An experimental culture is the best moat you can have | Yuriy Timen (Grammarly, Canva, Airtable)
In this June podcast episode, host Enzo Avigo interviews growth veteran Yuriy Timen, who shares insights from his recent re‑engagement with Grammarly and his broader advisory work with SaaS companies such as Canva, Airtable, and Whimsical. Timen explains how his deep familiarity with Grammarly’s internal DNA, combined with a “growth nomad” habit of pattern‑matching across dozens of startups, lets him add high‑impact value as both a strategic advisor and an interim growth product manager. He outlines the components of a robust growth engine – experiment backlogs, ideation, rigorous prioritization, and tight data‑science‑product‑design collaboration – and describes his hands‑on, fractional‑leadership advisory model that ranges from weekly calls to two‑day‑a‑week engagements. Timen details his due‑diligence framework for selecting advisory clients, emphasizing resource availability, philosophical alignment, and founder commitment to growth. He also shares how he structures his own work week (3–3.5 days of client time spread across the entire week) to maintain steady output without burnout. The conversation then shifts to practical channel testing, where Timen contrasts qualitative (defining success metrics, leveraging networks) and quantitative (sample size, statistical significance, bottom‑up budget modeling) approaches, using YouTube as a case study. He argues that traditional “moats” (data, channel) are less durable than an experimental, scrappy culture that continuously drills for new growth wells. Looking ahead, Timen highlights the blurring line between product and marketing driven by the democratization of generative AI tools, suggesting growth teams will become more autonomous pilots of rapid product‑shipping cycles. He also draws parallels between his professional growth mindset and personal habit formation in fitness and nutrition. The episode closes with contact information and a teaser for the next guest.
Chapters
There is a less tangible, somewhat metaphysical moat of having an experimental culture, a scrappy and nimble culture, and a culture that kind of has an inherent sense of urgency and doesn't sit on its laurels.
This is the June podcast hosted by Enzo Avigo, June CEO. In this show, the best Product and growth leaders share tips on how to launch and grow your SaaS. Enjoy the show.
Hi, Yuriy, and welcome to the June podcast. I'm really excited to have you here to chat about startups and especially growth. A little bit about you. You are a growth expert. You are specialized in subscription businesses. You are leading growth and marketing at Grammarly. For 9 years prior to Grammarly, you worked in SEM and affiliated marketing, and you started your career in private equity and banking, like I did. Today you're a growth advisor. You work with well-known startups such as Canva, Clay, Whimsical, Airtable, just to name a few. You are also a partner and a guest speaker at Reforge and an angel investor on the side. So Yuriy, welcome to the show. Did I miss anything about you? Did I miss anything about it?
Yeah, first off, thanks for having me, Enzo. I know this was a little while in the making and I'm very excited that we finally get a chance to do this. No, I feel like you captured my background pretty well. You know, maybe like one tidbit that I would add is, you know, you listed a subset of the clients I've worked with. One somewhat, I'd say, unexpected client that I've re-engaged with recently is actually Grammarly again. So it's been a bit of a homecoming, a bit of a boomerang moment. You know, I left Grammarly about 3 years ago and obviously have a lot of friends there and have stayed in touch with the company. But about, I'd say, 4 or 5 months ago, an opportunity presented itself for us to kind of rejoin forces again. So that's been pretty cool.
That's wonderful. Maybe the first question about that, do you feel moving away from that company and gaining other experience has actually helped you to advise them again now?
Yeah, you know, that was our hypothesis as we were talking about, you know, getting involved again formally. And so far, 4 to 5 months in, it's largely played out. You know, when you're somewhere for as long as I was at Grammarly, you can't help but kind of like the company's DNA flows through your veins, right? So there is that very strong level of familiarity. And Grammarly is a fairly complex organization, you know, 1,000 people, really large revenue-based, a ton of products and clients and different interfaces. There's a lot of complexity. And so naturally it's hard for any outside advisor to come in and add value immediately because the ramp-up time, the context gathering phase is just enormously long. And I feel like What I'm able to bring to the table, and that's sort of been our hope, is that I still have that intimate familiarity with how things work internally. And at the same time, I spent, you know, the last 2 and a half years, almost 3 years, kind of in this growth nomad role, right? Where I've been just like working, you know, across 20 to 30 companies, building my pattern matching machine, right, around growth. And so I'm able to bring that sort of encyclopedia of outside knowledge, but instead of just throwing it against the wall to see what sticks, I'm able to filter it and only bring the most relevant things in the most receptive way to Grammarly. Sorry for the long-winded answer, but that's kind of the gist of it.
