Presenting Metrics at Board Meetings

Live from Schenectady, New York, it's SaaS Talk with the Metrics Brothers, Growth and CAC.

And I'm Growth, better known as Ray Reich, the founder and CEO of Benchmarkit.

And I'm CAC, better known as Dave Kellogg, independent consultant, EIR at Balderson Capital, and author of Kelblog.

And together we are the Metrics Brothers.

And quite a pair at that. What's on tap for today, Metrics Brother Ray?

Well, last week we did talk about bookings, billings, revenue, and cash.

Oh my, Ray, you were supposed to say bookings and billings and cash. Oh my, bookings and billings and cash. Oh my, you didn't get the joke I wrote.

Oh yeah, that's what I get for not being a huge old movie fan, I guess.

There you go. You're going to miss a lot of references, Ray. But okay, so this week we're going to talk about Boris Borodin. That's awesome. But before we do that, Ray, we should have a word from our sponsor, Kitty O'Byrne's Irish Pub in downtown Schenectady.

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. They're not our sponsor, Dave.

Yeah, I was kind of expecting a financial SaaS company, though I will have you know that's a real business. I went and Googled that.

Oh, okay. Well, it must be right there next to the Starbucks I never go to.

Probably. So Uh, what's going on, Ray?

Well, I think we should probably take a minute because we still have our presenting sponsor, and that's Maxio. So let's hear a quick word from them first, Dave.

I guess Kitty O'Byrnes is gonna have to wait.

The Metrics Brothers is proudly sponsored by Benchmarkit, the B2B AI and software industry's largest, broadest, and most contextualized benchmarking index. Dave Kellogg and Ray Groot-Rite Have put the Metrics Brothers podcast on hiatus for remainder of 2026. All episodes we have ever recorded are still available on your favorite podcasting app. You can reach Dave at Kellogg and Ray on LinkedIn at Ray Reich. Thank you so much for listening to the Metrics Brothers podcast.

Okay, on a serious note, we will be changing our sponsorship structure going forward soon. So if you're interested in being a platinum, gold, bronze, copper, tin, or even paper Top sponsor of SaaS Talk, please reach out to Ray.

Okay, there's my marketing assistants again, always helping out the sales guy.

We sure do, Ray. That's what we live for. So let's dive into today's topic, uh, boards, boards, boards, board meetings, and metrics.

Okay, we've talked quite a bit about this, but I think what's interesting, and one of the reasons I thought this would be a great episode, was over the last month, month and a half, You've done 2 different talks on this subject, at least tangential to this subject, right, Dave?

Yeah, actually more than tangential, fairly square on. One at SASTR Annual 2023 called The Strategic Use and Abuse of SaaS Metrics. And the other being How to Present SaaS Metrics Like a Pro at none other than your own Benchmarkit SaaS Metricspalooza 2023. And slides from both those are on my blog, kellogg.com. Video for the first one's on my blog. Is video for the second one up, Ray?

Video's up and it's at benchmarkit.ai. Just go to SaaSmetricspalooza23 and it's there for the listening and viewing audience, Dave.

Awesome.

So, well, you put a lot of time into that. You did 2 amazing presentations. So why don't we let you kind of take the lead here to get started? And, you know, what are some of the common mistakes people make?

So there's a lot of them, Ray. And in one of the presentations, I think I list 15 signs of a SaaS metrics problem. So we're not going to walk through all 15. of those here. But in the end, I think it all comes down to 2 things. Actually, it's pretty simple in the end. One, not getting agreement on what's important. And 2, not presenting it well. And we could drill into each of those in a minute. Let me drill on the first one now. So, to get agreement on what's important, I think requires a 2-level structure because you could find yourself trying to review templates on 20 slides and it's just too much work. So, my personal recommendation is you start with a summary for the CEO. And you then have a summary for each area. And if you can get agreement on that, I call it 2-level because for each area, there's a summary and a drill-down. And I think the way to get started with this is you focus on the summary and leave the drill-down to the CXO. And then over time, you could drill into it. But just to be honest, that first step is one most companies never get completed.

Yeah, and I'm going to double-click on that because I think it's really important. But then I think there's often, in a lot of the board meetings that I've been a participant versus a leader of is the alignment of what's being presented. Because if the CEO is presenting some high-level things and the CFO is presenting some financial metrics, I think it's really important that what the executive leaders are presenting, whether that's the head of marketing, sales, customer success, etc., there should be alignment and correlation of what they present to what was presented at the beginning of the board meeting. That's my perspective.

