Productized Vs Customized Services and Monthly Recurring Revenue

David and Blair lay out some of the reasons why they think, in most cases, agencies pursuing recurring revenue models are making a mistake.

Links

“Why Monthly Recurring Revenue (MRR) Arrangements May Not Be Ideal” by David C. Baker

The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness by Todd Rose

Pricing Creativity: A Guide to Profit Beyond the Billable Hour by Blair Enns

The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese Art of Decluttering and Organizing by Marie Kondo

“Unbundling the Corporation” by John Hagel III and Marc Singer for Harvard Business Review

Transcript

David C. Baker: Blair, when's the last time you fired a client?

Blair Enns: [crosstalk] Let me just.

David: There's a nice pause there, I caught you. You weren't expecting that were you?

Blair: Well, my problem is you're cutting out. I'm in this hotel with this shitty internet connection and heard, "Blair, when's the last time client?"

[laughter]

Blair: Do you want to hit me again?

David: When's the last time you fired a client?

Blair: Oh.

David: Long time if you're pausing that long.

Blair: Two years.

David: Two years, oh.

Blair: Yes.

David: I fired one today.

Blair: Did you?

David: Yes.

Blair: What was the reason?

David: Well and I have to give them half their money back. Actually, it was my suggestion. I had to drive them in a new direction. I was just duty-bound to do it but the new direction takes them in an area where I'm just not going to be a great guy because I just don't know enough. They were fighting me on it saying no they still wanted to work together. I said, "No, I've tasted what competence is and I'm already running out of intelligence here, I just need to do it."

It made me think of this topic that we're covering today about recurring revenue and predictable client relationships and so on, and how one of the first thoughts we have whenever we want to make a tough call like that is, how are we going to replace them, right? We're going to talk today about recurring revenue. Is this always monthly recurring revenue because I see this abbreviation all the time, MRR, is that what we're talking about or do you want to phrase it a little bit differently?

Blair: No, I think that's fine. I think we've got two different articles, we've both written about this. I just read your article before we started to record. You call it "MRR". I can't think of any examples that I run into where the recurrence is not monthly, so I think that's fair.

David: Yes. One of the things obviously, is you're coming across it more and more frequently, right? When you're talking with your clients and what I hear- I don't know if you hear this as well, but what I hear is this is the thing to be chased. If I could get my spreadsheets such that 80% of our revenue is pretty predictable, I could sleep better at night, is that the same thing you're seeing?

Blair: Yes, I think that's exactly it. A friend of mine calls it "Change of misery."

[laughter]

Blair: We just get fed up with our business model and we look at somebody else and think, "Wow, love to have your business." I play hockey with a guy, he runs an independent garbage service, he owns some garbage trucks. As he drives by, I spend a lot of time thinking about his business. I said to him, not for the first time the other night, I said, "Man, I would love to have your business." He looked at me like I was crazy because he was like, "You're doing all right yourself."

There's just something about that business and the fact that he's got a little cash business on the side, things that you don't have. I heard Rory Sutherland said today, "Human beings are neo-files, we fall in love with what's new." I think there's a lot of that going on with recurring revenue models. If you're in the fee for service business, you have to do all this work, you have to send an invoice before you get paid.

Then you look at a friend who owns a business like a SaaS company or something and you're saying, "You're telling me money just shows up every month? You just bill your clients every month? That seems like Nirvana," I'm not sure that it is. In some cases, it might be advisable. My point of view and I know you share the point of view, maybe for slightly different reasons and we will get into it. My point of view is, I think in most cases agencies pursuing recurring revenue models are making a mistake.

David: Yes and I come across this also, so we've just said we come across it because principals are telling us that many of them would like this. I also come across it in an M&A setting where you have a potential buyer of a firm and they start looking at the firm's financials. Then they ask the question, "How much of this revenue is under a yearly contract?" The principal looks at them and says, "Well, basically not much of it at all and the stuff that is could easily be broken."

Then the conversation stops, so you have an unsophisticated buyer who's so surprised that we only eat what we kill every month and so on. When you sent me some notes about this and what you really wanted to dive deep into, I was immediately surprised because one of the points you made at the beginning was that, this whole monthly recurring revenue issue needs to be framed in part around the distinction between productized and customized services. That's one that I need to learn more about, and maybe you could just define the differences between the two and then we'll get into why that is so relevant to this discussion.

Blair: For sure I do see the majority of recurring revenue models forcing a firm towards productization. The point I'm making in this article is, productization and recurring revenue models in general, aren't a bad idea. In fact, in some cases, they're very good ideas but most of the examples I see of agencies pursuing a recurring revenue is starting to productize and they don't realize the trade-offs inherent in productizing their services.

