed well and your assumptions hold up. Even then, you can be wrong 1 out of every 20 times, which no one seems to talk about in those Monday growth meetings. Joshua’s real concern is how this thinking cuts off all the good stuff that lives in the grey zone; tests that come in at 90 percent confidence, show a consistent directional lift, and still get ignored because someone only trusts green checkmarks.

“People believe that if it doesn’t hit statistical significance, the result isn’t meaningful. That’s false. And dangerously limiting.”

The real world does not care about your p-value. You are not publishing in a medical journal. You are trying to sell things, influence behavior, or optimize performance. There is room for educated bets. Joshua breaks it down cleanly. There are three levers behind statistical significance:

1. Effect size. A massive lift makes it easy to prove significance.
2. Sample size. A huge dataset makes even tiny changes look “real.”
3. Alpha level. You can lower the bar to make it easier to pass, which is basically just cheating with math.

Most teams only understand the first one. They wait around for big flashy differences, then celebrate if the p-value lands right. What they miss is the subtle stuff; the repeatable small wins that add up over time but never get rolled out because the sample wasn’t big enough or someone panicked about a 93 percent confidence score. Joshua once worked with a merchandising lead who commissioned surveys with 9,000 respondents just so he could slice and dice every little segment. That is what happens when you let statistical anxiety run the show.

The smarter move is to stop chasing thresholds and start pairing statistical fluency with business judgment. Ask better questions. Know when a directional result is enough to act. Treat testing like an ongoing practice, not a single verdict. You can build muscle around this, but only if your team stops using significance as a permission slip.

Key takeaway: Statistical significance does not determine the value of a test. Directional results, repeatable patterns, and aligned business context can justify action long before you hit 95 percent confidence. Train your team to think probabilistically, weigh the cost of delay, and make decisions with imperfect information. That way you can move faster, test more effectively, and stop waiting for the data to write the strategy for you.

Back to the top ⬆️

Why B2B Marketing Tests Should Be Loud

B2B marketing tests fall flat when the ideas behind them are timid. Joshua learned this the hard way after years of shifting from high-volume, high-speed B2C environments into the slow, precision fire of B2B. The structural difference is not subtle. In B2C, you can split-test an offer across 500,000 people before lunch. In B2B, your whole reachable audience might be 10,000 CIOs worldwide and that is before factoring in budget cycles, internal politics, and the fact that you only get one shot before you’re filtered into “spam” or “not relevant.”

This lack of scale means subtle changes rarely teach you anything. Minor adjustments to subject lines or banner colors do not clear the statistical fog. You end up running tests that look like progress but leave you guessing. Joshua’s advice is simple and uncomfortable: swing bigger. Test bold creative moves. Build campaigns with radically different messages, formats, or value props. Treat every test like it has to generate a result loud enough to rise above the noise floor of a tiny dataset.

“You can only measure real difference when the strategies are meaningfully different. Subtle changes just evaporate in the variance.”

Of course, that only works if you operationalize it properly. Joshua suggests anchoring your tests around three key business metrics. These should not be vanity KPIs. Pick things like deal acceleration, opportunity creation, or qualified lead velocity; signals that matter when the dust settles. Then, instead of chasing quick feedback loops, let those metrics ride over longer time horizons. You are not optimizing for the next click. You are trying to move something that takes weeks or months to reveal itself. That requires patience and rigor, not dashboards and dopamine.

He also points out that complex experiments require trained people to run them. You can use fractional factorials, multivariate methods, and simulation tools to stretch your data further, but this is not something you assign to your generalist growth marketer and expect clean results. These are advanced methods. Use them if you have the muscle. If you do not, simplify the test design and focus on creative breadth instead of statistical gymnastics.

Key takeaway: B2B testing fails when teams optimize for micro changes instead of building tests worth learning from. Bold ideas create detectable outcomes. Subtle ones waste time. Anchor your experimentation around business-critical metrics, stretch the time horizon, and focus on making your creative differences meaningful. That way you can generate signal in a low-sample world and stop pretending that minor tweaks are moving the business forward.

Back to the top ⬆️

Why CMOs Who Speak Statistics Are the Ones Redefining the Role

The idea that CMOs don’t “get” data has calcified into industry folklore. Joshua doesn’t buy it. He has led marketing at billion-dollar companies, spent years buried in SQL, and now co-founded a data startup. He sees the role differently. Brand still matters. Storytelling still moves markets. But if a CMO today can’t have a real conversation about experimentation design, confidence intervals, and statistical methods, they are handing over the sharpest tools in the drawer to someone else.

