Speaker 1: Also media, Hi, Mimo, moo ed zitron. This is better offline.
Speaker 1: We're in iHeart Radio studio in beautiful New York City today.
Speaker 1: I am joined by a man who in twenty fourteen
Speaker 1: roast to fame after becoming AOL's digital profit. He joins
Speaker 1: me in the studio today, David Shing, best known as Shingy. David, Hey, ed,
Speaker 1: how are you, mate, sing? I am fantastic an intro.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, this is the most normal show in tech.
Speaker 1: What are you up to these days? Shingy?
Speaker 2: Great question. There's three things. I'm primarily up to them. Okay,
Speaker 2: I'm out speaking and educating, that's right, what I'm known for.
Speaker 2: I also have a creative house, nice that started around
Speaker 2: pandemic time.
Speaker 1: What's the creative house too?
Speaker 2: It does everything from iconography all the way through the strategy,
Speaker 2: so all the way through psychography. You happened to be
Speaker 2: wearing a brand Onion T shirt. Yeah, somebody designed that, dude.
Speaker 1: Okay, so a design thing cool.
Speaker 2: And then the other flip side is an advisory practice.
Speaker 2: That's cool, and it's institutional advisory as well as small startups,
Speaker 2: which has really been research for me, which has been amazing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, as a fellow consultant with the podcast. It's always
Speaker 1: good to meet another one. So you it's been a
Speaker 1: while since you rose to fame. What kind of happened?
Speaker 1: What kind of happened? Because you I remember I was
Speaker 1: in the Bay Area at the time when I saw
Speaker 1: you you arise on MSNBC, and then just went and
Speaker 1: did other things. I had to go and make some
Speaker 1: mistakes in my life. I guess what was it you
Speaker 1: did today?
Speaker 2: Well, so I ran thirteen countries for them. I ran
Speaker 2: the media in marketing for them right throughout Europe.
Speaker 1: But what did that actually entail?
Speaker 2: I ran thirteen countries with multi millions?
Speaker 1: But what did you do each day?
Speaker 2: Because I launched I launched a series of websites, and
Speaker 2: I launched a series of ad platforms, and I helped
Speaker 2: change the iconography for AOL. And when you build a
Speaker 2: new brand and you don't have any budget to support it, right,
Speaker 2: you have to think about a way to be in
Speaker 2: the marketplace.
Speaker 1: So I created a PERSONA wait, did you not have
Speaker 1: like much budget?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Yeah, we did, but not in Europe. No, not in Europe.
Speaker 2: No, Because what happened in a big company, you could
Speaker 2: probably appreciate this if one division performs poorly, everyone suffers, right,
Speaker 2: So if you're not close to the sun, you're not
Speaker 2: going to get all the budget.
Speaker 1: It's just how it works. It's funny because your whole thing,
Speaker 1: and I don't say this is an ensult, got kind
Speaker 1: of flattenedto that one picture of you with the kind
Speaker 1: of yeah because and then there was that Guardian interview.
Speaker 1: It's like you drew a zebra. It said you showed
Speaker 1: someone AOL a picture of a zebra zebra pant pants.
Speaker 1: Possibly it's just I was wearing them. You're wearing a
Speaker 1: nice right. Yeah. It's it's funny because you've become somewhat
Speaker 1: of like a like a I want to say, like
Speaker 1: a character within meme, a meme. I think memes fair,
Speaker 1: but it's more.
Speaker 2: Than character's probably a little underrated.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's just because you have a real job, it seems,
Speaker 1: and you have this whole time, despite the fact that
Speaker 1: I've been told, like, oh, this guy just like shows
Speaker 1: up and says he's the digital profit and I was
Speaker 1: genuinely curious about like, I.
Speaker 2: Never really told anybody the mystery. I want to hear
Speaker 2: that and the magic of it still replicates today. So
Speaker 2: I would go in and get interviews, get audiences with
Speaker 2: brands we could never be in front.
Speaker 1: Of like what like what brand? Like? Yeah, what kind
Speaker 1: of brands? Nike? Nike? Why couldn't al get in front
Speaker 1: of them?
Speaker 2: Well, they could, but they're going to just sell ads.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to sell innovation on top of the ads,
Speaker 2: so much bigger than we would ever be able to do.
Speaker 1: And what would that innovation manifest? That's what were you
Speaker 1: selling to Nike? For example? I know this is just
Speaker 1: an example.
Speaker 2: We invented an ad called Devil, which was like this
Speaker 2: incredible new magazine esque style ad takeover right, that the
Speaker 2: IAB ended up picking up and running with. So we
Speaker 2: were just building things that were radically different than spots
Speaker 2: and dots that sales teams are selling.
Speaker 1: Right, So how do you feel about AI? How are
Speaker 1: you feeling about all this? Because look, you were part
Speaker 1: of a hype cycle. So end of twenty fourteen is
Speaker 1: like it was like a very hype driven time. It's
Speaker 1: like the sexiest time in indiego Go and Kickstarter land.
Speaker 1: I would say, back then, what do you think of AI?
Speaker 1: How do you feel about it? Do you think it's
Speaker 1: a bubble? No?
Speaker 2: No, Well, it's also been around for forty fifty.
Speaker 1: Years, right, so generative AI specifically.
Speaker 2: What do I think about that?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Sure, think it's magical. Really Yeah, it hallucinates occasionally, but
Speaker 2: I think it's great because if I can extend a
Speaker 2: background without having to go reshoot it, that's pretty good
Speaker 2: and I'm able to change it out.
Speaker 1: Can't do that though.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're not been you know, haven't checked out fire
Speaker 2: Fly or.
Speaker 1: I have I read your sub stack. I do read
Speaker 1: your blog. It's just right now as a hype man.
Speaker 1: I don't mean that derisively. I mean that, like your
Speaker 1: job is ostensibly hype. Right now, it feels like there
Speaker 1: is this marketing dissonance between in Firefly, which I'm aware
Speaker 1: and I know there are lots of people who listen
Speaker 1: to the showho are going to be very angry at
Speaker 1: me that we're even talking about Adobe AI. Calm down, everyone,
Speaker 1: it's shingy. Allow him in. But it's it feels like
Speaker 1: you've got this massive business failure happening in the background,
Speaker 1: billions of dollars burned from Open AI, but you've got
Speaker 1: some utility. How do you balance that?
Speaker 2: Like, how do you in what characterizational you said?
Speaker 1: Generally they so, well, I'm talking about the fact that
Speaker 1: you're hyping up something that is unsustainable right now, which
Speaker 1: bit I mean the generative AI features of Firefly, for example,
Speaker 1: the same.
Speaker 2: Is it not sustainable?
Speaker 1: Well, because open AI burns five billion dollars a year,
Speaker 1: they still haven't worked out any profitability for any of
Speaker 1: these models. Yes, but fireflies run on generitive models.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, and they help create ad performances sure at scale. Right,
Speaker 2: So at some point in time these things level.
Speaker 1: Out when because that's the thing, like the amount when
Speaker 1: there's demand for better right, I just feel like we're
Speaker 1: a little lost within the general of AI conversation right
Speaker 1: as an industry. Right, And I'm curious you see, do
Speaker 1: you play with Runway. I've played with Sora a bit. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I just think I found Runway to be really fucking mediocre.
Speaker 2: Well, there's a dystopian to it, which is definitely that
Speaker 2: shine will come off and that production is going to
Speaker 2: be pretty amazing. Single single tool that does one thing
Speaker 2: no good, right, but a tool that allows you to
Speaker 2: master audio without an engineer pretty amazing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But does that exist yet?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: It does. With voice Riverside is not good.
Speaker 2: Riverside is a podcasting platform.
Speaker 1: And they have AI mastering on it.
Speaker 2: God bless them, but they're not just doing mastering. So
Speaker 2: you can upload something to something like voice AI and
Speaker 2: it's absolutely designed for mastering, right.
Speaker 1: But there is this massive financial problem at the side
Speaker 1: of this, that this stuff is burning so much money.
Speaker 1: And I guess you could have on device models, but
Speaker 1: that's nowhere near what I just I don't know how
Speaker 1: you couch these two things.
Speaker 2: Supply and demand. I mean, there's a massive supply for
Speaker 2: new ways of creating different tools, and the supply cycle
Speaker 2: is incredibly wide. It feels like, well, you know, back
Speaker 2: in the web one dot ohs cycles, right, but now
Speaker 2: it has different tools that are much faster build.
Speaker 1: But the demand isn't there I think. I mean, I
Speaker 1: did a piece a few months ago and weeks ago
Speaker 1: Jesus Christ time dilation where it was like co pilot
Speaker 1: has like eleven million monthly active users, okay, which is
Speaker 1: pretty pispor and that's Microsoft's I am hearing that there
Speaker 1: are various companies like eleven Labs which are kind of
Speaker 1: leveling out as far as user base goes. What happens
Speaker 1: if this doesn't get much bigger?
Speaker 2: It just continues to do what everything else does. It
Speaker 2: tails off and becomes a niche, which is okay, you think, so, yeah,
Speaker 2: it's totally okay.