No, I love it. I'd rather have a conversation than me throwing questions at you. There is something that I wanted to ask later, but maybe now is a good moment. Would you be able to share some of the tactics that you've brought back at Grammarly or some hacks or whatever you feel comfortable sharing with us?
Yeah, I'll share some high-level things and you tell me if that's specific enough. So, you know, there are a couple of areas where I've been getting involved. So number one is around just kind of strengthening all the components of a strong growth engine. Grammarly has a ton of fantastic, hungry, growth practitioners, but the product-led growth muscle at Grammarly surprisingly is kind of pretty young still, right? And a lot of folks have been hired into their roles over the last, say, 2 years, but are still finding a way to gel into kind of a well-functioning, refined engine and cross-functional group. So a lot of my time is spent strengthening those bonds. And that happens through bringing best practices on how to manage an experiment backlog, how to improve the ideation process, how to strengthen and bring more rigor to experiment prioritization, how to strengthen relationships between data science and growth product and design, et cetera. And I'm doing it in a couple of different capacities. I'm doing it kind of as an advisor, a high-level advisor to some of the PMs on the team. But I've also recently had an opportunity because there've been a little bit of shakeup. Some folks went on leave, other folks moved to different teams, and it actually emerged kind of a a gap in growth product. So I actually stepped in into kind of like an interim growth PM role, which was somewhat unexpected, but kind of a blessing in disguise because I'm able to kind of like empathize at a stronger level with what the individual growth PMs are going through. So I'm literally like for part of the business, I'm the acting growth PM right now. And so I'm, you know, it's kind of when, you know, you have these shows where senior executives will go undercover into like retail stores to understand how things are. It's somewhat similar to that, minus the undercover part, because everybody knows who I am and what I'm doing there.
I love it. Yeah, we have this show also in Europe. It's actually one of the questions I wanted to ask you. How do you make sure as an advisor that the tips, advice that you give lead to tangible outcome? And I think you partially answered me, right? Like you are actually part of the team or part of the processes.
Yeah, I mean, look, I would say at least 50% of the success happens before you decide to engage with a client. A lot of the diligence, I would say at least 50% of the diligence happens beforehand. So what do I look for? I look for resource availability, right? That's what I'm trying to gauge as I'm talking to prospective clients. I'm looking for philosophical alignment on how they think about growth. I'll give you some archetypes, but like, you know, sometimes I'll meet founders and I can just tell that they really understand growth, the importance of growth and the importance of building a growth engine at a very instinctual level. They may not know exactly how to sequence things, what levers to pull, but they understand it at an instinctual level. That's really important. To contrast that, it's really important in terms of predicting how receptive they're going to be to your advice. Are they actually gonna staff the growth function? On the opposite side of the spectrum, I'll sometimes meet founders who are honestly just trying to pay lip service to growth. Their board told them, hey, good traction. You need to get smarter at growth. Like, let's go. And, you know, and I try to suss that out during those initial conversations. Like, are they just trying to— like, do they— are they fully bought into the importance of growth or are they just trying to check a box so that at the next board meeting they can say, we got a growth advisor now, right? So I do a lot of due diligence upfront. Also, some of— I'm also de-risking things a little bit, uh, by virtue of, um, how I'm designing my engagements. Unlike a lot of other advisors, I tend to be more hands-on, right? A traditional advisory relationship typically, typically implies maybe a monthly call, uh, ranging between a monthly call to a weekly call. Right? Weekly call being typically the most frequent. I come in, for me, my lowest touch engagements are a weekly call. That's just the entry point. But I get involved all the way up to a day, a day and a half, sometimes even 2 days a week, right? Which is kind of, I would say, borderline fractional leadership already. And when I sign up for that type of time commitment, I have a lot more agency inside the company, right? I can direct internal resources, right? And it puts more pressure in a good way on my client to be like, oh wow, we have Yuriy for half a day a week.
A,
it's not cheap. B, we want to get as much leverage out of this as possible. It creates a lot more pressure versus a weekly call. You know, it's easy to let that slide sometimes.
Yeah, I love this one. And I think that makes a lot of sense. I think for your discipline, it makes a lot of sense. We've had a couple of other growth people on the podcast and more to come. And it really feels that what differentiates the Growth Discipline from the rest is the output-driven mindset.
Yeah, absolutely.
