INBOUND 2016: Sean Ford "Marketing Myopia: Know the Signs, Get the Cure"

Hey everybody. So I've been at LogMeIn for about three years now and the company's gone through a lot of changes. And one of the things that really started me down the path to talking about this particular topic, which is sort of near and dear to my heart, is looking at the array of businesses and products that Logmean has. And if all of you are in companies, this isn't a pitch on LogMean, it's just setting the context that anyone who works in a multi product company, multiple markets and really trying to fight for a way to be relevant as marketers, I feel like that's sort of an art that started to slip and slide. So I thought I would share a few thoughts on that. I was also pulled in hot in this at Inbound this year because I'm in such demand. So anyway, I hope this is interesting, I hope it's fun and just a few things. So the first question that I wanted to ask everybody, how many people in here actually are in marketing? Okay, good. Thank God last time I said if it's all engineers, this would be a lot different presentation. So the question is, how relevant do you think you are in your companies? It's a good question. People sort of feel like they are happy in their jobs, that's one thing. But are you relevant? And how do you know? And really how are you strategically relevant? And the reason that that's so important is that really by proxy, if marketing is not strategically relevant, then you aren't strategically relevant. So you have to say, well, what is strategic relevance? And really I'm defining it very simply. It's really how clearly is you do in marketing, how clearly can you demonstrate that it connects directly to an increase in bookings, revenue or users? Really, that's it. It's always back to the money. There's good work people can do. I'm sure people do good work from a design perspective, a creative perspective. But if you fall into the bucket of T shirts and squishy balls, you end up being rapidly marginalized. And if the department falls into that bucket, then your own personal brand starts to fall and become personally marginalized. So they're very connected. I don't know if that reson but it's really sort of the constant battle I think for good marketing is to be strategically relevant. So then if you say, well, how do you know if you're strategically relevant? And I'm just going to throw out a few things just to sort of set this up and say, well, you know, are you, are you able to clearly tie the investments that you make to growth and to growth in bookings and users. If you can't, then. And if you look at your portfolio where certain things are a little harder to tie to it, but other things, if they do tie directly, you have to look at that ratio. How much of what I can measure or say ties directly back to things on which the business is valued, Right? If you're a public company, on the public valuation, internally, on whatever metrics that you're tying to, whether it's growth or margin. The second is, and this is always a good one, how frequently are you asked to cut budget? So do people come to you and think, hey, you know, we're a little short this year. You take some money out of marketing, right? That happens. Or you're really valued on sort of your cost and the ratio of your cost more heavily than any other metric. You have to start saying, am I just a cost center? Talk about that in a second. Second, another is, are other functions actually advocating for additional spend in marketing for you? That is the greatest place that a marketer could be. Humbly, whether you can measure it or not, if you have people in sales or product or care or engineering saying, man, if we could just get another million dollars of marketing, we would be in good shape. The best thing is that you don't have to argue for it. It's another. But if they're not, you have to ask yourself that question. The next one is, do you feel like you have a seat at the table on strategic planning and strategic sessions? Or is it, hey, we've made the decision we're going to enter this market with these and we just kind of need some pretty collateral that we're going to send out or we just need a webpage. Okay, it's not that it's not valuable to do that, but you're not exactly at the nucleus of strategy creation and it's always good to again, calibrate. And the last one is, are executives that are in other functions besides marketing asking for your help? Are they asking for your help on things? Do they bring you into things like, hey, I have a question on care. So these aren't the, this isn't the sort of exhaustive list, but there's four or five things where you can say to yourself, how much am I being brought in as, as a member of the team, as a member of a cross functional team with strategic conversations and how clearly can I measure my contribution to the positive impact of the business? And if you can do both of those things and you're being brought in, you're probably in a decent spot. If you're not, again, it's incumbent on all of us to ask those questions, sort of calibrate and recalibrate where we are and where we need to be. Does that all make sense? So I can say those questions because