Radio Better Offline: David "Shingy" Shing

Welcome to Radio Better Offline, a tech talk radio show recorded out of iHeartRadio's studio in New York City.

In this episode, Ed Zitron is joined by famed “digital prophet” David “Shingy” Shing, who calls himself a “creative omnivore,” to talk about adtech, being a "digital prophet," and society's attraction to nostalgia.

https://www.shingy.com/

Vote for Better Offline's "Man Who Killed Google Search" as the best business podcast episode in this year's Webby's! Open until April 17! Vote today!

https://vote.webbyawards.com/PublicVoting#/2025/podcasts/individual-episode/business

---

LINKS: https://www.tinyurl.com/betterofflinelinks

Newsletter: https://www.wheresyoured.at/

Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/BetterOffline/ 

Discord: chat.wheresyoured.at

Ed's Socials:

https://twitter.com/edzitron

https://www.instagram.com/edzitron

https://bsky.app/profile/edzitron.com

https://www.threads.net/@edzitron

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
Also media, Hi, Mimo, moo ed zitron. This is better offline.
We're in iHeart Radio studio in beautiful New York City today.

(00:23):
I am joined by a man who in twenty fourteen
roast to fame after becoming AOL's digital profit. He joins
me in the studio today, David Shing, best known as Shingy. David, Hey, ed,
how are you, mate, sing? I am fantastic an intro.
Oh yeah, this is the most normal show in tech.
What are you up to these days? Shingy?

Speaker 2 (00:41):
Great question. There's three things. I'm primarily up to them. Okay,
I'm out speaking and educating, that's right, what I'm known for.
I also have a creative house, nice that started around
pandemic time.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
What's the creative house too?

Speaker 2 (00:53):
It does everything from iconography all the way through the strategy,
so all the way through psychography. You happened to be
wearing a brand Onion T shirt. Yeah, somebody designed that, dude.

Speaker 1 (01:01):
Okay, so a design thing cool.

Speaker 2 (01:03):
And then the other flip side is an advisory practice.
That's cool, and it's institutional advisory as well as small startups,
which has really been research for me, which has been amazing.

Speaker 1 (01:12):
Yeah, as a fellow consultant with the podcast. It's always
good to meet another one. So you it's been a
while since you rose to fame. What kind of happened?
What kind of happened? Because you I remember I was
in the Bay Area at the time when I saw
you you arise on MSNBC, and then just went and
did other things. I had to go and make some
mistakes in my life. I guess what was it you

(01:34):
did today?

Speaker 2 (01:35):
Well, so I ran thirteen countries for them. I ran
the media in marketing for them right throughout Europe.

Speaker 1 (01:41):
But what did that actually entail?

Speaker 2 (01:43):
I ran thirteen countries with multi millions?

Speaker 1 (01:46):
But what did you do each day?

Speaker 2 (01:47):
Because I launched I launched a series of websites, and
I launched a series of ad platforms, and I helped
change the iconography for AOL. And when you build a
new brand and you don't have any budget to support it, right,
you have to think about a way to be in
the marketplace.

Speaker 1 (02:02):
So I created a PERSONA wait, did you not have
like much budget?

Speaker 2 (02:06):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (02:06):
Yeah, we did, but not in Europe. No, not in Europe.

Speaker 2 (02:09):
No, Because what happened in a big company, you could
probably appreciate this if one division performs poorly, everyone suffers, right,
So if you're not close to the sun, you're not
going to get all the budget.

Speaker 1 (02:20):
It's just how it works. It's funny because your whole thing,
and I don't say this is an ensult, got kind
of flattenedto that one picture of you with the kind
of yeah because and then there was that Guardian interview.
It's like you drew a zebra. It said you showed
someone AOL a picture of a zebra zebra pant pants.
Possibly it's just I was wearing them. You're wearing a

(02:42):
nice right. Yeah. It's it's funny because you've become somewhat
of like a like a I want to say, like
a character within meme, a meme. I think memes fair,
but it's more.

Speaker 2 (02:56):
Than character's probably a little underrated.

Speaker 1 (02:58):
Yeah, it's just because you have a real job, it seems,
and you have this whole time, despite the fact that
I've been told, like, oh, this guy just like shows
up and says he's the digital profit and I was
genuinely curious about like, I.

Speaker 2 (03:11):
Never really told anybody the mystery. I want to hear
that and the magic of it still replicates today. So
I would go in and get interviews, get audiences with
brands we could never be in front.

Speaker 1 (03:24):
Of like what like what brand? Like? Yeah, what kind
of brands? Nike? Nike? Why couldn't al get in front
of them?

Speaker 2 (03:31):
Well, they could, but they're going to just sell ads.
I'm trying to sell innovation on top of the ads,
so much bigger than we would ever be able to do.

Speaker 1 (03:37):
And what would that innovation manifest? That's what were you
selling to Nike? For example? I know this is just
an example.

Speaker 2 (03:43):
We invented an ad called Devil, which was like this
incredible new magazine esque style ad takeover right, that the
IAB ended up picking up and running with. So we
were just building things that were radically different than spots
and dots that sales teams are selling.

Speaker 1 (03:58):
Right, So how do you feel about AI? How are
you feeling about all this? Because look, you were part
of a hype cycle. So end of twenty fourteen is
like it was like a very hype driven time. It's
like the sexiest time in indiego Go and Kickstarter land.
I would say, back then, what do you think of AI?
How do you feel about it? Do you think it's

(04:19):
a bubble? No?

Speaker 2 (04:21):
No, Well, it's also been around for forty fifty.

Speaker 1 (04:24):
Years, right, so generative AI specifically.

Speaker 2 (04:27):
What do I think about that?

Speaker 1 (04:28):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (04:28):
Sure, think it's magical. Really Yeah, it hallucinates occasionally, but
I think it's great because if I can extend a
background without having to go reshoot it, that's pretty good
and I'm able to change it out.

Speaker 1 (04:38):
Can't do that though.

Speaker 2 (04:39):
Yeah, you're not been you know, haven't checked out fire
Fly or.

Speaker 1 (04:42):
I have I read your sub stack. I do read
your blog. It's just right now as a hype man.
I don't mean that derisively. I mean that, like your
job is ostensibly hype. Right now, it feels like there
is this marketing dissonance between in Firefly, which I'm aware

(05:02):
and I know there are lots of people who listen
to the showho are going to be very angry at
me that we're even talking about Adobe AI. Calm down, everyone,
it's shingy. Allow him in. But it's it feels like
you've got this massive business failure happening in the background,
billions of dollars burned from Open AI, but you've got
some utility. How do you balance that?

Speaker 2 (05:20):
Like, how do you in what characterizational you said?

Speaker 1 (05:24):
Generally they so, well, I'm talking about the fact that
you're hyping up something that is unsustainable right now, which
bit I mean the generative AI features of Firefly, for example,
the same.

Speaker 2 (05:37):
Is it not sustainable?

Speaker 1 (05:38):
Well, because open AI burns five billion dollars a year,
they still haven't worked out any profitability for any of
these models. Yes, but fireflies run on generitive models.

Speaker 2 (05:47):
Yeah, right, and they help create ad performances sure at scale. Right,
So at some point in time these things level.

Speaker 1 (05:55):
Out when because that's the thing, like the amount when
there's demand for better right, I just feel like we're
a little lost within the general of AI conversation right
as an industry. Right, And I'm curious you see, do
you play with Runway. I've played with Sora a bit. Yeah,
I just think I found Runway to be really fucking mediocre.

Speaker 2 (06:16):
Well, there's a dystopian to it, which is definitely that
shine will come off and that production is going to
be pretty amazing. Single single tool that does one thing
no good, right, but a tool that allows you to
master audio without an engineer pretty amazing.

Speaker 1 (06:30):
Yeah, But does that exist yet?

