Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant promise. It has entered the daily routine of agencies, publishers, advertisers, and marketing teams. It helps produce, test, adapt, and distribute campaigns. It also changes how professionals organize their time, make decisions, and build their knowledge base.
It was from that context that I spoke with Alexandra Varassin and Tainah de Pauli about the changes in the media market and the dilemmas that arise when technology, creativity, and business start moving through the same process.
Alexandra Varassin is Brazilian, has more than twenty years of experience in marketing and advertising, and since 2024 has led Publicis Groupe Portugal as CEO. She closely follows the integration of creativity, media, and business in an increasingly connected European market.
Tainah de Pauli, known professionally as Tai Pauli, is Head of Media at Meta and works with media strategy, transformation, and effectiveness. Her career brings together experience on the client side, at agencies, and in various executive leadership positions in the advertising industry.
Alexandra brings to the conversation the perspective of someone who leads a communications operation and follows the transformation of agencies across different markets. Tainah speaks from the experience of someone who works at a major media platform and observes how brands, agencies, and small businesses are using digital channels.
The conversation began with artificial intelligence and moved into creation, professional development, privacy, the reality of small businesses, the differences between Brazil, Portugal, and the United Kingdom, campaign measurement, and the presence of women in leadership. It was not a conversation about technology as a solution for everything. It was a conversation about what technology can do, about what still depends on judgment, and about what should not be delegated without accountability.
1. What has actually changed in the media routine
My first question was direct. I wanted to know what had genuinely changed in the day-to-day routine of an agency and a publisher after the arrival of artificial intelligence. The intention was to move past the generic debate about the future and understand the practical effect of technology on everyday work.
Alexandra started with the most visible impact: time. For her, artificial intelligence can already accelerate tasks and expand execution capacity, but it still does not replace the most important part of communications work.
"It helps and amplifies people's time. The great challenge is reinvesting that time in strategic things."
The statement captures a concern that surfaces in many companies. Gaining time only creates value when that time is used to think better. If the tool only serves to produce more pieces, more reports, and more variations of the same idea, efficiency can mask a loss of quality.
Tainah agreed but examined the problem from the publisher's side. Artificial intelligence can help optimize execution and organize data. Strategy, however, still requires a person capable of interpreting context, understanding the brand, and recognizing the most appropriate way to connect with the audience.
"We sometimes want to run before we can walk. Everyone has already thought about making a TV commercial with AI, but when the talk turns to swapping out one piece, adapting it, adjusting it for digital, the evolution is much easier to see. Thinking about an entire campaign made using only AI is forcing a situation that does not need to be forced. Execution can be optimized so that humans spend more time on strategy and the creative side."
Neither of them treated artificial intelligence as an abstract threat or as an automatic fix. The technology reduces operational effort. Work now demands more discernment about where to direct human energy.
That may be the first point worth holding onto. The relevant question is not only how many hours artificial intelligence saves. It is what companies do with the hours they save.
2. Creation got faster. Does that mean it got better?
After talking about efficiency, I moved the conversation into the creative field. I asked whether the resistance of professionals accustomed to traditional processes still made sense and whether artificial intelligence had already become a permanent part of the creative process.
Alexandra recalled how the production of images and scripts had changed. Before, a team might spend days building a storyboard or an animatic to explain to the client what the creatives had in mind. Today, a tool can turn a description into an image in a matter of minutes.
The gain is clear. Many times, it is easier to show an idea than to try to describe it. The problem, or risk, appears when the preliminary image starts to be treated as the final solution.
"The client may become attached to what the tool produced and say it already looks very good. That is where the creative side steps in to show how the idea can be more interesting and more engaging."
The observation matters because it touches on a risk that is rarely discussed. Artificial intelligence does not necessarily eliminate creativity. It can, however, reduce the willingness to pursue a better idea when the first image already seems good enough.
Alexandra also drew attention to homogenization. If all brands use similar tools, with similar references and similar prompts, there is a risk that they all start to sound and look the same.
"If everything becomes the same, what will differentiate one brand from another? The human touch is still essential."
Alexandra added an example from audiovisual production. She said she has already seen international adaptations turn out so natural that they appeared to have been filmed in the country where they would air. The technology made it possible to adjust lip movements, rhythm, and appearance with a level of realism that, until not long ago, seemed out of reach.
That example shows that the discussion should not be limited to text produced by a tool or to an image created in a few seconds. The transformation is also happening in production, adaptation, and content distribution.
Both converged on one point. Artificial intelligence is here to stay because it solves concrete problems of time, scale, and adaptation. That does not mean creative judgment can be automated in the same proportion.
Speed is a competitive advantage. The difference between a merely correct campaign and a relevant one still depends on knowledge, intention, and judgment.