I can see everybody in the room. So that's fantastic. So here's the danger. The danger is I mentioned before, you can easily slide into what I'm just calling the slippery slope of marketing irrelevant. This gets towards the topic of the conversation. So if you're seen as a place where people invest to grow, great. If you can demonstrate that, great. If you start to go down with your mix or go to market and you find yourself that you are actually an expense to be reduced. And I would just say that, for example, in a couple of companies that I was at one fairly large company in my past, the CMO used to stand in front of the president twice a year and show how much marketing spend that person had reduced quarter over quarter or year over year as the barometer of success at that company. And I would tell you that that company was primarily focused on marketing as essentially brand and colors and tchotchkes. Not the best place to be. But at least if you want to be. If you want to be forward leaning. But that's the challenge. And if you look at it, it's really what you. It's. If I write here. I'm sorry. That's. Okay, fine. The thing is you want to be in a place where. I was just kidding there, by the way. You want to be in a place where you want people that they don't feel like they have to have a team, that they actually need to have a marketing team. And the further down you. I keep looking over here, the further down you go on this expense line is the closer you come to being more myopic in your marketing. Be more of a myopic. So let me define this for you. So here's. I don't know if anybody here knows Theodore Levitt. Have anyone heard of Theodore Levitt? Good guy. He's actually great. Passed away a few years ago. He's a Harvard Business School professor, an economist. He coined the term in 1960, myopic marketing. And you know, really if you look at it, it's fairly simple. It's just short sighted and inward looking approach to marketing. Essentially what he's saying is we're not defining the company and its products in terms of what the customer needs and wants he was the famous person who coined the idea that, you know, people aren't buying drills, they're buying holes. He's the guy who came up with that and among a number of other things. And I would encourage you all to take a look at his writings. But one of the things is, if you look at this, you know, one of the points, you can go back and by this model, survey your customers on what they might want, what sort of feature, what sort of function, what sort of product. But if you don't focus on the outcomes, you're going to end up being sort of narrowly focused in what you create. And so it really starts to speak to the need to connect marketing and product for marketing to be effective and actually have you be able to demonstrate that effectiveness and be strategically relevant. So one of the great examples of this sort of mistake is something called the baby cage. I don't know if you ever heard of this invention. This is actually invented by an American in Spokane, Washington. There's a patent. There's actually a patent listed for it. It was Emma Reid. And it didn't catch on in the US it ended up catching on in London, ironically. And the idea was there was a book that had been written that said it's actually very beneficial for babies to be aired out. Aired out. And in London, instead of coming up with something like a stroller or something that you could actually take your child for a walk in, like a Baby Bjorn or whatever it is, they decided to attach essentially, what was an air conditioner cage before air conditioners were invented, to the outside of high rises and toss the baby in with toys and air them out. Now, you know, it actually went. It worked for a little while. And then ultimately, what stopped its popularity, interestingly, was World War II, when they didn't think it made sense to put babies outside and air them out during the blitz and other sort of bodies. That's true, by the way. Never caught on in the U.S. but the thing is, how, as marketers, how'd you like to market this thing? Like, how would you like to have this be the challenge that's in front of you? Someone invents the baby cage and they give you a certain amount of money. You got to write a story for why it's actually good the best you can. You got to try to justify the price point. You have to find the segment, what kind of return do you think you're going to get on that? And I would posit to everybody that you're probably not gonna get the return. You'd get with some super high growth market of product that's sort of high volume, easy, less risky, you know. So the point is that your effectiveness in marketing is very much tied to the value proposition of the product that was built and handed over to you. And that sounds fairly obvious, but I'll show you a framework that helps sort of dig into it a little bit more. But we're for better or worse, we're fused. Our effectiveness is fused to sales and it is fused, fused to the product teams. And too often we're not at the table with them talking about that systemic view. And that's what I'll talk about in a second. So I thought I would just redefine marketing myopia. Right? So here