If we look at the two here, a customized services firm is what you would think of is a typical consulting firm, creative or a marketing firm. You have a small number of clients. That number you and I have probably talked about this before, that's around 10 or 12, 8 to 12, maybe as many as 15. Let's keep it narrow and call it 10 to 12 clients. You have a small number of clients and that number of clients doesn't really change as the size of the firm grows.

Each engagement is a bespoke engagement where it's tailored to the specific unique needs of the individual client. The services of this customized services firm are almost always sold and they are not bought as you would buy software online or something. It requires an interaction with the salesperson, it requires that salesperson to have some abilities to go deep into the client's situation to really learn about the client's organizations and goals and all of the potential roadblocks. There’s a real consultative sale that's required.

In a customized services firm, you grow the firm not by growing the number of clients, but by managing a healthy churn of clients. The number that I got from you years ago when I was exploring what is the healthy churn, you told me that the data showed that it was about 25 to 33% client turnover per year. I imagine to create a firm where the new business person, in particular, the job is really to manage that churn.

Just understand that about once a quarter, usually not more frequently, there're some exceptions but usually about once a quarter, you're losing a client and you're bringing a new client on. You grow the firm by making sure that the new client you bring on is better than the one that's going. Better can mean bigger, it can mean more profitable, it can mean they are giving you the high ground in that relationship.

You grow a customized services firm by managing churn. There's typically one salesperson or the subject matter experts are the ones who are selling themselves. What you don't have is you don't have this kind of army of salespeople who are competing against each other. The last point under customized is, the skills that make a successful salesperson of customized services firms includes patience--

Which is not something we associate with salespeople, because salespeople usually have high drives and that's equivalent of being impatient. They are more patient, they're curious, they're emphatic and they're also willing to challenge a client in the sale and push back on any of their stated or implied assumptions. That, in a nutshell, is what a customized services firm looks like.

David: You've just described what many of your clients are, many of my clients are. As I was thinking about this, I had this thought that has not occurred to me yet. Even though I've written about this, and read about it, and talked with clients about it and so on. It's this slightly dark thought and it's that what pushes the principal or the leadership of a customized firm to look for recurring monthly revenue is more the revenue component of it.

It's like let's make our sales job a little bit easier, let's make it easier to predict what's happening. It's not driven by what I would rather be the case and that's- let's look deeper at the patterns and see if we can find the similarities in our client base which are delivered to us because we have a brilliant positioning. Now all of a sudden we see some efficiencies and how we can- not make more money but efficiencies in how we can solve these problems more reliably, more effectively, more efficiently for our clients.

That's why I said slightly dark because what's driving it is this desire for more predictable revenue and less pressure on the sales system, as opposed to looking at how we can see the similarities from one client to the next, and not for shortcuts, but for more effectiveness. It's just an interesting new thought for me.

Blair: I agree with that completely. I think there're three main reasons to consider recurring revenue. Number one is, well the revenue recurs, it shows up every month.

[laughter]

Blair: Number two is, that recurring revenue gives you some predictability, and therefore confidence and comfort around expenses. You're more comfortable about making the decisions, you can almost spreadsheet it all out. When do you hire, should you buy that building or should you enter into that long term lease for the facility? The third reason is something that you've already alluded to, businesses with recurring revenue are easier to sell, and they do so at a higher multiple.

The revenue recurs, it makes decision around expenses more easier to make and it's a more salable business. As you pointed out, I think a customized services firm- and we'll describe productize in a minute- but I think a customize services firm should be opened to productizing when they start to see these patterns, "Man, these clients keep needing exactly the same thing."

That exactly the same thing is usually pretty small and it's usually you've built a solution, it's usually technology-dependent, usually software- sometimes involves hardware- but you've built a software solution for a client that you realize, "I could sell this to all kinds of other clients," that's when you should open the door to productization. There are trade-offs here and we should probably describe a productized firm.

David: Right. Let me just review what you said about customized and then I'm going to ask you to do the flip side of that and that's to describe the productized firm. With a customized firm, you have a smaller number of clients. There are tailored engagements that are each a little bit different, the services are sold and not bought. You grow by managing that churn, there's usually one salesperson who's simply selling larger engagements to the same number of clients, and that salesperson is going to be successful if they are patient, they're curious, they have empathy and their willingness to engage in more of a challenge type sale. The contrast of that is a productized firm, which looks like what?

