By Hiran de Silva

Read the article. Or listen to the podcast at the end. Then listen to the debate above.

A recent post by Giles Male on LinkedIn brought attention to a serious concern: an individual allegedly passing off Emma Chieppo’s Excel cheat sheets as their own. On the surface, this is a clear case of dishonest content theft. But it raises a larger, more uncomfortable question for the Excel influencer community: is this sort of uncredited reuse really the exception—or the rule?

This article is not written to excuse plagiarism. Stealing someone’s unique work and claiming it as your own is unethical. But it is written to question the subtle and normalized forms of content replication that underpin much of today’s Excel content ecosystem.

Level One: Piggybacking on Each Other’s Clout

When someone tags a well-known influencer in a post—not to engage with their ideas, but to drive up algorithmic exposure—that is a form of social piggybacking. It’s less about adding value and more about basking in reflected credibility. This practice is widespread, even celebrated, as part of “playing the algorithm.” But it rides dangerously close to the same moral edge as unauthorized content repurposing.

So when influencers complain about plagiarism while engaging in social content clout-chasing themselves, there is at least an irony to acknowledge.

Level Two: The Unspoken Dependency on Microsoft IP

Virtually all Excel influencers operate by demonstrating features that Microsoft created. New formulas, Power Query workflows, Dynamic Arrays—these are the work of Microsoft engineers. Yet influencer after influencer records their screen and repackages those features into videos or cheat sheets. That material is then marketed as their own “original content.”

Where is the line drawn between a “tutorial” and a repurposed user manual? If someone posts a cheat sheet of Microsoft’s own functions, and another person screenshots it, modifies it slightly, and reposts it, what distinguishes that second act as unethical while the first is celebrated?

The truth is: most Excel content is not original in the purest sense. It’s a demonstration of someone else’s invention—typically Microsoft’s. The key difference is that Microsoft benefits from this kind of content proliferation. It spreads their product, boosts adoption, and aligns with their influencer MVP strategy. But the core dynamic remains: people are screen-recording someone else’s intellectual work.

Sunset Photography and Product Demonstrations

Consider this analogy: two tourists photograph the same sunset. Can one claim ownership over that image and accuse the other of plagiarism? Of course not. The sunset belongs to no one. Microsoft’s Excel functions are the same: widely visible, intentionally shared, and meant to be reused.

Does it matter if someone screen-records their own walkthrough of the GROUPBY function in Power Query and Dynamic Arrays using their own spreadsheet? What if they mimic another creator’s structure, language, or examples? At what point does it stop being “inspired by” and start being “copied from”?

The digital age blurs these lines further. One could take an Excel tutorial, translate it using AI, dub it into Vietnamese, and post it to an entirely different audience. Is that plagiarism? Or localization? The original structure may still be visible, but the final product is arguably transformative.

From Chaplin to Lennon: The History of Borrowed Brilliance

This isn’t new. Charlie Chaplin’s iconic theme Smile—often attributed to him—was a repurposing of Puccini’s Tosca, executed by composer David Raksin. John Lennon, in his song Imagine, borrowed lyrical motifs and intro, and feel from his father’s obscure 1965 single That’s My Life and thematic phrasing from Yoko Ono’s poetry.

These examples reveal a truth: repurposing and remixing have always been part of the creative process. What matters is not merely the source but the transformation and value added in the process.

The Real Question: Are We Teaching or Just Demonstrating?

Let’s step away from the plagiarism debate for a moment. What truly matters is whether we’re teaching something of value—or just demonstrating buttons. Most Excel content is not problem-solving—it’s product showcasing.

It’s like a vacuum cleaner demonstration: “Press this button, watch this happen.” Informative, but not transformative.

Enterprise-level Excel problem-solving is something entirely different. It demands conceptual understanding, systems thinking, case study analysis, creative design, and adaptability. It cannot be captured in a 2-minute video or a multiple-choice test.

True enterprise Excel skills—like integrating ADO, SQL, or relational database architecture—aren’t demonstrated by showing how to use XLOOKUP. They are taught through narratives, problem breakdowns, and layered thinking. This is precisely what mainstream Excel content avoids, because it isn’t algorithm-friendly or easily digestible.

The Gordon Ramsay Test: Solving, Not Repeating

The challenge I propose is not “do you know which button to press” but “can you figure out what’s needed and explain it?” It’s the difference between knowing the steps and understanding the process.

That’s why I’m designing a recruitment test that doesn’t reward memorization of YouTube videos. Instead, it rewards reasoning, strategy, lateral thinking, and problem dissection. Not whether you can copy Layla’s video. But whether you can solve a version of the problem she addresses—when the context has changed, and the solution isn’t obvious.

Final Thought: Cosmetic Excel vs. Capable Excel

There is a vast difference between cosmetic Excel skills (shiny dashboards, trendy formulas, and screen-friendly workflows) and capable Excel skills (robust, scalable, process-driven architecture).

Before we accuse others of copying a cheat sheet, we must ask: what are we doing ourselves? Are we solving real problems—or are we all, in one way or another, reposting the sunset?

Postscript
This article was inspired by Giles Male’s post calling out Excel content theft. Rather than reject the premise, I’ve tried to examine it from all angles—artistic, ethical, cultural, and technical. The Excel community would benefit not from stricter accusations, but from deeper introspection. Let’s ask what we’re really teaching. And more importantly: what we’re really learning.

PODCAST