Levitz was all about, let's just look at the product and make sure that we're envisioning the customer's wants and needs in a bit more robust way. Outward in. For me, one of the things in the world that we exist in now where there's just exponential amounts of data and metrics and measures, it's really how do you start to justify and explore, explain marketing's performance as part of a broader system. And so the more that we just look at marketing in a silo and define marketing as how marketing did, the more that we actually contribute to a myopic understanding of what marketing really contributes to the broader spectrum and where you actually need to invest to improve your go to market model. Fact. Pretty important. I don't know how many of you do this and sit down in your organizations, but it's something that I would tell you, log me in, something that we're just starting. We've just gotten to the point where we're able to have these conversations and you would think given that we went public in 2009, we'd have this completely nailed, but we struggle with it all the time. So my new definition, just to think about it, is more to assess marketing performance in a vacuum. Right? Not looking at it, looking at it separately from the dynamics of the environment that you're in and not in alignment with the sales and product efficacy in the market and how they're thinking about lining those things up in their strategy. Again, sounds fairly straightforward. So let me give you another example, a more recent example of this. I don't know if any of you remember the Zune. Does anyone remember the Zune? No. Hey, there you go. So that was Microsoft's attempt to compete with the ipod. It didn't last very long. One of the problems was it didn't integrate with itunes. So it was all of Bill Gates favorite songs is all that was on this thing. He was a big Barry Manilow guy. So it didn't sell very well. The other thing that happened was it was a little clunky and unsimple. So simple to use is the ipod. So if you look at it again, how do you think now think about the market, right? Ipod's pretty well known, pretty slick. Apple's there known for innovation. Microsoft's probably got a better cache now than it did back then from a brand perspective, to be honest with you. But back then Microsoft was very pinstripe suited and stuffy, right? So you've got a product that sort of reflects that and you're in marketing. Who would want to try to market it against the power of Apple in a market that's rapidly saturating where there's some flaws of the product? The question is you might be able to put a dent in. And I'm not saying you don't try, but are you at maximum efficiency or do you think you've got headwinds? You probably have some headwinds. And so again, this isn't just back to the baby cage. This is the tale as old as time, you know, all the way through is connecting the three parts of sales, product and marketing to determine how you're going to do. All right, and so now we get into sort of, let's talk a little bit about the symptoms here. So one of the things I'm going to ask, I'm sure that all of you have probably been asked is there's one familiar question and it's, I'll just walk up this way. Have you guys seen, have you guys seen these books? These are great. It's sort of the why, oh why did I swallow a fly? That whole thing. Except they do. If you give the pig a pic, if anyone has kids, these books are gold. If you give a pig a pancake, if you give a moose muffin, if you give a mouse a cookie, essentially it spirals into insanity. And so I don't know how many people have gotten this question, but if you give marketing a dollar. So I don't know how many people have seen the, have had someone in another function, an executive, you know, if I just, if I gave marketing like a dollar, what would I get back for it? Has anyone ever heard that question? How many of you can answer that question like this? Has anyone ever heard you can. That's great. That's great. Well, you're the only person that's Fantastic. You should come up here and talk. You'll do a better job than I will. But it's a question that always comes up. And the issue isn't to try to hide the answer to that question because, I mean, a lot of people, I'm actually, I'm just sure people in the audience can answer it to some degree. But the problem is that the very question itself undermines really, I think what the person is looking for, which is how effective is my go to market model marketing could be? You know, I always use the example of, you know, let's say that you have a product, person comes to you and says, hey, need you to sell a car for me. It's never been driven. That's great. And we're going to get sales. Hey, sales, we have a new car. It's never been driven. It's a car, it's in good shape. Yep. Great. It's a 2014 Oldsmobile. 