That is the conundrum we face on a daily basis. And in the marketing realm I was pleasantly surprised yesterday. I saw an engagement advertisement apparently in the Boston Globe. It was an image of a man known in his role of Mickey17 (the first 16 were better) flogging himself to the girlfriend of Tom Holland, yes I am talking about Zendaya. With the engagement story to give a glimpse of a movie.
I actually didn’t have a clue or any interest in that movie, but now, I might actually got to the cinema to watch it (A cinema is a great room with loads of chairs facing a big screen), I thought I’d mention this to the Netflix population as they might not know what it is.
It hit me by surprise as marketing has gone globally bland, the only exception is that crazy marketeer named Ryan Reynolds (Blake Lively’s husband) his advertisements of Mint Mobile and American Gin are pretty out there, so to see a second marketeer stretching his (or her) legs into the creative pool of goofy alliances is pretty neat so say the least. And I reckon that Square Peg who is the distributor needs to give whomever got the idea of this marketing campaign a raise.
And in this world a marketing population of one is not a real deal, so I am happy to see that there is a contender for the role of the craziest marketeer on the planet. You see in marketing we have Awareness and Perception are like concentric circles, we first come aware of something and then we get to Perception of the matter, which at times is a reflection of the subject on self. In this Focus, Process and Objectivity are matters of something liked and sometimes not linked matters that inflict the awareness and perception of the matter. It sounds overly academic and it needs to be. We come aware of a movie and when we become more aware we start to get the perception of that movie. How do I relate to that movie and most often it is a mere setting of entertainment. Will I like this? Is it what I want to spend my time on? The second question is the banger for Netflix. If that movie is not your cup of tea, you switch it off or you select another movie to watch. Especially In America where your time is seemingly more precious (and travel comes with its own set of challenges) Netflix is largely the only one that gives the least impact on your timeline. So Cinema’s are down (a lot) and as such marketeers need to be more and more alert to what could drive a person from aware to a deeper a focussed set of perception. That is what drives people optionally to the cinema. Still cinema’s need to address their settings too (really $8 for a popcorn?) And it is a hard setting, space is expensive now and over the last 20 years that setting switched for doable to no longer affordable. Cinema started in 1895 and from 125 years of a good setting we see in the last 20 years that this stage has largely become unaffordable. So a good campaign is more and more important to a dying stage of entertainment. In this, whomever set that stage to The Drama (April 2026) with Robert Pattinson and Zendaya set terrific campaign and applause for whomever did.
As I see it, they perpetrated a lie without actually lying, a rare feat to say the least.
Have a great day and for those in Canada, still enjoying Sunday have a great day too.
Yes, nice and confusing. But that is the meaning of this exercise. You see, I don’t agree on the point of view the law makes in this case. They have altered their point of view on the law in motion. In a setting that ran for over a decade. I don’t think they are to blame, there is no real guilt here (apparently), but the setting stands. In this I call to attention the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3674nl7g74o) stating ‘Google has illegal advertising monopoly, judge rules’ I do not agree and for this I call to attention two ‘pieces’ of evidence. The first is the actor Ryan Reynolds, a person I have called more than once the craziest marketeer on the planet. The second piece of evidence is a firm named CAASIE.co, an advertisement services firm apparently in Brisbane (I thought they were in New York). These two stand out, in a pool of millions. Set in a presence of “The US alone spent almost $481 billion on marketing in 2022, with digital marketing seeing significant growth. Australia’s marketing industry is also substantial, valued at over $20 billion.” With the added “While a precise count isn’t available, the scale of the industry suggests a large number of professionals are involved in marketing roles worldwide. The demand for marketing expertise is strong, and the industry is continuously evolving, particularly with the rise of digital marketing”. Don’t get me wrong, there are good marketing teams. The bigger brands have decent teams and at times places like Coca Cola and Heineken stand out. Yet in that setting of millions of people these two stand out. Why? Perhaps marketing is seen by some as the path you take when you can’t do anything else? Perhaps these men (women too) can talk their way into the panties of the youthful ladies and they thought, perhaps I can make money out of this venturous situation. And they went into marketing, mainly because ‘sex sells’. The truth couldn’t be farther (or is that further) removed from the truth.
