Cold Outbound (from Rob's a16z talk)

Rob, good to see you. How you doing, man?

Good, good, good, good. How are you?

I'm doing great. And today, you have given a gift to all of us who are constantly demanding insights into outbound because we're trying to generate meetings and you've got a formula that works. And I know it's an act of sacrificial love for you to take any of your time to write about it, but Anyways, for the listener today, we're talking about LinkedIn outbound. We're talking about cold calls. We're talking about email and the upstream thing that causes those to work, which I'm excited to dig into. Rob, let me just— I laughed out loud when I read this part, the way you opened this week's blog, which is called The Phenomenology of Cold Outbound, which actually, before I read that, Rob, what does phenomenology mean?

I've been reading some Hegel. It's experience.

Okay. So the Ivy League highbrow experience of cold outbound. But what you write here is, when you receive the typical outbound message, your reaction is to shake with indignation. What kind of psychopath thinks it's okay to send something like this? Yet when you draft an outbound message that will elicit this exact same response from the recipient, your reaction is, heck yeah, baby, let's ship it. Which is, I've, you know, looking back at some of my early outbound, it's like, wow, what in the world was I thinking? But anyways, Rob, I, you've been thinking a lot about outbound lately. Why don't you give us the context on why it's on your mind?

Well, so everyone always asks me about outbound, like everybody always, and for some reason I don't, somebody asked us in the like private AMA for people who pre-ordered the book, like, why do you hate outbound so much? And I was like, you know what?

That's interesting.

I haven't thought about it. I don't know why. I actually don't know why the topic is annoying to me, but for whatever reason, the topic is annoying to me. And so I, I've kind of like every, Maybe every year I'll write something new about outbound or every 6 months I'll write something new about outbound. Because, you know, like I do go about helping founders crack outbound, especially in the zero to one stage. And so I've learned things, I kind of like do things, we iterate on things. And I just, every time I write about it, I want it to be the last thing I have to write about it. Last time we did pipeline mega post, which was my ultimate like please stop asking.

I'm done.

Yeah, there we go. Done. And then this time, A16Z Speedrun asked me to come give a talk, which is awesome, about the book, about the— and they're like, so the one thing we really want to focus on is outbound. It's like, great, cool. But anyway, the other thing I noticed—

It's an example of demand in the market. Like, we have— there's demand for outbound.

I feel like if all I did was like, I'm going to help you craft your founder outbound Like, I would be a trillionaire. I don't want to. But anyway, but yeah, and then I've also, like, people have been using AI Rob. It's kind of limited release. And the first thing everyone does is outbound message. So it's like, all right, whatever. And so, yeah, so this is just the experience of doing this forced me to think a lot. About what have I learned in the last year about outbound and what's, what's my, maybe a new way I can say things that I've been talking about before that will make it easier for you to do your own outbound and stop bothering me about it. And, and so, uh, I came up with a couple of new concepts. Uh, I can't share the official presentation. So this is like a, um, uh, this is just like my, my thinking after running through the presentation and Yeah.

And there's some really good ones in here. My favorite that is a newly minted Rob Snyderism is the hierarchy of interestingness, which we'll get into here in a second. But why don't we start with what you write here, like kind of a foundational element of this. You write, perhaps the most difficult part of outbound is that it requires you to treat the recipient as the main character. Rob, why don't you give the context on like, what are you communicating by treating them as the main character? And how does that contrast with the way that we typically approach it?

Yeah, we usually come to doing outbound, in our minds, it's like, cool, I'm doing outbound to convince them to meet with me to buy my product. And those are my goals. That's treating myself Me as the main character here. And when you come at it from that direction, you by default approach it in a way that guarantees you get none of the results you want. Because if I'm coming at this from a kind of transactional, here's what I want lens, how good is my message going to be? And it would be weird if that message happened to resonate with you, the recipient.

Yeah. Yeah. One of those instances where it's like you can accidentally do that if you find pull that's strong enough, but especially early on before you know what pull is, a tough place to start. Yeah. You write that a couple things that founders often take with their outbound early is that It's to convince someone to buy your product or to see if they have relevant pain points or problems. You know, I think the first one you just hit on, like why outbound is not to sell. Why is it not to see if they have relevant pain points or problems?