2014 Oldsmobile. Two miles on it. Well, there's like 2017 Oldsmobiles now. Right. And Oldsmobile's not exactly a super sexy car. So how much do you think you'd have to spend in marketing dollars to convince someone to buy a brand new 2014 olds? And how much sales. What sort of sales would you have to deploy against that? And you immediately start to understand that it doesn't matter how much money, you probably have to spend about as much in marketing dollars to get that thing sold. Car actually costs somewhere near there. Not super effective. Right. So again, it's a systems view. So how should I measure it? One of the things you guys have probably seen, how many people look at marketing qualified leads. Does anyone look at that? Yeah. All right. And sales accepted leads as a primary marketing metric. Yep. Downloads of some kind, right? Yep. Pipeline. Anyone look at pipe marketing contributed pipeline. It's great. Customer acquisition cost. Does anyone look at that? Few people. So the question is, how do you know which one? I mean, do you have a direct. I don't know people here, you find that for every business and for everything you look at, it's always hard again to look in a vacuum and say, I mean, I've seen examples where we're at 120% of MQL target and at 75% of bookings for the quarter, does that ever happen? Why are we looking at MQLs then? Is it helpful? Does it mean that MQL quality isn't it? Does it mean sales is a problem? I mean, what is the point of looking? I mean, so there's. There's a little bit of. I'm not sure how helpful that metric is, but I understand why we measure it. What about accepted sales? Accepted leads? You might have a terrible sales force that is just looking to accept leads that essentially are attached to an order. So I love those leads, but anything I have to do, I'm making it being extreme, obviously, but sales does a very difficult job. In all seriousness, but the point is that you could have a. They do. I mean, it's true, but there's an absolute need to sort of look and say, well, is sales accepted the right way? Downloads? Do you connect that back to. Is it a score for a lead or is it something that actually directly connects to bookings or revenue? Is it a quality metric? But the point is, there's a whole bunch of different things in here. And so sometimes when you look at things, they aren't, you know, they aren't exactly helpful. So one of the things I thought I would just throw up is I don't know how many people know what LTV to CAC is. I'm sure some of you do, but LTV is lifetime value of a customer, right? So if you have a customer and they're paying you a recurring revenue stream, five bucks a year, four years, not counting, assume they renew every year, you know, that'd be $20. Their lifetime value be 20 bucks. You compare that to how much it cost you to actually acquire that customer. Now, CAC in and of its. And by the way, I'm super simplifying this, but CAC, interestingly, is usually not 100% driven by marketing. It's actually most of the time it's maybe 50%, 25 to 50, depending on the market that you're in. And the other pieces of acquisition costs are things like sales, expense, product management, those kind of things they actually layer in. When you add it all in and you figure out retention rate, you come up with a ratio. Now, the industry standard that you always hear people say, especially in SaaS businesses, is about a three to one ratio. You want the lifetime value of a customer to be about 3 to 1. That's certainly the baseline. That's what you'd hear from someone like Michael Skok. You'd hear it from Bessemer, you'd hear it from other investors. They kind of look at that as a litmus test. So the question would be, is 2 to 1, is that a good ratio? Depends, right? Depends. And so if you look at it, one of the things that you might say in a market that's say Highly saturated, hyper competitive, later stage that is complex in terms of how you think about the go to market. Could be 2 to 1 is fantastic, right? Could be the 2 to 1 is terrible. But the point is that again, this particular metric, which is really one of the industry standards certainly in SaaS, is riddled with issues that aren't helpful for you to understand actually how your go to market is how your marketing portion and how effective your go to market model actually is. But it becomes a crutch. So again, it's incumbent upon all of us not just to come up ways to measure it, but to understand the system effect, to be able to demonstrate where we fit and how we're, and how, where we fit and then how we're relevant within that system by using numbers that actually show the performance of the whole system. So sometimes things aren't always as they seem, which is what I just described. And so here's the diagnosis. So this is the, you know, this is the attempt to kind of go through and say, well, how would you figure out, you know, to break through and figure out how myopic you actually are in marketing? So the first thing that I would put up is that, you know, for everyone in here, depending on whatever products you have, you want to be able to put it out on what I'm calling Go to market Map. Go to market Map is fairly straightforward. You have high growth market and low growth markets in terms of the vertical axis. So how fast is the market that you're in growing and the other on the horizontal axis, high consideration to high velocity, that's really the user or buyer's journey as they interact to purchase. So is it, is it a fairly involved purchase? Is it a CRM system, you know, fairly high considered or is it high velocity