Speaker 2 (06:31):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (06:31):
It does. With voice Riverside is not good.

Speaker 2 (06:35):
Riverside is a podcasting platform.

Speaker 1 (06:37):
And they have AI mastering on it.

Speaker 2 (06:38):
God bless them, but they're not just doing mastering. So
you can upload something to something like voice AI and
it's absolutely designed for mastering, right.

Speaker 1 (06:45):
But there is this massive financial problem at the side
of this, that this stuff is burning so much money.
And I guess you could have on device models, but
that's nowhere near what I just I don't know how
you couch these two things.

Speaker 2 (07:01):
Supply and demand. I mean, there's a massive supply for
new ways of creating different tools, and the supply cycle
is incredibly wide. It feels like, well, you know, back
in the web one dot ohs cycles, right, but now
it has different tools that are much faster build.

Speaker 1 (07:18):
But the demand isn't there I think. I mean, I
did a piece a few months ago and weeks ago
Jesus Christ time dilation where it was like co pilot
has like eleven million monthly active users, okay, which is
pretty pispor and that's Microsoft's I am hearing that there
are various companies like eleven Labs which are kind of
leveling out as far as user base goes. What happens

(07:40):
if this doesn't get much bigger?

Speaker 2 (07:42):
It just continues to do what everything else does. It
tails off and becomes a niche, which is okay, you think, so, yeah,
it's totally okay.

Speaker 1 (07:48):
So you seem quite eye on it. So what are
you using? Then? Talk to me about the tools you use?
The obvious.

Speaker 2 (07:54):
I mean, I think chat's interesting. I think that Claude
is interesting to help you do draft one. So those
tools are fine. I think sora is it seems interesting.
But Dystopian Runaway works okay if you can actually model
it correctly.

Speaker 1 (08:08):
When you say dystopian, what do you mean over glossy?

Speaker 2 (08:12):
Really hard to understand. Depth of field like it's if
you are going to be a deep practitioner, you know,
the sort of thing you want to try and visualize,
that can be very difficult. And I think that's kind
of the challenge today is these tools do remarkable.

Speaker 1 (08:27):
Amount of work.

Speaker 2 (08:29):
It's a matter of can you get it to do
the work that you wanted to do without taking more
time than actually doing it physically. It's software, So it's
just software, and it's and it's curious, but it's not it.
Here's what I'm am saying. I'm seeing a consolidation of
tools saying here's one tool that you log into and
it does all these things for you, but it does

(08:49):
all of them only, Okay, so you have to splinter
off and find something that does just what you want
it to do.

Speaker 1 (08:54):
So focused, and you know.

Speaker 2 (08:56):
Better at book writing then maybe stories, or better that
draw oring than maybe paining a landscape. I mean these
articulations that become really just splinters of a certain technique
today or crud into one thing. And I don't think
anything does a great job. Words are great.

Speaker 1 (09:14):
I think the agent if I agree on the words side,
I don't think well as at and you're still your
points made. But it's way better than me as a
first edit copywriter. So yeah, but that's a skill issue, shingy,
like you could get better by writing more. You could.
It's good, Like do you is your substack chat GPT
written or claud written? No, but it's but it's you know.

Speaker 2 (09:36):
I think what's interesting about the tools I don't want
to have to necessarily become very technical when I'm wanting
to shoot an idea of a landscape or something. By
the way, I'm only using my own images and only
purposely not using anything generative. It's all like photos from
my own photo library, right, no stock, no, no generative
because until it's actually really good. As much as I'm

(09:59):
an advocate for it, I'm a better believer in craft
than I am. Then so can these tools like mastering
for example of sound love that love that for a
tool because I have no clue how to bring eqs up.
I have no clue how to bring in any depth
within a voice, and no clue on that.

Speaker 1 (10:13):
So God bless, and do you use it for that?
Like you actually use it? What do you use for masking?

Speaker 2 (10:19):
I use voice? I think it's voice AI. I've used
a couple of them. And by the way, when you
skim it, you know, when I'm looking for something, it's
typically at urgency other levels alone, and I can't seem
to bring them up and over peaky, and then I
use the service comes back it's too peaky or it's
got too much base. I don't know, right, So it's
really about can I use things tools that help get
to a better artifact than the actual tools that I

(10:42):
can use, Because democratization of tools means that everything is
kind of flatlined. So I'm looking for things to become
really interesting. I don't necessarily I don't necessarily think that
the quality of the end result is higher resolution enough,
but it sure beats squeaky markers and poof pads he
grew up with. So the efficiency of getting ideas out.

Speaker 1 (11:05):
Love that, right, But is it craft if you're using
generative AI?

Speaker 2 (11:09):
Yes, I think it is. I think it's I think
an artist can use any tool. This just happens to
be one of them today.

Speaker 1 (11:16):
Right now.

Speaker 2 (11:17):
You talked about value though, you talked about this thing
seemed to be bleeding money, et cetera, et cetera, all
of them. Yeah, God bless, what do you mean, God bless?
I mean that's that's going to be their problem at
some point in time. They're going to have to factor
that out and figure out a model that everyone's trying to,
you know, generate these tools that can be the panacea,
and then they're going to make money on it at
some point. Yeah maybe, yes, See, it's just not all

(11:40):
the tools he had to make money, you know that.

Speaker 1 (11:42):
Sure, But none of the tools currently make money. Like
that's that's kind of thing. It just it feels like
an atypical hype psycle in that having lived through enough
of these now myself, I'm a little bit younger than you.
I've never seen one that was just burning cash like
this and it, but I've never seen one with more
nor have I ever seen one with more disconnection between

(12:04):
the utility and the marketing hype. It feels like they
are promising more than ever. Yeah, and we're in this weird,
distant area where it's like no one really knows what's
going to happen.

Speaker 2 (12:15):
Well, you know, I live in the space of ads still,
so from an ad perspective, there's no shortage of demand.

Speaker 1 (12:21):
But for what though? Ads? Yeah, sure, but demand for ads?
But what about generative? Like where does general vay I
fit into this?

Speaker 2 (12:29):
You saying creative but yeah, helping to create the ads.
I think the ads that are created with Generative are
pretty rubbish. Yeah, but the truth is there's a demand
for lots of ads because of just sheer audience growth.
But the reality is that efficiency of can you make
ads cheaper? That's a that's a conundrum.

Speaker 1 (12:45):
Because is Generative I doing that?

Speaker 2 (12:47):
I don't think so. I think they're doing some of it.
Perhaps maybe they're doing an interesting background that would have
taken taking you up, but it can't.

Speaker 1 (12:54):
It's not the whole thing.

Speaker 2 (12:55):
And by the way, if you and I would look
at a bunch of ads right now and try and
pick with their AI or not AI, you would I
think nine out of ten would get We would know
that it's written by.

Speaker 1 (13:04):
A There's like an uncanny Valley feel to them.

Speaker 2 (13:06):
It's got a dystopian I guess. It's kind of feels
a little bit like and we've gone way beyond hallucination.
We've gone into this kind of you just know, you
can just see it and feel it. It's cold, it's weird.

Speaker 1 (13:15):
And the funny thing is this, I think what you're
talking about is not hallucination. It is actually a in
accurate depiction of something. But it's too It has this
kind of sheen to it does feels like the movie AI. Yeah, ironically,
it has said that it came off my head. I'm like, shit,
I'm stupid anyway.

Speaker 2 (13:32):
And the number of frames a second seem off.

Speaker 1 (13:34):
There's something very there's too much like I.

Speaker 2 (13:37):
Completely agree with you, but it's also where I see
those sort of things used in more kind of tunny jads,
like things that are just trying to get a lot
of these creatives saturating the marketplace, which ultimately if we're
not careful, we'll make ads more expensive, meaning to get
to ed the human at the end of it. If
you if you've now just become completely oblivious or ignoring

(14:00):
ads that feel like they're aied because and the sack
gets figured out, right, you'll become blind of these AI ads.