Speaker 1: So you seem quite eye on it. So what are
Speaker 1: you using? Then? Talk to me about the tools you use?
Speaker 1: The obvious.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think chat's interesting. I think that Claude
Speaker 2: is interesting to help you do draft one. So those
Speaker 2: tools are fine. I think sora is it seems interesting.
Speaker 2: But Dystopian Runaway works okay if you can actually model
Speaker 2: it correctly.
Speaker 1: When you say dystopian, what do you mean over glossy?
Speaker 2: Really hard to understand. Depth of field like it's if
Speaker 2: you are going to be a deep practitioner, you know,
Speaker 2: the sort of thing you want to try and visualize,
Speaker 2: that can be very difficult. And I think that's kind
Speaker 2: of the challenge today is these tools do remarkable.
Speaker 1: Amount of work.
Speaker 2: It's a matter of can you get it to do
Speaker 2: the work that you wanted to do without taking more
Speaker 2: time than actually doing it physically. It's software, So it's
Speaker 2: just software, and it's and it's curious, but it's not it.
Speaker 2: Here's what I'm am saying. I'm seeing a consolidation of
Speaker 2: tools saying here's one tool that you log into and
Speaker 2: it does all these things for you, but it does
Speaker 2: all of them only, Okay, so you have to splinter
Speaker 2: off and find something that does just what you want
Speaker 2: it to do.
Speaker 1: So focused, and you know.
Speaker 2: Better at book writing then maybe stories, or better that
Speaker 2: draw oring than maybe paining a landscape. I mean these
Speaker 2: articulations that become really just splinters of a certain technique
Speaker 2: today or crud into one thing. And I don't think
Speaker 2: anything does a great job. Words are great.
Speaker 1: I think the agent if I agree on the words side,
Speaker 1: I don't think well as at and you're still your
Speaker 1: points made. But it's way better than me as a
Speaker 1: first edit copywriter. So yeah, but that's a skill issue, shingy,
Speaker 1: like you could get better by writing more. You could.
Speaker 1: It's good, Like do you is your substack chat GPT
Speaker 1: written or claud written? No, but it's but it's you know.
Speaker 2: I think what's interesting about the tools I don't want
Speaker 2: to have to necessarily become very technical when I'm wanting
Speaker 2: to shoot an idea of a landscape or something. By
Speaker 2: the way, I'm only using my own images and only
Speaker 2: purposely not using anything generative. It's all like photos from
Speaker 2: my own photo library, right, no stock, no, no generative
Speaker 2: because until it's actually really good. As much as I'm
Speaker 2: an advocate for it, I'm a better believer in craft
Speaker 2: than I am. Then so can these tools like mastering
Speaker 2: for example of sound love that love that for a
Speaker 2: tool because I have no clue how to bring eqs up.
Speaker 2: I have no clue how to bring in any depth
Speaker 2: within a voice, and no clue on that.
Speaker 1: So God bless, and do you use it for that?
Speaker 1: Like you actually use it? What do you use for masking?
Speaker 2: I use voice? I think it's voice AI. I've used
Speaker 2: a couple of them. And by the way, when you
Speaker 2: skim it, you know, when I'm looking for something, it's
Speaker 2: typically at urgency other levels alone, and I can't seem
Speaker 2: to bring them up and over peaky, and then I
Speaker 2: use the service comes back it's too peaky or it's
Speaker 2: got too much base. I don't know, right, So it's
Speaker 2: really about can I use things tools that help get
Speaker 2: to a better artifact than the actual tools that I
Speaker 2: can use, Because democratization of tools means that everything is
Speaker 2: kind of flatlined. So I'm looking for things to become
Speaker 2: really interesting. I don't necessarily I don't necessarily think that
Speaker 2: the quality of the end result is higher resolution enough,
Speaker 2: but it sure beats squeaky markers and poof pads he
Speaker 2: grew up with. So the efficiency of getting ideas out.
Speaker 1: Love that, right, But is it craft if you're using
Speaker 1: generative AI?
Speaker 2: Yes, I think it is. I think it's I think
Speaker 2: an artist can use any tool. This just happens to
Speaker 2: be one of them today.
Speaker 1: Right now.
Speaker 2: You talked about value though, you talked about this thing
Speaker 2: seemed to be bleeding money, et cetera, et cetera, all
Speaker 2: of them. Yeah, God bless, what do you mean, God bless?
Speaker 2: I mean that's that's going to be their problem at
Speaker 2: some point in time. They're going to have to factor
Speaker 2: that out and figure out a model that everyone's trying to,
Speaker 2: you know, generate these tools that can be the panacea,
Speaker 2: and then they're going to make money on it at
Speaker 2: some point. Yeah maybe, yes, See, it's just not all
Speaker 2: the tools he had to make money, you know that.
Speaker 1: Sure, But none of the tools currently make money. Like
Speaker 1: that's that's kind of thing. It just it feels like
Speaker 1: an atypical hype psycle in that having lived through enough
Speaker 1: of these now myself, I'm a little bit younger than you.
Speaker 1: I've never seen one that was just burning cash like
Speaker 1: this and it, but I've never seen one with more
Speaker 1: nor have I ever seen one with more disconnection between
Speaker 1: the utility and the marketing hype. It feels like they
Speaker 1: are promising more than ever. Yeah, and we're in this weird,
Speaker 1: distant area where it's like no one really knows what's
Speaker 1: going to happen.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I live in the space of ads still,
Speaker 2: so from an ad perspective, there's no shortage of demand.
Speaker 1: But for what though? Ads? Yeah, sure, but demand for ads?
Speaker 1: But what about generative? Like where does general vay I
Speaker 1: fit into this?
Speaker 2: You saying creative but yeah, helping to create the ads.
Speaker 2: I think the ads that are created with Generative are
Speaker 2: pretty rubbish. Yeah, but the truth is there's a demand
Speaker 2: for lots of ads because of just sheer audience growth.
Speaker 2: But the reality is that efficiency of can you make
Speaker 2: ads cheaper? That's a that's a conundrum.
Speaker 1: Because is Generative I doing that?
Speaker 2: I don't think so. I think they're doing some of it.
Speaker 2: Perhaps maybe they're doing an interesting background that would have
Speaker 2: taken taking you up, but it can't.
Speaker 1: It's not the whole thing.
Speaker 2: And by the way, if you and I would look
Speaker 2: at a bunch of ads right now and try and
Speaker 2: pick with their AI or not AI, you would I
Speaker 2: think nine out of ten would get We would know
Speaker 2: that it's written by.
Speaker 1: A There's like an uncanny Valley feel to them.
Speaker 2: It's got a dystopian I guess. It's kind of feels
Speaker 2: a little bit like and we've gone way beyond hallucination.
Speaker 2: We've gone into this kind of you just know, you
Speaker 2: can just see it and feel it. It's cold, it's weird.
Speaker 1: And the funny thing is this, I think what you're
Speaker 1: talking about is not hallucination. It is actually a in
Speaker 1: accurate depiction of something. But it's too It has this
Speaker 1: kind of sheen to it does feels like the movie AI. Yeah, ironically,
Speaker 1: it has said that it came off my head. I'm like, shit,
Speaker 1: I'm stupid anyway.
Speaker 2: And the number of frames a second seem off.
Speaker 1: There's something very there's too much like I.
Speaker 2: Completely agree with you, but it's also where I see
Speaker 2: those sort of things used in more kind of tunny jads,
Speaker 2: like things that are just trying to get a lot
Speaker 2: of these creatives saturating the marketplace, which ultimately if we're
Speaker 2: not careful, we'll make ads more expensive, meaning to get
Speaker 2: to ed the human at the end of it. If
Speaker 2: you if you've now just become completely oblivious or ignoring
Speaker 2: ads that feel like they're aied because and the sack
Speaker 2: gets figured out, right, you'll become blind of these AI ads.
Speaker 1: So to get to us even going to be harder.
Speaker 1: So this is the weird thing right now. Ads and
Speaker 1: AI don't seem to have touched that much. Can I
Speaker 1: say this because there's a company so you heard a
Speaker 1: perplexity too. So Perplexity is allegedly Hayden Field that the
Speaker 1: NBC reported this last year. They're apparently looking for like
Speaker 1: fifty five dollars CPM on what platform on their search
Speaker 1: net their search platform. Okay, but you've not really seen
Speaker 1: ADS and AI touch like even Google's AI search they
Speaker 1: just did ads.
Speaker 2: No, I think perplexity if you were to give it
Speaker 2: a prompt and it recommended something that you were looking for. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I assume you're looking for a piece of gear and
Speaker 2: they recommend a piece of gear versus these other ten
Speaker 2: pieces of gear. Ah, that review is probably in their
Speaker 2: eyes an ad, right, you know what I mean? It's
Speaker 2: not it may not be a display ad as we
Speaker 2: but they're not.
Speaker 1: They're not doing ads yet.
Speaker 2: It's just you know, but I'm saying they could be
Speaker 2: in the description. Sure are they formally not doing ads
Speaker 2: or they haven't.
Speaker 1: They haven't started yet because they want to.