Joshua doesn’t posture about being technical. He just is. He has always leaned toward the performance side of marketing—two-thirds by his own estimate—but he invested years refining his brand chops too. That duality gave him an edge in both B2C and B2B environments. In his words, the strategic marketer today needs fluency across both: a deep feel for narrative and a sharp grip on how to measure if the damn thing worked.

“Marketing gives you reach and access, but it also creates data. The combination is the real value.”

This mindset is what led Joshua to co-found ConvertML. He didn’t want to build another BI tool. He wanted to solve a very specific problem. Business teams are being handed data, but they lack access to real statistical reasoning. Most dashboards show rows of outputs with no interpretation. You either need a $300,000 data scientist to explain the difference between correlation and causation, or you’re left guessing. ConvertML builds guardrails around that gap.

They trained generative AI to recognize which statistical methods apply based on the data’s structure. It selects the appropriate approach, runs the analysis, and then generates a readout that includes not just the result, but the meaning behind it. That way, someone without a PhD can make decisions that would normally require one. The goal is simple. You get safe, reliable, directional guidance that helps you act. And you don’t have to pretend to be a statistician just to use your own data.

Key takeaway: CMOs who master data fluency will outpace their peers who treat analytics like someone else’s job. You do not need to become a statistician. You do need to understand the language of testing, measurement, and probability. Equip your team with tools that translate complex analysis into actionable context. That way you can drive strategy from the front seat instead of reacting to whatever the dashboard spits out.

Back to the top ⬆️

How to Write Better Prompts for Data Analysis with GenAI

English is a mess. It’s vague, full of implied context, and built for conversation, not computation. So when marketers toss a half-baked question like “How’s my business doing?” into a GenAI interface and expect a usable SQL query or a smart analysis in return, they are setting themselves up for disappointment. That prompt carries zero structure, no scope, no timeline, no metric, and no logic. It’s noise.

Joshua explains the tension clearly. SQL stands for Structured Query Language, and the keyword is structured. English lacks that structure, and GenAI doesn’t fill in the blanks unless you explicitly tell it how. Joshua’s analogy lands hard: generative AI behaves like “an extremely eager but totally inexperienced new hire.” It will generate anything you ask, all night if needed, but it has no clue if it’s useful. If you want meaningful results, you need to teach it like you would a junior analyst.

“People assume the machine knows what they meant. It doesn’t. You have to do the thinking before the prompt gets written.”

At ConvertML, Joshua’s team hardwires structure into the system. Their framework uses repeatable statistical operations that plug into templated prompts designed to handle messy data and guide interpretation. Think of it as a 12-step analytical gauntlet where the early steps run cleanly on automation. Then, when nuance shows up (like identifying patterns, naming segments, or interpreting results) they layer in prompt scaffolding to get reliable outputs from generative AI. That’s the real craft here: pairing the math with the language in a way the model can follow without hallucinating.

Regular users can still build decent prompts, but not by winging it. A good data prompt must include:

• The source and structure of the data (table, schema, or survey set)
• The specific question being asked (not a vague theme)
• Any known exclusions or filters
• Expected output format (table, chart, summary, etc.)
• Assumptions about nulls, outliers, or missing fields

This is not light work. Most users never learned how to do this well. That’s why tools like ConvertML exist. They handle the heavy lifting under the hood so business teams can ask better questions without breaking everything.

Key takeaway: Writing an effective GenAI prompt for data work requires more rigor than most people expect. You need to inject structure into your language, define your expectations clearly, and think like an analyst before you hit enter. Treat generative AI like a junior hire with infinite energy and zero experience. That way you can give it the right guardrails to produce outputs that are usable, trustworthy, and actually worth something.

Back to the top ⬆️

Redesigning Marketing Teams for a GenAI World

Generative AI is a wrecking ball aimed at how work gets done. Joshua makes the uncomfortable point that most orgs are clinging to team structures and operational charts built for a pre-AI world, then layering ChatGPT on top like it’s a smart assistant. That thinking guarantees mediocrity.