Speaker 1 (14:06):
So to get to us even going to be harder.
So this is the weird thing right now. Ads and
AI don't seem to have touched that much. Can I
say this because there's a company so you heard a
perplexity too. So Perplexity is allegedly Hayden Field that the
NBC reported this last year. They're apparently looking for like
fifty five dollars CPM on what platform on their search

(14:26):
net their search platform. Okay, but you've not really seen
ADS and AI touch like even Google's AI search they
just did ads.

Speaker 2 (14:34):
No, I think perplexity if you were to give it
a prompt and it recommended something that you were looking for. Yeah,
I assume you're looking for a piece of gear and
they recommend a piece of gear versus these other ten
pieces of gear. Ah, that review is probably in their
eyes an ad, right, you know what I mean? It's
not it may not be a display ad as we
but they're not.

Speaker 1 (14:52):
They're not doing ads yet.

Speaker 2 (14:53):
It's just you know, but I'm saying they could be
in the description. Sure are they formally not doing ads
or they haven't.

Speaker 1 (14:59):
They haven't started yet because they want to.

Speaker 2 (15:01):
And when they do those ads, they will be subtle
like that, they will be within descriptions, they will be
contextually relevant to that person in terms of the totality
of a story, not just a display.

Speaker 1 (15:12):
I'm just wanting I think it will be No, no, no,
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just wondering how they
pull it off. Because the whole thing with hallucinations, you
can't predict where an AD is going to appear or
what it's going to appear next to.

Speaker 2 (15:21):
And I think that if it's with with if it's
with words, the context is wider.

Speaker 1 (15:25):
You think. If it's with voice, they're not going to
voice as not.

Speaker 2 (15:29):
You know, it's like it's just a wider context. Though,
So let's let's just stream for a second. If you're
able to do that, at least you've got a wider
concept of what the story is versus a display out around.

Speaker 1 (15:41):
But I mean, I mean just like, practically speaking, if
you vomit out a bunch of text which may rip
off a journalist outlet, or to how do you like
I Perhaps the I need to actually ask you the question,
why do you think that ADS and AI really haven't
touched it? Because chat GPT doesn't monetize with that, Lexity
is thinking about it, haven't Google AI has only just

(16:03):
started considering it. Do you think it's a generative side
like you've been in the AD slot for that?

Speaker 2 (16:09):
I guess it depends on depends on which place you
want to sit in that question. Are you talking about
me as somebody going to the tool to use it?

Speaker 1 (16:16):
Now? I'm wondering why the companies themselves have been hesitant? No, no, no,
hang on, let me let me.

Speaker 2 (16:21):
Let's get back to the context real quick so I
can understand the framing. Is it? Is it me going
to Perplexity's website to be able to use its tool,
and it's folding in ADS in the results of me?

Speaker 1 (16:32):
I mean, I mean a generative I mean on a
grander perspective, like taking it away from just like the
user right now, You've been in ads for a long time, however,
so I think, why do you think they if it
was like ads to ad tech has traditionally been very
quick to adopt stuff. But they will rush. They rush
to fucking micat, They rushed to everything fast. Remember that.
But it's AI. They've generative AI, generative search Chat GPT.

Speaker 2 (16:55):
Because I just don't think it's I would I would
say that it's just a little naive. And I have
seen you mean, I have seen ads that are directed
by so, scripted by AI, shot by humans. Sure, and
they look there's just something missing. And because that litmus

(17:17):
test of is it warm and after does it feel
like something that is a motive it misses? Sure, it
is going to get a lot better. Man, This is
not even a debate, but.

Speaker 1 (17:26):
I mean it absolutely is a debate. I mean I
will absolutely debate the shit out of this. The training
data required to make saua better does not exist, even
if you took every video ever taken there. Adobe is
paying people to take video. But my question was actually
really way more specific, which is, you have been in
ad tech for a long time. Everything else has been

(17:46):
in like generative AI platforms are not integrating ads as
a monetization mechanis well, and why do you think that is.

Speaker 2 (17:55):
Because the presentation layer of that, the actual ability to
generate something that feels like it's not coal specifically, and
I've said it a few times now, is not up
to snuff. Everything else in the background that is actually
using lots of big data to be able to represent
the right type of context to you. Today we will
call that AI is in play. So I think there's

(18:16):
a marriage between what's going on in the back Haman
along and the presentation layer of that, to be honest,
is terrible. I agre in comparison, I agree, but maybe
they need to be more specific. It feels like ad
tech is they will do the generative side. There's tons
of ad tech platforms that will generate like and you
see those the specs, or you've seen the ads too.
You've seen the shiny musclier person.

Speaker 1 (18:36):
Oh god, yeah, the horrifying like beautiful people with like
nineteen pack. I mean more on a practical level of
you were a AOWA, you were inspiring them to do
more things. It feels like when it comes to the
platforms themselves, putting aside the actual ads themselves, I mean,
it doesn't feel like anyone not perplexity, perplexity being so

(18:58):
slow Google, especially so weird. It feels like they're hesitant
to attach ads to these platforms at all. To the platforms, yeah,
as in like they have an integrate because ad tech
loves integrating shit are putting stuff on stuff, But it
feels like they've stepped away from it like they had. Look.

Speaker 2 (19:15):
Yeah, and maybe maybe because of that's a really interesting question.
Maybe it's because it's just, you know, it's an interface
for creation and they don't want to actually bastardartter with
ads today. It might be that it might be that pure.
It might be that pure.

Speaker 1 (19:26):
I wonder if it's difficult to integrate it because.

Speaker 2 (19:28):
Or where would you because that's that's the interface today.
Feels a bit like Wikipedia meets answers dot com. Yeah,
it feels a bit kind of retro, you know. And
because it's a new interface, the only way to put
the context around it is in the context of what
you're generating.

Speaker 1 (19:43):
And it's so and that's random every time.

Speaker 2 (19:45):
And it's also software equals ads. Before, So if we
roll this back to the early nineties mid nineties, there
were holes cut across websites for display ads and those
formats were accredited. Now it's so rare. There is a
little bit of through line that feels like it's consistent,
but it's not a consistent interface that feels like in
rap ads around it and particularly on mobile, but Destop

(20:06):
probably more so.

Speaker 1 (20:07):
And I wanted to and like, this wasn't meant to
be an oppositional question. It's just fascinating to me. Oh,
I don't think it is.

Speaker 2 (20:11):
I think it's a really good question because because I
would say that these But the reason why I'm keep
on asking for a pointed question to the question is
that you've got creation tools and you've got consumption tools,
and at times they're the same thing. Sure, if you
look at Chat or if you look at you know,
if you're a claud they're the same thing. So you're

(20:31):
in there creating as a creator as well as somebody
who is consuming that. That's pretty new from a dynamic
of a user interface, because you don't go in and
you don't well, you could go in and create a
video on the fly and upload it to Instagram, but
you wouldn't expect to see an ad on your creation
of that video on Instagram, you know what I'm saying.

(20:52):
So given that's the case, there's a new paradigm, that's
all I'm saying. And I haven't really thought about that
paradigm converging.

Speaker 1 (20:59):
And that's the thing, Like your whole thing is what's
new and sexy and ads and all shiny, and it's
it's just so strange. It's truly unique. Because when we
had the bullshit AR thing, I'm sure you remember that
they had ads on that ship immediately. You could not.
You couldn't you were filthy with filters. You could have
like a sprite filter on your face if you wanted it.

(21:21):
They had the ads immediately.

Speaker 2 (21:23):
Because in that context, it feel like you're really good.
Can you just layer it?