Because it's not the point of the message. The point of the message is to get somebody to meet with you. And so the, yeah, maybe if you send a message about pain points or problems across, They will meet with you, but you're optimizing for something that isn't relevant here. And so by default, like think of, there's a set of things that will cause people to meet with you. Just like imagine a kind of like circle inside this circle. There is a set of things that will cause somebody to meet with you. And then there's a totally different circle that is pain points and problems that you can communicate.

Yeah.

And there may not be any overlap between those 2 circles. You're right. It's just like, it's not guaranteed that there is. And so when you focus, you want to focus on the circle where success is within the bounds of the likely bounds of the circle. And, you know, so focusing on the wrong thing, it just, you succeed only by getting lucky.

You know, there was a, you've written in the past about how you often, when you focus on the wrong thing, you'll send messages that are just offensive to people.

Yes.

I got one of those the other day that it just pissed me off for like an hour. And I thought about responding to the person and being like, this is the like biggest outbound turnoff that I have ever received. But then I was like, I'm just gonna, I hate this person. So I'm just going to block them and hope that it makes it harder for them to send outbound in the future. But it was, It was like, kind of, it did hit a pain point and it hit it in such an insensitive way that I was like, I hate, I hate, I literally hate you. I would never talk with you. But hey, Rob, you talk about, I'm gonna pull up a graphic that you have in the post and you talk about what in cold outbound, what causes and what prevents somebody from meeting with you. And you give a rundown here. I just wanna hit a couple of these. You know, just running through the list and then we'll choose one or two things that prevent people from meeting with you. AI slop, any, anything that Claude gives you. Let's get— let's come back to why Claude does it wrong, does it wrong confidently, and then burying the lead, meaningless personalization, info about what you want, nothing about what the prospect wants. Um, saying dumb nonsense, like I'm not selling anything, seeming like an average sales rep. Um, Rob, which ones of these do you see most frequently? Um, and you know, what's going on with them?

So before, like, we need to, to get to this point because there's a very, very important thing here that is like, that, that is upstream of this. So our goal, remember, we're drawing the circle of like What causes people to meet with you? That's the goal of the message, is to design a message that, that gets people to meet with you. It is not to talk about pain points. It's not to talk about problems. It's not to sell your product. It's not to do any of those other things. If you optimize for those other things, okay, great. But, but now that we have this kind of circle, we have to say, okay, what are the boundaries of this circle? What makes, what happens, what causes this circle to work or to not work? And what I've realized is that there are kind of 2 elements at the highest level. There are 2 elements to a message. There is what causes them to meet with you. And then there are a series of things that if included will prevent them from meeting with you. So there are things that a cause is much more important than something on the prevent list, because if there is not a cause, no matter what else you do, they will not meet with you. But if there is a very strong cause and there are a couple things from the prevent list, they might still meet with you. But, but like just solving, like you have to, you have to first figure out what the cause is and then avoid the things that prevent them meeting with you. And so that's the, like, that's the, that's the big thing that I have realized here and that Every single message that you send has a theory underneath it. It has a theory of what's going to cause this person to meet with me. And so when you read out any one of these messages, typically the underlying theory, if you ask yourself, okay, what is my theory about why I think you will meet with me?

Hmm.

That theory is almost always, I think you will meet with me because I'm the main character and I want to meet with you. Which again, if we think about the circle, what's going to cause them to meet with you? That's not likely.

Yeah. You know, I really like this idea that you introduce here. You know, this is basically, it's as simple as I believe you will meet with me because blank. I've actually taken that and pasted it into the document that I use when I'm running the pull sprints because I craft outbound, you know, the outbound is tied to hypothesis, it's tied to the person you're reaching out to. It's like, and so I, you know, I try, I'm trying now to make myself explicitly finish that sentence.

Yes.

And also reflecting back on some of my early outbound and like, I was like, okay, what was I implicitly, what was I thinking? And for me, with Cumbre, we have an impact side, we have a, there's the business side, there's marketing side. I think my, it evolved from, I believe you'll meet with me because of the positive impacts we're having in the world, which turns out almost nobody will meet with you for. It moved to because of these impressive things that we're doing. And that also, I think it was headed in the generally right direction, but it was also wrong because Turns out it wasn't really all that impressive, I think. And I don't know, there's like more dime a dozen. And then it came, this third one, which has like really improved was, I think you'll meet with me because there's something different and interesting we're doing that you can help us shape. And that's like, there's something in that angle, which it has some of the same elements as the like, quote unquote impressive things, but it's more about like they're able to bring their expertise into it. But it, you know, it's tied to—

Yeah.