Most businesses have duct-taped their processes around historical limitations; how long things take, how many people are needed, where bottlenecks form. Once GenAI drops task time from three weeks to ninety minutes and cuts five-person workstreams to one, the scaffolding collapses. The workflows, org design, and data plumbing all need to be reimagined. And not just incrementally. This is structural.

“You don’t just hand someone ChatGPT and expect transformation. You rethink the entire end-to-end process and decide where GenAI makes it better, faster, safer, and cheaper.”

Joshua is skeptical of the generalist vs. specialist binary. Some roles will become deeply technical, covering new ground like hallucination prevention, prompt injection defense, and applied AI ethics. Other roles will broaden, with GenAI making it possible to connect dots across strategy, data, and creative without needing five different specialists in the room. What matters is sequencing: define the work, build the systems, then staff against the new world.

Most teams skip that sequence. They get stuck asking whether they need a centralized analytics team or embedded specialists before deciding what kind of work even needs to happen. That’s a backward question. First, rebuild the process. Then hire for it.

Key takeaway: If you want GenAI to materially impact your marketing org, stop tinkering with team structure and start redesigning how the work gets done. Begin by mapping your current processes and asking what GenAI can replace or accelerate. Add new roles to handle emerging risks. Remove roles built around outdated constraints. Build your team to serve the new process, not the old one. That way you can turn GenAI from a novelty into durable operating leverage.

Back to the top ⬆️

Why Generative AI Is Forcing a Career Reckoning in Marketing Ops

GenAI is triggering a quiet identity crisis inside marketing ops. On the surface, there’s curiosity and experimentation. People are playing with tools, testing use cases, and hitting Slack threads with half-serious jokes about replacing themselves. Underneath that play is something sharper. Anxiety. Displacement. The creeping sense that in five years, maybe sooner, a lot of roles might not make it.

Joshua doesn’t downplay it. He calls it what it is: terrifying. Not in a sci-fi doomsday way, but in the “real humans with real jobs might get pushed out of the system” kind of way. The potential for companies to cut 50 percent of their workforce by plugging GenAI into core workflows is not fiction. It is being scoped, piloted, and quietly budgeted. The reduction is real. The math already works.

“You still need thoughtful humans to guide and interpret and validate what is happening in the system.”

This isn’t a story about doom. It is about velocity. The people who engage early, who treat this shift like a second career and not just another skill, will have leverage. Everyone else will feel the floor shifting under them. There is no gentle, optional version of this transition. The tools are too fast, the efficiency gains are too obvious, and the demand for judgment (actual human discernment) is only growing.

The hard truth is that the divide will grow between those adapting in motion and those waiting for direction. First movers will build new workflows, rewrite job descriptions, and create the roles everyone else applies to in two years. Late movers will inherit tools they did not shape and decisions they did not influence. In a market this volatile, optionality shrinks quickly.

Key takeaway: The people who will thrive in the next wave of marketing ops are already treating GenAI fluency as core to their role. They are not waiting for company policy or job titles to catch up. They are learning, applying, and building with real systems. That way they can shape how GenAI fits their work, rather than letting someone else decide. If you want relevance in five years, start acting like the next version of your job is already here.

Back to the top ⬆️

How to Future Proof Your Martech Career Without Burning Out

Feeling overwhelmed in martech is not new, but the GenAI wave has turned that tension into panic for many early- and mid-career operators. Every week, some shiny tool threatens to make your skills obsolete. So what would Joshua do differently if he were five or ten years into his data career today?

He would start by developing curiosity like a personal discipline. Not chasing hype. Not chasing titles. Just building up a habit of learning things that matter. When Joshua got his first consulting gig, he knew math but not business. So he made himself read American Banker every morning. He admits it was boring. Dry as dust. But it helped him start building a mental map of how the systems around him worked.

“Give yourself a diet of something that maybe isn’t that interesting, but feels relevant. Then go down a few rabbit holes and see where it takes you.”

Joshua isn’t suggesting anyone become an AI expert overnight. Instead, pick one or two terms you keep hearing: maybe “RAG” or “embedding” or “fine-tuning” and set a deadline to understand them. Then chase the adjacent topics. Then chase the human voices behind them. Curiosity compounds faster than credentials ever will.

He also brings a parenting lens to it. His son just finished sophomore year of college and feels like he needs his whole future mapped out. Joshua tells him the same thing he’d tell any operator right now: relax your grip. College is for discovering what lights you up. So is the first decade of a martech career. The tools, trends, and titles will change. The ability to stay curious and find what excites you is what actually builds a durable career.