Yeah, it's kind of, there's kind of intra-deck alignment. Like, is the, you know, does the COO update match the numbers in the CEO update? That would be a kind of basic requirement. Then there's alignment more strategically around, do we all agree what we should be measuring and what matters? And that's back to my point of, we got to agree what's important. Because sometimes we put the wrong stuff up because we just haven't taken the time to discuss what the right stuff is. That can happen. Happens a lot. And sometimes, it's more nefarious where I'm cherry-picking. Like, oh, I want to show you expansion ARR last quarter because it was amazing. But this quarter, it was weak. So, I'll just talk about overall new ARR and kind of leave that number out of the deck. So, to me, the magical answer here has to be this 2-level structure per area, including the CEO, where we— the first thing we do is get agreement on the summary metrics First, leave the drill down till later, and you literally might take a year before you get back to it. So that's our first point, agreeing on what matters. The second one is just being sure you present it well. You know, if you're putting numbers into text, if a lot of numbers are in text, it's a problem. In my mind, it's a warning sign. A lack of context. Do you have plan? Do you have last year's? Do you have recent quarters? Do you have some history? And do you have planned performance? And if applicable, forecast performance? And is the presentation just amateur hour? I was literally at a meeting The other day, and they're presenting numbers that were in the order of magnitude hundreds of thousands, and they were showing pennies, right? And they had a regular formatting of commas. And this is like, no, no, like, this is— I would say it's the Johnson kindergarten class attempt to present numbers, and you can't do that. So we got to have professional kind of presentation as well.

I don't know, those 25 cents I brought in and knew AR were pretty important, but I have another pet peeve, and I'd like to get your feedback on that. And that is not having the definitions agreed upon as early as possible also. And I don't want to take you down into a specific metric like CAC payback period right now, but do you think that's an important or an often overlooked mistake that they still don't have agreement on basic definitions of what a metric is?

Yeah, we did a whole episode, I think, on CAC payback period, and I've done a couple blogs on it, and I'm working on another. So you're right, we spent a bunch of time on that. But I think I'm going to take that one also back to my first point, not agreeing on what's important, right? And that means what should be in the summary, because that's the most important stuff. And I'd say inherent or intrinsic to that is how do we define it, right? If we're going to say that, I don't know, CAC payback period is one of those important, you know, top 10, top 12 company metrics that belongs on the first slide, gosh, that's a dandy time to figure out how we want to calculate it and make sure we all agree. The mistake I see is either they don't do that at all, or they try to do that in real time, and then you end up rat-holing. And this could be actually quite bad for you as CEO. I think a CFO has a little more leisure, not leisure, but a little more leash to rat-hole. But if you're a CEO and you're diving into how to calculate CAC payback period in a board meeting, people may quickly wonder if you worry about the right things, right? So, you need to kind of offline this. offline that work. But that work needs to happen. Offlining it and it not happening are 2 very different things.

You know, it's another thing that I don't know how to say this without just saying it, right? I was a CEO a couple of times and then I went into a non-CEO role, right? Reporting to a CEO. And it was interesting. He said, okay, what are you going to present this quarter at the board meeting? I'm like, well, don't we present the same thing quarter after quarter? Like maybe we put a template together. Says, here's what the CFO presents. Here's what the head of sales, marketing, CS. What do you think about templates? Is that a pretty important thing to have a standardized template for every board meeting, Dave?

Yeah, I think you're hitting on a super important point here, Ray, which is the way— remember I said not getting agreement on what's important? Well, let's get agreement on what's important. What does that mean? It means the rows. It means the calculations behind the rows. And it means the columns, right? And then if you always stick to that format, We're not asking what you're presenting at the board meeting because it's already predefined. And that template, I mean, I have a little maxim I've developed in the last few months, which is templates build trust, templates build trust, templates build trust. Because there's nowhere to hide in a good template. I've got history. I've got the good quarters. I got the bad quarters. I have the plan relative performance. I have the year-over-year growth. Nothing is being hidden. Nothing is being swept under the carpet. Nothing is being omitted. And that builds a lot of trust because if I notice that every board meeting you're presenting the same template, and maybe you color code it to highlight stuff you want to talk about, maybe you put callouts on top of it, I don't care. But if it's the same template, then I trust you because I know that you're not playing games with me. So, yes, huge believer in templates. It makes the job easier and more subtly, it builds a lot of trust with the board. And it actually begets the first question, which is, hey, what should we put in them? And in what format and compared to what and how do we calculate that? And that exercise of making one table, you know, for CEO, CMO, CRO, that's actually a lot of work. And I strongly encourage people to do it.