where it's a Password Manager Like LastPass, that's 12 bucks a year or it's free now, where you would just come in, try and go. So that's where the spectrum is. The reason it's relevant for all of us is if you look at the vertical axis, it's all about efficiency in the market. How efficient is your deployment of resources in that market. If it's a high growth market, there should be a little bit less. You may have trouble outgrowing that market, but if the whole market is growing fairly quickly, you should see pretty good growth. Assuming a viable product in there more efficiently. Again directionally, if it's a lower growth market and you actually want to try to outpace the market with the same, again a viable product, it Becomes in general more difficult to outpace that market in an efficient fashion. You start to get into something called the marginal cost of acquisition, which is not the total market, but it's the cost to acquire the next customer. And that's actually probably a more relevant measure in terms of thinking about the market itself. If you look at the high consideration versus high velocity, that has everything to do with the marketing mix. So high consideration is going to be more, longer sales cycles, more tied to field enterprise Y, maybe more sea levels involved, more content driven in terms of heft content and proof of concept content. And on high velocity it's usually trials, quick purchases, impulse buys, a lot more E Comm, less touch on that end of the market. Does that make sense? Right, so this is your market map and so what it has is implications for both the efficiency and the mix. I threw a few of our products up here again just to say that zively is our IoT product. Bold chat is our chat product. That's used in a lot of customer care and retail organizations. That's more considered, it's more embedded. It takes longer those sales cycles, six months, eight months, I don't know. The average is the six month range and then all the way down. I mentioned LastPass, which you see in the top right, identity and password management, very fast growing market. LastPass is growing very well for us and yet its base product is now free. We announced that. But before that the premium product is $12 a year. So it's a buck a month. Right. To be able to protect your online identity. And so at the end of the day, again a very quick purchase, mostly E Com based. Some of the other ones rescue and join me again, lower growth market, high growth products. But we're trying the join me business, for example, in competition with products like GoToMeeting and in competition with WebEx and Zoom and of a lot, whole bunch of other products, saturated market. Right. A little bit harder to sort of outpace the growth in that market. Make sense? Okay, so then if you look at it, what I'm introducing here is something that just called the four factors which is sort of tying together the whole conversation that we had where you say look, if you're going to take a look and see how effective your marketing spend is, there's four main buckets that I would throw out there. The first one I'd start with is Market Dynamics. And imagine again you have a dollar. So if you give a marketer a dollar, the first place is Market Dynamics. How intense is the competition of the market how saturated is it? Where is it in its life cycle, how mature overall and within core segments. So if you take a product, where and what are the entry and exit barriers? So if you have a product that's a high velocity product in a saturated market, that has low exit barriers, easy for people to use it and get out with very little, very little pain, it becomes a high churn, very cost, inefficient business very rapidly for you to be able to build on. Right. And that's an important thing. And there's a bunch of, I mean really this comes a little bit out of the. You think about Michael Porter and the five forces. There's a whole bunch of those things happening there which affect your dollar in for your go to market model. The second thing that a lot of people write about, but again they write about in a silo, is the concept of product market fit. So there's a few ways to look at it. One is usually products are built for a certain segment. They aren't really all things to all people. And so once you start to saturate that existing segment, are you expanding the core, Is it a very broad segment where you're expanding the core of that segment, there's plenty of room to grow. Or if you tapped out in that initial segment and are you looking to expand the total addressable market? By definition, if you start to expand the total addressable market, it's less efficient. Start to diminish. If you have product tiers or segments that you're trying to cover, let's say you have a good, better best strategy and you only have better and best in place, and you're missing the good, which may be the lower cost sort of high volume product and making this up, then you're going to be exposed at the bottom end of that market. You're missing a tier. Now you might have done it strategically, but you have to understand the investment level required to compensate for missing a tier. Whether it's a specific product tier or a