Key takeaway: If you’re 5-10 years into your martech career and feel lost, don’t sprint toward technical mastery or stack generic AI certifications. Build a habit of chasing topics that feel just outside your comfort zone. Pick a few, give yourself a time-bound goal, and follow what energizes you. That way you can grow a durable edge in a space where yesterday’s playbook won’t save you tomorrow. Curiosity scales better than any resume.

Back to the top ⬆️

How to Stay Sane and Motivated in a Career That Never Stops Moving

Happiness gets talked about like it’s a productivity hack. Sleep more. Meditate. Take a break from your screen. That’s not what Joshua’s chasing. He cares about fulfillment. That’s a much messier word. It doesn’t fit on a sticky note. And it definitely doesn’t trend on LinkedIn.

Joshua builds his career around meaning, not maintenance. That means baking scones with his four-year-old before school. It means arguing over gluten with his wife in the kitchen while sneaking in a little sugar anyway. It means doing a puzzle at 8:00 a.m. and calling it a win. These are not optimization strategies. They are how he stays human. They reconnect him with the people he loves and the version of himself he actually likes.

“It’s not about the puzzle, or the food. It’s about spending time with people you love and helping them grow. And growing a little yourself while you do it.”

Joshua still pushes himself outside of that family circle. He signed up for a writing class at ASU just because he wanted to stretch a different muscle. He and his wife tried pickleball. He stays curious. And he stays engaged with the world. It’s easy to check out once you’ve built a family you enjoy being around. It’s harder, but necessary, to stay involved with the rest of your life too.

That’s the thing he’s passing on to his kids. Especially his son in college, who’s already feeling the pressure to map out a career path before he even figures out what excites him. Joshua reminds him, and all of us, that the real goal is to keep discovering what makes you come alive. Then keep doing more of that, even as the responsibilities pile up. Growth does not retire.

Key takeaway: Build your calendar around the moments that matter, not just the meetings. Real fulfillment comes from carving out space for the people and experiences that help you grow. That way you can stay grounded, stay curious, and still keep building.

Back to the top ⬆️

Episode Recap

Joshua started his career buried in SQL, hammering queries for 16 hours a day. Two decades later, he’s still chasing the same problem: companies drowning in dashboards, calling it “data democratization,” then wondering why nothing makes sense. He’s seen the chaos up close. Marketing teams skim charts, grab the one number that backs their gut, and toss the rest. Leadership makes confident decisions based on a half-read spreadsheet. It’s like confirmation muscle memory. Marketers were never taught how to read the data they’re expected to act on.

Joshua’s case against data democratization is about asking better questions, not about giving people access. And it’s about the rise of translators. Real humans who understand both the business prompt and the structure underneath it. Without them, bias runs wild and bad ideas get cover from shiny charts.

He’s also done battling the cult of 95 percent significance. That number has blocked so many smart bets. He’s seen strong, directional results get shelved because they didn’t pass a green checkmark test. Meanwhile, huge resources get poured into meaningless wins that just happened to hit the threshold. In marketing, nuance matters more than mathematical ceremony. 

He co-founded ConvertML to bring that discipline to everyone else. The core mission is about guiding people who don’t speak stats toward better decisions without making them pretend they do. He realizes that GenAI tools add more power, but also more danger. People assume the machine knows what they meant. It doesn’t. It needs structure. You have to teach it how to think before you trust the answers.

Marketing teams won’t survive this shift by layering ChatGPT on top of broken workflows. Joshua’s seen it. GenAI changes the shape of the work. That means tearing down what no longer fits and rebuilding around what’s now possible. You can’t automate curiosity. You can’t rush fluency. Fluency beats access every time, and the teams who get that will lead. 

Listen to the full episode ⬇️ or Back to the top ⬆️

Follow Joshua and ConvertML 👇

• LinkedIn
• ConvertML

✌️

—
Intro music by Wowa via Unminus
Cover art created with Midjourney (check out how)

Apple •Spotify• Pocket Casts •Youtube •Overcast •RSS

Related tags

See all episodes

Future-proofing the humans behind the tech

Apple •Pocket Casts•Google •Overcast •Spotify •Breaker •Castro •RSS

• LinkedIn
• Twitter
• Instagram
• YouTube
• RSS Feed