Speaker 1 (21:27):
Yeah? And it's just like it and you I agree
with you that they are creative interfaces when you look
at them. This is not a judgment or how much
I like them, it's just what they work work has.
It just feels so weird that ad tech or like,
none of these platforms want to Sam Wortman said he
doesn't like it whatever, but it's just so bizarre.

Speaker 2 (21:56):
What about the fact that the gold rush of AAR
happening now is also part of the fallout of the
euphoria of the web three NFT blockchain world how do
you mean? And what I mean by that is that
that was all the attention. If we meant on this
particular show three four years ago, that's probably all you
talk about.

Speaker 1 (22:17):
I mean this three years ago, but I was I
was on that ship if we were. But you know
what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (22:21):
So, but that that has kind of that isn't as
quite hypey as it is today. So what I'm saying,
if people are saying Web three the future of that's
more puristic. We haven't seen a world like this. This
is going to be incredible. It's by landing it blah
blah blah. Perhaps the positioning of what does this new web,
better web look like? Jamming ads in it is just

(22:42):
like having the uninvited guests to the paint.

Speaker 1 (22:44):
I don't know if I feel like it's the utopian thing.
It's just the idea of any of these companies being like, oh, well,
we don't want to fuck up the Internet. I mean,
look at Google Search. I mean that there is no
great effector that has fucked up the Internet. Ragavat, piece
of shit. It's just so strange. And I've really only
came to this conversation thinking about this because every single

(23:08):
hype cycle other than and crypto. I can understand why
the ads weren't quite as prevalent. I can understand because
it's difficult to do blockchain ads. Christ what a hype
cycle idea, But blockchain ads because the sure the immutable ledger.
But how would you actually reliably You could probably say
a click happened. No, actually it would be difficult.

Speaker 2 (23:28):
Yeah, attribution across that would be challenging. But I also
think but on your point, I don't know why, to
be honest, but I do think maybe there is It's
always an outcome. Monetizing a platform of popularity is always
going to be an outcome.

Speaker 1 (23:45):
It doesn't mater to me.

Speaker 2 (23:46):
And by the way, that's with every platform. You know,
it starts with the purest of all the social platforms.
None of them had ads initially. And then if you
look at something if you go into the vault and
look at things like MySpace, they never had ads for
the longest time because the artist was the ad. I mean,
you know, sure that makes sense.

Speaker 1 (24:01):
Yeah, but I'm just thinking, I'm having like one idea,
which is very difficult for my brain. It almost feels
like these hype cycles have failed because they haven't found
an AD thing all of the previous ones. The Internet
is built on advertising, as you well know, but none
of them, not meta, not metaverse, not crypto, not generative
AI have found a stable ad income. And I have

(24:24):
to wonder if it might be that the subscription model
is not scalable, at least it doesn't scale to the
dollars that advertising can provide, which most of tech is
dependent on. Yeah, for sure.

Speaker 2 (24:37):
I mean the subscription dollars versus the ad dollars is
still the pathetic.

Speaker 1 (24:41):
Yeah, forget about it.

Speaker 2 (24:42):
But there's something really interesting about that popularity though we're
still in this world of popularity right until right until
you get scale, you don't have an audience that actually
you can monetize. But it still comes down to I
think these two interphases are in conflict because you've got
consumption and creation happening on the same platform, right, which
I think is incredibly unique.

Speaker 1 (24:59):
It is unique, however, I feel about generative AI. There
hasn't been something like this shit before, which is I
find it deeply annoying and all of it frustrating, and
the environmental and the theft and all of that, and
the fact it's actually fair the people it's put out
of jobs, feel like people who are already vulnerable as well,
like art directors and like freelance audio people and freelance

(25:23):
creatives are the ones getting fucked by this, and all
of this is happening for them all to lose money.
That to me is the dystopian part that they haven't.
They've No one really appears to be benefiting from this
other than maybe Samuelman and dari Ama Day.

Speaker 2 (25:37):
There is something to the culture of creativity which is
even in it adds today still is that creative is
considered a non working part of the media. What do
you mean, I mean that it doesn't count as part
of the media creative.

Speaker 1 (25:52):
So it's always this cost item. Ok so what the
journalists and the artists and all that.

Speaker 2 (25:57):
Yeah, the people should create the commercials for example, they
typically doesn't get rolled up as part of the media
spend or success. So it's always debatable. Media isn't because
it's absolute, because it's skeary. You got a rate card,
you know where the audiences are?

Speaker 1 (26:08):
You know, I get what you're saying. Who are the
people that have when you say it's not rated or like,
it's not not contented part of the media. Who are
the people saying this is it the ad? The ads people?
They just don't consider the.

Speaker 2 (26:21):
Creatives, oh, the brand. So if a brand is sitting
here saying, look, we're going to create an AD, but
the cost of that ad doesn't get attributed to where
the media is because media is always whole.

Speaker 1 (26:30):
So that's always I'm not sure I understand.

Speaker 2 (26:32):
So I guess my point in saying this is that
we're always going to try and skinny down the cost
of creation, right, Okay, that's really the nut of it,
because everything else that's ray card, negotiable, whatever, But the
actual physical cost of the thing that gets placed that
always seems to be.

Speaker 1 (26:50):
A step child. Yeah yeah, yeah, No, that's a shame.

Speaker 2 (26:52):
And so when you talk about vulnerability, I completely agree
with that. The flip side of that is all of
these efficiency tools that we see, and AI is considered
one of those today because generative is just one part
of it which is still trying to find I believe
its way. I find some things that are really kind
of amazing, but not all the time, Like I wouldn't
be using it all the time, but you can't.

Speaker 1 (27:15):
It is not reliable on that point. No, I wasn't
even trying to gotch that, but you just can't write now.

Speaker 2 (27:19):
And it's also you know, it's not higher resolution enough.
There's many reasons why, but it does get you to
mediocre faster, and so at least.

Speaker 1 (27:27):
Jesus that allows you to not the secreme, but.

Speaker 2 (27:29):
You you know, so at least make those decisions to say,
obviously that's a bad idea, we're not going to go
forward with it, as opposed to somebody polishing ten great
ideas or ten mediocre ideas and finding out there's one
should have been executed faster, better, sooner.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
Maybe that's a maybe that's a case for it. I
think you've really touched upon something though, which is I
think a lot of my listeners and my readers struggle
with why so many corporations want general if AI to grow.
And parts of it is the labor automation, why they want,
why they want to be a thing, And there's many
stupid reasons. But I never thought about the fact that

(28:04):
just in the ads world, which controls large swarts of
our economy and funds a lot of the tech industry,
just all creativity was considered minor. I never I mean,
it's very obvious now I say it, but like it's
fascinating to know that from that is that like an
executive possession. Well, yet here's a challenge.

Speaker 2 (28:23):
You have mediocre creatives seen by many, right, and you
see really great creatives seen by few. So that's why
it feels like the creatives still sort of sit.

Speaker 1 (28:34):
At the back.

Speaker 2 (28:35):
They're trying to do these things, but they whenever a
discussion says at scale, that's when it falls apart. So
that's why it's it's kind of.

Speaker 1 (28:44):
Why is mediocre seen by the many? Though?

Speaker 2 (28:46):
Like why does the mis simply because of format? I
think is really you know, the ability to try and
create something that has a contagiousness to it. Today seems
to have a celebrity moment those days. I think it
kind of at least falling away, and there are better
places for people to hold their attention, So metrics have

(29:08):
to change effectively, go away from popularity and talk about
other things like how do you hold somebody's attention for
the longest time versus just trying to saturate you know, right,
I mean I think it's I think the landscape's changing,
but I don't think it's I don't think creation of
content or creativity is evolving at the same pace.

Speaker 1 (29:30):
But would evolving even matter if there was this attitude
towards creatives? Ah?

Speaker 2 (29:36):
Yeah, well, eg format, of course, what do you mean
shape of the ad?