segment tier, then you're also going to diminish your effectiveness. And that's directly connected to the market dynamic. If you look at marketing fragmentation and again, thinking about all of the things that we do every day, are you tasked with growth, sustaining momentum or retention as a marketer, what's the primary focus? All three? How many people are tasked with all three? As you think about some people, Right. And are you focused on bookings or users? Again, I'm just throwing it up because there's a different every single way you start thinking about Deploying that dollar within that market dynamic and within the product market fit having maybe a little bit of friction and within the marketing fragmentation with a series of tasks that you have in front of you to try to accomplish. It fragments the effect of that dollar invested if you have to do all of those things. And then lastly you think about sales model complexity. And that doesn't just mean the process that sales has. Think about sales, is it a global sales team, Is it multi tiered renewal reps, accounts hunters field that marketing has to try to invest in that product has to fulfill by the way because enterprise products have a whole different array of features than maybe an individual use product or an E Comm product would. Is it touch and no touch. So if you start thinking about the dollar in to this system, very different than thinking well how's marketing doing? Well marketing is not in charge of its destiny and we all know that. But the problem is that a lot of times I don't think as marketers and I know that we didn't do this particularly consistently at log mein is sit down and say how do we have a good conversation, a collaborative conversation across the entire system to break down those barriers and not be so myopic just to think about how marketing is performing because it's massively impacted by all of those other three areas. Does that make end, does that resonate anyway? Shape. Okay, so there's also implications then for how you think about performance measurement. And oftentimes we sort of knee jerk back to the standard things I threw up there before like MQL's and Sals and pipelines, downloads, all that kind of thing. Right. But if you are in a business I would posit that there's a bunch of categories. Those top three targets, revenue and E comm. You can set targets and performance metrics against all of those buckets. And those are really the go to market mix. Remember that two by two where there's mix and efficiency. The go to market mix is really tied to those three things. How are you thinking about the mix and what are you driving? And if you're at the high consideration end you're probably going to look at marketing qualified leads, that's more of an issue. Pipeline contribution tends to be more relevant in longer sales cycles and more enterprise deals. Net new opportunities tends to be because again there's more mass to them right at that end. The other end, high velocity trials, quality trials, that's something that Logmein works on very heavily. Registrations, average orders. Those metrics may be a little bit More relevant. So again, picking and choosing, you know, what you decide to weight is somewhat tied to the mix and tied to those four factors. And then lastly, there's a series of efficiency metrics that you have to look at again underneath them, LTV to CAC's always a good one, at least to start having conversations. Cost per MQL rep, productivity, those kind of things. Right. So just if you think about that system, the point of this isn't to say let's let marketing off the hook, poor marketing. The point is that to be relevant and to have those conversations about how you're affecting the business, you have to be able to have a way to make it discussable in a non threatening way with the people that you work with in sales and product. Instead of pointing the finger and finding the blame, it's actually how do you think about redeploying the limited assets you have to the place where you think you're going to have the greatest impact and the greatest effect as a member of the business, not just within the marketing function. Okay, so the four steps cure. This is going to be blindingly insightful because a lot of this stuff is pretty straightforward. But I would say that the first thing is you have to admit you have. And by the way, my favorite thing here is the background images, if you can see them, they're like right out of a Pfizer commercial or something. So admit you have a problem. So this is just absolutely getting real. One of the difficult things, I think people sometimes assume that if, if my LTV to CAC is a 2 to 1 and the industry's people think it's a 3 to 1. I have CAC shame and I'm worried about talking about it and I feel like I'm gonna get blamed for it. Whereas we've just pointed out that 2 to 1 might be unbelievably successful given the market that you're in, doesn't have to be an absolute, a negative thing. It actually could be something that's actually doing pretty well given the environment that we described. Right. But you have to get really, you have to admit and you have to just articulate that you're dependent on other people for your success. 