Speaker 2: And when they do those ads, they will be subtle
Speaker 2: like that, they will be within descriptions, they will be
Speaker 2: contextually relevant to that person in terms of the totality
Speaker 2: of a story, not just a display.
Speaker 1: I'm just wanting I think it will be No, no, no,
Speaker 1: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just wondering how they
Speaker 1: pull it off. Because the whole thing with hallucinations, you
Speaker 1: can't predict where an AD is going to appear or
Speaker 1: what it's going to appear next to.
Speaker 2: And I think that if it's with with if it's
Speaker 2: with words, the context is wider.
Speaker 1: You think. If it's with voice, they're not going to
Speaker 1: voice as not.
Speaker 2: You know, it's like it's just a wider context. Though,
Speaker 2: So let's let's just stream for a second. If you're
Speaker 2: able to do that, at least you've got a wider
Speaker 2: concept of what the story is versus a display out around.
Speaker 1: But I mean, I mean just like, practically speaking, if
Speaker 1: you vomit out a bunch of text which may rip
Speaker 1: off a journalist outlet, or to how do you like
Speaker 1: I Perhaps the I need to actually ask you the question,
Speaker 1: why do you think that ADS and AI really haven't
Speaker 1: touched it? Because chat GPT doesn't monetize with that, Lexity
Speaker 1: is thinking about it, haven't Google AI has only just
Speaker 1: started considering it. Do you think it's a generative side
Speaker 1: like you've been in the AD slot for that?
Speaker 2: I guess it depends on depends on which place you
Speaker 2: want to sit in that question. Are you talking about
Speaker 2: me as somebody going to the tool to use it?
Speaker 1: Now? I'm wondering why the companies themselves have been hesitant? No, no, no,
Speaker 1: hang on, let me let me.
Speaker 2: Let's get back to the context real quick so I
Speaker 2: can understand the framing. Is it? Is it me going
Speaker 2: to Perplexity's website to be able to use its tool,
Speaker 2: and it's folding in ADS in the results of me?
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean a generative I mean on a
Speaker 1: grander perspective, like taking it away from just like the
Speaker 1: user right now, You've been in ads for a long time, however,
Speaker 1: so I think, why do you think they if it
Speaker 1: was like ads to ad tech has traditionally been very
Speaker 1: quick to adopt stuff. But they will rush. They rush
Speaker 1: to fucking micat, They rushed to everything fast. Remember that.
Speaker 1: But it's AI. They've generative AI, generative search Chat GPT.
Speaker 2: Because I just don't think it's I would I would
Speaker 2: say that it's just a little naive. And I have
Speaker 2: seen you mean, I have seen ads that are directed
Speaker 2: by so, scripted by AI, shot by humans. Sure, and
Speaker 2: they look there's just something missing. And because that litmus
Speaker 2: test of is it warm and after does it feel
Speaker 2: like something that is a motive it misses? Sure, it
Speaker 2: is going to get a lot better. Man, This is
Speaker 2: not even a debate, but.
Speaker 1: I mean it absolutely is a debate. I mean I
Speaker 1: will absolutely debate the shit out of this. The training
Speaker 1: data required to make saua better does not exist, even
Speaker 1: if you took every video ever taken there. Adobe is
Speaker 1: paying people to take video. But my question was actually
Speaker 1: really way more specific, which is, you have been in
Speaker 1: ad tech for a long time. Everything else has been
Speaker 1: in like generative AI platforms are not integrating ads as
Speaker 1: a monetization mechanis well, and why do you think that is.
Speaker 2: Because the presentation layer of that, the actual ability to
Speaker 2: generate something that feels like it's not coal specifically, and
Speaker 2: I've said it a few times now, is not up
Speaker 2: to snuff. Everything else in the background that is actually
Speaker 2: using lots of big data to be able to represent
Speaker 2: the right type of context to you. Today we will
Speaker 2: call that AI is in play. So I think there's
Speaker 2: a marriage between what's going on in the back Haman
Speaker 2: along and the presentation layer of that, to be honest,
Speaker 2: is terrible. I agre in comparison, I agree, but maybe
Speaker 2: they need to be more specific. It feels like ad
Speaker 2: tech is they will do the generative side. There's tons
Speaker 2: of ad tech platforms that will generate like and you
Speaker 2: see those the specs, or you've seen the ads too.
Speaker 2: You've seen the shiny musclier person.
Speaker 1: Oh god, yeah, the horrifying like beautiful people with like
Speaker 1: nineteen pack. I mean more on a practical level of
Speaker 1: you were a AOWA, you were inspiring them to do
Speaker 1: more things. It feels like when it comes to the
Speaker 1: platforms themselves, putting aside the actual ads themselves, I mean,
Speaker 1: it doesn't feel like anyone not perplexity, perplexity being so
Speaker 1: slow Google, especially so weird. It feels like they're hesitant
Speaker 1: to attach ads to these platforms at all. To the platforms, yeah,
Speaker 1: as in like they have an integrate because ad tech
Speaker 1: loves integrating shit are putting stuff on stuff, But it
Speaker 1: feels like they've stepped away from it like they had. Look.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and maybe maybe because of that's a really interesting question.
Speaker 2: Maybe it's because it's just, you know, it's an interface
Speaker 2: for creation and they don't want to actually bastardartter with
Speaker 2: ads today. It might be that it might be that pure.
Speaker 2: It might be that pure.
Speaker 1: I wonder if it's difficult to integrate it because.
Speaker 2: Or where would you because that's that's the interface today.
Speaker 2: Feels a bit like Wikipedia meets answers dot com. Yeah,
Speaker 2: it feels a bit kind of retro, you know. And
Speaker 2: because it's a new interface, the only way to put
Speaker 2: the context around it is in the context of what
Speaker 2: you're generating.
Speaker 1: And it's so and that's random every time.
Speaker 2: And it's also software equals ads. Before, So if we
Speaker 2: roll this back to the early nineties mid nineties, there
Speaker 2: were holes cut across websites for display ads and those
Speaker 2: formats were accredited. Now it's so rare. There is a
Speaker 2: little bit of through line that feels like it's consistent,
Speaker 2: but it's not a consistent interface that feels like in
Speaker 2: rap ads around it and particularly on mobile, but Destop
Speaker 2: probably more so.
Speaker 1: And I wanted to and like, this wasn't meant to
Speaker 1: be an oppositional question. It's just fascinating to me. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't think it is.
Speaker 2: I think it's a really good question because because I
Speaker 2: would say that these But the reason why I'm keep
Speaker 2: on asking for a pointed question to the question is
Speaker 2: that you've got creation tools and you've got consumption tools,
Speaker 2: and at times they're the same thing. Sure, if you
Speaker 2: look at Chat or if you look at you know,
Speaker 2: if you're a claud they're the same thing. So you're
Speaker 2: in there creating as a creator as well as somebody
Speaker 2: who is consuming that. That's pretty new from a dynamic
Speaker 2: of a user interface, because you don't go in and
Speaker 2: you don't well, you could go in and create a
Speaker 2: video on the fly and upload it to Instagram, but
Speaker 2: you wouldn't expect to see an ad on your creation
Speaker 2: of that video on Instagram, you know what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: So given that's the case, there's a new paradigm, that's
Speaker 2: all I'm saying. And I haven't really thought about that
Speaker 2: paradigm converging.
Speaker 1: And that's the thing, Like your whole thing is what's
Speaker 1: new and sexy and ads and all shiny, and it's
Speaker 1: it's just so strange. It's truly unique. Because when we
Speaker 1: had the bullshit AR thing, I'm sure you remember that
Speaker 1: they had ads on that ship immediately. You could not.
Speaker 1: You couldn't you were filthy with filters. You could have
Speaker 1: like a sprite filter on your face if you wanted it.
Speaker 1: They had the ads immediately.
Speaker 2: Because in that context, it feel like you're really good.
Speaker 2: Can you just layer it?
Speaker 1: Yeah? And it's just like it and you I agree
Speaker 1: with you that they are creative interfaces when you look
Speaker 1: at them. This is not a judgment or how much
Speaker 1: I like them, it's just what they work work has.
Speaker 1: It just feels so weird that ad tech or like,
Speaker 1: none of these platforms want to Sam Wortman said he
Speaker 1: doesn't like it whatever, but it's just so bizarre.
Speaker 2: What about the fact that the gold rush of AAR
Speaker 2: happening now is also part of the fallout of the
Speaker 2: euphoria of the web three NFT blockchain world how do
Speaker 2: you mean? And what I mean by that is that
Speaker 2: that was all the attention. If we meant on this
Speaker 2: particular show three four years ago, that's probably all you
Speaker 2: talk about.
Speaker 1: I mean this three years ago, but I was I
Speaker 1: was on that ship if we were. But you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: So, but that that has kind of that isn't as
Speaker 2: quite hypey as it is today. So what I'm saying,
Speaker 2: if people are saying Web three the future of that's
Speaker 2: more puristic. We haven't seen a world like this. This
Speaker 2: is going to be incredible. It's by landing it blah
Speaker 2: blah blah. Perhaps the positioning of what does this new web,
Speaker 2: better web look like? Jamming ads in it is just
Speaker 2: like having the uninvited guests to the paint.