Speaker 1 (29:41):
Sure, style of the ad.

Speaker 2 (29:42):
You know you talked about ar as a good example.
That was small orient's wow experience to be honest, but where.

Speaker 1 (29:48):
Was the conversion there? Because that's the thing. It doesn't
feel like there has been a new successful ad format
in a long time. Have you seen others?

Speaker 2 (29:58):
I really haven't. It's so strang you know, I've tried
on as I'm sure you have with vision Pro. You've
tried on the goggles? Oh christ, yes, you know I
can't really see anybody. Firstly, it just doesn't scale. It
comes back to that, right, there is no scale, but
it's immersive. But the reality of are you building things
for a wonder many? Are you building it for one
to one?

Speaker 1 (30:17):
And just even then I have to wonder if there's
not a problem which we the geniuses have discovered, which
is there is no like we're in the iHeartRadio studios.
One of the most successful advertising formats, and as my
listeners love to tell me, is the ads. The basic
radio play ads and display ads and so CPACPM. Otherwise,

(30:40):
it doesn't feel like advertising has evolved. It's tried to evolve.

Speaker 2 (30:44):
Yeah, I mean we tried to do it with Devil.
We try to do it with these incredible formats and
at least work. They certainly did, and the measurement of
work is you know, dwell time click through all of
those things that you can measure. They were going through
the roof and they work until they become standards and
then they don't work because they're everywhere. So there's this
exclusivity to these things that make you feel like you're scale,

(31:06):
and then scale comes in rum because when everyone does
the same thing and it all gets back to well,
you end up with homogenization. Right, So that's why just
why it's homogenized. Everything feels normalized. It feels consistently the
same thing, regardless of what you put in. It was
there was something and you know, this conversation makes me
think of something that was retro years ago when these

(31:28):
ad formats came out. There was this ad and I
don't know what brand it is, So that's at the
jump that tells me that the thing didn't work. But
what was working was this incredible experience. So a band
built shape of a AD display, add two shapes. One
was square, one was rectangular, and in this square they

(31:49):
had a drama and maybe a guitarist. In that square
that had a basis and maybe the vocals. And they
were playing live in these displays and display and those
live displays because they were they were being broadcast to
these websites.

Speaker 1 (32:02):
That's so strange. It was so fabulous. Did it it felt?

Speaker 2 (32:07):
I don't know, but it made a hell of an
impression on me twenty years upstream. So that's the thing
it's and it just felt very inventive.

Speaker 1 (32:12):
That is inventive. I'm also going to have to look
this up because that's how the hell.

Speaker 2 (32:16):
Ben in a box or something. I don't look this up.
It's very cool, but it's you get it.

Speaker 1 (32:22):
It feels almost as if the more I think about
the ads and display ads and all this, how like
this might actually be what's really undermined general if AI,
which is they are trying to scale something that requires
advertising dollar level funding with subscriptions, which may not work.

Speaker 2 (32:40):
I think you've hit on something, But I do think
that when there's a format that becomes consistent, which doesn't
exist today.

Speaker 1 (32:46):
Right, when you've.

Speaker 2 (32:47):
Got that, there's always these outlines.

Speaker 1 (32:49):
That are trying to create something around that format. Right.

Speaker 2 (32:52):
So back then in the day, there was breakout and
you have an AD, you click on it, you know,
folds open, right, you know, all of those sort of
things that happened. All of that stuff was really just
to say, here's the format that we've all decided is important.
We're going to put this value on top of it.
That makes it feel like it's really different and it
reminds me of that band in the box thing. Yeah,
because there's no consistent interface, you can't have a consistent AD.

(33:13):
So everything around all these ads that we're going to see,
they're going to be cloaked in this thing called context
in value, I think, and it will be obstigated because
it'll come back as a long paragraph talking about why
I should buy these Sony headphones versus something else. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (33:27):
I can see them trying that for sure. I mean,
particularly in descriptive results. The problem is if that if
that result is generative, that's going to shave off that
little bit of CPM revenue. That's going to scrape it off.
It's like it's almost as if it's antithetical to add I. Actually,
I'll tell you where it won't shave it off.

Speaker 2 (33:44):
It won't shave it off because you'll probably move from
a CPA to sorry, CPM to a CBA so appeciship
would that be?

Speaker 1 (33:51):
Who knows?

Speaker 2 (33:51):
But it depends on the cost of I mean, it
depends on what the attribution cost it's going to be.
But let me just stay with me for a second.
If it moves from cost per mili into or thousands
to cost per acquisition, and there is a direct cost
because that AD is generated wonder one, right, so that
it isn't a many to many model to wonder many
and sorry, it's actually a wonder one generative. So I'm

(34:14):
able to produce an AD that feels highly tailored to
add in his needs.

Speaker 1 (34:18):
But that should be highly valuableized. It should be. But
the hallucination when you scale it to a million people
is the thing. But you don't have to.

Speaker 2 (34:25):
Sorry, you don't have to scale it, is what I'm saying.
You do, No, you don't, you don't because if people
aren't if you're searching generally for an AD some.

Speaker 1 (34:33):
Headphones, we're searching for some headphones and you're presented with
an AD for headphones, if it's generating for each person,
say a million people see this ad and it is
one to one. Yeah, it's still generative with fresh game.
At one point it's going to hallucinate. It's just right.
And I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong with the idea.
It's just it's not completely thought out, I can tell you.
But I love what is scale?

Speaker 2 (34:54):
Yeah, yeah, and it's like the scale is a challenge.

Speaker 1 (34:56):
With genera full stop, with generative AI is it's I
just have to wonder if this is not part of
the economic failure, because it doesn't. It scales, but when
you try and scale it in the traditional tech software
way subscriptions, it's not they're not making enough money or
not with it. But even when you try and put
it into ads ads, ads are by definition going to

(35:18):
be scaled to millions, hundreds of millions of people to
make any money. And if you're doing generative, you're going
to have things like Google telling you to eat rocks.

Speaker 2 (35:26):
I will tell you that I think this conversation isn't
ready for that type of architecture. Because these generative tools
are designed for generating, they're not just consuming. Sure, I
don't think there's a mass that. I don't think the
volume of people is is at a point where average
people are going to consume things based on search criteria

(35:49):
as a new rhythm.

Speaker 1 (35:50):
I mean, that's how Google makes all its money. And
it's Google.

Speaker 2 (35:54):
But if you're talking about these other tools that are
thinking about how they actually monetize, it's from a creative perspective,
not from a consumption.

Speaker 1 (36:01):
Yeah. I was just talking at scaling generative AI as
an ad tech tool or add tool.

Speaker 2 (36:06):
And in your reference to that example with Google, yeah,
I'd be surprised if they're not at least trying.

Speaker 1 (36:14):
Oh, they just started trying it. But it's funny. It's
just in their search results. In their search started Gemini tools,
you know. Yeah, well no, they're now putting Gemini front
and center, which is so funny. It's just like, but
it definitely crowds out of their homepage. Well that's the thing,
Like Google's in this weird, this really weird spot now
And actually.

Speaker 2 (36:33):
Do you think it's a catch ups? What to tell
me when you say weird? To find that some more?

Speaker 1 (36:37):
Well, I mean that Google search has never been worse.
It's definitely worse. It's ever been a little bit like
Craigslist of the nineties. Yes, by comparison, Craigslist information was
relatively validated. I mean you didn't. You didn't have crags
list optimization experts, and if you did, I'd love to
meet them. But it's Google's position right now is they're
behind on AI, even though it's like being the first

(37:00):
to eat out of the toilet. In my opinion, it's
they're behind on AI. They're a traffic is slowing like that,
everything is kind of contracting with them, and they're desperate
and people hate these AI search results. So yeah, they
are in a weird spot. But on top of that,
I think we've actually noticed one thing, which is the

(37:21):
core economics of tech are around ads, and ads have
been the same fifteen to twenty years. They've had agree
I mean ads at scale.