Going through that exercise of thinking about it has helped me refine what's the right approach.

Yeah, cool. And jumping from there, okay, so that's on the cause side. What's going to cause somebody to meet with you is that you have a theory of what's going to cause them to meet with you. I believe you will meet with me because blank. Now, there's a bunch of possible things that could fit in the blank. And so that's where the hierarchy of interestingness comes in. Better terms, welcome.

I love it. I think it's, I think it's awesome.

Yeah.

Do you want me to pull up the graphic? Yeah.

Yeah. Pull up the graphic. So, so the way, so, um, this isn't quite right, but it's directionally right. Like they will meet with you if it's interesting enough for them to meet with you. If there's something in the message that makes it interesting enough for them to meet with you. Again, that's not exactly, it's basically if, if something in the message will cause them to meet with you, they will meet with you, but That gets, so it could be the hierarchy of causes if we want to be super precise, but I don't know, I like interestingness because it's more fun. But okay, so just imagine that there are a long, there's like a list of things that are interesting to your potential customer. And some of those things are about you, some of those things aren't about you. There's just like, there's a list of things that are some level of interesting. And then we force rank them into a hierarchy of what's most interesting to what's least interesting. Now, somewhere on that list, there is a line below which it is not interesting enough to cause them to meet with you.

Hmm.

That's the hierarchy of interestingness. So if your theory falls anywhere below that line, it would be weird if they meet with you, even if you craft a nice message. If it falls above that line, they, they The cause is present. You can still, with the rest of your message, shoot yourself in the foot, but at least it's interesting enough for them to meet with you. And the things that are on that list, again, it's not necessarily pain points or problems or ROI or anything like that. It could be that you were a plumber one summer. Like, it could be a variety of— my favorite outbound message ever is, um, hey, Snoop Dogg invested in us. I thought you'd find it interesting too. Would you be open to chat? Right. That, that is, there's nothing about the product in there. There's no personalization in there at all. There's nothing, but it's interesting enough for them to meet with you.

Yeah. That was one of the things that was jumping out to me while I was, you know, looking at this. And I think it's, or the fact that it is not tied to value, like specifically, like it's almost like divorce your brain from the value proposition. And like you mentioned, just focus on what's gonna cause a meeting or a response. Um, you know, Rob, like here you run through some and it's, you know, there are examples. I imagine this is every founder has to, or every person that's doing outbound has to go through this themselves. And like, is the way they should do this, like make a list of the things and then just try to put 'em in order? Like how would they—

Yeah.

How do you come up with a first set and then try to, you know, figure out what's gonna work.

I mean, you could, you could just like YOLO guess it if you want. Um, and, and that's probably fine. You write out the list and again, the list is not for what you think is interesting about yourself. It's about what your potential customer thinks is interesting. So if you're selling into plumbing companies, they're not gonna know what speedrun is and they're not gonna know what a founder or like, they're just not gonna be impressed.

Yeah.

They're not gonna care about any of that. And so don't, yeah, like, Focus on your— so again, this is the way you figure this out, the same way you figure everything out when you follow the no speculation rule, which we covered. Don't guess, go, go in person, do the thing, find, find firsthand answers to this. Don't, don't— and like with outbound, you can kind of just set up campaigns and YOLO it. But, you know, if when you're wrong, When you're wrong, you get no feedback. And so you can't iterate from, from, from a point where you're getting no feedback. And so, yeah. Yeah. So it's like, I don't know, you can guess, but what one thing I've seen people do is there are 2 tactics I've seen be useful. Go in person with potential customers and have them show you the outbound they actually receive and have them talk you through like what pissed them off, what didn't, what stood out to them, what they responded to, what didn't. And then the other one is Find people who have sold into your same customers, former sales reps, former, whatever. They love to share their, say their like tactics and messaging and things that work for them. Um, just, they like to brag about it. And so you can allow them to do that.

Yeah. Uh, uh, another one that I've started doing is like, or that everybody should do at the start of the message is like, really pay attention to the first question you ask. Like, why did you take this meeting?

Yeah.