Speaker 1: I don't know if I feel like it's the utopian thing.
Speaker 1: It's just the idea of any of these companies being like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we don't want to fuck up the Internet. I mean,
Speaker 1: look at Google Search. I mean that there is no
Speaker 1: great effector that has fucked up the Internet. Ragavat, piece
Speaker 1: of shit. It's just so strange. And I've really only
Speaker 1: came to this conversation thinking about this because every single
Speaker 1: hype cycle other than and crypto. I can understand why
Speaker 1: the ads weren't quite as prevalent. I can understand because
Speaker 1: it's difficult to do blockchain ads. Christ what a hype
Speaker 1: cycle idea, But blockchain ads because the sure the immutable ledger.
Speaker 1: But how would you actually reliably You could probably say
Speaker 1: a click happened. No, actually it would be difficult.
Speaker 2: Yeah, attribution across that would be challenging. But I also
Speaker 2: think but on your point, I don't know why, to
Speaker 2: be honest, but I do think maybe there is It's
Speaker 2: always an outcome. Monetizing a platform of popularity is always
Speaker 2: going to be an outcome.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mater to me.
Speaker 2: And by the way, that's with every platform. You know,
Speaker 2: it starts with the purest of all the social platforms.
Speaker 2: None of them had ads initially. And then if you
Speaker 2: look at something if you go into the vault and
Speaker 2: look at things like MySpace, they never had ads for
Speaker 2: the longest time because the artist was the ad. I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, sure that makes sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I'm just thinking, I'm having like one idea,
Speaker 1: which is very difficult for my brain. It almost feels
Speaker 1: like these hype cycles have failed because they haven't found
Speaker 1: an AD thing all of the previous ones. The Internet
Speaker 1: is built on advertising, as you well know, but none
Speaker 1: of them, not meta, not metaverse, not crypto, not generative
Speaker 1: AI have found a stable ad income. And I have
Speaker 1: to wonder if it might be that the subscription model
Speaker 1: is not scalable, at least it doesn't scale to the
Speaker 1: dollars that advertising can provide, which most of tech is
Speaker 1: dependent on. Yeah, for sure.
Speaker 2: I mean the subscription dollars versus the ad dollars is
Speaker 2: still the pathetic.
Speaker 1: Yeah, forget about it.
Speaker 2: But there's something really interesting about that popularity though we're
Speaker 2: still in this world of popularity right until right until
Speaker 2: you get scale, you don't have an audience that actually
Speaker 2: you can monetize. But it still comes down to I
Speaker 2: think these two interphases are in conflict because you've got
Speaker 2: consumption and creation happening on the same platform, right, which
Speaker 2: I think is incredibly unique.
Speaker 1: It is unique, however, I feel about generative AI. There
Speaker 1: hasn't been something like this shit before, which is I
Speaker 1: find it deeply annoying and all of it frustrating, and
Speaker 1: the environmental and the theft and all of that, and
Speaker 1: the fact it's actually fair the people it's put out
Speaker 1: of jobs, feel like people who are already vulnerable as well,
Speaker 1: like art directors and like freelance audio people and freelance
Speaker 1: creatives are the ones getting fucked by this, and all
Speaker 1: of this is happening for them all to lose money.
Speaker 1: That to me is the dystopian part that they haven't.
Speaker 1: They've No one really appears to be benefiting from this
Speaker 1: other than maybe Samuelman and dari Ama Day.
Speaker 2: There is something to the culture of creativity which is
Speaker 2: even in it adds today still is that creative is
Speaker 2: considered a non working part of the media. What do
Speaker 2: you mean, I mean that it doesn't count as part
Speaker 2: of the media creative.
Speaker 1: So it's always this cost item. Ok so what the
Speaker 1: journalists and the artists and all that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the people should create the commercials for example, they
Speaker 2: typically doesn't get rolled up as part of the media
Speaker 2: spend or success. So it's always debatable. Media isn't because
Speaker 2: it's absolute, because it's skeary. You got a rate card,
Speaker 2: you know where the audiences are?
Speaker 1: You know, I get what you're saying. Who are the
Speaker 1: people that have when you say it's not rated or like,
Speaker 1: it's not not contented part of the media. Who are
Speaker 1: the people saying this is it the ad? The ads people?
Speaker 1: They just don't consider the.
Speaker 2: Creatives, oh, the brand. So if a brand is sitting
Speaker 2: here saying, look, we're going to create an AD, but
Speaker 2: the cost of that ad doesn't get attributed to where
Speaker 2: the media is because media is always whole.
Speaker 1: So that's always I'm not sure I understand.
Speaker 2: So I guess my point in saying this is that
Speaker 2: we're always going to try and skinny down the cost
Speaker 2: of creation, right, Okay, that's really the nut of it,
Speaker 2: because everything else that's ray card, negotiable, whatever, But the
Speaker 2: actual physical cost of the thing that gets placed that
Speaker 2: always seems to be.
Speaker 1: A step child. Yeah yeah, yeah, No, that's a shame.
Speaker 2: And so when you talk about vulnerability, I completely agree
Speaker 2: with that. The flip side of that is all of
Speaker 2: these efficiency tools that we see, and AI is considered
Speaker 2: one of those today because generative is just one part
Speaker 2: of it which is still trying to find I believe
Speaker 2: its way. I find some things that are really kind
Speaker 2: of amazing, but not all the time, Like I wouldn't
Speaker 2: be using it all the time, but you can't.
Speaker 1: It is not reliable on that point. No, I wasn't
Speaker 1: even trying to gotch that, but you just can't write now.
Speaker 2: And it's also you know, it's not higher resolution enough.
Speaker 2: There's many reasons why, but it does get you to
Speaker 2: mediocre faster, and so at least.
Speaker 1: Jesus that allows you to not the secreme, but.
Speaker 2: You you know, so at least make those decisions to say,
Speaker 2: obviously that's a bad idea, we're not going to go
Speaker 2: forward with it, as opposed to somebody polishing ten great
Speaker 2: ideas or ten mediocre ideas and finding out there's one
Speaker 2: should have been executed faster, better, sooner.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's a maybe that's a case for it. I
Speaker 1: think you've really touched upon something though, which is I
Speaker 1: think a lot of my listeners and my readers struggle
Speaker 1: with why so many corporations want general if AI to grow.
Speaker 1: And parts of it is the labor automation, why they want,
Speaker 1: why they want to be a thing, And there's many
Speaker 1: stupid reasons. But I never thought about the fact that
Speaker 1: just in the ads world, which controls large swarts of
Speaker 1: our economy and funds a lot of the tech industry,
Speaker 1: just all creativity was considered minor. I never I mean,
Speaker 1: it's very obvious now I say it, but like it's
Speaker 1: fascinating to know that from that is that like an
Speaker 1: executive possession. Well, yet here's a challenge.
Speaker 2: You have mediocre creatives seen by many, right, and you
Speaker 2: see really great creatives seen by few. So that's why
Speaker 2: it feels like the creatives still sort of sit.
Speaker 1: At the back.
Speaker 2: They're trying to do these things, but they whenever a
Speaker 2: discussion says at scale, that's when it falls apart. So
Speaker 2: that's why it's it's kind of.
Speaker 1: Why is mediocre seen by the many? Though?
Speaker 2: Like why does the mis simply because of format? I
Speaker 2: think is really you know, the ability to try and
Speaker 2: create something that has a contagiousness to it. Today seems
Speaker 2: to have a celebrity moment those days. I think it
Speaker 2: kind of at least falling away, and there are better
Speaker 2: places for people to hold their attention, So metrics have
Speaker 2: to change effectively, go away from popularity and talk about
Speaker 2: other things like how do you hold somebody's attention for
Speaker 2: the longest time versus just trying to saturate you know, right,
Speaker 2: I mean I think it's I think the landscape's changing,
Speaker 2: but I don't think it's I don't think creation of
Speaker 2: content or creativity is evolving at the same pace.
Speaker 1: But would evolving even matter if there was this attitude
Speaker 1: towards creatives? Ah?
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, eg format, of course, what do you mean
Speaker 2: shape of the ad?
Speaker 1: Sure, style of the ad.
Speaker 2: You know you talked about ar as a good example.
Speaker 2: That was small orient's wow experience to be honest, but where.
Speaker 1: Was the conversion there? Because that's the thing. It doesn't
Speaker 1: feel like there has been a new successful ad format
Speaker 1: in a long time. Have you seen others?
Speaker 2: I really haven't. It's so strang you know, I've tried
Speaker 2: on as I'm sure you have with vision Pro. You've
Speaker 2: tried on the goggles? Oh christ, yes, you know I
Speaker 2: can't really see anybody. Firstly, it just doesn't scale. It
Speaker 2: comes back to that, right, there is no scale, but
Speaker 2: it's immersive. But the reality of are you building things
Speaker 2: for a wonder many? Are you building it for one
Speaker 2: to one?
