#030: Q&A with Adrian & Ben - Million-Dollar Delegation Mistakes

I think ghosting in sales is a terrible look and tells you a lot about the person that you're dealing with on the other side of the table, especially within their communication ability. My POV is if they're ghosting, they probably tells you a lot about the customer relationship and the type of customer that they would be. I think the best partnerships, there should be a lot of respect on both sides. And so I think if they're communicating poorly here or in bad faith here, which happens unfortunately, that actually just means they're not going to be a good partner. And you're actually saving you and your team a lot of headache.

In our third Q&A episode, we delve into the importance of in-person meetings for remote teams, the challenges of leading discussions, learning to step back for effective contributions, and the difficulty of letting go of deals and sales. Welcome back to episode 30 of the Turning Pro Pod. It's another Ben and Adrian therapy session.

Oh yeah, welcome again. I think this is our third one now. So again, if you like these, let us know. If you're not listening, totally fine. But we're going to use this time selfishly to like catch up with each other. A lot of time when we're recording pods back to back, we actually don't have time to like catch up one-on-one. So this is our mini therapy session slash catching up with each other on like business, personal stuff.

I think we have a good agenda for this episode.

Yeah, I also just thought of another one so we can run through it, but I want to start with Offsite coming into it. What were the intentions? And then I'm also curious I'm sure there's some like serendipity aspects to it that you may have come in like wanting to get a certain thing done and came out like on a completely different direction.

Yeah. So I spent 5 days with my co-founders.

A long— off—

yeah, it was a full week. I mean, the reason we spread it across 5 days was because we did normal work until like 2 p.m. every day because we didn't want to just block off sales calls customer calls, et cetera.

Yeah.

And then afternoon, evening was all dedicated to the things we wanted to discuss. And I think when I left, first and foremost, I felt more inspired and like energized by where we're at as a business and what we're doing, which I think is a big positive.

Mm-hmm.

Because I know that they felt the same, right? Like you're sitting there and running numbers and you're like, whoa, this is kind of working. Like what's next? But a couple highlights. The first one is recognizing how important in-person time is. Building a fully remote team, if I could get in person with my, at least my co-founders every quarter, at least once, the whiteboard sessions and the serendipitous conversations by just being in the same room with each other was so impactful where I realized that building an off, uh, or a remote company is definitely possible and a lot of people do it. But I think anyone who would tell you that you don't need to spend any time in person together is just wrong. And so I think we had a lot of great conversations that weren't even necessarily planned for the week. But with that being said, I'd spent a lot of time leading up to this week making sure we had like a very clear agenda of the things we wanted to accomplish. So at the end of the week, we can look back and really just see if we got through everything we wanted. First day was everything finance. So one of the big things that we did, uh, at the offsite was basically break out our business into 3 P&Ls. So the way that the business works is— you're familiar, but maybe some people who are listening aren't— we have like the sales-led piece, which is the implementation of the Platter Bundle, which is where we're actually doing, uh, a hands-on design and implementation of a new storefront. The second piece of the business is Platter Plus, which is our app, which will have its own product-led motion. And then the third piece of the business is the ad hoc services business where we have brands that are already on our product who come back to us because they want additional work done. And in the early days, it made no sense to kind of split those out because we were just like pushing the business forward. But now we've kind of hit a point where it makes sense for us to treat each of them like their own business units, to think about profitability. And when we're investing resources back into the business, basically rewarding each business unit with additional resources if they are working on like an, in an isolated fashion. And so that was a huge discussion, uh, that took a lot of time, both like recalibrating projections, uh, analyzing the business on a deeper level to get better visibility into like what's working and where, and then thinking about what like the next phase of the business looks like for us. And so ultimately what we realized is that the, which is not a secret, but the product-led app function is absolutely gonna be the most profitable because people don't need to scale with number of customers, like as linearly as it would on like anything that's service related. And so the conversation there is just like, how do we scale that as fast as possible? It doesn't take, based on how our organization is set up, it won't take that many customers to get that to be in the green, uh, with just the team that's working on the app. And then the ad hoc business is also profitable because that's just a math equation of like, you're really only billing dev hours. Uh, you have like project managers and people managing that where their costs are baked in, but it's really how many hours do you have available based on, you know, 40 hours in a week per developer. And then when you hit a certain threshold of retainers and ad hoc work, you can just add another developer and it becomes like a math equation, right? It's like for every 3 developers you'll need another project manager, and that just continues to build. And so our team member who's basically overseeing that will just have a green light to scale it, you know, to the moon so long as it's profitable.

