March, 2026.- In the 2026 advertising ecosystem, where trends are born and die in a matter of hours, the traditional agency “salesperson” has become obsolete. In their place has emerged the “trusted advisor,” a role Petur Workman has perfected over a career cultivating more than 2,500 elite executive relationships. As the newly appointed VP of Business Development at Movers+Shakers, Workman arrives with a mission that goes beyond revenue expansion: leading a “social-first” transformation that brands desperately seek but few fully understand. For Petur, social is not a channel or a budget line; it is a behavior. His vision challenges CMOs to abandon static campaign-based thinking in favor of cultural fluency that requires new workflows, accelerated decision-making, and, above all, creative bravery that allows brands to participate in global conversations organically.
In this exclusive interview with Roastbrief, Petur Workman breaks down his philosophy on turning a first conversation into a decades-long partnership, emphasizing that a brand’s true hunger is detected in its openness to ambiguity and appetite for discomfort. Workman analyzes the paradigm shift where agencies are no longer just “makers” of content, but “multipliers” of a CMO’s ability to see around corners. From the tension between brand consistency and immediate relevance to the need to justify every dollar in a volatile market, Petur offers a roadmap for building relationships where growth is a natural byproduct of trust. Discover how this leader is connecting the dots between business ambition and cultural impact, proving that in 2026, the best deals are closed when value is demonstrated long before a contract is signed.
1. The Social-First Transformation: You’ve described your attraction to Movers+Shakers as their “unparalleled reputation for creating culturally relevant brands.” When you’re speaking with a CMO or brand leader who wants to undergo a social-first transformation, what’s the most common misconception you encounter about what that actually entails?
Most CMOs think a social-first transformation is about shifting media dollars or increasing content output—but the real misconception is that social is a channel, when in reality it’s a behavior.
A social-first brand isn’t just posting more frequently or chasing trends; it’s fundamentally reorganizing how the brand listens, creates, and responds in culture. That means moving from campaign-based thinking to always-on relevance—where insights, creative, and distribution are happening in near real-time.
What I often see is leaders underestimating the operational and cultural shift required internally. Social-first isn’t just a marketing pivot—it requires new workflows, faster decision-making, and a higher tolerance for creative risk. The brands that succeed are the ones willing to decentralize control a bit and empower teams to act at the speed of the platform.
So the transformation isn’t really about “doing social better”—it’s about becoming a brand that behaves the way social platforms behave: responsive, participatory, and culturally fluent.
2. From 2,500 Global Relationships: You’ve cultivated more than 2,500 global executive relationships over your career, serving as a trusted advisor to leaders at Delta, Novartis, Ralph Lauren, and AT&T. How do you build that kind of trust at scale? What’s your approach to turning a first conversation into a long-term partnership?
Building trust at that scale really comes down to consistency in how you show up, not just the number of relationships.
From the first conversation, my goal isn’t to sell—it’s to understand how that leader is being measured and where the real pressure points are. Most executives don’t need more ideas; they need someone who can quickly contextualize their business, ask sharper questions than they’re used to, and bring perspective they can’t get internally.
So I focus on two things early: demonstrating that I understand their world, and adding value immediately—whether that’s a relevant insight, a pattern I’m seeing across industries, or even pushing back on an assumption in a constructive way. That’s usually what shifts the dynamic from vendor to thought partner.
From there, trust compounds through reliability and honesty. I’m very intentional about setting realistic expectations, being transparent when something won’t work, and staying engaged beyond the immediate project. The long-term relationships tend to come from moments where you help a leader navigate uncertainty or make a difficult decision—not just when things are going well.
At scale, the mindset is still personal. Every relationship needs to feel like you’re invested in their success, not just the outcome of a single engagement. When you do that consistently, partnerships become a natural extension of trust rather than something you have to actively “build.”
3. Finding the Hungry Brands: Evan Horowitz described your strength as knowing how to find brands that are “hungry for a collaborative relationship” and setting up “innovative collaborations.” What signals do you look for that tell you a brand is genuinely ready for a true partnership versus just looking for a vendor?
I’ve found that “hungry” brands reveal themselves less through what they say and more through how they behave.
One of the biggest signals is how they define the problem. If a brand comes in with a rigid brief and a predetermined solution, they’re usually looking for execution. But if they’re open about the ambiguity—if they’re asking bigger questions about growth, relevance, or transformation—that’s a strong indicator they’re ready for a true partnership.
Another signal is access and engagement. Brands that are serious about collaboration will bring the right stakeholders into the conversation early, not just procurement or a single point of contact. They’re willing to have working sessions, share context transparently, and invest time in co-creation. That openness is hard to fake and usually correlates with better outcomes.