And have that tied directly to the outbound. Um, you know, was there something in the message that jumped out to you? And then, you know, some of them, I actually had one that I think took me in the wrong direction. Um, but in general, they'll start telling you things that, uh, you know, you should pay attention to from their, from their context. Um, and I, I, you know, another one, I think something I love about being in the founder community, Rob, um, is that when we do these teardowns and we see other examples, it's like, oh, that's cool. Like what I had never thought about. And so just like, see, even from Totally different industries, seeing what kind of outbound is working and what are the elements and why, why is it working. Yeah.

And the other thing you can do too is you can look now, now with the hierarchy of interestingness and the list of landmines that we're going to get to in a second, you can look at other outbound templates online and stuff and just laugh at them. Uh, that's not going to help at all, but it's going to make you feel a little better. Uh, and so I recommend doing that.

Let's hit, okay. So the second thing that you've coined in this one, the laundry list, the prevent, you call them the preventers, the laundry list of landmines. And here's how you write about it. In general, when you know what causes someone to meet with you, focus your message on that thing and get everything else out of the way. And then you give 3 examples here, kind of like broad buckets of them. The first one is non-salesy salesy things. Just want your feedback, not selling anything, no pitch. I know you're busy. The second one is Anything Claude drafts. Let's hit that a second. And then the third one is personalization for the sake of showing you did research, which is, that is my outbound version of giving the ick. But what would you say? Maybe let's take that first one. I've done all these, like I've—

Oh yeah.

There is like, you know, I think probably a lot of folks are gonna hear things that they've done. Why do things like just want your feedback and not selling anything, like what's going on there that those things are actually preventers instead of, yeah, like causes?

Well, so these are basically saying, I, the main character of the universe, want to meet with you and I'm not selling anything, so therefore you should meet with me, right? Like just think of how absolutely egotistical that comes across as. And we, that's, it's the exact kind of thing because we're focused on our goals. We read that and we're like, Oh yeah, we got it. And then the other person on the other side's like, who the heck is this? Like, they want to pick my brain?

Cool.

Go away. Right. And they just like close, you know, uh, put mark as spam or whatever. And so it's, yeah, it comes back to like, what's the theory of this message? This is a theory. If you don't, if you're not thinking of the theory of this message, this is going to sound acceptable to you. It's going to feel like you're being gracious and generous and just asking for feedback.

Yeah. I think with that one, there's an element that's like, I already don't believe you. Like you're going through the trouble of doing outbound. Like I—

Not selling anything is like the stupidest line ever. Or like no pitch. It's like, I know what comes after that. It's a pitch. It's trying to sell something. I know it. Yeah.

Yeah.

Insult my intelligence.

This, the second one here is anything Claude drafts. Do you know why, why Claude just swings and misses on outbound?

Um, yes. Uh, so, so the joke here is that like, it's like by default Claude is going to write you a message that sounds good and gets a 0% response rate just as punishment for your, your, um, not thinking for yourself. Uh, the actual reason is something that's been interesting with me as I've been building AI Rob, and like a bunch of people have created their own AI Robs who then use the official AI Rob. They're like, wow, this is way better. And what it turns out is that Claude will basically, can basically follow any number of reasoning paths, just any number of reasoning paths out there. And so if you say draft an outbound message that's not salesy, there are infinite reasoning paths that Claude could take down that road. And so it's by default going, and within that path, within those infinite options, there are a couple where it actually develops this kind of thinking that we've talked through. But it's so unlikely that Claude will choose those reasoning paths that it by default drafts a message that is horrible. While seeming, while having the appearance of being good. And so the reason that AI Rob actually like might be a thing is because, and it's not, it's like better than just ingesting all of the kind of materials, is because when you ingest all of the blog posts, all of my book and everything, it turns out it does not install very strict reasoning rules there.

Yeah.

So it gives Claude the ability to go towards the infinite on the reasoning path, And go down something that is a plausible but wrong path. And so, um, unless you really strictly put rules in for Claude that will say X is more important than Y is more important than Z, and like, here's how to think about it, then you're going to wind up with something that sucks.

That's fascinating. We're going to, we're going to have to dissect in greater detail at some point, maybe when AI Rob is like fully, fully public. Is it, is it fully public? Is it accessible for? No, not yet. We're kind of like baiting it with a smaller group of folks. I love it. So everybody stay tuned. Okay, let's not hit that. Let's not slow down for the personalization for the sake of showing you did research. I think everybody's probably received messages that were awkwardly personal and like artificially personal.