Yeah.

And then the implementation side, which is the bundle, that's really the part that's the least profitable, but that's also where we're trying to innovate the most, um, where we know we're going to lose the most money on that business unit in the medium to long term. But can we continue to figure out how you cut down that timeline from weeks to days And that's like the bet that we're making while we let the other pieces of the business continue to fund that. We— I have to see how this month nets out because we're obviously filming this end of March, but I think we were profitable across the first quarter.

Let's go.

Which is great. Had 3 6-figure months in terms of top line, which is fucking awesome.

Yeah.

So that was a huge win for us. So that was kind of the high-level discussion on the finance piece. Um, the second piece was just talking about product strategy. I think we have this existential debate, uh, in the market where people will say like a pro— a master of all is a master of none. And any logical product mind will tell you like, go deep on something. And I was actually talking to, uh, Ro from Pietra. We had, uh, breakfast a couple weeks ago and he basically laid out how he's thinking about his business and then gave me a comparison to someone who's on the polar opposite. And I'll walk you through the two examples and then where I kind of sit. The example he used was Chord Commerce, where they basically picked an idea and went like super deep on it. They started as a brand holding company.

ARFA. Yeah.

Yeah. They ended up pivoting to a headless commerce solution, which I don't think went as planned for them because I'm pretty sure they just pivoted again to like a data platform. But it was basically like they went all in on one concept, went super deep, validated or didn't validate, and then kept moving. What Pietra is doing right now is they went super wide where they're touching like 5 different parts of— I don't even, I don't even think supply chain's the right word. Like 5 of 6 parts of brand building, which is everything from like the ideation of products to product design, to brand design, uh, to sourcing and fulfillment, to website management, et cetera. And what they're doing is basically going off the approach of like 90/50, which is, can I give you 90% of the functionality and value for 50% of the price? And his idea is, can we do a little bit of everything to start? And as the business grows, figure out based on market feedback, where do we double down? And so I kind of use those as part of our discussion, which is challenging because I personally have a contrarian perspective on how we should grow our business in the sense that I want to go against the traditional product mind, which says go super, super deep on something. But in my mind, our thesis is around this idea that a lot of these apps and features are low fidelity and brands are only using like the core functionality of them. So in a lot of ways, I think it makes sense to go wide to start and then go deep. But it's like the ongoing existential discussion I've been having with my co-founders because my technical co-founder, who's a pure product mind, like doesn't fully agree with that. So day 2 of the offsite was just an extended discussion around like, where do we land on that topic? Um, won't go into too much detail in terms of how we're thinking about it, but ultimately that was like the, the goal of coming out of day 2 was like figuring out what direction we want to go in. Day 3 was talking about, uh, hiring and just like resource allocation as we scale the team, because we're currently hiring 2 more people right now, and I think another 1 or 2 shortly after, and figuring out like where do we want to allocate those resources as it relates to the 3 different P&Ls. And then the last 2 days of the offsite were solely dedicated to just our marketing plan for Q2. Because I think we've done a really good job. You know, we get the sentiment we're getting from a lot of people is like, I see you guys everywhere and it's just like a 2-person marketing team with a couple of contractors that are supporting. But one of our challenges that we have a million ideas, but you recognize that you have to rigorously prioritize. So we went through this exercise of like laying out what are the, you know, 7, 8 different things in a perfect world that we would love to have in motion from an acquisition perspective.

Right?

Like, uh, referrals have been really good for us. Twitter, LinkedIn content's been really good for us. Uh, podcasts have been really good for us, amongst a few others. And so we basically spent 2 days, uh, doing like a, an effort versus impact, like, quadrant analysis, and then stack ranking the different functions we want to attack based on how much effort it will be versus the impact it will bring to the business. And then once we prioritize those, just like lay out the very specific action items that need to happen within each one to ultimately decide what does the next 3 months look like for the business from like a growth, a marketing and growth perspective. And so now like it's just, uh, sprints over the next couple weeks, every 2 weeks, like have a new sprint for the next couple months. Sorry. And it's really just about following the script.

Yeah.