Speaker 2 (37:30):
Sure, So it's the at scale question that comes back
to that, because you know, everything sounds great in that
statement until you say at scale exactly.

Speaker 1 (37:40):
It's kind of the world. Oh mate.

Speaker 2 (37:43):
You'll hear that the creative brief stage where it's like,
how can we do this? But it needs to scale?
Like wow, But that's not take that out of the
vernacular ads. Take that out of the vernacular of metia.
It's everything is trying to scale. The beauty industry is
trying to do things at scale. They're trying to do
things at a high volume. I mean, this is just
part of the vocab.

Speaker 1 (38:01):
It's an attempt to do something at scale with nuance,
which is almost impossible.

Speaker 2 (38:06):
I imagine that's a good observation.

Speaker 1 (38:09):
I mean, look at the super Bowl commercials. They're all insane.
That every single Super Bowl commercial is like either old
people doing something that young people do or eleven celebrities.

Speaker 2 (38:18):
And I was watching there's lots of electric, lots of
retro soundtracks.

Speaker 1 (38:21):
Exactly like Big Noises, And I feel very stupid because
now I understand they are trying to create something that
they are trying to create something that everyone could enjoy. Man,
I know so little sometimes.

Speaker 2 (38:33):
But that's I mean, the truth of that is to
matter for everybody means you matter for nobody. Yeah, and
that analogy rings true there. So there's something nostalgic and
comfortable and okay, but everything around it has to be
super weird to try and make it fit.

Speaker 1 (38:48):
And that example.

Speaker 2 (38:49):
But you know, I think the Super Bowl is a
really good example of you know, to a moment right
the rest of I don't know what happens on daytime TV,
but those sort of ads don't turn up there.

Speaker 1 (39:00):
Yeah, because you would also be spending so much money
on all of that, you know more about the economics.
I actually want to change gears slightly because you did

(39:22):
write something related to nostalgia and as a as a creative,
as you as you go about your business, are you
finding more demand on the client side? Four more nostalgic
things returning to the nineties of the two thousands, Are
you finding any of that?

Speaker 2 (39:37):
Yeah, it's not it's not a date stamp. Yeah, it's
just a feeling and that nostalgic vibe is I think
it's as I think it's a throwback to Look, we're
in a room right now that has a lot of
nostalgia around it.

Speaker 1 (39:50):
Maybe these buttons couldn't be more big.

Speaker 2 (39:51):
I love them, and these sort of analog knobs and
you know what I mean, Yeah, creaky chairs and you
know the only thing that's modeling here are the shaw mics.
Everything else this kind of retrod, including.

Speaker 1 (40:02):
The Daniel Goodman's wonderful skills and.

Speaker 2 (40:04):
The and the MDR headphones, whatever we're wearing right now.
But what's amazing about this is there's there's a throwback
one to those who are old enough to know about
nostalgia and those are them young enough to curious about
it because they, you know, didn't grow up with it,
but they're super curious, you know, to read through liner
notes and understand that there's a flip side of an
LP and there's something very there's something very moorish about

(40:25):
slowing it down because it's everything is highly consumptive him.
Then the time we've spoken, I saw you pick up
your phone. Oh that was the picture A dozen times
something waits one but can I not exaggerate? But what's
amazing about this is that there's something really kind of
about that distraction.

Speaker 1 (40:42):
That the anchors it.

Speaker 2 (40:43):
There's something there's something beautiful about nostalgia and I'm gonna
keep harping on about it because I see it pop up.
I mean, super Bowl is a classic example. I think
I counted like eleven songs or something, yet I'm gonna
misquote that, but I could pick everything from Bloody Huey
Lewis to Journey or something, and I'm like, my god,
you know firstly what happened, and secondly, is this the

(41:04):
only thing we have as this throwback?

Speaker 1 (41:05):
There's something really unique about it. I have to wonder
if it's not a bit of trying to ignore reality
as well. You talk about them, I don't mean it
when you look at the news, it sucks when you
look at the like everything kind of sucks. There's you
talk about the idea that we're constantly getting we're having
to engage with our devices constantly, and I agree, and
it's the kind of a return to a time when

(41:26):
we weren't harassed by them, even though we I love
being online, but at the same time, now I fucking
hated it before online. I'm not going to pretend I
imagine normal people crave the time of not being online
constantly and not having because it's not just like content.
It's you get working, as you get your texts from
people mad at you get a text from a T
shirt company you bought from fifteen years ago. It feels

(41:47):
like maybe people are craving an off ramp almost or
permission to have one of these.

Speaker 2 (41:53):
Yes. Can I also say, though, there's something about perhaps
this fast culture that we've fu and this futuristic vibe
that we've been in something and what I mean. But
I'm just going to apply this to front. I'm just
going to apply this to a thought in that statement
you said about nostalgia. When I watch a brand like

(42:14):
BMW line and I see their cars, which look amazing, right,
the love that a retro car, like an old car
that they get, like back in the eighties, a boxy
M series or something and M three or something three
twenty five I or something, it gets way more love
and commentary than anything they've got either in market or

(42:36):
even planning on doing. Aynda is a classic example. They
you know they're throughout this. They might bring back this
boxy beautiful.

Speaker 1 (42:43):
Oh is this the electric one? But it's like an.

Speaker 2 (42:45):
Eighties yeah, and it's got the you know, it's got
the square lights. And you'll see people go into every
single design detail like the white wall time to the
to the type of mudcap. You don't get that sort
of detail today. It's all spec right, and then it's
not there's no emotion to it. But you look at
these things that feel like and it's not bygone emotion.
It's a different era of freedom. And maybe that's kind

(43:08):
of the thing that is a land like terrestrial radio,
it's probably still massive. I mean, I had it was
so bloody successful. Terrestrial radio is unbelievable, And.

Speaker 1 (43:19):
I think it's because in a world of just sudden conversations,
you have real ones. The reason that I like doing
the reason that then any lessener is curious about this.
The reason I don't do a lot of virtual interviews
is they kind of suck. Yeah, maybe it's pretty good,
but the in person it's having the micropront it's like
hearing yourself that the basic tones. I also have to
wonder if the reason that people are nostalgic for things

(43:41):
like an old car, or like the CD player or whatever,
is it felt like the companies gave more of a
shit because you talk about that thing probably scaling. It's
built for everyone, but built for no one. Every car
kind of looks the same. They all have the kind
of Tesla esque curve to it, or like they look
like a Porsche Cayenne. Yeah not a car guy. They

(44:02):
all kind of look and feel the same, and they
all kind of and people are craving something that feels
like anyone cared about building out.

Speaker 2 (44:08):
Maybe yeah, and maybe it all got to a point.
I think maybe designing culture generally has got to a
point where it feels like it's efficient. Yes, and that
efficiency means it's not I'm not tied to any of it, dude,
you know what I mean. Yeah, And that evolution of
design means that if you've got efficiency, you're really because you'
using battery technologies and you're using something that doesn't have
to feel like it looks like a pin, so it

(44:29):
becomes wind efficient and you build something that's square, square, square,
square blast. I think it's amazing.

Speaker 1 (44:36):
I think this is why people don't like generally if
AI content as well, because it really the point we're
making earlier that it all kind of looks the same.
It has to be down County Valley. It feels like, Wow,
no love went into it, not just like not just
like this is mass produced. It's not even mass produced.
It's this sub production where we're creating this thing for

(44:57):
nobody and everybody at the same time. I don't I'm
not going to debate generative AI's efficacy with you in
any further. I'm sorry about that. But you know, it's
more we're all kind of craving a return to a
time when things felt like they were made for someone,
that they were made with a bit of a soul,
and it sucks to be in this world and it

(45:18):
sucks to And I think that nostalgia is the natural
It's kind of the natural endpoint of a culture that
has escaped any kind of personalization or joy in the
creation of anything mass market. Even the utility of these
things doesn't feel like it's four people.

