Two months ago, I sat in on strategy meetings with three different companies. The first was a scrappy 8-figure DTC brand. The second, a well-funded 9-figure marketplace. The third, a public company doing over $100 million annually.
Different industries, different stages, different challenges—or so I thought.
By the end of the week, I’d heard the same three problems discussed in remarkably similar terms. The scale was different, the stakes were higher, but the core issues were identical.
It turns out that business growth doesn’t eliminate certain problems—it just changes how they manifest.
The Scaling Paradox
When founders reach their first major milestone—whether that’s $1 million, $10 million, or $100 million—they assume the next level will bring different challenges. More sophisticated problems that require advanced solutions.
The reality is more humbling. The problems that nearly killed your company at $1 million revenue? They’re still there at $100 million. They’ve just gotten more expensive and more complicated to ignore.
The Universal Three
Across every successful company I’ve worked with, three problems appear consistently, regardless of size, industry, or business model:
Creative testing systems that actually work Attribution models that teams can trust and use Internal communication that doesn’t bottleneck progress
Small companies struggle with these because they lack resources and processes. Large companies struggle with them because they have too many resources and too many processes.
Problem One: The Creative Testing Mirage
At $1M: “We need to test more creative, but we don’t have budget for a designer.”
At $10M: “We’re testing tons of creative, but we can’t tell what’s actually working.”
At $100M: “We have multiple agencies testing creative, but they’re not coordinated and we’re getting conflicting results.”
The problem isn’t the amount of creative testing—it’s the system behind it. Small companies test randomly because they don’t have frameworks. Large companies test systematically but across disconnected teams that don’t share insights.
The Pattern Across Stages:
- Early stage: Ad hoc testing based on whoever has time to create something new
- Growth stage: Multiple team members running tests without coordination or documentation
- Scale stage: Multiple agencies/teams running sophisticated tests that don’t inform each other
The solution isn’t more testing or better creative. It’s building systems that capture, document, and apply insights consistently—regardless of who’s running the tests.
Problem Two: The Attribution Accountability Gap
At $1M: “We think Facebook is working, but we’re not really sure.”
At $10M: “Marketing says Facebook is our best channel, but sales says most customers mention Google.”
At $100M: “We have three different attribution tools telling us three different stories about our marketing performance.”
Attribution problems scale in predictable ways. Small companies can’t afford sophisticated tools, so they make decisions based on incomplete data. Large companies have multiple sophisticated tools that conflict with each other, so they still make decisions based on incomplete data.
The Evolution of Attribution Confusion:
- Early stage: Using basic analytics with limited cross-platform visibility
- Growth stage: Implementing advanced attribution tools without understanding their limitations
- Scale stage: Multiple departments using different attribution models and coming to different conclusions
The issue isn’t the tools—it’s alignment on what attribution means and how decisions get made when the data is imperfect.
Problem Three: The Communication Complexity Trap
At $1M: “We’re moving too slow because everyone has to be involved in every decision.”
At $10M: “We’re moving too slow because no one knows who makes what decisions.”
At $100M: “We’re moving too slow because getting alignment across departments takes forever.”
Communication problems morph but never disappear. Small teams suffer from too much coordination. Large teams suffer from too little. Both end up with the same result: slower execution.
The Communication Evolution:
- Early stage: Over-communication that slows decision-making
- Growth stage: Under-communication that creates duplicate work and misalignment
- Scale stage: Complex communication hierarchies that bottleneck project progress
The pattern is clear: companies that don’t solve communication systematically just get better at being inefficient at scale.
Why These Problems Persist
Resource Allocation Fallacy Most companies assume these problems will solve themselves as they grow. “Once we have more budget, we’ll fix our creative testing.” “Once we’re bigger, we’ll have better attribution data.” “Once we have more people, communication will improve.”
But resources don’t automatically create systems. More budget often leads to more chaotic creative testing. More data usually creates more attribution confusion. More people typically create more communication bottlenecks.
The Implementation Gap Even companies that recognize these problems often fail to solve them systematically. They’ll hire specialists, buy better tools, or reorganize teams—but they won’t build repeatable processes that outlast individual team members or tool changes.
Success Masking Problems Growing companies can often power through these inefficiencies because their overall trajectory is positive. Revenue is climbing, so the cost of poor creative testing or attribution confusion gets hidden in the growth metrics.
Until it doesn’t. The companies that scale successfully are the ones that solve these problems before they become existential threats.
The 90% Solution Framework
Companies that solve these three problems don’t just improve their marketing—they unlock their entire growth potential. Here’s why:
Systematic Creative Testing enables predictable performance improvements across all channels Clear Attribution Models allow for confident budget allocation and strategic decisions Streamlined Communication accelerates execution across every department
The Compound Effect Each solved problem amplifies the others. Better creative testing provides clearer attribution data. Clearer attribution enables better communication about what’s working. Better communication accelerates creative testing cycles.
Companies that crack this code don’t just grow faster—they grow more predictably and with less stress.
The Timing Misconception
The founders I work with often assume these problems will emerge in a specific order or at specific revenue milestones. The reality is messier.
A $2 million company might have excellent creative testing systems but terrible attribution. A $50 million company might have sophisticated attribution but chaotic internal communication.
The problems don’t follow a playbook. They emerge based on team composition, industry dynamics, and growth patterns unique to each business.
Building Solutions That Scale
Start With Systems, Not Tools The companies that solve these problems focus on processes first, tools second. They build frameworks that work regardless of team size, budget constraints, or platform changes.
Document Everything Knowledge that lives in individual team members’ heads doesn’t scale. The solutions to creative testing, attribution, and communication need to be documented, repeatable, and transferable.
Plan for Evolution The creative testing system that works at $1 million won’t work at $10 million. Build solutions that can evolve with your business rather than solutions you’ll need to replace.
The Real Growth Constraint
The question isn’t whether your company will face these three problems. It’s whether you’ll solve them before they constrain your growth.
The $100 million companies still battling creative testing chaos, attribution confusion, and communication bottlenecks aren’t failing because they lack resources. They’re struggling because they never built systems to address problems they assumed would solve themselves.
The Competitive Advantage In a world where most companies are dealing with these same three issues, the businesses that solve them systematically have a massive competitive advantage. They can execute faster, allocate budgets more effectively, and scale more predictably.
The problems don’t go away. But the companies that solve them systematically don’t just reach the next revenue milestone—they dominate their markets once they get there.
Because growth doesn’t eliminate problems. It reveals which companies have the systems to handle them.