100% doesn't mean marketing can't be the leader. But you have to admit there's a problem and just lead with that vulnerability. That's one thing to break out of this out and do it with sales, do it with product. There may be other functions. I'm just focusing those two. A second thing is you Got to be willing to talk about it. So this whole thing is the motto is secrets keep you sick. And you in this case isn't necessarily you as an individual. That's probably true. It's the company. So the less things are discussable, the more power you give to those undiscussables, the less effective your go to market is. And this is a tough one because again, people often associate their worth and value as human beings with, you know, their job performance and a bunch of things that are outside of themselves. And if you think about that, you know, therefore leading with that vulnerability reflects on the whole I'm incompetent and I don't know what I'm doing. And so therefore I should just better not talk about it. Maybe it'll go away. And that's particularly true with overachieving individuals. People who are really, you know, tough on themselves and perfectionists, really hard to admit that or talk about the things that actually make them, you know, human and let the things. But leading with that makes a lot of sense. Be willing to talk about that. The last thing is applied treatment to relieve the greatest pain. So if you look at that four factors, right? And you start thinking about it, it is a great way to say let's sit down with product and sales and allocate 100 points. We've all done surveys. Let's just allocate 100 points across the system. Where is the greatest, where is the biggest fire right now across that system it might be that 70% of it is marketing. In which case let's redeploy resources from the system, not just within marketing to fix that. It could be that it's 50, 60% in sales. And you'll certainly find sales will experience it more acutely if you have a variety of go to market models. Because that takes entirely different skill sets, say for the enterprise field rep than it does for the high velocity hunter. It's a different mentality. And so as a result, sales will often see, depending on where they're started from, if they started from the hunter business, sometimes they have trouble building the field business up. And so you have to say, how do I in marketing redeploy my resources or how do we marshal resources to support sale, to build sales, to build that field model as an example, right? Do we take dollars and we take it out of marketing and we put it into product? That's possible. But really letting go and being willing to shift across the system, not just within the system and again, make it discussable so that what you're doing is articulating where would you put the most points given where the problem is burning hottest. Strategic relevance comes from those kind of conversations, not is the webpage good looking? Did we get enough swag at the event? And those are all important things. I'm not trying to minimize that. But I do think that there's a certain stepping up of our game and our ability to engage in cross functional conversations to be at the strategic table. Right. And that's tied to our ability to articulate this. And lastly, and again, obviously it's monitoring the ongoing vital signs. So this is, you know, this cannot be something. The key point is here can't be some annual or quarterly review. Again, coming back to the fact that we've got, we're inundated with data far more than when Levitt wrote his myopic marketing definition. This has got to be something that is real time accountability and adjustment and that also brings credibility and relevance. So does sales have an idea for a program? You decide to execute, you measure, it's not working, you stop. Sales was heard, sales understands the outcome, you adjust and you move. But that ability to sort of rapid cycle and deploy that system far more quickly than every year or every quarter is going to also help you kind of get out of the silo and be able to engage in a more effective and credible way with the people that you're interacting with. And I think you could take any product on the market today and apply those four factors to it. It works. It doesn't matter if it's a pair of socks or it could be the Next, next great IoT invention, it works. And again, you don't have to necessarily have all the answers, but it gives in my mind, marketing a far more credible and relevant seat at the table. And it gives everyone in this room a more credible and relevant seat at the table. If you're willing to talk about it broadly and be willing to deploy resources as part of a system to make the system better rather than just marketing's numbers. Marketing's numbers improve and that ultimately will break down this idea of marketing myops. And I think I put in my title slide and lead you to have a wonderful, happy and fulfilling life. That's really ultimately the goal. So that's, I think my last slide is this and this. Thank you. So that's it. I'm going to stop. I know if there's questions, I'm happy to take questions. I appreciate you guys taking time on a Wednesday afternoon. Thanks so much.