Speaker 2 (45:34):
You know, as you're having this discussion, and I'm with you. Yeah,
I look out at the screen that we're facing and
flow Rider was on, and before that was Flavor Flav
and I think before that a minuscene snoop yep, And
I look at them and think, to your point, there's
something about these this cycle of comfort and familiarity that

(45:54):
I think is it's really interesting because what you're talking
about is by the way, I will just put a
pin in this and say that I think the generative
AI creation will absolutely be for everything other than the human.
And when you want to put a human in it,
just film them and then add them to this generative
crazy background in utopia if you want to do it.
But these blended AI experiences will happen. But I do

(46:16):
think that because it's called CGI previously.

Speaker 1 (46:20):
But I actually I'm going to push back on that
and say I believe that will happen. Yeah, but I
think people are going to get really upset with it
because you're kind of seeing it with severance and the
Mandalorian when they're doing these weird I don't know what
it's called, but it's when they do the on shot
thing where it's they pretend they're outside, and for a
while it convinced people. Then you saw it enough times
you're like, no, fucking another fuck.

Speaker 2 (46:40):
But what it would also do, though, is it'll inspire
you when you see something that's really designed by cutting
up the cardboard box to make it feel like a
cardboard box. And I can show you some really good
examples of people that push back against that and say,
we're just going to film this thing analog. Dude.

Speaker 1 (46:53):
Oh yeah, I feel it and it feels so different,
and it does, and it's just we're we're getting back
to maybe nostalgia is just wishing that people that creatives
gave it, not creative. Yeah, it feels like the mechanisms
of creatives more than anything, gave a ship and felt
like they were putting any thought into it other than
just kind of simmering it down for everyone making creative.

Speaker 2 (47:15):
I've almost bought the Samsung flip phone a couple of times.

Speaker 1 (47:18):
Oh it's so cool. Yeah, it's so cool. I love it.
I use that exactly. I need my I message. I
need it.

Speaker 2 (47:24):
I'm a pig and I don't have two phones. It
just drives me crazy. But even the matter all looks amazing.
But there's something about that time when you'd have a
flip phone and buttons and all that.

Speaker 1 (47:34):
I didn't. I didn't have a flip phone, right, the
chocolate bar Nokia. Yeah, that was so good. It's funny.

Speaker 2 (47:40):
It's it's funny like chocolate bark.

Speaker 1 (47:44):
But even then it kind of fucking sucked. I don't
know why I'm pretending like I like this device the moment,
the iPhone.

Speaker 2 (47:48):
Because you're probably still talking on the phone and that
sounded god what it did on the tin. No, I
just you're texting with all those buttons.

Speaker 1 (47:55):
Yes, Oh, I'm a freak in many ways. And it's
just funny because as we discuss all these different bits,
it really is just like creativity is considered this stepchild
of ads. Ads are the way that a lot of
people are exposed to an alarming amount of creativity, and
it feels like people at scale are kind of becoming

(48:16):
more aware of how much is manufactured for them. Maybe
it's not just that thing. Maybe it's not that things
have changed a ton. I believe they have, obviously, but
it's that they've kind of people are more aware of
when they're being fucked with, when they're being given the
same slop when they're being given And I think that
corporations may have slightly overplayed their hand.

Speaker 2 (48:35):
In the mass production ere I mean you'll see that
with foods, You'll see that with I mean education in
that criteria is way more transparent and interesting than it
used to be because you don't have to have you know,
you can consume less and probably feel better. And I
have a question for you, is that an ordering where
it got?

Speaker 1 (48:53):
Why you're wearing it? Because they track my sleep? Are
you doing my workout?

Speaker 2 (48:57):
And you're actually you are using it as a utility?
I am you haven't how long you had it?

Speaker 1 (49:01):
That's years? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (49:02):
Generation like gen isn't it three? And do you find
so do you do anything with the data.

Speaker 1 (49:09):
Or you just do it?

Speaker 2 (49:10):
Does it just reassure you, Oh no, this.

Speaker 1 (49:13):
Is this is the terrible choice if if you wanted
any gotcha. No. So, actually I'm really interested in my
sleep because I realized a few years ago that my
sleep was fucked and I couldn't work out why I
was depressed. Good. I've become fascinated by what I don't
know weed or alcohol will do to me. Not that
I'm like experimenting, but if I have a bad night sleep,
I like to look at it and say, all right,

(49:35):
this does affect me. I just got this thing called
a son as well. What is it? It's like a
thing you've strapped to your head and it has the
little electrodes that go on to the top. Is this
fella you sleep it down on? No? Isn't you just
put it on? It does like a fifteen minutes before bed.
It has increased my ram sleep and I have been
feeling surely. But yeah, I'm annoying.

Speaker 2 (49:54):
Sorry, What does this thing do? Does it give you?

Speaker 1 (49:57):
It has some sort of waves? It doesn't you. I
should be able to say this oftenly.

Speaker 2 (50:02):
But but you're finding your sleep cycles better?

Speaker 1 (50:04):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (50:04):
Now are you finding that the patterns you your sleep cycles?

Speaker 1 (50:08):
Previously?

Speaker 2 (50:08):
Once you've sort of vindicated I'm having a crappy night sleep.
Has it changed your behavior?

Speaker 1 (50:13):
Yes? No, I like how proximity of using any substances
before bed, like what I eat when I eat? That
was a big thing, like eating late.

Speaker 2 (50:23):
I also, oh, well, okay, so you are you really
are digging into the day.

Speaker 1 (50:26):
Yeah, because otherwise why I'm wearing this thing that on
dating apps convinces people that I'm married. It's very fucking annoying.

Speaker 2 (50:32):
There's something interesting about, you know, the adoption of these
sort of technologies like athletes, for example, Oh yes, clearly
fall back to things like the whoop band and oh
well or not, they'll wear a garment or they'll wear
these technologies that have been around for a long time
for athletes. But you know, the eye watches of this
world or you know.

Speaker 1 (50:51):
I watch no no, no, that no, that just means
you've been around a while. You're just still saying the
ship before they'd even know.

Speaker 2 (50:59):
But yeah, So what's interesting to me is, you know,
the subtlety of technology, while it comes down and gives
you what you need, hopefully that changes your psychology. Now
we don't you don't necessarily see that on the phone
because all the phone does is kind of distract you.
We'll take you down a rabbitti. And so I'm just
super curious about what your behavior is, your relationship with
that sort of tech. But it is because I've pushed

(51:20):
away from all of it.

Speaker 1 (51:21):
I generally do like I with my workouts, I track
my calories and that is emotional. Yeah, good on you. No,
that is absolutely emotional, and that's a good use case
for that. But if I but oh no, I use it.
Oh but this is the ultimate tech bullshit.

Speaker 2 (51:34):
Though.

Speaker 1 (51:34):
I don't use this track all my workouts. I track
boxing with this. You box with the ring on? Yeah,
you bandage your hand up like that with the ring
you get you get quick wraps on?

Speaker 2 (51:44):
Okay, Yeah, and it just doesn't crush your fingers.

Speaker 1 (51:46):
Haven't it did with certain raps?

Speaker 2 (51:48):
Yeah, but it's it's not the lowest profile ring.

Speaker 1 (51:50):
That's why I'm no, it's really not. It's like the
Chunky one Victorious.

Speaker 2 (51:53):
Song of the Verge was, are we spending too much
time with the ring?

Speaker 1 (51:56):
I don't care. This is my show, do whatever the
hell I want. I can say shit and balls and
all that. It is funny though, because all of this
talk about nostalgia. It is kind of where even I
personally am leaning I'm listening to fucking metal from fifteen
years ago. My favorite in Flames album is Colony, which
is twenty years old and barely resembles the band anymore.