And there the problem starts. You see, Google isn’t monopolising things, they merely had the proper handle on things. The marketing bulk doesn’t know what it its doing and as ‘they’ see it Google is in the way. In the early days Google (read: Larry Page and Sergei Brin) figured out a few things. As Microsoft was talking dirty to the CFO’s in the land (in the late 80’s and beyond) these two youthful young sprouts figured out that the work was done by the m inions of these CFO’s, so as they catered to the bulk of the worker ants, Microsoft was wasting its time on expensive dinners and drink parties and they got all the CFO’s and CTO’s of the Fortune 500. But these people needed their worker ants and Google had created a search system that catered to THEIR needs. So whilst these youthful young sprouts were at Stanford University, their buddies all went for the knickers of the ladies. They created a page rank system, because they saw ahead that the web was going to be a mess, millions of voices create cacophony and they cut through the mess.
So ahead we go 20 years (take or leave a year) and Google figured out that their system is gold. So they venture forward and they create Google Ads (formerly Google Adwords) and that was in 2000. Again they hit gold, although it was a natural continuation from page rank and again Microsoft wants ink on the game, but wannabe’s and spin creators can merely make shallow creation and it is seen in their product. At present known as Microsoft Advertising, holds a market share of around 3-4% of the global search engine market. This is bad news for the marketing wannabe’s as they bought the shite that Microsoft is seemingly selling. Even I saw the bing hijacking of people seeking and as Microsoft is all playing innocent, they did (as I personally see it) enable the system to be abused. It matter not, Google created a firm product and now the marketing bitches (both male and female) decided to cry fowl (intended typo) So that I the setting.
Marketing today is people who talk a lot present a lot, but as I see it, they do not know what they are doing. Merely hoping that their revenue cup runneth over and it is based on decade old settings (which is what schools rely on). At UTS (University of Technology Sydney) we had one lecture on page rank and that opened my eyes (unlikely as much as it hit Sergei and Larry), but the setting was clear. Google created the largest setting by thinking of what to do, not to wine and dine the people with money and they followed Microsoft as they didn’t realise what they were up against. The internet of things is a massive beast with plenty of horns and these are the horns of plenty.
So now we get to the ‘court case’ that the BBC gives us. So as we are given “The US Department of Justice, along with 17 US states, sued Google, arguing the tech giant was illegally dominating the technology which determines which adverts should be placed online and where” and as I personally see it, they are catering to millions of people who do not know what they are doing and they think it is unfair that these people should miss out on a business they are unlikely to understand. You see, I name these two at the start as they have figured out a few things. Ryan Reynolds created billions from understanding the world and its business (Mint Mobile, Aviation Gin, and Wrexham AFC. He also co-founded Maximum Effort, a marketing agency and production company) he figured out a few things and that sprout is a mere 48 springs old. He saw the options and turned several products in a multi billion dollar empire by engaging with an audience and telling a story in a way they remembered. The other (the wannabe’s) can scoop up a mere $100,000 dollars at a time as I see it. Let’s not forget that this man started as an extra on the X-Files, now he surpassed the main cast of that series (including the director) in several ways.
Second we get CAASIE.co, they come with “buy outdoor ads globally – from your browser”, with the byline “Self-service. No contracts. No commitments” and consider this quote “In 2007, São Paulo, Brazil instituted a billboard ban because there were no viable regulations of the billboard industry.” For decades these billboards were out there and in 2020 (a mere 5 years ago) they decided to change the premise. So as we get “They are an advertising company specializing in Digital Out of Home (dOOH) advertising, programmatic advertising, and digital signage. Their headquarters are in Brisbane, Australia”, a setting that was clear for decades but no one considered what there was and these people did, so as they gain favor and altitude by being innovative the wannabe marketeers can (for all I care) go duck themselves.
These two examples are a clear sign that the crying marketeers need to grow up, or as the Americans say “Go big or go home” and that is noticeable on the future of marketing as I see it. Now they are all about AI and creating hypes, but that doesn’t pay for the yacht (or for diner as I see it).
So as I see “US district judge Leonie Brinkema said in the ruling Google had “willfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts” which enabled it to “acquire and maintain monopoly power” in the market.” Is wrong by at least half a continent (a mile seems so shallow), so as I see it, when did the law start catering to village idiots? The fact that there are thousands of voices doesn’t make this clever. Reynolds and CAASIE were clever, they were very clever and that is a setting that CAASIE can enjoy, you see when they get access to the stage where the Google Ads people use CAASIE as the global interface to get global visibility, CAASIE will grow a lot more and what will the marketeers do to get their slices of pie? Cry a little more? Since when did we cater to the stupid to give value to this world?