Uh, so there's way less like ideation and thinking that's gonna happen over the next 3 months because we did all that when we were together in person.

I love that. I'm curious when, when it comes to like leading discussions, across each of those days, I'm sure there's like a number of things that you're covering. Something that I'm really trying to work on is that I have like a similar— you have a very strong opinion about most things within the business. And a lot of the time that we want to talk about some specific part of the business, sales, marketing, BD, product, I'll inadvertently just start leading the conversation and I'm really trying to like take myself out of it. Like, hey, I think this is what we should be talking about, or someone on the team will bring something up. And I think for the first year or two of the business, we were smaller too, I was leading the entire conversation. But over the past year we built out a real leadership team. And when we're in those conversations, I really try to step back and like, you guys figure it out. I can help guide here and I can jump in with my opinion. I'm not just gonna leave the room. But I'm curious, I mean, you are one of the more strong-willed people that I know. And so when you're in some of these conversations, do you ever force yourself to pull back and be like, I'm actually gonna talk last.

Yeah. So one of the agenda items I had was to talk about a book that I read, uh, Buy Back Your Time by Dan Martell, because it was fantastic for a number of reasons, which we can talk about in more detail. But I'll pull on one specific section, uh, in the context of your question, which talks about like what it, it means to be a good leader. And part of it is being very clear with your team members, whether it's your co-founders or direct reports or employees, about what the end result is that you're looking for and like let them figure out how to get there, right? Because if you try to micromanage and say, this is where I want you to get to, but here's how all the— you know, here are the 75 steps I'm going to make you do to get there, you're kind of defeating the purpose of like bringing people in to do what they're best at, right? So in the context of that with your conversation, like if I say to my technical co-founder, hey, here's my opinion, like I I want to build features that are very low lift in terms of like customer support and onboarding into the app. Like build us an app that is like making more money for our merchants. It's very easy to adopt. And like, do you understand the requirements I'm looking for? Like take it and go do it instead of me like force feeding features down his throat that I want. Cuz he's the product mind and like he's a big reason where we are, where we are today in regards to that part of the business. So it's about picking and choosing your battles, knowing when you should speak up and actually being better about saying less, because not only when you're speaking are you already regurgitating things you already know, uh, you're not letting other people give their opinions and do what they're best at. So it's the, the underlying idea there is to be better about empowering others because you hired them or brought them in or partnered with them for a reason.

The best analogy that I heard about this was, you know, Jesse Pujji. Yeah. He started a bunch of companies, I think Ampush, and then he sold it and he started a bunch of—

Bootstrap King.

Yeah, his content's really good too. But he had this great line where he talked about like early phases of the business. It has to be a benevolent dictatorship because you're the person running it, you're the person starting it. And I love that line. And I think that changes significantly once you build an executive team. And so now the way I think of it is like within our team, kind of the leadership structure is like we have a VP of Ops and Strategy, VP Content Distribution, our chief revenue officer, and myself. And then everyone has their own, like, division of the business within that. And so when it comes to sales and BD, I am still the benevolent dictator. Like, obviously I'm going to take in people's opinions and I want their feedback, but I'm going to make the call. And increasingly now, within everyone's area of the business, I'm really trying to— it's not delegation, it's more empowerment. Like, you are the benevolent dictator of your team. You can ask us for feedback and we may have strong opinions, But it is your call. It is not my call. Like, I don't get to veto you. And I don't know if that's empowerment, but I really like that framing of it. Like, hey, within your org, say within the content org, our head of content, VP of content, she is the benevolent dictator and she gets to make the call. And so I think it's still a learning curve though, because like this is still pretty new for both of us. But I'm curious. I do want to talk about sales a bit. Let's pivot there. Walk me through recent mistakes, learnings, lessons from learning how to run like a real B2B sales pipeline and a sales funnel.

Yeah, I mean, it's interesting because advice that I got from a mentor of mine, um, over the last, like, about a month and a half ago— so we're 3 founders. One of them does everything product and engineering, one is mainly sales, and then I've kind of done a couple different things: ops, marketing, sales. But ultimately the advice that I got was you need to like really split division of responsibilities and stay in your lanes in order to level up. And so one of the biggest pieces has been letting go of a lot of the selling, and that has been a really hard thing for me. But I've kind of now done it in a way where I'm more so focusing on like whale hunting, for lack of a better term. So like larger strategic partnerships, longer sales cycles, and like being better about passing off certain deals earlier in the cycle to Mike, who's one of my co-founders. But it's really interesting because we had a really good Q1, but on a personal level with like deals that I was working on, I had multiple deals that just fell through at the one-yard line. And I've been very deflated about it because in a lot of ways, like, I take it personal because it's something I pride myself on as being like a really good dealmaker and good at selling.