Try to be there for some results. You and I, we met last year and I remember you took some time. We were looking for a growth advisor and you took some time out of your agenda. And I've heard many times that you're doing that. How do you organize your agenda these days between, you know, the startups and I guess a lot of other things?
Yeah, you know, it has a little bit of structure to it, but I would say it is also somewhat free-flowing. So I always try to remember why I got into this, right? Kind of like, you know, the cliché, don't forget where you come from. I got into advising And got excited about advising specifically because of the array, the variety and the caliber of founders that I had a chance to meet. Because if I kind of like take a step back, when I decided to leave Grammarly, it was all about taking a break from being a startup operator. Right? Taking a break from the rigor of the startup grind, if you will. But I was still looking for intellectual stimulation. I didn't know if my break was going to be 6 months, 12 months. I thought it was gonna be a break. It turned out to be less of a break and more of a, you know, turning the page to a new career chapter. But I didn't know that at the time. And, you know, week 1, week 2 of not having a job, I was missing talking shop, right, with people. I was missing that intellectual stimulation. And talking to founders before I even thought I would pursue advising gave me that sort of fulfillment, right? And so very early on, I made that mental note. I don't want to miss out on that. I want to keep doing that. And also it was just super fulfilling that you can jump on a call with a new founder, 30 minutes, right? I could be folding my laundry during the time if it's off video. And it's, you know, it's no trouble for me, but immensely valuable for them, right? And so I made that mental note early on. I try to operationalize it somewhat. So look, you know, when founders reach out or I get connected with founders, My rule of thumb is 30-minute intro call, no questions asked. Assuming that I understand what business you're building and I feel like I can be helpful, no questions asked. And if it came from a warm intro, I'll lower my filter even further, right? During those 30 minutes, I have 2 goals. The founders may have their own objectives, but I'm very upfront. I have 2 objectives for this call. Number one, and they're in order of importance to me. Number one, if this is the only call, the only interaction we will ever have, and after this, we will never speak again, I want you to walk away with something of value. I want you to walk away with an aha moment. I want you to walk away with something actionable. That's deeply important to me. So that's objective number one. Objective number 2 is a little bit more self-serving. And that is by the end of the call, I want you to know that I do have an advising practice, right? It may or may not be a fit, but I want you to understand what I do at a high level so that we can both decide whether it makes sense to have a follow-up conversation. But that's always a P1 to the P0 of adding value. What happens sometimes in practice, and I'll just finish on this note, is like, look, it goes through ebbs and flows. Sometimes I have more time to talk to founders. Sometimes I have less time. If I feel like I really need to be heads down focusing on existing client work, I may have to like institute a moratorium on new calls. And so what I'll say is that, hey, would love to chat. I'm currently, you know, here's what I'm focused on. I'm currently scheduling calls for 2 months out. If that still works for you, and then I loop in my assistant. But I'll never say, I'll never say, sorry, no time. And I'll never ghost. I'll never ghost. Like I will always reply.
Lovely. That's, yeah, I can confirm. What you just said. And do you keep, you talk about learning and your appetite for these things. Do you dedicate your full week to advisory? Do you keep some buffer for other things? How do you keep your energy level high?
It's a great question. It's a great question. So I've been very fortunate to be able to try things iteratively, which is not always the case when you commit yourself to a full-time job. Like, what is a typical process for finding a full-time opportunity? There is an interview process. The interview process is pretty ill-designed for truly, for the 2 parties to truly get to know one another, right? And you typically just have to like use those signals to eventually decide, is this the role for me? So you go through, you go from 0 to 100, right? Yesterday you were just interviewing and then today you're doing 40 to 60 hours a week for this company. And then you hope that there is a fit, right? That's just the nature of it. What I've been able to do with advising is I've been able to really gradually take on more work, right? So when I first got into it, I think I had half a day a week. Committed, right? So half a day a week committed to client work, with a balance of my time. I had, you know, at that point, two little kids at home, and you know, I was pursuing some personal hobbies around like health and wellness, and I settled into that rhythm. And also advising was just a new way of working for me. So typically, when something is new. There is more sort of mental overhead, right? As you're adjusting, adapting to a new way of working. After I got into a good rhythm, I'm like, okay, you know what? I can take on more. I'm not at my optimal level of challenge. I'm not at my optimal level of busyness yet. So then I went from half a day to a day. Eventually from a day to a day and a half, a day and a half to 2. I've now settled in on my, it's been my sweet spot for about a year and a half now. And that is 3 to 3.5 days a week. What does that mean? For me, what that means is when you add up all of my time commitments to clients at any given point in time, those time commitments will add up to 3 to 3.5 days a week. Does that mean that I only work on a designated 3 days a week? like Monday, Wednesday, Friday, but don't bother me on Tuesday and Thursday? No, I could do that, but that's not what I find works best. What I find works best for me is actually take my 3.5 days a week of commitments and I spread them out across 7 days a week, not even 5, but 7. Mm-hmm. And I like it. I thrive when I do a little bit of work every day. Sometimes, some days it's more, some days it's less, But I don't need, I mean, unless I'm like taking a family holiday or something. I like that. And what that results in is that there is usually no single day or very rarely do I have a single day where I'm like, I don't know if we can curse on this. So I just say, shoot, where I'm like, shoot, this day is so busy. There are so many meetings and I have so many deliverables. How am I gonna get through it? I rarely, if ever, have that. Right. And instead I just have every day an optimal amount of work, but rarely do I have fires or crazy urgencies.