The is the setting I see and as I see it the larger folly of US district judge Leonie Brinkema, so their goes her “willfully engaged”, Google walked a path for decades and that thought paid off and as I see it, Google was not catering to CAASIE, CAASIE found its own niche of global needed marketing. These two settings (Reynolds and CAASIE) show that there was space and these are raking in the billions (CAASIE not yet) but they can get a lot more by expanding into the UAE and Saudi Arabia, optionally Bangladesh and Indonesia as well. A setting that will iterate in new areas and that was something that a player like Microsoft never understood. My evidence in that statement is the fact that they lost marketshare 6 times over.
So the viewpoints of Google, Ryan Reynolds and CAASIE are not points of view, they are intentional strides in the Internet of Things and their views of how to make money. A lesson a lot of marketeers never learned in the first place. Although they got their collection of panties n their trophy cabinet, something I never ever had, but I decided to remain innovatively engaged. So as I had the ball several times from DARPA, Ubisoft and Microsoft (optionally Amazon and Apple as well) I can relax to see these departments of Justice (globally) fumble their balls and as things go from bad to worse I can giggle (not Google) from the sidelines. How the stage is the play of things, something Shakespeare figured out in 1623.
Have a great day whilst you ponder the wisdoms I left here with two hidden snags, the clever people out there can work out what I left for others to find. Have a great one.
My mind stopped hen I was going through the CBC articles and it was (at https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/armstrong-wrexham-ryan-reynolds-nuvei-1.6818664) where we see ‘How Ryan Reynolds became Canada’s unlikeliest business mogul’ and to be honest, I am not sure that I agree. The man has played his time right. The most unlikely X-Files extra in season 2 (1994) got additional roles all over the place and at some point he got cast against top line actors and actresses. He held his ground and we all saw he was destined for some great roles. I can only speculate how he did it, but at some point he saw that his acting could get him more. And this is not for all and not for the faint of heart. He has the brains to see through things and he cashed in.
Aviation Gin Mint Mobile Wrexham Football Nuvei
Are only 4 of the visible part.
I called him (on more than one occasion) the craziest marketeer on the planet. He comes across flaky, but what matters is that he brings a message. In ONE advertisement he basically created global awareness to Nuvei. One ad did that. Like he did with other brands. Unlike many actor and actresses who become a face of something, he added (as I personally see it) his voice and insight and that is gold in marketing and as I see it, he figured it out and in the end he loaded two faces into over $2,500,000,000 (Aviation Gin and Mint Mobile), where this goes is anyones guess. I cannot say how this started. Was it pure luck to get involved with these two, did he see something others overlooked. Your guess is as good as mine and until his auto biography comes out we can just guess. But what is clear is that the nice Canadian guy we want as a neighbour saw that he was worth more and he got to cash in big time. This was not all luck. If you saw the advertisements he had done with Aviation Gin, Mint Mobile and one ad in Nuvei you can see that he is crazy as a doornail, but in this he gets a message across and the next thing you think is “Is there a Mint Mobile near here?” That is not the US marketing BS (like Microsoft and several other brands) it comes across as real and as a genuine article. As I see it , he sells by not selling things which is a rare ability to say the least. Yes, an actor (actresses too) are trained in this, but Ryan Reynolds is one of the few that actually used his brain and got the message across.
As such when I see CBC give us “A recent Bloomberg piece compared Reynolds’s ventures to other celebrity-owned brands run by the likes of George Clooney, Kim Kardashian and Jay-Z. None of that guarantees success. Wrexham fell short of promotion last year. The Mint Mobile sale may still be challenged by regulators and no investment is ever a sure bet. But Reynolds has carved out a unique role and traveled a unique path to get here.” And here the issue starts. It is the ‘other celebrity-owned brands’ part. Reynolds is nothing like that. I saw the Clooney Nespresso advertisements and they are nice. Reynolds is just plain bonkers. for some reason he gets a message across and even as we have no idea what the message (a nice example is the Vasectomy mix) was. The advertisement (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtRl9HZGZEE) is bonkers in many ways, but at the end you have a smile on your face and Aviation Gin is on your mind. I don’t even like gin and I am still on the train to buy a bottle. That is not simple skill, it is more and Ryan Reynolds has it. There is every chance he is not in it alone, t might have come from brainstorming, team effort, but he is presenting the part that makes us want a Mint Mobile sim or an Aviation Gin bottle. That is marketing gold and through this brands are elevated. Even after one advertisement I reckon that Nuvei is destined for greatness. One ad did this, one ad showed us an alternative to all the other brands in the business and the other brands have nothing to show us that they are worthy. That is marketing taken to a next level and one actor has figured it out.