It's part of your identity.

Yeah. And I had 3 deals all sizable deals that like you would have at— I feel like I've had a pretty good gauge on deals over the last year with this business of like they're going to close or they're not. And I've had a pretty good confidence level and success rate on predicting. I was 0 for 3 on 3 really big deals. And it's been— it's really frustrating for me because it's not like the business is still growing and we're still doing well, but I almost take it personal because I like look in the mirror, I'm like, okay, what did I do wrong in these ones and why? Do I all of a sudden feel deflated and feel like I've lost some momentum in the thing that I'm really good at? And now it's recognizing that part of sales is chasing nos, like that's just part of the game. And also recognizing that my energy wasted, like dwelling on these deals is energy not allocated towards other parts of the business and continuing to grow. But I think like looking back at it, there's a couple things. The first one is It's not done until it's signed. We know that, but like, it's important to repeat that.

Even verbals.

Yeah. Verbal verbals don't matter. Um, I think the second piece of it is you need to make sure that you have like stakeholder buy-in when you're working with large organizations. All because one person wants to do it does not mean it's going to go through. Uh, and I actually want to ask you a question on what your perspective is. As someone who also sells, if you're talking to a brand and you had 5 meetings with them over the course of a month and a half, you met 5+ team members and the deal ended because they just ghosted you. Like, what is your, like, do you think that's appropriate? Would that bother you? Wouldn't you prefer for someone to just say, hey, after further discussion, not interested, doesn't work? Like, There was one deal that I was working on, spent more time diligencing it, pulling in resources to scope it, all the things, did a couple calls, and then they just went silent on me.

I think ghosting in sales— I have a lot of thoughts here. I think ghosting in sales, A, is a terrible look and tells you a lot about the person, um, that you're dealing with on the other side of the table, especially within their, like, communication ability. My POV is having been ghosted hundreds and hundreds of times is if they're ghosting, they probably weren't in the ICP anyway and tells you a lot about the customer relationship and the type of customer that they would be. I think the best partnerships or a customer-vendor relationship or customer-software provider relationship ultimately should be a partnership. There should be a lot of respect on both sides and all the teams that we've worked with, even if the timing wasn't right, I've had some deals that come back 2 years later, literally 2 years later.

Dude, Mugsy is a great example. That was like a year and a half.

And every single time that that has happened, that we've ended up working together, they've never been the ones that have ghosted. It's always a quick, hey, love what you're doing. It's just the timing's not right. And I have no idea when the timing is going to be. And it can be a really quick one-liner. And so I think number one, a learning that, hey, if they're communicating poorly here or in bad faith here, which happens unfortunately, that actually just means they're not going to be a good partner and you're actually saving you and your team a lot of headache. I think number 2, ghosting definitely bothered me more in the beginning when you just have less lead volume, like early days of Verbatim. I'd be lucky to get a qualified lead who could be a partner for us twice a month, maybe. And if those fall, if both fall apart, which they usually would, it kills you. It's so brutal. You think about it all the time. But again, timing, you can't force it like what we were talking about with Cale. And so the thing that solves that is just volume. Like now I won't share exact numbers, but when you're having dozens and dozens of conversations every week, as much as you get excited about a conversation that you just had before this, even if you're jazzed, you think it's going to close, you don't even have time to think about it because there's so much volume.

And you know why? Not to cut you off, but you know why? I think I maybe feel— I feel like I felt the way that you felt when you started Verbatim. Because I've offloaded a lot of my sales conversations to my co-founder. So I actually feel like I went over to— right, like I was only— I was only managing 2 or 3 deals because I've offloaded a ton. So like if I told my co-founder this, he'd be like, dude, shut up. Like, I'm talking to, you know, 30 brands this week who are all in the proposal phase. Like, relax, it's okay. But I feel like for me, because it was only a couple, because I've tried to get away from it, I like really was affected by it.