Sounds great. The week is such a good cadence to balance your work. It seems like you've really nailed this one. And we've seen that a lot in the remote company, in the remote space, it seems like. A lot of people are figuring out new ways of spreading out the work. Seems like you nailed this one.
Yeah, I mean, you know, yeah, go ahead,
go ahead. Yeah, go on, please.
Look, it's worked. It's been working well so far, but I'm very open to evolving it as, you know, as I learn more, as circumstances change. But again, I fully recognize that the reason I was able to get here was because of just really good fortune of being able to try things iteratively, right? It's much less of a risk. It's much less of a leap to go from, okay, I'm working 2 days a week. Let me take on another engagement and go to 2.5 days a week. That's a pretty iterative adjustment. And you can always dial back. I recognize that that's very different from committing to a full-time job.
Yeah. One of the questions I wanted to ask you is whether you are applying some of the science that you teach to your own life. But I think you just answered this one also, because growth is all about iterations and small bets and learn. And this is exactly what you've crafted with your career so far.
Yeah, I would say there is a lot of overlap, which I think is natural because look, if you talk to someone about their work, assuming they're passionate about what they're doing, you can pick up on certain approaches, certain tendencies. Certain biases that they have, more likely than not, those are present in other aspects of life, right? And so you can learn a lot. Like if you listen to me talk on podcasts or write or whatnot, you are right to pick up, you know, whatever you sense I apply in my work. It would be weird if I was completely different in my personal life. I would say the biggest probably parallel is around fitness and nutrition. You know, about 3 years ago, is it 3? Almost 3 years ago, I would say about 2 and a half years ago, when my youngest daughter was born and it also coincided with me leaving Grammarly and having more free time, I really got into fitness and nutrition. I was always in decent shape and I did a lot of sports growing up, But, you know, 2 kids working 60-hour weeks for like 8, 8 and a half years takes its toll on you. And so, I really wanted to get back into like fitness and nutrition. And it's been, you know, a very methodical process with a lot of goal setting, with a lot of tinkering, with kind of an OKR-like approach, right? And habit formation. Habit formation, like every day, every day until you build it into like a repeatable, a repeatable muscle and activity where it's now like brushing your teeth, right? You don't question, you don't say, am I gonna brush my teeth today? You know, and maybe I'm too busy. I'd rather sleep in a little longer and I'll just skip brushing my teeth. No, it's a no-brainer. It's like, I was able to get fitness and also disciplined nutrition to a similar level where it stopped being like some kind of massive achievement that I was trying to get to every day. And it just became like brushing your teeth.
That resonates a lot. A lot. And I think the more autonomous you are, the more you need some ways to regulate yourself, right? And now that you are working for yourself, I think that has become increasingly important for you, correct?
Correct.
100%. I'd love to— we're very lucky to have you here, and especially because you're such an expert of your domain, I'd love to drill down a little bit into growth and tactics and what it's turning into. I was listening to, so I did my own work. I was listening to your podcast with Lenny and something that you said that really struck me was you mentioned that one of the biggest mistakes was to not test an acquisition channel the right way. So basically conclude too early and move on and say it didn't work. Yeah. But then the answer I didn't get is how do you know when a channel is tested properly? Do you have a short answer for this one?