Okay. So you've been a CEO multiple times. You've sat on a lot of boards. Do you have in your mind that template? It's like, what's the first slide and what's the second slide that should always be used, Dave?

Yeah, I do, Ray. I did a blog post on this a while back called The First 3 Slides of a Board Deck. And the first slide, it's really interesting because I've been saying this for a long time, but I've watched people kind of misinterpret it. So, because it's funny, because, you know, I try to communicate really clearly and then you see how people interpret what you say. I like a first slide that has the 2-column good/bad, good/not so good, whatever you want to call it, you know, good things, challenges. I don't care what the euphemism for the second column is, but it better talk about good things and bad things. I don't think the metrics should be the first slide. I think the metrics should be the second slide. We'll come back to that. But I think the first slide is, I'm CEO of this company. You're on my board. In most VC companies, you own the vast majority or certainly the majority of the company or in early stage, maybe a significant minority, but you own a chunk of the company. And I want to tell you about how things are going. So, here's the good stuff, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. And here's the bad stuff. And they should be, in my mind, one half a page bullet each, right? If these are getting to be 2 or 3 bullets long, it's too much to read. It's got to be record ARR on the highlights column or record churn on the lowlights column, right? But you got to keep it tight. You can put the numbers in parentheses, which I do. Record new ARR growth, parentheses, 175%. That's fine. Still fits in kind of one bullet of a 2-column table. But this stuff needs to be tight. I always think you should have an equal number on both sides. So you can't be accused of either optimism or pessimism. So, so, so go, go fill in what naturally needs to be filled in on either side. And if you need to stretch a bit, but, but make both columns equal. And then, the biggest thing I saw about this slide, Ray, was some people either want to rush through it or say, I think you're— I mean, to me, it's, we should talk. Hey, we had record new ARR. It was fueled on the back of a great deal. Gary, give them a quick update on that deal. Right? And engage your lieutenants to talk about what happened. Hey, Blake, let's talk about that big customer churn that we avoided. Let's just say we had a save. And we'd forecasted as churning at the beginning of the quarter and we saved it. So, in my mind, it's not a slide you have to fly through. It's a slide where you want to get a discussion. You want people to ask questions. And to your prior point, if there's a whole section on it later or a slide on it later, you can always say, hey, the short answer is 12. But there's a whole slide on slide 35, I think it is in the deck, where we drill into this. Because I'm a big believer to answer ATFQ, as some people call it, answer the effing question. If a board member asks you a question, answer it. So I'll always say, hey, the answer is 12, but there's a slide on that if there is. Or, hey, Blake could tell you about it, and Blake runs customer success.

It's interesting because I have a very similar kind of first page. In the first page, I do like to start with numbers. So I like to kind of show actuals versus plan and really focus on GAP and ARR. But then I like to highlight kind of what I call my 4 big wins. One could be big new customers. Big expansion, strategic customer renewals. And then I even add typically partner channel wins if we have partner programs. Then I do 4 disappointments. And I just like to tee it up in front and say, yeah, Blake's going to talk about the big new customer of Home Depot later when we talk about, you know, new customer acquisition, but tee it up upfront. What do you think about teeing it up upfront without going into all the detail right away?

Yeah, I think it's fine. Like I said, in my experience, just having done this a lot, Some of the bullets are definitely tee-ups. If churn was 130% above plan, we need to talk about that. And there needs to be a slide on that. And we need to talk about why the forecast was wrong and why it came in too high, right? So, in that case, I think you tee it up, say, hey, Blake, we're both disappointed with that churn performance, but we're going to cover that later. Sorry to keep throwing Blake under the bus here. But that's a tee-up. In some cases, they're— I'm going to take a bad example, but let's just say we want Kelly to talk about I don't know, recruiting, and say we did really well on recruiting and we recruited, you know, all 12 reps plus 2. We didn't think we could do it in the quarter. Then that one could get handled real time. It still merits being a top point, but it's not worth a drill-down slide. So I can go either way on it, Ray. I think the important thing is, as CEO, you should know the entire deck. And if it's covered later, defer it. And if it's not, take it in real time.