Speaker 1: And just even then I have to wonder if there's
Speaker 1: not a problem which we the geniuses have discovered, which
Speaker 1: is there is no like we're in the iHeartRadio studios.
Speaker 1: One of the most successful advertising formats, and as my
Speaker 1: listeners love to tell me, is the ads. The basic
Speaker 1: radio play ads and display ads and so CPACPM. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: it doesn't feel like advertising has evolved. It's tried to evolve.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean we tried to do it with Devil.
Speaker 2: We try to do it with these incredible formats and
Speaker 2: at least work. They certainly did, and the measurement of
Speaker 2: work is you know, dwell time click through all of
Speaker 2: those things that you can measure. They were going through
Speaker 2: the roof and they work until they become standards and
Speaker 2: then they don't work because they're everywhere. So there's this
Speaker 2: exclusivity to these things that make you feel like you're scale,
Speaker 2: and then scale comes in rum because when everyone does
Speaker 2: the same thing and it all gets back to well,
Speaker 2: you end up with homogenization. Right, So that's why just
Speaker 2: why it's homogenized. Everything feels normalized. It feels consistently the
Speaker 2: same thing, regardless of what you put in. It was
Speaker 2: there was something and you know, this conversation makes me
Speaker 2: think of something that was retro years ago when these
Speaker 2: ad formats came out. There was this ad and I
Speaker 2: don't know what brand it is, So that's at the
Speaker 2: jump that tells me that the thing didn't work. But
Speaker 2: what was working was this incredible experience. So a band
Speaker 2: built shape of a AD display, add two shapes. One
Speaker 2: was square, one was rectangular, and in this square they
Speaker 2: had a drama and maybe a guitarist. In that square
Speaker 2: that had a basis and maybe the vocals. And they
Speaker 2: were playing live in these displays and display and those
Speaker 2: live displays because they were they were being broadcast to
Speaker 2: these websites.
Speaker 1: That's so strange. It was so fabulous. Did it it felt?
Speaker 2: I don't know, but it made a hell of an
Speaker 2: impression on me twenty years upstream. So that's the thing
Speaker 2: it's and it just felt very inventive.
Speaker 1: That is inventive. I'm also going to have to look
Speaker 1: this up because that's how the hell.
Speaker 2: Ben in a box or something. I don't look this up.
Speaker 2: It's very cool, but it's you get it.
Speaker 1: It feels almost as if the more I think about
Speaker 1: the ads and display ads and all this, how like
Speaker 1: this might actually be what's really undermined general if AI,
Speaker 1: which is they are trying to scale something that requires
Speaker 1: advertising dollar level funding with subscriptions, which may not work.
Speaker 2: I think you've hit on something, But I do think
Speaker 2: that when there's a format that becomes consistent, which doesn't
Speaker 2: exist today.
Speaker 1: Right, when you've.
Speaker 2: Got that, there's always these outlines.
Speaker 1: That are trying to create something around that format. Right.
Speaker 2: So back then in the day, there was breakout and
Speaker 2: you have an AD, you click on it, you know,
Speaker 2: folds open, right, you know, all of those sort of
Speaker 2: things that happened. All of that stuff was really just
Speaker 2: to say, here's the format that we've all decided is important.
Speaker 2: We're going to put this value on top of it.
Speaker 2: That makes it feel like it's really different and it
Speaker 2: reminds me of that band in the box thing. Yeah,
Speaker 2: because there's no consistent interface, you can't have a consistent AD.
Speaker 2: So everything around all these ads that we're going to see,
Speaker 2: they're going to be cloaked in this thing called context
Speaker 2: in value, I think, and it will be obstigated because
Speaker 2: it'll come back as a long paragraph talking about why
Speaker 2: I should buy these Sony headphones versus something else. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I can see them trying that for sure. I mean,
Speaker 1: particularly in descriptive results. The problem is if that if
Speaker 1: that result is generative, that's going to shave off that
Speaker 1: little bit of CPM revenue. That's going to scrape it off.
Speaker 1: It's like it's almost as if it's antithetical to add I. Actually,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you where it won't shave it off.
Speaker 2: It won't shave it off because you'll probably move from
Speaker 2: a CPA to sorry, CPM to a CBA so appeciship
Speaker 2: would that be?
Speaker 1: Who knows?
Speaker 2: But it depends on the cost of I mean, it
Speaker 2: depends on what the attribution cost it's going to be.
Speaker 2: But let me just stay with me for a second.
Speaker 2: If it moves from cost per mili into or thousands
Speaker 2: to cost per acquisition, and there is a direct cost
Speaker 2: because that AD is generated wonder one, right, so that
Speaker 2: it isn't a many to many model to wonder many
Speaker 2: and sorry, it's actually a wonder one generative. So I'm
Speaker 2: able to produce an AD that feels highly tailored to
Speaker 2: add in his needs.
Speaker 1: But that should be highly valuableized. It should be. But
Speaker 1: the hallucination when you scale it to a million people
Speaker 1: is the thing. But you don't have to.
Speaker 2: Sorry, you don't have to scale it, is what I'm saying.
Speaker 2: You do, No, you don't, you don't because if people
Speaker 2: aren't if you're searching generally for an AD some.
Speaker 1: Headphones, we're searching for some headphones and you're presented with
Speaker 1: an AD for headphones, if it's generating for each person,
Speaker 1: say a million people see this ad and it is
Speaker 1: one to one. Yeah, it's still generative with fresh game.
Speaker 1: At one point it's going to hallucinate. It's just right.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong with the idea.
Speaker 1: It's just it's not completely thought out, I can tell you.
Speaker 1: But I love what is scale?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, and it's like the scale is a challenge.
Speaker 1: With genera full stop, with generative AI is it's I
Speaker 1: just have to wonder if this is not part of
Speaker 1: the economic failure, because it doesn't. It scales, but when
Speaker 1: you try and scale it in the traditional tech software
Speaker 1: way subscriptions, it's not they're not making enough money or
Speaker 1: not with it. But even when you try and put
Speaker 1: it into ads ads, ads are by definition going to
Speaker 1: be scaled to millions, hundreds of millions of people to
Speaker 1: make any money. And if you're doing generative, you're going
Speaker 1: to have things like Google telling you to eat rocks.
Speaker 2: I will tell you that I think this conversation isn't
Speaker 2: ready for that type of architecture. Because these generative tools
Speaker 2: are designed for generating, they're not just consuming. Sure, I
Speaker 2: don't think there's a mass that. I don't think the
Speaker 2: volume of people is is at a point where average
Speaker 2: people are going to consume things based on search criteria
Speaker 2: as a new rhythm.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's how Google makes all its money. And
Speaker 1: it's Google.
Speaker 2: But if you're talking about these other tools that are
Speaker 2: thinking about how they actually monetize, it's from a creative perspective,
Speaker 2: not from a consumption.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I was just talking at scaling generative AI as
Speaker 1: an ad tech tool or add tool.
Speaker 2: And in your reference to that example with Google, yeah,
Speaker 2: I'd be surprised if they're not at least trying.
Speaker 1: Oh, they just started trying it. But it's funny. It's
Speaker 1: just in their search results. In their search started Gemini tools,
Speaker 1: you know. Yeah, well no, they're now putting Gemini front
Speaker 1: and center, which is so funny. It's just like, but
Speaker 1: it definitely crowds out of their homepage. Well that's the thing,
Speaker 1: Like Google's in this weird, this really weird spot now
Speaker 1: And actually.
Speaker 2: Do you think it's a catch ups? What to tell
Speaker 2: me when you say weird? To find that some more?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean that Google search has never been worse.
Speaker 1: It's definitely worse. It's ever been a little bit like
Speaker 1: Craigslist of the nineties. Yes, by comparison, Craigslist information was
Speaker 1: relatively validated. I mean you didn't. You didn't have crags
Speaker 1: list optimization experts, and if you did, I'd love to
Speaker 1: meet them. But it's Google's position right now is they're
Speaker 1: behind on AI, even though it's like being the first
Speaker 1: to eat out of the toilet. In my opinion, it's
Speaker 1: they're behind on AI. They're a traffic is slowing like that,
Speaker 1: everything is kind of contracting with them, and they're desperate
Speaker 1: and people hate these AI search results. So yeah, they
Speaker 1: are in a weird spot. But on top of that,
Speaker 1: I think we've actually noticed one thing, which is the
Speaker 1: core economics of tech are around ads, and ads have
Speaker 1: been the same fifteen to twenty years. They've had agree
Speaker 1: I mean ads at scale.
Speaker 2: Sure, So it's the at scale question that comes back
Speaker 2: to that, because you know, everything sounds great in that
Speaker 2: statement until you say at scale exactly.
Speaker 1: It's kind of the world. Oh mate.
Speaker 2: You'll hear that the creative brief stage where it's like,
Speaker 2: how can we do this? But it needs to scale?
Speaker 2: Like wow, But that's not take that out of the
Speaker 2: vernacular ads. Take that out of the vernacular of metia.
Speaker 2: It's everything is trying to scale. The beauty industry is
Speaker 2: trying to do things at scale. They're trying to do
Speaker 2: things at a high volume. I mean, this is just
Speaker 2: part of the vocab.