I also pay attention to their appetite for discomfort. The most effective partnerships require challenging assumptions—on both sides. If a brand is receptive to pushback, curious when you disagree, and willing to test ideas that don’t feel completely safe, that’s when you know they’re not just looking for a vendor, but for a partner who can help them move the business forward.
Ultimately, the “hungry” brands are the ones optimizing for impact, not just deliverables. They’re less focused on controlling the process and more focused on unlocking something new—and that’s where the most innovative collaborations tend to happen.
4. Agency-to-Brand Relationship Evolution: Having worked across both agency and brand environments, what’s the single biggest shift you’ve seen in how brands want to partner with agencies? What are CMOs looking for now that they weren’t five years ago?
The biggest shift I’ve seen is that brands are no longer looking for agencies to just deliver work—they’re looking for partners who can help them navigate uncertainty in real time.
Five years ago, the model was more linear: define the strategy, build the campaign, measure the results. Today, that approach breaks down because culture, platforms, and consumer behavior are moving too fast. CMOs now need partners who can operate inside that volatility—testing, learning, and adapting continuously rather than delivering a fixed plan.
What that’s changed is the expectation around integration and proactivity. CMOs are looking for agencies that don’t sit downstream waiting for a brief, but instead bring forward opportunities, identify emerging signals in culture, and connect those insights directly to business impact. It’s less about executional excellence alone and more about having a point of view on where the brand should go next.
There’s also a higher premium on speed and decision-making. The best partnerships today look more like embedded teams than external vendors—where there’s trust, access, and a shared accountability for outcomes, not just outputs.
So if I had to distill it, the shift is from agencies as makers to agencies as multipliers—partners who can extend a CMO’s ability to see around corners, move faster, and make smarter bets in an increasingly dynamic environment.
5. The Trusted Advisor Role: You’ve served as a trusted advisor to CEOs and CMOs navigating rapid change and category disruption. In today’s volatile market, what are the most pressing questions you’re hearing from senior leaders? What keeps them up at night?
What’s changed is that the questions aren’t just about growth anymore—they’re about navigating constant uncertainty while still being expected to deliver predictable results.
The themes I hear most often cluster around three tensions.
First is relevance versus consistency. Leaders are asking, “How do we stay culturally relevant without diluting the core of the brand?” With the pace of change across platforms and consumer expectations, there’s real anxiety about either moving too slowly and becoming invisible, or moving too fast and losing brand coherence.
Second is speed versus rigor. CMOs know they need to operate in a more agile, test-and-learn way, but they’re still accountable to organizations built for planning cycles and precision. So the question becomes, “How do I build an organization that can move at the speed of culture without sacrificing quality or control?”
And third is investment clarity. In a more scrutinized economic environment, leaders are being asked to justify every dollar. So there’s a lot of focus on, “What actually drives impact now?”—not just in terms of channels, but in terms of ideas, creative effectiveness, and where brand-building fits alongside performance.
What keeps them up at night isn’t just any one of those in isolation—it’s the compounding effect. They’re trying to make long-term brand decisions in a short-term, highly dynamic environment.
That’s where the trusted advisor role really matters—helping them cut through the noise, prioritize what actually matters, and make confident decisions even when the path isn’t perfectly clear.
6. The Business Development Philosophy: As VP of Business Development, you’re responsible for accelerating revenue growth and expanding client relationships. What’s your philosophy on business development? How do you balance the pursuit of new logos with the care and feeding of existing client relationships?
My philosophy on business development is that growth is a byproduct of trust and relevance—not just pipeline.
I think about it less as “new business vs. existing business” and more as building a connected ecosystem where both reinforce each other. The strongest growth I’ve seen has always come from depth, not just breadth—because when you’re delivering real impact for existing clients, expansion and referrals happen organically, and those tend to be higher-quality opportunities than anything sourced cold.
That said, you can’t rely solely on inbound momentum. On the new logo side, I’m very intentional about targeting—focusing on brands where there’s a clear alignment in ambition, not just budget. I’d rather pursue fewer, more meaningful opportunities where we can truly partner and create outsized impact than chase volume.
The balance comes down to how you allocate attention and value creation. With existing clients, it’s about staying proactive—continuing to bring ideas, connecting dots across their business, and looking for ways to grow the relationship beyond the initial scope. With new prospects, it’s about demonstrating that same level of thinking from the very first interaction—so they experience what it’s like to work with you before they’ve even signed.
Ultimately, I don’t see business development as a separate function from the work—it’s an extension of it. When you consistently create value, build trust, and stay close to where the client is trying to go, growth becomes a natural outcome rather than something you have to force.