Okay. So after you set the kind of meeting up with that first slide, What's the second deck? Where do you go next?

So personally, then I go to numbers because I like tables of numbers. And my soundbite on this is, Ray, I've never met a board who is afraid of a table of numbers because sometimes people want to make these big visualizations and sometimes they're crap visualizations. That's equivalent of 4 data points on 4 bars on a giant simple Excel graph. And it's like, that's just a waste of space in my mind. You had a whole 8 by 11 slide and you You put 4 data points on it. So, if you're going to make a visualization, you know, use Tableau and make it pack a lot of punch and make it carry a lot of data. The easiest way to measure punch is how many data points are represented by the graph or the chart or the visualization more generally. So, but in general, I default to a table full of numbers. The actual joke I say is I've never met a CFO who's afraid of a table of numbers, and that's absolutely true. But most board members are the same. So, I like there to be tables of numbers in trailing 5-quarter format or trailing 9-quarter format if you have it. So I can look at seasonality. People always ask why trailing 5-quarters. It's so I can see year over year and I can see seasonality. So I can see 1Q this year and 1Q last year, 4Q this year, 4Q last year, right? I can get the whole year plus 1. Same thing applies to trailing 9-quarter, which is a fairly standard format in finance for that reason, because you get 2 years of history with seasonality. And I like to see lots of comparisons. Do the math for me, right? Give me context and do the math for me. Those are the 2 driving principles, right? The context is all the history. And the context is what was planned, what was forecast, what was budget. That's also context, right? Just telling me we did $1.2 million in new ARR. I have no idea. Is that good, bad? What was planned? What was last year? What was last quarter? Right? What was the forecast? Right now, I can start to form an opinion. So, I need that context.

Right.

And then don't make me do math. You know, if I have to divide 15 by 17, you know, good luck with that. You know, certain numbers just don't divide that well in most people's heads. So, do the math for me. If you think I'm going to want a percent, do it for me. So, that's what I think the second slide should be. In terms of what the metrics themselves should be, just very quickly, the leaky bucket. So, starting ARR plus new minus churn equals ending. Net new ARR, i.e., New ARR minus churn ARR, net customer expansion, which is expansion ARR minus churn ARR, expansion percent of ARR. We've talked about that before. CAC ratio, your churn ratios, churn/expansion ratios, GRR and NRR. And then I like to see the number of employees in the company and while we're at it, their happiness, employee NPS. And I always like to see the number of customers and their happiness, their NPS. So, to me, that's kind of the That's not a bad first swag at a second slide of any board deck.

Okay. So, I've always wanted a second section, but not a second slide. Because what I'm thinking that, well, what I've done is I like to show the key metrics, actual versus plans by process. So, I typically ask my CFO to do things like net new ARR versus plan and break it down into the 4 line items, right? The new ARR versus plan, the renewals versus plan, the churn versus plan, and then the net, right? But then I like to have the customer acquisition performance metrics. So whether that's the CRO or CMO, they talk about the acquisition metrics and how they perform versus plan. Same thing on a rolling 5-quarter basis. And then I like to move to expansion, retention, and then I even go to organization. Where if I have the HR talk about how we're doing on hires versus plan, maybe it's capacity versus plan, etc. But I kind of do it that way. So, it's similar to yours, but I break it into each of the executives getting to talk about something that they own and how it aligns to the corporate objectives.

Yeah, I'd be interested to see a slide on that because it sounds like a lot to pack on a slide. And maybe it's not one slide in your world.

It's not one slide. It's one slide. Process, acquisition, expansion, renewal, and organization.

Got it. Okay. Yeah, because I was gonna say that's hard to get on the slide. I can actually get mine onto a slide. And by the way, one of the things I'm forced to do is give up plan performance. So I can get it into a column. I can do my trailing 9 quarters and throw and do year-over-year growth and get plan performance into a column. But I can only see it for the most recent quarter, right? So If you want to know it historically, then you have to throw rows at it. And there's one row that I sometimes throw in there. It takes one and you don't have that many rows to give because I've named a lot of rows already, but I might do new ARR plan performance as a row. It could be worth it, especially if I've had trouble with it.

Right.