Yeah, great question. So I'm sort of going to be building the plane while flying it right now, right? Meaning I've never articulated this in like a blog post kind of way. Okay, so bear with me. I think there are a couple of angles. There's kind of the qualitative angle and there is the quantitative angle. On the qualitative side, number one is like, I know this sounds simple, but important, define success, right? Is it user acquisition in a traditional sense where you're gonna evaluate this channel based on typical user acquisition metrics that you've evaluated other channels on, you know, customer acquisition costs, click-through rate, visit to sign up conversion rate, sign up to trial conversion rate, whatever your KPIs are, be very clear because a PR effort, right? Like if you're considering, I don't know, like doing some kind of guest post with the Inc. magazine versus you're thinking of running TikTok Spark ads, Those are, you know, like if you were trying to evaluate your Inc. magazine story on its ability to drive new users, I would say, oh, sorry, you know, you're trying to hammer in a nail with a screwdriver, wrong tool for the job, right? That's not how you evaluate PR. So first start there. Also on the qualitative side, I think, and this is where a good network comes in, is tap into your network a little bit and just understand what have been the keys to success and pitfalls to avoid in running those new channels. Okay? That's the qualitative approach. But the quantitative approach is all about statistics, right? And if you do PLG well, you understand sample sizes, you understand statistical significance, all of that needs to apply to channel testing as well, right? You'll sometimes see like, hey, we have $10,000 to spend. Like you sometimes see a top-down approach, which often fails, right? Top-down approach is saying, hey, we have $10,000 left this quarter. Where can we spend it? And someone on the team may say, well, I'm seeing companies have a lot of success with YouTube. Yeah, let's spend it on YouTube. Okay, great. And they just, and they move ahead designing an experiment, et cetera, et cetera. Well, do you know what is the, what are the CPMs on YouTube? Do you know enough about YouTube's algorithm and how long it takes to fine-tune? Do you know that YouTube has minimum conversion volume thresholds that you need to hit for their machine learning algorithm to kick in? And once you start learning, oh, and did you look at your website conversion rates, right? Like, what if those $10,000 are only going to get you like 5,000 visits and you have a 1% visit-to-purchase conversion rate, you're not going to get stat sig on any of your bottom funnel metrics. And so lo and behold, hey, $10,000, YouTube is not a channel you should be testing, right? So you see companies sometimes under diligence both on a qualitative side And on the quantitative/statistical side.
That's very interesting. That's a great example. I guess every channel has its own specificities and it would take more time to go through all of them, but I think the YouTube case was super clear. Thanks for sharing that.
Yeah, YouTube is one where I've built a lot of YouTube media plans over the last couple of years. Right? And I've always had to, often had to deal with this where it's like, hey, you know, here, you know, we're thinking of going into YouTube. We have $50K to spend. And I always take more of a bottom-up approach where I'm like, okay, let me understand your funnel conversion metrics, right? I know kind of, I have benchmarks around CPMs on YouTube. I know all the intricacies of conversion volume thresholds and how the machine learning algorithm works. And I typically come up with a budget in a bottom-up way, right? And say, hey, for you to get a definitive learning, right? Not one where you're— because last thing you wanna do is spend $100K to be able to say, hey, it didn't work, but we don't know why, or we don't know where we fell short. Or you can spend $200K just to use whatever mock numbers and maybe it's still not a success, but you have definitive learnings as to why.
Yeah, I like that. It's true that the starting point is often the budget, but it's also true that it's not the best way to think about the success of a new channel, but it's also the reality of many businesses, right? And we have to acknowledge that.
And the reality is that there's probably a best opportunity. There's probably an opportunity to marry the two approaches, right? There's nothing wrong with starting with top-down and saying, hey, this is how much money we have to spend. But then whoever is in charge of deploying that capital needs to do a quick bottom-up exercise to understand like which channels are qualified and which channels would be a total waste of time. To try to test into with that kind of budget.
Yeah. Talking about efficient channels or waste of time, something you sometimes talk about is building moats as part of your acquisition strategy. What do you think is the right way to think about that for a startup?