We got ones for this podcast. Your recent podcast with RC talked about blank. I was like, I know, I was there.

They're probably pitching you on, you know, your reach could be 7 times better with a better co-host.

Like, yeah, I don't need 6 more people to listen to this. Good.

You know, you're right. So, you know, the method here that you propose for folks is come up with a theory, just to recap real quick, come up with a theory of why they will meet with you centered on their hierarchy of interestingness, and then write a message that fully embodies that theory. One thing, Rob, to hit here, How long should these messages be?

Wrong question. They should be as long as is appropriate. That's the point is when you have all like all of these tactics, this is my frustration with everything related to business, like best practices out there is that we're like, when you ask a question, like not you specifically, but when somebody asks a question like that, when just like a random moron asks a stupid question, like how long should a message be? But, but That's a downstream question. The upstream thing. So if, for example, your theory of what's most interesting to them is the fact that you worked with every relevant nonfiction business author, well, your message is going to list out all of the relevant popular nonfiction business authors, and it's going to be long. And that's fine. If your message has a different theory, it's going to be something else. So it's, it is The appropriate length to embody the theory that you have about what's most interesting to them, not less and not more. Often it's shorter than what you typically write, but it's not by default short.

Yeah. The, you know, there's some elements that you're frequently cutting out of mine or cutting out of other people's is like the introduction. Like there's something there about communicating quickly.

Yes.

What's the thing in the, in the list of interestingness. It's almost like what's going to get them to read or to continue reading their stuff and not just completely shut down. But I hear you on the great response to a stupid question. Let's hit templates real quick. Everybody, we're not going to— Rob includes in this post, this is a great reason for everybody to pull it up. templates, um, uh, for LinkedIn outbound, for, uh, outbound email sequences and for call scripts. Um, uh, you know, maybe Rob, are any of those you want to hit real quick? I've got a question or two on LinkedIn, which is mostly where I'm, I'm at personally with mine, but anything you want to hit on either any of the 3?

No, the only reason I include templates in here is because if I don't include templates, you're going to ask me for templates in the comments and I don't want to have to deal with that. And so, and so don't just use these templates, use them as ways to think and then write your own message, do your own version of them. Yeah.

Yeah. Maybe one on LinkedIn. You recommend the empty connection request. Is that a hard rule or how, you know, how Why do you do that? And yeah.

So whenever you send a connection request with a message, it is almost always interpreted as this person is selling me something now. And so I've seen hundreds and hundreds of startups, and I can think of exactly 2 cases where the connection request in the message or the message in the connection request worked better than an empty request. And so You should just assume that 90-something percent of the time, a message in the connection request will not help and actually will hurt everything.

Yeah. And it's, uh, instead of the message in the request, which I've done at times, now I do the empty ones because I figured it doesn't work. Uh, I think what I was doing wrong actually, when I felt like I needed to include it in the message was my, the, the bio, I guess, is that what you call it? Uh, was not properly, uh, communicating what I was trying to put into this. So you can usually, you can do it in a couple of words there, or if you think, okay, they're going to click on my, uh, on my profile and read about me, like just make sure your quote unquote LinkedIn landing page is interesting enough to cause them to accept it or to meet with you. Um, you know, Rob, one other thing that you hit here and then we'll, and then we'll wrap is, uh, targets. And you've got some really, I would say, like interesting and directionally helpful targets here with cold calls, 1 to 2% of your calls leading to a meeting, emails, 3 to 5%, but you say it varies wildly. And then LinkedIn, I think if you do the math, it's something like 7 to 10%, like going through the sequence of accept and then respond and then response that leads to meetings. Why are they different across the 3 or how should maybe actually before that, how should people think about targets and what they should be trying to reach?

Yeah, I mean, I could have done more here, but I didn't want to. And so the way to think about targets is that these are rough ballparks for what good looks like. That you can then compare yourself against and say, okay, cool. I have a 30, I have a 29% acceptance rate. Good is 30 to 40, or like average is like 30 to 40%, but I only have a 1% reply rate of people who connect with me. And so I don't know if that's good or not. Well, okay. That's actually really bad. And so if I focus on things that will make my acceptance rate increase from 29% to 35%, But my message reply rate is still 1%. That won't matter at all. So instead I can focus on the constraint, the bottleneck, and instead say, okay, based on this, if I go from 1% to 25% reply rate, well, that's 25x the number of meetings or whatever I will get. That's the bottleneck. Therefore I can target that. And then just generally, I just—

Email's hard.