Speaker 1: It's an attempt to do something at scale with nuance,
Speaker 1: which is almost impossible.
Speaker 2: I imagine that's a good observation.
Speaker 1: I mean, look at the super Bowl commercials. They're all insane.
Speaker 1: That every single Super Bowl commercial is like either old
Speaker 1: people doing something that young people do or eleven celebrities.
Speaker 2: And I was watching there's lots of electric, lots of
Speaker 2: retro soundtracks.
Speaker 1: Exactly like Big Noises, And I feel very stupid because
Speaker 1: now I understand they are trying to create something that
Speaker 1: they are trying to create something that everyone could enjoy. Man,
Speaker 1: I know so little sometimes.
Speaker 2: But that's I mean, the truth of that is to
Speaker 2: matter for everybody means you matter for nobody. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: that analogy rings true there. So there's something nostalgic and
Speaker 2: comfortable and okay, but everything around it has to be
Speaker 2: super weird to try and make it fit.
Speaker 1: And that example.
Speaker 2: But you know, I think the Super Bowl is a
Speaker 2: really good example of you know, to a moment right
Speaker 2: the rest of I don't know what happens on daytime TV,
Speaker 2: but those sort of ads don't turn up there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because you would also be spending so much money
Speaker 1: on all of that, you know more about the economics.
Speaker 1: I actually want to change gears slightly because you did
Speaker 1: write something related to nostalgia and as a as a creative,
Speaker 1: as you as you go about your business, are you
Speaker 1: finding more demand on the client side? Four more nostalgic
Speaker 1: things returning to the nineties of the two thousands, Are
Speaker 1: you finding any of that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's not it's not a date stamp. Yeah, it's
Speaker 2: just a feeling and that nostalgic vibe is I think
Speaker 2: it's as I think it's a throwback to Look, we're
Speaker 2: in a room right now that has a lot of
Speaker 2: nostalgia around it.
Speaker 1: Maybe these buttons couldn't be more big.
Speaker 2: I love them, and these sort of analog knobs and
Speaker 2: you know what I mean, Yeah, creaky chairs and you
Speaker 2: know the only thing that's modeling here are the shaw mics.
Speaker 2: Everything else this kind of retrod, including.
Speaker 1: The Daniel Goodman's wonderful skills and.
Speaker 2: The and the MDR headphones, whatever we're wearing right now.
Speaker 2: But what's amazing about this is there's there's a throwback
Speaker 2: one to those who are old enough to know about
Speaker 2: nostalgia and those are them young enough to curious about
Speaker 2: it because they, you know, didn't grow up with it,
Speaker 2: but they're super curious, you know, to read through liner
Speaker 2: notes and understand that there's a flip side of an
Speaker 2: LP and there's something very there's something very moorish about
Speaker 2: slowing it down because it's everything is highly consumptive him.
Speaker 2: Then the time we've spoken, I saw you pick up
Speaker 2: your phone. Oh that was the picture A dozen times
Speaker 2: something waits one but can I not exaggerate? But what's
Speaker 2: amazing about this is that there's something really kind of
Speaker 2: about that distraction.
Speaker 1: That the anchors it.
Speaker 2: There's something there's something beautiful about nostalgia and I'm gonna
Speaker 2: keep harping on about it because I see it pop up.
Speaker 2: I mean, super Bowl is a classic example. I think
Speaker 2: I counted like eleven songs or something, yet I'm gonna
Speaker 2: misquote that, but I could pick everything from Bloody Huey
Speaker 2: Lewis to Journey or something, and I'm like, my god,
Speaker 2: you know firstly what happened, and secondly, is this the
Speaker 2: only thing we have as this throwback?
Speaker 1: There's something really unique about it. I have to wonder
Speaker 1: if it's not a bit of trying to ignore reality
Speaker 1: as well. You talk about them, I don't mean it
Speaker 1: when you look at the news, it sucks when you
Speaker 1: look at the like everything kind of sucks. There's you
Speaker 1: talk about the idea that we're constantly getting we're having
Speaker 1: to engage with our devices constantly, and I agree, and
Speaker 1: it's the kind of a return to a time when
Speaker 1: we weren't harassed by them, even though we I love
Speaker 1: being online, but at the same time, now I fucking
Speaker 1: hated it before online. I'm not going to pretend I
Speaker 1: imagine normal people crave the time of not being online
Speaker 1: constantly and not having because it's not just like content.
Speaker 1: It's you get working, as you get your texts from
Speaker 1: people mad at you get a text from a T
Speaker 1: shirt company you bought from fifteen years ago. It feels
Speaker 1: like maybe people are craving an off ramp almost or
Speaker 1: permission to have one of these.
Speaker 2: Yes. Can I also say, though, there's something about perhaps
Speaker 2: this fast culture that we've fu and this futuristic vibe
Speaker 2: that we've been in something and what I mean. But
Speaker 2: I'm just going to apply this to front. I'm just
Speaker 2: going to apply this to a thought in that statement
Speaker 2: you said about nostalgia. When I watch a brand like
Speaker 2: BMW line and I see their cars, which look amazing, right,
Speaker 2: the love that a retro car, like an old car
Speaker 2: that they get, like back in the eighties, a boxy
Speaker 2: M series or something and M three or something three
Speaker 2: twenty five I or something, it gets way more love
Speaker 2: and commentary than anything they've got either in market or
Speaker 2: even planning on doing. Aynda is a classic example. They
Speaker 2: you know they're throughout this. They might bring back this
Speaker 2: boxy beautiful.
Speaker 1: Oh is this the electric one? But it's like an.
Speaker 2: Eighties yeah, and it's got the you know, it's got
Speaker 2: the square lights. And you'll see people go into every
Speaker 2: single design detail like the white wall time to the
Speaker 2: to the type of mudcap. You don't get that sort
Speaker 2: of detail today. It's all spec right, and then it's
Speaker 2: not there's no emotion to it. But you look at
Speaker 2: these things that feel like and it's not bygone emotion.
Speaker 2: It's a different era of freedom. And maybe that's kind
Speaker 2: of the thing that is a land like terrestrial radio,
Speaker 2: it's probably still massive. I mean, I had it was
Speaker 2: so bloody successful. Terrestrial radio is unbelievable, And.
Speaker 1: I think it's because in a world of just sudden conversations,
Speaker 1: you have real ones. The reason that I like doing
Speaker 1: the reason that then any lessener is curious about this.
Speaker 1: The reason I don't do a lot of virtual interviews
Speaker 1: is they kind of suck. Yeah, maybe it's pretty good,
Speaker 1: but the in person it's having the micropront it's like
Speaker 1: hearing yourself that the basic tones. I also have to
Speaker 1: wonder if the reason that people are nostalgic for things
Speaker 1: like an old car, or like the CD player or whatever,
Speaker 1: is it felt like the companies gave more of a
Speaker 1: shit because you talk about that thing probably scaling. It's
Speaker 1: built for everyone, but built for no one. Every car
Speaker 1: kind of looks the same. They all have the kind
Speaker 1: of Tesla esque curve to it, or like they look
Speaker 1: like a Porsche Cayenne. Yeah not a car guy. They
Speaker 1: all kind of look and feel the same, and they
Speaker 1: all kind of and people are craving something that feels
Speaker 1: like anyone cared about building out.
Speaker 2: Maybe yeah, and maybe it all got to a point.
Speaker 2: I think maybe designing culture generally has got to a
Speaker 2: point where it feels like it's efficient. Yes, and that
Speaker 2: efficiency means it's not I'm not tied to any of it, dude,
Speaker 2: you know what I mean. Yeah, And that evolution of
Speaker 2: design means that if you've got efficiency, you're really because you'
Speaker 2: using battery technologies and you're using something that doesn't have
Speaker 2: to feel like it looks like a pin, so it
Speaker 2: becomes wind efficient and you build something that's square, square, square,
Speaker 2: square blast. I think it's amazing.
Speaker 1: I think this is why people don't like generally if
Speaker 1: AI content as well, because it really the point we're
Speaker 1: making earlier that it all kind of looks the same.
Speaker 1: It has to be down County Valley. It feels like, Wow,
Speaker 1: no love went into it, not just like not just
Speaker 1: like this is mass produced. It's not even mass produced.
Speaker 1: It's this sub production where we're creating this thing for
Speaker 1: nobody and everybody at the same time. I don't I'm
Speaker 1: not going to debate generative AI's efficacy with you in
Speaker 1: any further. I'm sorry about that. But you know, it's
Speaker 1: more we're all kind of craving a return to a
Speaker 1: time when things felt like they were made for someone,
Speaker 1: that they were made with a bit of a soul,
Speaker 1: and it sucks to be in this world and it
Speaker 1: sucks to And I think that nostalgia is the natural
Speaker 1: It's kind of the natural endpoint of a culture that
Speaker 1: has escaped any kind of personalization or joy in the
Speaker 1: creation of anything mass market. Even the utility of these
Speaker 1: things doesn't feel like it's four people.
