I'm 100% certain you're reading into things that aren't there.
The one thing we know from the advert is that it wasn't intended to build Paddy Power's brand, it wasn't to gain a more prominent profile, and it wasn't intended to get non-customers (i.e. the majority of folks) speaking about it. The premise of your argument is built on that mis-attribution. It is an advert for customers. Working in the advertising industry now and having worked with Paddy Power before, I have a clearer view on that than most - and I take no pride in that - but if you look it as an ad first and foremost, and you look at the specific ad message, you can't not see that. If they wanted it to appeal to larger group the specific ad message would've had a tagline about new customers (or none at all).
That doesn't mean that you couldn't re-position your argument from a different starting point, but the idea that this piece of creative was developed to get people talking about it can't be the starting point. Unless the marketing team, media and creative agencies have no understanding of how advertising works. Given the content was created by the companies, not by the individual, the individual's motivation in this is a relatively small component of what message was being delivered and why. It would be an entirely different story if it was his own idea and it was released without any of this commercial ugliness, but that isn't the reality. Separating the brand from the message is just ignoring reality, IMO. The brand dictated the message. The reality is very ugly. It's a gambling company taking advantage of a vulnerable person to make money. No amount of psychoanalysis can change that fact.
Everything else is a huge amount of conjecture about a very complicated situation, and I don't think it's something worth giving much thought to because we have so little insight into it. Even someone who's been a victim of 8 years of infidelity from their sibling can't understand what he went through in any real way, as the public nature of it fundamentally changes how you're forced to deal with it.
In any case, agree to disagree.
You said he was used as a pawn, I then asked you how much of the creative process he was involved in or whether just picked up a bag of cash. You're implying the latter, are you not?
The advert had the potential to go viral and be the talk of at least the football world - that isn't standard fare for a PP advert and I do think more thought has gone into its content than you will give credit for. My impression when first watching it was both amusement and taking the advert apart and considering it for its satire, I cannot possibly be the only person who did that - the advert's begging you to look at it in great detail for loads of little tidbits and Easter eggs. That is
not generic fare for most adverts on TV let alone PP ones! An advert that slots into such a bracket, how can you say it's
not designed to get people talking? This thread alone has different people spotting things others missed, and it won't be the only one. Then you'll have people talking about it in bars and pubs and very likely having similar conversations to what we've seen on here. I'd like to hear the counter to this in accordance with your stance in the reply you've given.
Your second paragraph is pretty much stating it's one or the other in relation to how this was released and not considering it could serve a dual purpose, which, to me, it has done. Part of this again comes down to you being certain Rhodri is a pawn who is being exploited, which I think is a leap, personally - you even state it as fact. I don't think you have to separate the brand from the message; you can be cynical and aware enough of what the company is whilst taking on board the multi functionality of the advert or the purpose it serves. As you yourself said: it's an advert that will be interpreted in different ways by different people, which moves away from the linear suggestion you're putting forth above.
I don't know why you are certain Rhodri hasn't come to a conclusion of his own, and to be honest, you're making it sound like he's a little thick and not at all at peace with himself. You've not given him any credit that these could be considered decisions on his part almost putting forth he's in a confused state and has been led into a terrible situation. Given all that's gone on, I just wouldn't see it like that at all
As I'm typing this, the advert has come up again and I can't believe he's done that blind without considering the consequences or having intent.
We can leave it be if you want; I just found your use of the word pawn and the stance of this being simplistic and serendipitous on PP's behalf, questionable.