LinkedIn is useful because you can see the kind of like in-between steps between like, and so you can kind of like debug more clearly. You can also do that with cold call with like connection rate, pitch rate, like all these other things. Just didn't feel like putting those in email. Um, uh, email is also, uh, email is tougher because you tend to want to turn off open tracking, uh, so that deliverability improves or whatever is what I've heard. Again, I'm not a cold email expert, but, um, so there's not really, there's some sort of reply rate, some sort of meeting rate on that. But, um, that, and you can just like blast out a ton of volume on email. You could email everybody in the world next week if you, if you really wanted to.

Yeah. I think eventually you're going to start going into spam folders. One thing you've said with that one is make sure you're not, or you have like a separate domain that you're using for your cold outbound so that you don't poison your, uh, Your primary. Well, and maybe one other question, Rob, how do they choose? Like, how should somebody, how does somebody know if cold calling is the right way to approach, if emailing, if LinkedIn, if it's a combination of the 3, increasingly like WhatsApp or other communication media, like how should people know that?

Yeah, I mean, I tend to try to, again, we try to avoid the whiteboard here as much as possible. And so what I'd say is like, go find somebody who has sold into your end customer as like a startup that has sold into your same target end customer and figure out what they did early on. And, um, and do that. I'd say basically everybody has some percentage of the audience that is actually on LinkedIn, even if you're selling into HVAC, even if you're selling into like some random local business, some percentage of them are on LinkedIn and LinkedIn is easy to get started on. And so, and, and also if you're the kind of person who listens to this, you're obviously, uh, uh, attractive and intelligent and no, but, but like your LinkedIn profile is likely interesting. And the other, that doesn't come through on a cold call or an email. So you actually have some alpha on LinkedIn relative to the dingoes who don't listen to this.

I include a link to my personal portrait portfolio in my cold outbound on email, just so that anybody—

Your modeling pics?

Yeah, that's right. Well, I'm thinking of the George Costanza. I don't know if you're a Seinfeld fan, but he does a modeling photo where he's just like reclined without a shirt on. Anyways, the big thing that's— anyway, Rob, why don't we wrap here? Is there any other thoughts on how founders should apply this, apply these lessons, or yeah, what they should do with it?

Yeah, I mean, like, try this, do it, like, actually think through it, try it. We, I think like the go-to-market accelerator thing that we're doing in September, is going to be good or kind of like working with you one-on-one. I actually will, as much as it pains me to do so, I spend a lot of time on this with people and like, it's very interesting when we're focusing on one individual person. It's not very interesting when like lecturing in the abstract about it. But yeah, so consider those things as well.

Honestly, they're great. And what you've done in the past with the Go-To-Market Accelerator is like one of the sessions, is specifically about outbound. And what you have everybody do is like, they basically submit their outbound and you do teardowns of their messages. You pull up their LinkedIn profiles and you're saying like, okay, this doesn't make sense. This looks great. Move this up. Um, and it ends up, there's been some pretty amazing transformations basically, like where there was a pre, somebody that was just totally, there was a huge bottleneck and post they're like, awesome. Like I'm getting like 10 meetings a week.

The cool thing about this is it's kind of, it is kind of wizardry. Like, it's like you're doing, you can be doing all the right things with the wrong message and you'll get zero.

Yeah.

And if you just change, if you just kind of like develop this theory on the hierarchy of interesting and design a message accordingly, like you go from zero to very much non-zero, changing nothing else, which is really, it's like, it is kind of cool in that way. So maybe I will change my mind on outbound eventually.

I love it. I think it's fascinating. And I also like seeing other people's reactions. Uh, too, because the other founders are, are in there participating, giving feedback, and there's some really insightful things that they're bringing from their own industries. Um, but anyways, why don't we, uh, we'll leave information about the Go-to-Market Accelerator, about, uh, working with Rob, um, and, uh, the, the link to Rob's Substack in the show notes. And if there's nothing else, uh, Rob, why don't we, uh, uh, wish the best for everybody in their outbound journey, and we'll catch everybody next week.