Speaker 2: You know, as you're having this discussion, and I'm with you. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I look out at the screen that we're facing and
Speaker 2: flow Rider was on, and before that was Flavor Flav
Speaker 2: and I think before that a minuscene snoop yep, And
Speaker 2: I look at them and think, to your point, there's
Speaker 2: something about these this cycle of comfort and familiarity that
Speaker 2: I think is it's really interesting because what you're talking
Speaker 2: about is by the way, I will just put a
Speaker 2: pin in this and say that I think the generative
Speaker 2: AI creation will absolutely be for everything other than the human.
Speaker 2: And when you want to put a human in it,
Speaker 2: just film them and then add them to this generative
Speaker 2: crazy background in utopia if you want to do it.
Speaker 2: But these blended AI experiences will happen. But I do
Speaker 2: think that because it's called CGI previously.
Speaker 1: But I actually I'm going to push back on that
Speaker 1: and say I believe that will happen. Yeah, but I
Speaker 1: think people are going to get really upset with it
Speaker 1: because you're kind of seeing it with severance and the
Speaker 1: Mandalorian when they're doing these weird I don't know what
Speaker 1: it's called, but it's when they do the on shot
Speaker 1: thing where it's they pretend they're outside, and for a
Speaker 1: while it convinced people. Then you saw it enough times
Speaker 1: you're like, no, fucking another fuck.
Speaker 2: But what it would also do, though, is it'll inspire
Speaker 2: you when you see something that's really designed by cutting
Speaker 2: up the cardboard box to make it feel like a
Speaker 2: cardboard box. And I can show you some really good
Speaker 2: examples of people that push back against that and say,
Speaker 2: we're just going to film this thing analog. Dude.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I feel it and it feels so different,
Speaker 1: and it does, and it's just we're we're getting back
Speaker 1: to maybe nostalgia is just wishing that people that creatives
Speaker 1: gave it, not creative. Yeah, it feels like the mechanisms
Speaker 1: of creatives more than anything, gave a ship and felt
Speaker 1: like they were putting any thought into it other than
Speaker 1: just kind of simmering it down for everyone making creative.
Speaker 2: I've almost bought the Samsung flip phone a couple of times.
Speaker 1: Oh it's so cool. Yeah, it's so cool. I love it.
Speaker 1: I use that exactly. I need my I message. I
Speaker 1: need it.
Speaker 2: I'm a pig and I don't have two phones. It
Speaker 2: just drives me crazy. But even the matter all looks amazing.
Speaker 2: But there's something about that time when you'd have a
Speaker 2: flip phone and buttons and all that.
Speaker 1: I didn't. I didn't have a flip phone, right, the
Speaker 1: chocolate bar Nokia. Yeah, that was so good. It's funny.
Speaker 2: It's it's funny like chocolate bark.
Speaker 1: But even then it kind of fucking sucked. I don't
Speaker 1: know why I'm pretending like I like this device the moment,
Speaker 1: the iPhone.
Speaker 2: Because you're probably still talking on the phone and that
Speaker 2: sounded god what it did on the tin. No, I
Speaker 2: just you're texting with all those buttons.
Speaker 1: Yes, Oh, I'm a freak in many ways. And it's
Speaker 1: just funny because as we discuss all these different bits,
Speaker 1: it really is just like creativity is considered this stepchild
Speaker 1: of ads. Ads are the way that a lot of
Speaker 1: people are exposed to an alarming amount of creativity, and
Speaker 1: it feels like people at scale are kind of becoming
Speaker 1: more aware of how much is manufactured for them. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's not just that thing. Maybe it's not that things
Speaker 1: have changed a ton. I believe they have, obviously, but
Speaker 1: it's that they've kind of people are more aware of
Speaker 1: when they're being fucked with, when they're being given the
Speaker 1: same slop when they're being given And I think that
Speaker 1: corporations may have slightly overplayed their hand.
Speaker 2: In the mass production ere I mean you'll see that
Speaker 2: with foods, You'll see that with I mean education in
Speaker 2: that criteria is way more transparent and interesting than it
Speaker 2: used to be because you don't have to have you know,
Speaker 2: you can consume less and probably feel better. And I
Speaker 2: have a question for you, is that an ordering where
Speaker 2: it got?
Speaker 1: Why you're wearing it? Because they track my sleep? Are
Speaker 1: you doing my workout?
Speaker 2: And you're actually you are using it as a utility?
Speaker 2: I am you haven't how long you had it?
Speaker 1: That's years? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Generation like gen isn't it three? And do you find
Speaker 2: so do you do anything with the data.
Speaker 1: Or you just do it?
Speaker 2: Does it just reassure you, Oh no, this.
Speaker 1: Is this is the terrible choice if if you wanted
Speaker 1: any gotcha. No. So, actually I'm really interested in my
Speaker 1: sleep because I realized a few years ago that my
Speaker 1: sleep was fucked and I couldn't work out why I
Speaker 1: was depressed. Good. I've become fascinated by what I don't
Speaker 1: know weed or alcohol will do to me. Not that
Speaker 1: I'm like experimenting, but if I have a bad night sleep,
Speaker 1: I like to look at it and say, all right,
Speaker 1: this does affect me. I just got this thing called
Speaker 1: a son as well. What is it? It's like a
Speaker 1: thing you've strapped to your head and it has the
Speaker 1: little electrodes that go on to the top. Is this
Speaker 1: fella you sleep it down on? No? Isn't you just
Speaker 1: put it on? It does like a fifteen minutes before bed.
Speaker 1: It has increased my ram sleep and I have been
Speaker 1: feeling surely. But yeah, I'm annoying.
Speaker 2: Sorry, What does this thing do? Does it give you?
Speaker 1: It has some sort of waves? It doesn't you. I
Speaker 1: should be able to say this oftenly.
Speaker 2: But but you're finding your sleep cycles better?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: Now are you finding that the patterns you your sleep cycles?
Speaker 1: Previously?
Speaker 2: Once you've sort of vindicated I'm having a crappy night sleep.
Speaker 2: Has it changed your behavior?
Speaker 1: Yes? No, I like how proximity of using any substances
Speaker 1: before bed, like what I eat when I eat? That
Speaker 1: was a big thing, like eating late.
Speaker 2: I also, oh, well, okay, so you are you really
Speaker 2: are digging into the day.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because otherwise why I'm wearing this thing that on
Speaker 1: dating apps convinces people that I'm married. It's very fucking annoying.
Speaker 2: There's something interesting about, you know, the adoption of these
Speaker 2: sort of technologies like athletes, for example, Oh yes, clearly
Speaker 2: fall back to things like the whoop band and oh
Speaker 2: well or not, they'll wear a garment or they'll wear
Speaker 2: these technologies that have been around for a long time
Speaker 2: for athletes. But you know, the eye watches of this
Speaker 2: world or you know.
Speaker 1: I watch no no, no, that no, that just means
Speaker 1: you've been around a while. You're just still saying the
Speaker 1: ship before they'd even know.
Speaker 2: But yeah, So what's interesting to me is, you know,
Speaker 2: the subtlety of technology, while it comes down and gives
Speaker 2: you what you need, hopefully that changes your psychology. Now
Speaker 2: we don't you don't necessarily see that on the phone
Speaker 2: because all the phone does is kind of distract you.
Speaker 2: We'll take you down a rabbitti. And so I'm just
Speaker 2: super curious about what your behavior is, your relationship with
Speaker 2: that sort of tech. But it is because I've pushed
Speaker 2: away from all of it.
Speaker 1: I generally do like I with my workouts, I track
Speaker 1: my calories and that is emotional. Yeah, good on you. No,
Speaker 1: that is absolutely emotional, and that's a good use case
Speaker 1: for that. But if I but oh no, I use it.
Speaker 1: Oh but this is the ultimate tech bullshit.
Speaker 2: Though.
Speaker 1: I don't use this track all my workouts. I track
Speaker 1: boxing with this. You box with the ring on? Yeah,
Speaker 1: you bandage your hand up like that with the ring
Speaker 1: you get you get quick wraps on?
Speaker 2: Okay, Yeah, and it just doesn't crush your fingers.
Speaker 1: Haven't it did with certain raps?
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it's it's not the lowest profile ring.
Speaker 1: That's why I'm no, it's really not. It's like the
Speaker 1: Chunky one Victorious.
Speaker 2: Song of the Verge was, are we spending too much
Speaker 2: time with the ring?
Speaker 1: I don't care. This is my show, do whatever the
Speaker 1: hell I want. I can say shit and balls and
Speaker 1: all that. It is funny though, because all of this
Speaker 1: talk about nostalgia. It is kind of where even I
Speaker 1: personally am leaning I'm listening to fucking metal from fifteen
Speaker 1: years ago. My favorite in Flames album is Colony, which
Speaker 1: is twenty years old and barely resembles the band anymore.
Speaker 1: Like one of my favorite movies is the Guardians of
Speaker 1: the Galaxy movie in the first one, which is inherently nostalgic.