Honestly, I'll give maybe like an unpopular answer or a less, because there is a lot that's been written around, you know, data moats and channel moats and, you know, et cetera. And I don't know that I have much to add to that conversation. So I will take a step back and say there is a less tangible, somewhat metaphysical moat of having an experimental culture. A scrappy and nimble culture, and a culture that kind of has an inherent sense of urgency and doesn't sit on its laurels. Because here's the thing, you know, building a moat— by the way, a moat doesn't guarantee that you'll never get disrupted. A moat just improves your chances of defensibility. But it's a double-edged sword because sometimes you do discover a moat and then you get complacent. You just sit on that moat. You sit on that moat. You're not diversifying. You're not, you know, you don't have that kind of scrappy mentality. And then lo and behold, somebody comes around and either disrupts you out of that moat or builds a stronger moat that trumps your moat. And so what I would say is that I've seen companies like Grammarly, like Canva, et cetera, what they've been able to do really well, these are companies that have reinvented themselves several times. They've had their first growth act and then their second, and then some of them have gone on to have their third growth act. I think what sets them apart is not one of those traditional moats, like a data moat or a channel moat, but it's constantly investing. A long time ago, I used the analogy of drilling for oil in different oil fields, right? Like, let's say you struck an oil well. Of course, keep mining that oil well, but you don't know how deep it is. And you don't know how long until you start getting diminishing returns. So you should be always allocating bandwidth and resources into discovering and drilling for new oil wells constantly, right? So there's, you know, there's, there always needs to be some effort and bandwidth that goes towards diversifying your efforts or looking for what could turn into future moats. So I would say that kind of having it built in into the company DNA That no moat is strong enough for us to get comfortable or, God forbid, complacent.
Love it. So let's talk about my last question for today. Let's talk about the future and moats. The world is changing. Prosumers are buying tools for their work. TikTok is booming. You talk a lot about TikTok. Paid acquisition is suffering a bit from the crisis. What's coming next or what's already happening today that we might be missing, you think?
Well, I feel like everybody expects me to talk about generative AI right now, right? But I think one trend that I'm really excited about is the blurring line between marketing and product. What do I mean by that? With democratization of language learning models and democratization of a lot of tools that are core to software building and product building, I can imagine a world where building and shipping product or productized tools becomes so easy and so fast that it sort of emerges into almost like a marketing channel in a way. And I'm seeing companies that I'm working with start leaning into that. Now, right? You think about with generative AI, you know, if you can engineer the right prompts, if you can identify the right markets, if you can, you know, tap into the right language learning models, think about the kind of resources and tools you can possibly spin up. And so there is a kind of, you know, this explosion I would say in democratization of AI tools, which I think is gonna, it's not gonna be just product people that are gonna be able to build products going forward, right? And so I'm really excited about what that means for growth because previously growth would have to, you know, get on the product roadmap, convince the company of the resources, exist in kind of that tension between core product and growth product. And, but I can just see growth potentially becoming even more autonomous with a democratization, increased accessibility of all these tools. And I'm already seeing that, you know, I'm working with some teams that are moving at a speed of light Shipping consumer-facing products, you can call them products, doing that with very little, if any, engineering resources.
That's exciting. So the role of the growth marketer will be something different, maybe more like the pilot of a plane or something like that, right?
Yeah.
That's very exciting. There was this song that buzzed over the weekend on Twitter. It was a generative song from Drake and Kanye West. Have you heard it?
Oh, really? No, I was away this weekend and virtually offline. But yeah, I'll need to catch up on that.
It's insane. It looks so good. And it's completely computer generated. And so, you know, It's the same question. Like, if creativity, if like these voices and these hard tangible things can be automated or smart, what's, you know, what's going to be the role of human? And I think that's the question we all have for the next 10 years.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, absolutely.
Look, Yuriy, we are at the end. One thing I want to do, which is new, is I'd like people to ask a question to the next guest. Our next guest is Elena Verna. She's coming tomorrow. Never heard of her. I think you folks know really well each other. Would you have a question for her for tomorrow?
Oh, well, first off, when are we catching up over coffee? It's been forever. So Elena, I hope to catch you next time you're in town. No, I mean, I'm sure you'll get a lot of phenomenal insights from Elena, and she's a tough act to precede. Usually say tough act to follow, but in our case, tough act to precede. But yeah, I'm sure she'll have some great things to say.
I'll make sure to ask for the coffee. We are at the end of the podcast. I'll make sure also to add all the references you mentioned in the description. And to continue the discussion, where can people find you?
So LinkedIn is probably the only platform where I'm reasonably active. So you can look me up on LinkedIn. And then if you want to check out a little bit more about kind of what I do with companies and see some of the other podcasts I've spoken at. Swing by my website, yuriytimen.com. And yeah, feel free to reach out.
Awesome. Thanks again for coming, Yuriy. Have a good one.
My pleasure, Enzo. Thanks for having me.
More from Yuriy
How to grow a subscription business | Yuriy Timen (Grammarly, Canva, Airtable)