So, or if we've had trouble with churn, maybe we put churn and not just churn, but churn plan performance, right? Because the only problem I see with your technique, Ray, is you potentially over-rotate on plan performance. And, and if I only had one, I'd want to see year-over-year growth, i.e., absolute performance. I don't care that you were 102% of plan if you'd negotiated a plan where we only grew 19%, right? So if I only got one, it would be absolute performance year over year. If I got another, it'd be plan performance, right? Because absolute performance is how well is this business doing? Plan performance says, should I fire this person? And I just don't want to over-rotate because you can get myopic and forget that there's an outside world. And literally everyone's congratulating themselves for being 102% of plan, but we're losing market share.

Well, I think that might be addressed with also showing that the 5-quarter trailing performance, right? The actual results. And then the 6th column is that versus plan for this quarter.

Yeah.

And to be clear, with a trailing 5-quarter, I would, I would personally do percent of plan, but then I only see it for the most recent quarter, right? Because we're going across. And I would do year over year for sure. And that way at a glance, I could say, okay, we're 102% of plan. That's pretty good. Ah, but we only grew 30%. So plan's too low, right? That, that's what I need to analyze this.

Got you. You know, one of the things, and we do, we actually talk about these episodes, right? We put our, our thoughts and notes down, but there's always one thing that comes up that I always blindside you with. So that's why they call me Growth, right? I'm always growing, even in the script. But that is, when you start getting all this data, how much of this do you send out in the pre-board meeting deck versus going over in painful detail during the actual board meeting, Dave?

So, this painfully detailed slide to me is one slide. It's the CEO summary metrics slide. And there's a lot of numbers on it. See prior comment about CFOs aren't afraid of numbers, nor are finance types. So, if you look at my blog post, there's a lot of numbers on the table on that slide. But I think it's easily digestible. They're formatted clearly. You can put callouts on them. You can do color coding, right? If you really want to highlight stuff. So I think you can throw a lot of numbers at a board. And frankly, I'd rather have one slide with a lot of numbers on it than to have 3 numbers on 15 different slides. Because now I'm flipping all over the place, back and forth. Does this match that? Does it? I'd rather see it in one place so I can go, wait a minute, we're behind on expansion, but we're ahead on new. We're okay on ending. Churn's trending up, right? I could look at it all and kind of absorb the entire picture of the company. So, to the extent the question is, can people absorb numbers? I think the answer is yes. But the actual question was, how much do you do in the meeting? And the answer to me is, in general, I put callouts, color coding or callouts, and there might be 2 or 3 things I want to say. And I like to leave meetings super interactive. So, I try not to say much. I put the numbers up. I've distributed the deck 2 days in advance. I say, here are the 3 big things I noticed. And now, do you have any questions? And so that would be my answer. There's zero temptation on my part to attempt to read the entire table to people. That would be a death march.

That's what I was trying to call out because that's why I love sending the deck out a couple days before the board meeting. Let them go through all the numbers, let them think about it. And then instead of having to read every number, We can discuss the exceptions.

Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Or whatever they find. I mean, sometimes they find stuff you missed, but whatever. I generally like to run questions. I call them question-only ops reviews, where literally just put the slides up. If people don't ask questions, we just go to the next slide. Because the one thing, as much as I love numbers, the one thing I can't stand is people reading numbers to me, or, you know, just doesn't work. Yeah, I like the table of numbers, but if you're presenting it, call out the 2 or 3 points and go to Q&A mode. Do not present, quote unquote, a table of numbers to someone. They'll kill you. So, Ray, I suspect we're getting close on time here, so we should probably hit our last point, major point of the episode, which is what are the steps you think people can take to kind of up their board metrics game? I'll let you go first on this one.

Well, number one, it's kind of restating a lot of what you said, but Getting alignment right up front with what's going to be presented that the board agrees upon and with everybody who's presenting. So to me, it's alignment, the alignment of what we're presenting, the template, and how we're calculating the metrics. And then the second thing to me is alignment between all the people who are going to be at the board meeting speaking. Don't have the head of sales presenting metrics that are totally unrelated to what the CFO presented or that they don't align with what marketing's doing or CS is doing. So, to me, the number one word is alignment.