I mean, then just pivot your energy to sourcing more. Yeah. Developing new business because like I think if you're doing sales or BD, which are usually early stages, one in the same, a founder will always be doing BD. Even if you're not trying to, you'll just meet people and they're excited about what you're doing because you're excited about what you're doing. As the product gets better, it becomes less sales and just like, this is what we're building and you'll get even better. And so even if you're not doing volume in terms of sales conversations, than just do volumes in terms of BD conversations, meet all the right channel partners, do more content. Early days of Verbatim, something that I would always tell myself because we're bootstrapped and like we didn't have a timetable to grow any time. We usually were on like a fairly consistent, like step function growth in terms of top line revenue. But there are always a couple of months, especially like November, December is always tough because everyone's reevaluating budget. Hey, Q1, we're going to pause. Maybe we'll restart down the line. And December especially is usually our lowest months because no one wants to start right away. They all want to wait till January and a lot of people are pausing and, you know, reevaluating budget. So whenever November, December, we have a slight dip, I would always just tell myself, hey, go use this time to go do content like that. That's what I love. End of the day, I love creating content and I love meeting new people, which is essentially BD and partnerships. And so when I reframed it like that, it was okay, I'm going to spend less time doing this. Oh, awesome. I get to spend more time doing these other two things. Versus dwelling on it. And so as long as you know how you can allocate your extra units of time effectively, if anything, like that really quick reframe, I'll always tell myself that maybe if we're having like low lead volume coming in, oh cool, I got 3 more hours to meet cool people. I got 3 more hours to create awesome content that's going to generate new business. And so like a slight reframe, it changes a lot. And like it really changed my like mental psyche when I got a little down about leads.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's just part of the, part of the game. It was more just an interesting reflection point for me because it's never been something that I was bothered by up until like 2 years into the business. It's like, dude, what are you doing? Grow up.

I feel you. One thing I wanted to talk about was, have you heard the Nick Huber analogy with the monkeys on the back?

No.

You would love this. Shout out Nick Huber. He's the Sweaty Startup Guy on Twitter. He's a very polarizing figure, but his content is second to none. It's incredible. Really no bullshit, really simple language, just cuts to the chase. And he just built a ton of like real-world bootstrap businesses. And the thing that he's been talking a lot about lately is delegation and the monkey on the back analogy. So basically you can go throughout your day and you're talking to your team, you're talking to partners, talking to customers. And every time that someone comes to you with a question, that question or issue, sometimes it could be a big fire, sometimes it could be a little ask. That metaphorically is a monkey on their back. They're literally carrying it into your office, so to speak, or your Zoom office and asking you for help with the monkey. And hopefully if you've like worked with your team enough, hopefully they're trained to know that they're not giving you the monkey right away. Hey, can you go do this? They're asking for feedback. But a lot of the time people are busy, people are stressed, and they think you can solve the problem. End of the day, you're the founder. And so I really love that analogy because some days, especially over the past few months lately, I'm working with different team members, I'm working on different deals, and I just have this endless to-do list of things to do. And my natural reaction for the past 3 years, someone comes to me with a problem, I can usually deal with it pretty effectively and pretty quickly just because I've been running this thing for a while. And if my default response is always, oh yeah, give me the monkey, I'll deal with it. Even if it's a small thing, maybe an email or a DM, or it's a big thing like this is a big strategic project. It would end up on my plate. And then Nick Huber's analogy is if you keep doing that, even if you don't mean to, end of the day, you got like 20 monkeys in your office and you're like, you guys got to get out of here. This is stressing me out. I don't have time to deal with all these monkeys. And so something that I've been trying to do a lot better of, and I think slowly doing better of, is any time someone comes to me with that monkey, it's, hey, I'm here to help. Like, I'm not going to ghost you. Like, I'm here to help you workshop this. but this monkey does not get handed to me unless it's like a terrible fire and like something went really wrong. Here's maybe how I'd recommend solving it, and you can come check in if it didn't work. But a lot of the time that a question gets asked or an issue gets brought up, it's here's some advice I have, and maybe here's someone else on the team that can— that you can give that monkey to that's better at dealing with it than me.

So one of the analogies that I was going to share with you from Buy Back Your Time with Dan Martell is, um, it's a methodology to minimize upward delegation, and it's the 1-3-1 rule. Basically what that is, is— and we just implemented this with our team— is anytime you have a problem that you want to bring to someone, you have one problem, you're to come up with three solutions and your proposed solution of the three.

