By Hiran de Silva
In today’s Excel and FP&A discourse, a troubling pattern has emerged: promotional noise masquerading as discussion. Many of us who frequent LinkedIn or follow Excel-related content have encountered posts that appear to invite dialogue—but in truth, only entertain agreement. “Join the discussion,” they say. But the reality is often: “Please validate my brand.”
Take, for example, Paul Barnhurst’s recent thread, “VBA—Will It Die?” The title alone primes the audience with a verdict. Scroll through the replies and you’ll see a flood of engagement—likes, shares, and comments. But how much of it actually scrutinizes the premise? How much of it genuinely interrogates the substance?
I commented on that post. So did others with a depth of experience in enterprise-grade Excel. But what followed wasn’t the healthy intellectual exchange you’d hope for. There was no meaningful engagement with counterpoints, no recognition that the narrative might be flawed. And certainly no acknowledgment that VBA, when viewed through the lens of purpose—namely, automating business processes Excel was built for—remains irreplaceable in enterprise use cases.
That’s the rub. Posts like these aren’t innocent musings. They are sales funnels. They are not crafted to explore nuance—they are engineered to attract, affirm, and convert. Their metrics reward conformity and discourage contradiction.
So what do we do? Do we walk away, defeated by the algorithms?
No. We propose something better: Virtual Debates—screenplay-format dialogues that simulate the conversations that should be happening in public view, but aren’t.
Why Virtual Debates?
Because live debates rarely happen. I’ve called for them—invited the likes of Colin Wall, Mark Proctor, and Paul Barnhurst to step into the arena. No one has accepted. Understandably so: it’s far easier to control a narrative through solo posts than to defend it in real time against informed scrutiny.
Yet, these individuals have spoken publicly. Their LinkedIn posts, webinars, and sponsored interviews are all part of the record. And like dialogue in a documentary or biopic, these public statements can and should be referenced in any effort to clarify the truth.
If Freddie Mercury were alive and denied ever performing at Live Aid, we’d pull up the footage. The same principle applies here.
So, I propose to take these public posts—like Barnhurst’s “VBA Will It Die?” thread—and use them to construct fictionalized but factually grounded virtual debates. Screenplays that simulate the back-and-forth, incorporating multiple expert views, and critically analyzing the arguments on their merits.
Example: The VBA Debate
Let’s use Paul Barnhurst’s thread as a pilot episode.
He asserts that VBA is dying. I challenge that: VBA was built for a specific purpose—automating and integrating spreadsheet processes—and no current alternative matches it in that regard. Tools like Python, Power Query, or even low-code platforms haven’t been built to replace VBA’s enterprise function. It’s like saying Hotel Chocolat will replace The Dorchester simply because it has more high street visibility.
In the thread, I posed a direct question: Here is a large-scale budgeting system powered by VBA. Can you replicate this functionality with any of the alternatives you’re suggesting?
No one responded.
The silence speaks volumes.
When I pushed further and asked Paul whether he’d engage in a live debate on the topic, the response was—predictably—nonexistent. But his position is public. His statements are public. The replies are public. So the debate can—and will—go on, virtually, whether he attends or not.
The Broader Problem
This is bigger than one post. As I noted in my response to a post by Colin Wall on budgeting: some influencers continue to promote claims they’ve already acknowledged are false. Colin once conceded he didn’t know how bottom-up budgeting worked in Excel. Yet, years later, he continues to post as though it’s impossible. What’s going on?
This isn’t mere ignorance—it’s marketing. And marketing works by identifying and exploiting gaps in a demography’s knowledge. That’s why the Flat Earth Society can market parachutes—for people afraid of falling off the edge. Likewise, tech vendors push FP&A tools to users who don’t know Excel can already solve their problems faster, cheaper, and more transparently.
Carol Cadwalladr said it best in her TED Talk about political misinformation: “The people who needed to know didn’t even know the messages existed.” The same is happening in our space. Misinformation thrives in echo chambers. Silence from informed voices lets the echo grow.
The Solution: Structured, Balanced Virtual Debates
These virtual debates are not performative. They’re not driven by likes or brand-building. They are designed to illuminate truth—to weigh pros and cons in full view of the audience, with no agenda other than clarity.
And if someone like Paul Barnhurst is unwilling to join the debate directly, that’s fine. His public statements will be quoted, credited, and tested. If he objects to being quoted, then we ask: Why are you saying it publicly in the first place?
We can even run virtual debates on meta-topics—like the ethics of product reviews or influencer disclosures. Why should someone promoting a product ask critics to not mention the product’s name in their review, as Paul once did with me? That’s not transparency. That’s information control.
Final Thought
The challenge we face is not one of tool choice—it’s one of narrative control. If Excel is wrongly sidelined, not because it’s inadequate but because influencers benefit from its exclusion, then we must speak up.
Virtual debates offer a way forward. They don’t rely on consent from the loudest voices. They simply lay out the facts, the claims, the counterclaims—and let the audience decide.
This is not about conflict. It’s about truth. And the truth doesn’t need permission to be told.
Let the debates begin.
Add comment