Speaker 1: And those movies got shit as all it became about
Speaker 1: was nostalgic. And now I've just had a live thought,
Speaker 1: which is that is the thing that's that is actually
Speaker 1: something that's driving a lot of culture. Which is the
Speaker 1: reason the Marvel movies did well at the beginning was
Speaker 1: they were fun, they were nostalgic, They had these characters
Speaker 1: you'd love to see, and they got progressively worse as
Speaker 1: these companies were like, Okay, what the people like about this?
Speaker 1: Fuck it is the people they recognize. Look, it's the
Speaker 1: guy from the thing. The corporatization of nostalgia, I.
Speaker 2: Think it's but it does get rebooted. Right, So if
Speaker 2: you look at the music videos that are playing back
Speaker 2: here now, half those soundtracks and I'm paraphrasing this, are
Speaker 2: using a soundtrack that's retro. Yeah, and there's something it's familiar, right.
Speaker 2: You hear this backbeating thing that seems like that's funky
Speaker 2: trim dammer from you know, James Brown, and you hear
Speaker 2: that in the track and think, Okay, there's a reason
Speaker 2: why that works because it's just good and something about
Speaker 2: the time that that was done.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't created to scale right, putting even the
Speaker 1: side generative AI for now. I just mean like, because
Speaker 1: if you look at this, there will be multiple things
Speaker 1: on TikTok where it's like a band has popped up
Speaker 1: and you're like, wow, they're so good, or people have
Speaker 1: said this and it's turned out to be like they're
Speaker 1: pretending to be a garage pan but it's actually a
Speaker 1: signed artist with United and it's it does and switch Yeah.
Speaker 1: And there's so much of it now and there are
Speaker 1: things that are made to be to appear normal and
Speaker 1: natural that are absolutely not. And I think people are
Speaker 1: craving normality again, they're craving things that don't feel mass produced.
Speaker 1: I agree with you, it's a funny. It's a funny time. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I wrote about craft this week and it was really
Speaker 2: just about you know, if you've got all these tools
Speaker 2: that make you feel like happy hands.
Speaker 1: What do you mean happy hands?
Speaker 2: Like very excited? And I can defend that all day
Speaker 2: every day. But what I lean towards is craft. You know,
Speaker 2: I will all day every day rather a pen and
Speaker 2: pencil than trying to scribble something down on my iPad,
Speaker 2: you know. Yeah, so there's just something more visceral, and
Speaker 2: I'm leaning towards that as a test to make sure
Speaker 2: I'm not losing my rods and cones, but that it's
Speaker 2: not just down this rabbit's warrant of distraction that I
Speaker 2: can actually be, you know, back to creation.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. Are you well? You say you say you're
Speaker 1: like aware of your phone nagging you? Are you generally?
Speaker 1: Do you surround yourself with tech or do you try to?
Speaker 2: I'll push back in how so I had all the
Speaker 2: tech that made me look like a tribal leader like you.
Speaker 2: I mean, I get it, dude, but I when I
Speaker 2: don't game of fine, data doesn't excite me about myself, right,
Speaker 2: and it's not that interesting.
Speaker 1: And so.
Speaker 2: The thing that's wild for me is nature. I mean,
Speaker 2: tech is, yeah, it's great to but what am.
Speaker 1: I going to do with it?
Speaker 2: And I don't know if I want to do that
Speaker 2: with it whatever that is. So no, I try not
Speaker 2: to I'm trying to push back to you know, no,
Speaker 2: not trying to push back. I'm trying to restrict the
Speaker 2: amount of things that occupy my mind and take my
Speaker 2: attention away from creating.
Speaker 1: And what are you creating? And is it for? Is
Speaker 1: it just for you?
Speaker 2: I know, I'm right, you know, yeah, it is really
Speaker 2: I have this concept of edition of one. It really
Speaker 2: is just for me, and it doesn't matter if it
Speaker 2: doesn't scale. And you know, I'm a classically trained designer,
Speaker 2: so I'm back to full design outside of my creative practice.
Speaker 2: And I have a wet studio, so I'm in the
Speaker 2: marriage studio. Yeah, I'm married to an artist. We have
Speaker 2: you know what is a wet studio. We have paints
Speaker 2: in the thing that are constantly dry. I mean it's
Speaker 2: very practical, dude, and it's not screen free. A lot
Speaker 2: of it is just back to articulating things, you know,
Speaker 2: playing music, you know, things that actually feel like I
Speaker 2: play guitar, seeing all that rubbish.
Speaker 1: But it's fun. But it's oh, it's funny.
Speaker 2: I love so more of that than just sort of
Speaker 2: being a participant I'd rather be actively participating in it,
Speaker 2: which is why I can't stand sports. I mean, I
Speaker 2: can't stand sitting and watching sports. I'd rather play football
Speaker 2: if I'm going to you know, I'd rather go out
Speaker 2: in the field and kick. If I'm going to kick.
Speaker 2: I can't really sit back and watch. It drives me nuts. Interesting,
Speaker 2: But there's something about kind of just taking that position
Speaker 2: of the polymath. I've got lots of ideas that I
Speaker 2: want to express. Let's get them down on.
Speaker 1: Paine that they're expressed for you rather than yeah, can
Speaker 1: less others find it interesting.
Speaker 2: I've got a fashion co lab that I'm doing, and
Speaker 2: I've got these artisans and craft people in Mexico that
Speaker 2: are actually hand stitching this embroidery in state of digital embroidery,
Speaker 2: which I could have done finding it sitting it's sitting
Speaker 2: on the fabric differently. I mean, it's all of these
Speaker 2: things that are slow crafts. They're bloody. It's just awesome, dude,
Speaker 2: it really is. No. It slows me down. It puts
Speaker 2: me in a place that feels more conscious.
Speaker 1: It's funny because this show came from a newsletter that
Speaker 1: I wrote for three hundred people's fifty eighty five hundred
Speaker 1: now and this show started with a lot of people
Speaker 1: being very unfair to me on readit, and I will
Speaker 1: admit I changed into the internet. Oh no, fuck yeah,
Speaker 1: I didn't change shit. I just kept doing it until
Speaker 1: I felt good. And it's interesting how the show's done
Speaker 1: well based on that, rather than trying to change it
Speaker 1: for anyone, partly because I didn't. I never really understood
Speaker 1: why I would change for them, Like I was like
Speaker 1: Horsity at fifty five has told me they don't like
Speaker 1: it when I say, this is what the fuck am
Speaker 1: I meant to do? Write it down and like avoid
Speaker 1: the word fuck that. It just it feels that that
Speaker 1: is also another thing plaguing creatives, that there is this
Speaker 1: apparent source of derision and judgment on tap right, and
Speaker 1: you have to do that to scale, to do that,
Speaker 1: and the desperation for engagement is kind of stuck in
Speaker 1: the joy out of even the process. It's too slow.
Speaker 1: It must be done this fast, we must be timely.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but there's one thing that's definitive is there's only
Speaker 2: certain amount of time in a day, isn't it. You
Speaker 2: can't create a new version of it, but you can
Speaker 2: participate in it differently. I think this has been an
Speaker 2: interesting conversation for me because I didn't know what we're
Speaker 2: going to chat about, if anything. Yeah, and I'm admirer
Speaker 2: of your work, so congrats on all you're doing.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Shingy. I think we can wrap
Speaker 1: it that. Where can people find you, Shingy? Uh? You
Speaker 1: know the interwebs? Yes, but wow, Okay, I'll put it
Speaker 1: in the apisode.
Speaker 2: I'm easily found on linked just looks probably the right way, Shingy.
Speaker 2: You could go to my dot com. I'm there too,
Speaker 2: hanging out. Yeah, but you know it's Yeah, this has
Speaker 2: been a blast. Thanks for coming in on a hot
Speaker 2: streak about Jen of course, and we exit out on pottery.
Speaker 1: Sure your streets at my mum's spotter as well. That's Ron,
Speaker 1: all right, you've been listening to me. My name's ed Zetron.
Speaker 1: You can google them who destroyed Google Search and you
Speaker 1: will find the answer is me. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: to Daniel Goodman or wonderful producer here in New York,
Speaker 1: and thank you, of course to all of you for listening.
Speaker 1: You'll now hear a very similar message after that. I've
Speaker 1: recorded in February of last year, and I swear I'm
Speaker 1: going to re record. Mattasowski and I were talking about
Speaker 1: this yesterday. B sal Thank you for listening to Better Offline.
Speaker 1: The editor and composer of the Better Offline theme song
Speaker 1: is Matasowski. You can check out more of his music
Speaker 1: and audio projects at Mattasowski dot com, M A T
Speaker 1: T O. S O W s ki dot com. You
Speaker 1: can email me at easy at Better Offline dot com
Speaker 1: or visit Better Offline dot com to find more podcast
Speaker 1: links and of course, my newsletter. I also really recommend
Speaker 1: you go to chat dot Where's youreed dot at to
Speaker 1: visit the discord, and go to our slash Better Offline
Speaker 1: to check out our reddit. Thank you so much for listening.
Speaker 1: Better Offline is a production of cool Zone Media. For
Speaker 1: more from cool Zone Media, visit our website cool Zonemedia
Speaker 1: dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.