(52:18):
Like one of my favorite movies is the Guardians of
the Galaxy movie in the first one, which is inherently nostalgic.
And those movies got shit as all it became about
was nostalgic. And now I've just had a live thought,
which is that is the thing that's that is actually
something that's driving a lot of culture. Which is the
reason the Marvel movies did well at the beginning was
they were fun, they were nostalgic, They had these characters

(52:40):
you'd love to see, and they got progressively worse as
these companies were like, Okay, what the people like about this?
Fuck it is the people they recognize. Look, it's the
guy from the thing. The corporatization of nostalgia, I.

Speaker 2 (52:53):
Think it's but it does get rebooted. Right, So if
you look at the music videos that are playing back
here now, half those soundtracks and I'm paraphrasing this, are
using a soundtrack that's retro. Yeah, and there's something it's familiar, right.
You hear this backbeating thing that seems like that's funky
trim dammer from you know, James Brown, and you hear
that in the track and think, Okay, there's a reason
why that works because it's just good and something about

(53:17):
the time that that was done.

Speaker 1 (53:19):
And it wasn't created to scale right, putting even the
side generative AI for now. I just mean like, because
if you look at this, there will be multiple things
on TikTok where it's like a band has popped up
and you're like, wow, they're so good, or people have
said this and it's turned out to be like they're
pretending to be a garage pan but it's actually a
signed artist with United and it's it does and switch Yeah.

(53:43):
And there's so much of it now and there are
things that are made to be to appear normal and
natural that are absolutely not. And I think people are
craving normality again, they're craving things that don't feel mass produced.
I agree with you, it's a funny. It's a funny time. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (54:00):
I wrote about craft this week and it was really
just about you know, if you've got all these tools
that make you feel like happy hands.

Speaker 1 (54:05):
What do you mean happy hands?

Speaker 2 (54:06):
Like very excited? And I can defend that all day
every day. But what I lean towards is craft. You know,
I will all day every day rather a pen and
pencil than trying to scribble something down on my iPad,
you know. Yeah, so there's just something more visceral, and
I'm leaning towards that as a test to make sure
I'm not losing my rods and cones, but that it's
not just down this rabbit's warrant of distraction that I

(54:28):
can actually be, you know, back to creation.

Speaker 1 (54:31):
Mm hmm. Are you well? You say you say you're
like aware of your phone nagging you? Are you generally?
Do you surround yourself with tech or do you try to?

Speaker 2 (54:41):
I'll push back in how so I had all the
tech that made me look like a tribal leader like you.
I mean, I get it, dude, but I when I
don't game of fine, data doesn't excite me about myself, right,
and it's not that interesting.

Speaker 1 (54:54):
And so.

Speaker 2 (54:56):
The thing that's wild for me is nature. I mean,
tech is, yeah, it's great to but what am.

Speaker 1 (55:00):
I going to do with it?

Speaker 2 (55:01):
And I don't know if I want to do that
with it whatever that is. So no, I try not
to I'm trying to push back to you know, no,
not trying to push back. I'm trying to restrict the
amount of things that occupy my mind and take my
attention away from creating.

Speaker 1 (55:20):
And what are you creating? And is it for? Is
it just for you?

Speaker 2 (55:23):
I know, I'm right, you know, yeah, it is really
I have this concept of edition of one. It really
is just for me, and it doesn't matter if it
doesn't scale. And you know, I'm a classically trained designer,
so I'm back to full design outside of my creative practice.
And I have a wet studio, so I'm in the
marriage studio. Yeah, I'm married to an artist. We have
you know what is a wet studio. We have paints

(55:43):
in the thing that are constantly dry. I mean it's
very practical, dude, and it's not screen free. A lot
of it is just back to articulating things, you know,
playing music, you know, things that actually feel like I
play guitar, seeing all that rubbish.

Speaker 1 (55:59):
But it's fun. But it's oh, it's funny.

Speaker 2 (56:01):
I love so more of that than just sort of
being a participant I'd rather be actively participating in it,
which is why I can't stand sports. I mean, I
can't stand sitting and watching sports. I'd rather play football
if I'm going to you know, I'd rather go out
in the field and kick. If I'm going to kick.
I can't really sit back and watch. It drives me nuts. Interesting,
But there's something about kind of just taking that position

(56:25):
of the polymath. I've got lots of ideas that I
want to express. Let's get them down on.

Speaker 1 (56:29):
Paine that they're expressed for you rather than yeah, can
less others find it interesting.

Speaker 2 (56:33):
I've got a fashion co lab that I'm doing, and
I've got these artisans and craft people in Mexico that
are actually hand stitching this embroidery in state of digital embroidery,
which I could have done finding it sitting it's sitting
on the fabric differently. I mean, it's all of these
things that are slow crafts. They're bloody. It's just awesome, dude,
it really is. No. It slows me down. It puts

(56:56):
me in a place that feels more conscious.

Speaker 1 (56:57):
It's funny because this show came from a newsletter that
I wrote for three hundred people's fifty eighty five hundred
now and this show started with a lot of people
being very unfair to me on readit, and I will
admit I changed into the internet. Oh no, fuck yeah,
I didn't change shit. I just kept doing it until
I felt good. And it's interesting how the show's done

(57:19):
well based on that, rather than trying to change it
for anyone, partly because I didn't. I never really understood
why I would change for them, Like I was like
Horsity at fifty five has told me they don't like
it when I say, this is what the fuck am
I meant to do? Write it down and like avoid
the word fuck that. It just it feels that that
is also another thing plaguing creatives, that there is this

(57:40):
apparent source of derision and judgment on tap right, and
you have to do that to scale, to do that,
and the desperation for engagement is kind of stuck in
the joy out of even the process. It's too slow.
It must be done this fast, we must be timely.

Speaker 2 (57:56):
Yeah, but there's one thing that's definitive is there's only
certain amount of time in a day, isn't it. You
can't create a new version of it, but you can
participate in it differently. I think this has been an
interesting conversation for me because I didn't know what we're
going to chat about, if anything. Yeah, and I'm admirer
of your work, so congrats on all you're doing.

Speaker 1 (58:14):
Thank you so much, Shingy. I think we can wrap
it that. Where can people find you, Shingy? Uh? You
know the interwebs? Yes, but wow, Okay, I'll put it
in the apisode.

Speaker 2 (58:24):
I'm easily found on linked just looks probably the right way, Shingy.
You could go to my dot com. I'm there too,
hanging out. Yeah, but you know it's Yeah, this has
been a blast. Thanks for coming in on a hot
streak about Jen of course, and we exit out on pottery.

Speaker 1 (58:41):
Sure your streets at my mum's spotter as well. That's Ron,
all right, you've been listening to me. My name's ed Zetron.
You can google them who destroyed Google Search and you
will find the answer is me. Thank you so much
to Daniel Goodman or wonderful producer here in New York,
and thank you, of course to all of you for listening.
You'll now hear a very similar message after that. I've
recorded in February of last year, and I swear I'm

(59:03):
going to re record. Mattasowski and I were talking about
this yesterday. B sal Thank you for listening to Better Offline.
The editor and composer of the Better Offline theme song
is Matasowski. You can check out more of his music
and audio projects at Mattasowski dot com, M A T

(59:25):
T O. S O W s ki dot com. You
can email me at easy at Better Offline dot com
or visit Better Offline dot com to find more podcast
links and of course, my newsletter. I also really recommend
you go to chat dot Where's youreed dot at to
visit the discord, and go to our slash Better Offline
to check out our reddit. Thank you so much for listening.

(59:47):
Better Offline is a production of cool Zone Media. For
more from cool Zone Media, visit our website cool Zonemedia
dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.