The other celebrities have nothing on him, not even George Clooney with his Nespresso (who is an amazing actor in his own right). CBC touches on that in the end with “celebrity entrepreneurship ties back to the star’s connection with their audience, their ability to tell a story and keep people engaged.” It is the ability to connect to an audience through storytelling and that is the part that Ryan Reynolds has down to a fine art and he has created the wealth to show this. Not merely HIS wealth, until Ryan Reynolds got involved, who knew anything about Mint Mobile? Perhaps in Canada, but within 6 months everyone on the planet knew what Mint Mobile was and that takes marketing gravitas. As such he is not an unlikely mogul, in the end he might have been an unlikely actor who got into the big leagues. Yet both markets need a genuine person and in this Ryan delivered. We can only wait and see what comes next. If the Ottawa Senators come through for Ryan, Vancouver will be in mourning for a long time as he sets sail to Ontario and the capital of Canada, optionally listening to Tusk (Fleetwood Mac) all the way. I am merely curious on what else he will do, because when it comes to business and business intelligence he is the most real person I have seen in decades and I have seen plenty since 1991.
We all have this at times. We all contemplate things and I am no different. As such a few thoughts came together. The first is that mobile company managed by the craziest marketeer in history (Ryan Reynolds). Now lets be clear I have no negative thoughts towards him, he is the craziest marketeer and it is working. As such I was wondering what we could do to keep prices low for these people. Now, I have no idea how up to date this all is because the telecom organisation is apparently up for sale. You can read more information (at https://www.techradar.com/au/deals/mint-mobile-what-is-it-and-is-it-worth-it) and there are probably a few more places where you can read it all. But this is not about the sale of it all.
This is about solutions. I reckon that Apple is trying to fill its pocket, as are plenty of other players. But in all this we are forgetting about one player Elon Musk, not him precisely, it is his mobile phone, the Pi phone. I reckon that it would be a streak of options if the people at Pi phone could reach out to millions of Canadians. Canada not just in touch with one another, but with Starlink a much larger national test is possible, in addition to this Canadian 5G is in a much higher setting than the US has it. With these elements in place I wonder if this combination could drive augmented reality in Canadian malls as well. But that is something for later. For now the good idea that Ryan Reynolds had for cheap mobile connection, it might be an idea for Pi phone to have a cheap deal for proper testing.
If there is one clarity in all this, then it is the fact that Rogers Communications showed Canada that there is a problem and it seems to me that alternatives are needed. Of course there is still the setting that Mint Mobile relies on the T-Mobile network and that might lead to more than one question, but there is a larger stage in play and I learned early that the iron is more easily managed when the iron is hot and at present it is flaming hot, there is space for change and there is space for increased visibility for a player like Mint mobile, so why not take it and as the Pi phone is now ready for deployment we have three factors out in the open. Lets see if we can make life better for a whole lot of people.
My mind has been wandering. I have been confronted with the images of oppositions. Vampires versus Lycans (Underworld), good versus evil (The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings), humans versus Aliens (Predator), and the list goes on. It seems that the worlds of Andrei Tarkovsky (Solaris) is all but forgotten. The story is still everything, but there is too much special effects. Too many fight scenes. I do not oppose them, but they seemingly take over the story and that is wrong. Or perhaps better stated, it is not good. There is a difference and I acknowledge it. But how can we evolve this? It is a question I had in my mind for a while. In Keno Diastima it was not them against us and the finale of series 3 opens doors, but I was unwilling to set a path beyond it, the open ending seems so… (perfect is the wrong word), it seemed so Terry Gilliam to consider it as such. In ‘Exhaurire vitam’, it was not opposition for an entirely different reason. And there was opposition in ‘How to assassinate a politician’ yet that was opposition of the mind. I am not against opposition, but I feel that in too many ways it is framed wrongly, or perhaps incorrectly. So, how to go about it? That is the question I have been asking myself. My education gives me that there are two forms of antagonism, the competitive and the non-competitive So we have reversible, surmountable versus irreversible, insurmountable. Two shapes of two dimensions I do not like in the first place. I know they need to exist, but they are shallow, to shallow. It remind me of the old setting I once created in my mind. Any relationship is set to the three legs of the pyramid. A physical, a mental and a spiritual one. The more they align between the two partners, the more aligned their relationship is.
