This article follows on from the brilliant Zoom meeting simulation we recently shared. That simulation was a conceptual leap forward: it used the format of an online meeting as a creative, legitimate way to discuss industry-critical topics by dramatizing different viewpoints. It helped expose contradictions, unchallenged assumptions, and, frankly, bullshit that too often passes as “insight” in today’s corporate and tech spaces.

One of the standout contributions came from Jason, who instantly grasped that using screenplay-style dialogue could surface real tensions and conflicting interests—ones that often stay hidden or get lost in the fog of marketing. In this sense, the screenplay wasn’t just clever; it was revelatory.

Let’s take a closer look at why this approach matters.

Unchallenged Claims Become “Truth”

In many professional settings, bold but questionable claims—like “You can’t do bottom-up budgeting in Excel”—often go unchallenged. These statements, though unsupported, are absorbed into the background noise of marketing narratives. Over time, they become “truth” by default—not because they are true, but because they go unopposed.

And this matters. Because even if these claims only influence a small portion of the market—say, the top 5% who hold the purse strings—that’s enough. The 95% who actually do the work are ignored because they don’t control the budget. So marketing targets the decision-makers, even if those decision-makers lack the experience or curiosity to question the substance behind the sales pitch.

The FP&A Industry and the Rise of Cosmetics Over Substance

Let’s talk about FP&A (Financial Planning and Analysis). In theory, this function should be about insightful analysis, collaborative budgeting, and driving better decisions. In practice, it has often devolved into what might generously be called a “presentation factory.” The output? Impressive dashboards, pretty graphs, and digital window dressing.

I have real-world examples. One project I was involved in—around roof plank surveys and the structural vulnerability of concrete roof tiles—turned into a showcase for a Power BI dashboard. The purpose of the data was safety and accountability. But in the end, it became political. The goal shifted from understanding the data to displaying it in a visually attractive way. And this wasn’t an isolated case.

Often, people in FP&A roles aren’t financial modelers or systems thinkers. They’re producers of surface-level artifacts meant to impress at board meetings. And sadly, that often works.

Enterprise Collaboration Needs Architecture, Not Just Aesthetics

During a project at Lloyds Banking Group years ago, I observed that business analysts—despite their titles—lacked the skills to model or even understand enterprise-level collaboration. They were good at creating user guides with polished screenshots. But the foundational architecture needed to support collaboration? Not even on their radar.

Here’s the non-negotiable truth: effective enterprise collaboration requires client-server architecture—also known as Hub and Spoke. This means a centralized data layer with interfaces for all the “spokes” (functions, users, teams) so everyone is aligned. Anything less is just glossy veneer.

Round Wheels, Square Wheels, and Octagonal Nonsense

To drive this point home, let’s use a metaphor.

Imagine you’re selling wheels. Round wheels work. Always have. But someone comes along marketing square wheels, claiming they’re innovative. When that flops, they rebrand and release an “octagonal wheel”—twice the sides, so it must be twice as good, right?

Wrong. But they pitch it anyway, targeting those too busy or underinformed to ask: “How does this compare to a round wheel?” Instead, they compare it to the failure that was the square wheel. And voilà—progress!

Now, picture a CEO like “Bob,” a seasoned executive who’s seen this scam before. He doesn’t fall for shiny presentations. He asks, “Show me why this is better than the round wheel.” If you can’t, you’re out the door—possibly through a trapdoor into a tank of piranhas. Metaphorically, of course.

Marketing to the Gullible: Flat Earth and Parachutes

If you think this metaphor is too extreme, let’s go further.

Flat Earth believers are a real audience. And where there’s belief, there’s opportunity. Imagine marketing parachutes and bungee cords “in case you fall off the edge.” Sounds absurd? Well, so does a lot of the tech being sold to corporate buyers with no time—or incentive—to dig deeper.

It’s easy to say, “Well, this product is for them, not you.” But when marketing serves only the uninformed, and those with real insight are ignored or ridiculed, we end up in a dangerous place. A place where critical thinking is replaced by clickbait logic and the market is driven by optics, not outcomes.

Why Virtual Meeting Simulations Matter

This is where virtual meeting simulations like ours come in. They create a space to expose the contradictions, challenge the unchallenged, and elevate ideas that make real sense—not just visual sense.

There’s no real platform today that enables such debate to unfold in a visible, accessible way. LinkedIn posts vanish into the feed. Complex issues get no traction. But in a dramatized virtual meeting, every stakeholder speaks. Every claim is tested. And every “octagonal wheel” must face off against the round wheel of reason.

In summary: This isn’t just a quirky storytelling technique. It’s a necessary intervention. We need spaces to push back on marketing masquerading as truth, and to champion solid, demonstrable, logical foundations—whether in enterprise budgeting, data modeling, or system architecture.

Because if we don’t? The piranhas are coming for all of us.

ABSTRACT

Elevating Truth in Virtual Meetings

This article discusses how virtual meeting simulations, like a recent one dramatizing different viewpoints, can expose inconsistencies and flawed assumptions often presented as fact in business and technology. The author argues that in fields like Financial Planning and Analysis (FP&A), there’s a tendency towards creating visually appealing but unsubstantial presentations, prioritizing cosmetics over true analytical depth or robust system architecture. Marketing efforts frequently target decision-makers who lack the technical understanding to question unsupported claims, allowing “truth” to be established by repetition rather than validation, much like selling ineffective “octagonal wheels” instead of proven “round wheels.” The piece concludes by emphasizing the necessity of these simulations as a vital space for challenging misleading marketing and advocating for logic and sound foundations in enterprise systems.