3. What should never be automated
I then asked which activities might continue to depend on human beings in the coming years. I wanted to know whether there was any territory that automation would not reach.
Tainah responded from her professional experience with projects that connect the essence of a brand to media execution. She mentioned initiatives built on WhatsApp, events, experiences with disappearing messages, and formats that depend on a specific reading of people's behavior.
"Artificial intelligence can help execute many things, but we still need the knowledge base and the inspiration to create the bridge between the brand and the consumer."
The answer shifts the discussion. The question is not whether a machine can produce an idea. It is whether it can understand why that idea should exist, for whom it makes sense, and what consequences it might produce.
Alexandra moved the conversation toward the development of the next generations. A mother of two, she said she does not yet know what the professions of the future will be, but she knows that young people will need to develop critical thinking.
"They need to look at an answer and think: something here is not quite right. That capacity to question, I believe, will never be automated."
The statement goes beyond a defense of creativity. It speaks to accountability. A person who simply accepts the tool's answer may be fast, but not necessarily competent. The ability to question, verify, and disagree remains a form of professional and social protection.
My comment at the end of that segment of the interview was that artificial intelligence can suggest, combine, and accelerate. But someone still needs to decide whether the suggestion is appropriate. Without that step, the company does not have innovation. It only has production at scale.
4. Is the younger generation actually better prepared?
The conversation, and Alexandra's comment about the generation, opened space for an interesting contradiction. For a long time, we assumed that younger people would be the first to incorporate artificial intelligence, just as happened with the internet and social media. I mentioned that in Brazil I have noticed a more intense adoption among professionals over 30.
The question was whether the same perception appeared in Europe.
Tainah responded that in London a phrase circulates that captures the current pressure: a person does not lose their job to artificial intelligence, but to someone who knows how to use it. The point is not age. It is the willingness to learn and incorporate the tool into their work.
"You will not lose your job to artificial intelligence. You will lose it to someone who knows how to use the tool."
Alexandra agreed that more experienced professionals may have an important advantage. They have accumulated knowledge, understand processes, and know how to articulate more precisely what they want. It is not enough to ask the tool to create a film. One needs to explain the scene, the setting, the character, the objective, and the expected effect.
That knowledge base changes the quality of the interaction with the technology. The tool may be accessible to everyone, but the result depends on the clarity of the person using it.
Alexandra raised a deeper challenge, however. If companies use artificial intelligence only to cut entry-level positions, who will develop the professionals of the future?
"If there are fewer people in entry-level positions, how will we train future generations?"
That is a business question, but it is also a question of accountability. Every company needs efficiency. At the same time, a career is not built through courses and tutorials alone. It also depends on proximity, supervision, mistakes, corrections, and practice.
Technology can accelerate the learning curve. It should not eliminate the space where learning happens.
5. Innovation is not just about being first
I asked how Europe was responding to this wave of innovation in media. The question was whether there was a lag relative to major centers, or whether the differences were more connected to culture, regulation, and behavior.
Tainah did not identify a lag significant enough to compromise campaign quality. Alexandra noted that many trends treated as novelties had already been absorbed by the market some time ago. The discussion has moved beyond simply adopting a new platform or format. The challenge has become integrating data and results from different environments.
"Each platform has its own metric. The challenge is making those metrics talk to each other."
That observation is decisive. The market tends to confuse novelty with innovation. But a new tool, when it does not connect to the rest of the operation, may only add another layer of complexity.
Technology, in that case, does not solve the problem on its own. It can help integrate data, but companies still need to decide which data matters, how it will be compared, and who will be responsible for interpreting it.
What looks like a competition between countries is, in reality, a question of organizational maturity. Innovation is not about always being among the first to test something. It is about turning a test into learning, process, and results.
6. Privacy is not a legal technicality
I then asked about data use and the difference in how data is handled between Brazil and Europe. The conversation took on a more critical tone because digital advertising was built over many years on a growing capacity to identify behaviors, preferences, and moments of consumption.
Tainah recounted that after making a purchase in Brazil she received a message almost immediately afterward. The episode caught her attention because it showed how transactional information can be used for an immediate commercial approach.
Alexandra noted that in Europe the concern with data protection does not depend solely on the existence of a law. It is also sustained by consumers who know their rights and are willing to hold companies accountable.
"Consumers understand that their data cannot be used in any way and know they can enforce their rights."
Both interviewees also noted that responsibility is not concentrated in a single company. The agency, the client, the platform, and internal teams all participate in different stages of planning and execution. That is why care around data needs to be present throughout the entire process.
Privacy should not be treated as a brake on campaign efficiency. It is a condition for the relationship between brand and consumer to remain legitimate.