Love that.

So it's one problem, three ideas for how to solve it, and the one that you think you should use to solve it. And then when they come to you, you're just saying, use this idea instead of that idea. By doing the 1-3-1, it forces them to actually think deeply about the problem versus just, oh, Adrian will do it for me because he did it last time. Mm-hmm.

I love that.

So that, that analogy I thought was fantastic. We already implemented that on our like product and engineering team because my co-founder gets hammered all day by like minor questions. But it's like when you get hit with 100 minor questions, it becomes a lot to deal with. So one of the principles was that was the 1-3-1 rule. Another one was the magic pill is what Dan called it. And it's basically assign a dollar value to each team member and basically tell them if you can go solve this for this amount of money or less, like don't even tell me about it. So like the example would be if you gave your whatever head of growth or chief operating officer like a $100 pill budget. So let's say like they came to you like, hey, Adrian, like I need to get this wireframe design because we need to ship it. If they could just go pay a designer $100 to do it instead of bothering you about it, like, it's worth that amount of money to you to not have to deal with that problem. That could be way less, right? Like, if it's like a— if it's an EA, do you have a $15 budget? Like, you know, pay for an Uber, get it delivered, whatever the little thing is, instead of bringing me into the problem.

Yeah.

So that was the second one. And then the third principle was, uh, this concept called the definition of done, which is basically laying out to your team members when you're delegating tasks of like, what does it actually mean when this is complete? So like, how should it make you feel? What is this accomplishing for other people? And what is the outcome? So if the example is the problem is like our finances aren't in order, like go finish our books for this month. Like what's the definition of done? Uh, you feel like we have a clear view on like what the business looks like. I can actually read the financials and understand how the business is doing. And now team members can make decisions because they have the numbers they need to go do so.

Mm. I love that.

Um, yeah, those were like 3 principles from the book that really resonated with me.

Have you heard the, uh, Hormozy talked about this when he was writing his new book, that every time that he'd work with someone on the team and they'd bring him, it could be if they're doing content, it could be like a draft of content. Or it could be an ad set creative, or it could be a website variant. Any time it was brought to him, he would immediately flip it back and say, okay, well, if you had another week to work on this, what would you change? And they'd always have an idea. Oh, I'd change this design, I'd change this copy. Said, okay, go do that. Then they'd bring it back and they'd say, what do you think? You go, well, if you had another month to work on this, like, what would you change? And they said, well, it's like almost there, but I'd actually go change this. He said, okay, cool, go do that. And I think that's, that is overlap with what you're talking about here, where it's, again, there is a definition of done where it gets 99% of the way and you're good. But to get those incremental improvements, it doesn't need to come from you and it doesn't need to come from me. Most people have a good idea of what they're talking about. Like I was in real time, I was slacking Oren from Fondue, who you know, and we're going back and forth on some design variants for like content we're producing. And I do it myself unintentionally. I, we worked on some like new design variants and I sent it to him. I was like, what do you think? He goes, what do you think? I was like, oh, I'd probably change this copy in this. And he was like, okay, I trust you, man. Like, go do it. And so I think also seeing founders— I mean, he's incredibly successful, has exited now— seeing founders that really know what they're doing in real time operate like that, you can just learn so much. And I think that's the beauty of— you guys started as an agency or an agency model, having a services element. You just get to work with so many great operators and also operators that are learning that you can learn what not to do. It could be the CEO, but I also learned so much from— a lot of the time, head of marketing or marketing manager will be managing us, and they're just some of the best communicators I've ever talked to. So detail-oriented. I think that's the beauty of agencies and services. A lot of time people kind of like turn their nose at that model in general and want to go pure software. But the benefit of starting as an agency first is that you just learn so quickly versus if you're just selling software, you don't get to interact with their team on a daily basis. And I think a lot of the time you end up learning at a, at a slower clip or slower speed.

Yeah. And the switching costs are way higher because you've built like a product.

100%.

Which is why we use the services model to hopefully inform like the product that we build.

Exactly. Um, we are wrapping this up. We'll keep this short for everyone, but again, if y'all have feedback, let us know. We're gonna do more therapy sessions with Adrian and Ben.

And like, comment, and subscribe. We don't really say that on our episodes, but we're gonna finish this one like that.

Please do. Peace.