Yeah, to me, I'm going to give you a very specific definition of alignment that's, I presume, part of yours, which is not only should they not be totally unrelated, that's kind of obvious, they need to foot. Like, if the numbers don't foot, i.e., I believe every board has a savant who can flip through the deck And literally, they can sit there, have never seen the deck before, flip through it while drinking coffee before the meeting, and go, the number on slide 42 in row 7 doesn't map to the number on row, slide 87, row 3. And they'll be right, by the way. So beware of the savants on your board because they exist. So this stuff needs to foot. It doesn't just need to align. And you need to be To me, as a CFO, this is not a mistake you get to make many times. Like, I think you get 3 lives. Like, the first one, people get a little nervous. The second one, people are terrified. And by the third one, they're firing, they're looking for a new CFO. If the board deck doesn't foot, if you can't, you know, cross-check your board deck, it's a huge problem. My answer to the question, Ray, is 3 things. One, how to up your game. One, use templates to build trust. Agree on the templates, the rows, the columns, everything. And the definitions. And once you agree, fill it in religiously. And then the only thing you do for the board meeting is put a few callouts on it. Second, 2-level structure. So, agree for every major executive. And you could just start with the CEO, CRO, CMO, maybe Chief Success Officer too, CCO. Just get their first slide of metrics. And by the way, I don't think they should have a good/bad slide. I want them to cut directly to metrics. I want the CEO's good/bad slide to cover the whole company. So, when we're done with that, we're done with that. And then, when the CRO stands up, I want their summary metrics. I want to go right into them. And just agree on that first slide. And if you do that, in my mind, you're going to be ahead of like 80% of all companies. And then, leave the rest to them. If there's more metrics they want to present, let them do what they want. And we'll kind of, you know, fill that in later. We can agree on that later. But first things first. And then finally, the thing we haven't mentioned, which I think is the best trick out there, is to create a metrics task force. Don't try and do this real time in the board meetings. Don't do it with the whole board in the room. Some board members will be driven crazy by this. Kind of, if you think you have a board metrics problem, say it. Say, guys, I think we're not aligned on the metrics, or people, I think we're not aligned on the metrics. And therefore, I think we should create kind of a coalition of the willing and interested to say, who wants to create a metrics working group that goes and agrees on these templates? And they'll come back. And get that approved by the board to say, yes, we agree too. But all the legwork will be done by that group. And that group can include board members, independent board members. It might have your VP of FP&A, right, who maybe wasn't even in the room. It may have your VP of RevOps. But you get this coalition to go build this template and they do it offline from the board meeting.

You know, there's one thing that I didn't share that's just so important to me. And that is, it's not just a rearview Lagging indicators. It's the leading indicators and what they portend for next quarter. How important is that, do you think, Dave?

Well, there's a softball if I ever heard one. Yeah, absolutely. You want to include both leading and lagging indicators. Usually in sales, just look up the funnel. That's your leading indicator. Sometimes you need to look all the way through to the plan if you have very fast sales cycles. But yeah, you should look up the funnel and you should look at the funnel backwards in time to look at rates and actual conversion rates. But, but to know what's going to happen in the future, you need to be very good at looking up funnel. So, so absolutely, board members by and large will care more about the leading stuff.

Yeah, it's been 20 minutes and you put so much work into this topic over the last few months. Can you just repeat for the listening audience where they can find those 2 presentations that you recently done on this topic in much greater detail?

Sure, just kellogg.com. Uh, just do— if you want to Google search kellogg.com SASTR 2023 and then kellogg.com, um, SaaS Matrixpalooza 2023. Um, that's how you can find the 2 decks. And in the meantime, remember, templates build trust.

And a little tease for the next episode, we're going to be taking some work that looks at the key bank benchmarks over the last 10-plus years that Cloud Ratings and Matt Harney there did, and talking about some of those macro-level trends. So that's next week's episode, Dave.

Excited about it. Look forward to seeing you there, eh?

Okay, thanks everyone. Thanks, Dave. Good talking.

Take care.

The Metrics Brothers AI, SaaS, and More is a production of the Metrics Brothers Growth and CAC and a member of the Benchmarkit Podcast Network. By accessing this podcast, you acknowledge that the Metrics Brothers make no warranty, guarantee, or representation as to the accuracy or sufficiency of the information provided or the humor content of the jokes told. Ray, information, opinions, and recommendations presented are, according to our spouses, probably wrong and provided for information purposes only. This podcast should not be considered professional or, for that matter, unprofessional advice. We disclaim any and all liability for any direct, indirect, indirect, misdirect, incidental, special, ordinary, consequential, inconsequential, or other damages arising out of any use of, or God help you, reliance upon the information presented here. Ray Grothreich is based in New York City and available on X @rayreich.

Dave Kellogg is based in Silicon Valley and available on X Kellogg.

Schedectity, which is French for unspellable, is not our actual production location. Thanks for listening.