The market still needs to mature on this point. Using more data can increase a campaign's precision. It can also increase the cost of an error. The question that should accompany any planning is: do we have authorization, purpose, and accountability to use this information?
7. WhatsApp and the professionalization of small businesses
The discussion about data led us to small businesses. I asked how Tainah observes the growth of companies using WhatsApp as a channel for customer service, sales, and relationship management.
Tainah explained that the app has ceased to be merely an informal chat space. Features such as catalogs, business hours, and access management help small businesses separate personal life from professional operations.
"WhatsApp has become a business tool. It helps small entrepreneurs professionalize their customer service."
She mentioned stories of businesses that grew after better organizing their contact with customers. The result does not depend on the tool alone. It depends on the discipline to respond, record, follow up, and treat the consumer with clarity.
Alexandra added that Portugal has a different relationship with platforms. WhatsApp is used there partly due to the influence of the Brazilian community and the presence of immigrants from various countries. At the same time, Facebook remains stronger among Portuguese audiences than in Brazil, where Instagram holds a more central position.
Tainah also noted that WhatsApp has spaces with less advertising competition. That can create opportunities for businesses that understand how to participate in the channel without turning every contact into an interruption.
That care matters. Small entrepreneurs do not only need access to technology. They need guidance on how to use it with method. Being present on every channel is not the same as building a good relationship with the customer.
8. Has the market been spoiled by the precision of digital media?
The conversation moved on to measurement. I asked whether digital media had created such a high expectation of precision that the market had come to consider traditional channels insufficient, channels where it was possible to measure reach and perception but not identify with certainty the person who made a purchase.
Tainah agreed. For her, some initiatives cannot be evaluated by the same standard as a performance campaign. A sponsorship, for example, can influence brand perception without producing an immediately identifiable conversion.
"Some things cannot be mixed together. It takes courage to do something that will not be measured in the same way."
Alexandra drew attention to the fragmentation of metrics. Each platform presents its own indicators, while clients want to understand the overall business result.
"Before asking which metric dropped, we need to ask what success looks like for that client."
That is one of the most important statements in the interview. A campaign can generate clicks, leads, sales, awareness, or preference. Those objectives are not the same. Without defining what one intends to achieve, any result can be presented as success or failure, depending on the narrative chosen.
Both interviewees also spoke about creativity and brand impact. A creative campaign can produce effects that do not appear in a single six or eight-week window. Brand building depends on repetition, context, competition, external events, and consistency over time.
Digital media helped the market measure some things better. It also created the illusion that everything can be attributed with precision. Perhaps the next step forward is not finding a universal metric. Perhaps it is learning to combine different metrics without pretending they answer the same question.
9. Female leadership has advanced, but subtle barriers remain
To close, I asked about the presence of women in leadership within the European advertising market and whether the environment still resembled the male-dominated world portrayed in Mad Men.
Tainah said the market is no longer that scenario, but that it can advance further to become increasingly equal. She acknowledged the importance of having found, early in her career, democratic leaders who supported her growth. She also noted that some areas, especially the creative side, remain more male-dominated than others.
"It is not yet a fully equal market. There are spaces where women continue to be less present."
Alexandra agreed and reflected on representation. For much of her career, she did not imagine she could hold certain positions because she did not see many women in those roles. Today, she notices that younger professionals can picture that possibility precisely because they find role models.
"People need to feel that getting there is possible. Representation creates that sense of possibility."
The conversation showed that inclusion is not reduced to a formal ratio or pay equity, although those measures are fundamental. It also involves who speaks, who is heard, who receives an opportunity, who participates in informal decisions, and who is remembered when a leadership position opens up.
Tainah observed that professional relationships and opportunities are also built in informal spaces. To advance toward equality, it is important to ensure that women have access to the same networks of connection and influence.
Progress exists. But it needs to be translated into daily practice, not only into institutional discourse.
The interview began with artificial intelligence and ended with representation. Along the way, it passed through creativity, professional development, privacy, small businesses, and measurement. The topics seem different, but they are connected by the same question: who remains accountable for decisions in an increasingly automated market?
Alexandra and Tainah did not advocate a return to the past. They also did not treat technology as an authority to be obeyed. Both acknowledged the gains in speed, scale, and precision, but insisted on the importance of knowledge, critical thinking, accountability, and the capacity to understand people.
That may be the most honest summary of the future of media. Artificial intelligence will produce more content, test more possibilities, and organize more data. It will fall to people to define what deserves to be done, what should be avoided, and which result truly matters.
In the end, technology can and should bring the brand closer to the consumer. The relationship, however, remains human. And a human relationship always requires context, trust, and accountability.
Article originally published on GazzConecta.