The longer the legs, the more meaningful the side is. In the example the three green ones are the same, I merely connected them to another side of the pyramid. They are a good match, not a perfect one, but a good one. It does not matter which colour is which gender. In the three sides (physical, mental and spiritual) they are a good match. It could be worse, a one sided or two sided match. A one sided match it is friendship, sexual or perhaps spiritual, yet one side will always result in divorce. Two sided matches are harder, there is enough to keep them together, especially as the side they desire the most (often the largest leg of the three legs). It does not matter what side it is, but the one favoured side when both have the same side will keep them together, and that starts the long term relationship/marriage. I have never seen that expressed in any movie, or at least not a movie I have ever seen. You see this is not opposition, or antagonism, it is another way of seeing multiple sides. And it should not be the focus of anything, but it should be there and we seldom see it. There is too much antagonism. I know it makes for better cinema, but does it? Does it really? I remember Ordinary People, the debut by Robert Redford, it got 4 oscars. It seldom comes up, I reckon because there was a harsh light on psychological sides. A 1980 movie that seems to shy away from the limelight. It also reminds me of Timothy Hutton and his part in Taps (an early Tom Cruise movie). They have something in common, our assessment of values and how the people around us see those values. It is a form of inner antagonism. We versus what we believe and what we perceive. It matters because I have been playing that card in two settings whilst not really being openly aware I was.
I may have surprised myself and that is part of the equation. How to give that inner battle to the people we present to? I am honestly at a loss. I am so driven by the story so that I cannot say what the story could be. That matters, you see I am about the story and I want it to be everything it could be. This is how I see the evolution of any story. I do not start from scratch, I evolve the story (especially Kenos Diastima and Exhaurire Vitam) and I see where I can evolve the story to be more including of other sides. It is not always that easy (especially Exhaurire Vitam) but sides could be considered, or perhaps better stated should be considered, they might be rejected and that question comes for every person playing a role in it.
It reflects on both the 5G and the Augmented reality IP as well. As I stopped to reconsider the first step in both, I suddenly remembered that certain data technologies were in its infancy in those days. They still are (my assessment) and I believe that when some players stop their petty bickering we might actually get somewhere. It is no longer about their system against ours, it will be what can we unite to get the best systems in play. Some will go and research a new setting (which is not wrong) but as I see it time works against some players and in all this Amazon has the upper hand, Amazon has most elements ready in at least three of my IP stages and it includes one IP bundle. So is Amazon the best solution? I think it is, Google is messing around and only partially taking notice of their own weaknesses. It does not mean Amazon does not have any weaknesses, it merely implies they have a better handle on it and here we see some of the elements connect. It is not antagonism, it is a three sided alignment with the realisation that a bookstore surpassed a technology titan, in its physical (hardware), mental (software) and spiritual (mentality) foundations. Like Taps and Ordinary People it is not about antagonism it is about the inner struggle towards what we believe and what is perceived. If someone told me that Amazon would surpass Google and that Elon Musk Mobile would close to equal Google 10-15 years ago, I would tell them to get better drugs and please could I have some of them, but today, or basically 2021-2024 will prove these people correct and that I underestimated an online bookstore named Amazon, and many with me. A stage where Amazon surpasses Google was before the Covid era unimaginable and the Elon Musk mobile (Pi. Phone) is not far behind. By giving the people, or perceptionally offering the people what they needed they got ahead in the game. I wonder if Mint Mobile (Canada) has a similar track ahead of them. All captains of industry and the one that started furthest ahead is now in danger of being placed last. Most forgot about the people, the consumers Microsoft made that mistake some time ago and there is some concern that Google is on the same track, leaving the work to the third parties who have no concern of people. An inner struggle, an IP of opposing sides and oppositions. But here is the last question, what makes the IP and what creates the opposition? Are these part interchangeable?
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 