What I’m doing now, with these Excel challenges, is not accidental.
It’s not random.
And it’s definitely not content-for-content’s-sake.
It’s strategy.
The Problem I’m Pre-Empting: “Snake Oil”
Let’s be blunt.
In today’s Excel ecosystem, audacious claims are assumed to be clickbait.
- “Revolutionary”
- “Game-changing”
- “This changes everything”
- “Triple your pay with Excel”
Most of the time, they are hype.
The social media Excel economy rewards:
- clicks
- likes
- follows
- engagement loops
Impact on real businesses is secondary.
So when someone hears “I tripled my pay with Excel”, the default reaction is:
Sounds like snake oil.
That’s not cynicism.
That’s learned behaviour.
Which is why my marketing strategy begins with cutting that off at the knees.
Why the Wright Brothers Matter Here
Langley’s failed attempts.
Most people think the Wright brothers invented flight.
They didn’t.
Heavier-than-air flight was understood long before 1903.
Leonardo da Vinci’s drawings
- Birds had been studied.
- Airfoil behaviour was known.
- Gliders had already flown.
- Leonardo da Vinci sketched flying machines centuries earlier.
Even the U.S. government knew flight was possible — which is why they funded
Samuel Pierpont Langley with serious money.
And Langley failed.
Not because the physics were wrong —
but because demonstration matters more than theory.
The Wright Brothers didn’t publish hype.
They didn’t run ads.
They didn’t declare victory.
They demonstrated.
Quietly.
Then publicly.
Then undeniably.
Once heavier-than-air flight had been shown, accusations of snake oil collapsed overnight.
This Is the Exact Parallel
I did not invent:
- client-server architecture
- hub-and-spoke systems
- centralised relational data
- cloud-style data flow
Those have been standard enterprise architecture since the 1990s.
Microsoft shipped these capabilities inside Excel decades ago.
Everybody knows this — even if they’ve forgotten it.
What hasn’t been demonstrated, publicly and clearly, is this:
Excel itself can operate as a client in a proper enterprise architecture —
without breaking, emailing spreadsheets, or collapsing under scale.
And more importantly:
That this single architectural correction demolishes the entire “Excel Hell” narrative.
Why Demonstration Comes First
If I simply said:
“Excel can scale, collaborate, consolidate, and reach globally”
People would shrug.
If I claimed:
“Excel replacement tools are built on a false premise”
People would argue.
So instead, I demonstrate.
Side-by-side.
- Budgeting
- Consolidation
- Review cycles
- Multi-user workflows
- Zero broken links
- Zero email chaos
And I do it live.
That’s why the challenges exist.
Not to impress Excel hobbyists —
but to make it impossible to dismiss this as hype.
My Role Is Not Inventor — It’s Demonstrator
I’m not Leonardo sketching birds.
I’m not Langley burning government money.
I’m doing what the Wright Brothers did:
Taking a known truth —
applying it correctly —
and proving it works in the real world.
That’s exactly how I tripled my pay.
Not by talking.
Not by selling.
By building something that worked immediately.
From my very first project — what I call the Colombo sketch — the pattern was the same:
- Demonstrate
- Leave it running
- Let results speak
- Watch resistance collapse
Buy-in didn’t come from persuasion.
It came from relief.
Why This Terrifies the Excel Replacement Industry
The Excel replacement narrative depends on one belief:
Excel cannot do enterprise work.
That belief collapses the moment people see otherwise.
Which is why tools like
Workday Adaptive Planning
must frame architectural failure as “Excel failure”.
Once the architecture is corrected, the story breaks.
And that’s exactly what I’m demonstrating — publicly.
This Is Why I’m Sticking My Neck Out
I know how audacious this sounds.
That’s precisely why I’m leading with proof, not promises.
Once something has been demonstrated:
- calling it snake oil makes you look unserious
- dismissing it becomes denial, not scepticism
That’s the Wright Brothers lesson.
And it’s why this campaign starts with challenges, not courses.
The Endgame
This isn’t about followers.
It’s about establishing, beyond dispute, that:
- the right-hand box is empty
- no one is teaching enterprise Excel architecture
- and that gap explains decades of unnecessary software spend
Once that’s clear, everything else follows.
Just like flight.
Add comment