Blair: A productized firm first and foremost is built for scale. You look at the market and you think, "I've got something that hundreds or even thousands or even tens of thousands of clients could buy, and I could deliver to them without any customization. That's point number one, is it's built for scale. You see this mass volume for something. We'll come back to that built for scale because there's some trade-offs inherent in pursuing scale.

The second point around productized firms, because you're pursuing scale, you're segmenting your buyer types. You're lumping your buyers together and you're saying, "These people will value this value driver or this deliverable, this item, and they're willing to pay this for it. You do these segmentation studies, sometimes, they're just ad hoc and sometimes they're highly sophisticated.

Then, a related point is when you're pursuing scale, you're segmenting buyer types, you're always selling to the average in that segmentation. The trade-off with selling average is you need to understand that when you're productizing, even if you try to productize without scale- and that's one of the problems that we run into, which we'll come back to- when you productize, your client is giving up customization.

You are no longer customizing your service for a bunch of reasons we'll talk about. Therefore you're always selling to the average in a segment. When you're selling to an average, you have to understand how averages work. When you take an average of almost anything- there's a great book written on this called The End of Average, we'll put the link in the show notes, I forget the author, but it cites all of these examples where something was done to an average and these undesirable consequences resulted.

Then they broke down the average and they said, "Okay, there's 20,000 people in this cohort of which we took an average. How many of these individuals, as many as 20,000 actually meet the average?" The answer's always the same. It's zero. When you're selling a product to an average in a segment, you have to understand that nobody is getting a perfect fit. You are no longer in the business of customization.

A productized services firm's built for scale, it segments its buyer types and it sells into the average, the services can often be bought. If you want to pursue scale- and we'll come back to why scale has to be tied to productization- you need to enable your customer base to buy your services without too much interaction from a salesperson. The customers, or in you case, clients need to be able to look at the service, in this case, on your website, understand it completely or almost fully, maybe have a brief conversation with the salesperson and then buy it without too much interaction from the salesperson.

They're typically shorter sale cycles, implications are you have larger sales teams and those sales people have higher drive, they're less patient than customized salespeople. In the sale, if you've ever been on the buying end of it, it's so obvious the difference between being sold to by somebody who's selling a productized service versus a customized service. The feeling is entirely different. When somebody's trying to sell you a customized service, they have to learn more about you.

Your experience with the salesperson is that person is asking a lot of questions, they're really endeavoring to try to understand your situation. When you're buying a productized service, that salesperson, they'll ask you a few questions but they're simply describing the product. The entire sales cycle, the entire sales experience is different.

David: When I've had a client of mine who has been by default in the customized service universe, there's this allure to create a productized service. They develop one and the thing that they almost always fall into the creek about is they tend to want to tinker with the productized service. They want to customize the product. They're so addicted to customized services, they just simply do not understand how productization works.

There's a point of clarification that I need and I suspect if I need it then maybe the listeners do as well, and that's the difference between monthly recurring revenue and say, a retainer. You have firms who want a retainer, they want to sign a client up for a yearly program that's divided up into equal monthly payments but they're still charging the client hourly. Whether the client sees it or not or maybe even by points, another hourly system, it's still customized but the amount of delivery is capped at a certain amount to make what they think is easier and more predictable to them.

Blair: What's the distinction that you make between a retainer and different types of monthly recurring revenue?

David: I don't see a lot of difference in terms of what my clients are doing because the ones that do actually have a productive service, tend to have something that is smaller, it usually occurs at the beginning, the outset of a relationship, it's what you would call a diagnostic, something like that. It may not have the same price every time but it may be a close range.

Then you have firms that are really seeking a monthly amount but the services they're delivering are still fully customized. They're not productized at all. I think a lot of my clients that think they're doing what looks like a productized service actually have a customized service.

Blair: Yes, to me that's just a classic retainer model.

Blair: As we're talking this through, I'm realizing we've always had monthly recurring in some form in the agency space. The distinction for me now is rather than making estimates about how much time and then getting the client to pay that on a regular monthly basis and then perhaps adjusting upwards or downwards at the end of the month or ceasing work when you hit the hours, that's the old way we would think of monthly recurring revenue in a traditional retainer model.

The impetus for me has been driven by looking at digital marketing companies. I see them taking their cues from SaaS companies. I think we may have talked about this before. I don't want to throw HubSpot under the bus because again, it's a great company and it's a great culture and great people over there. But because of the nature of the way they've built their agency partner channel, they gave their partners a whole bunch of content to white-label. They essentially gave them a turnkey business. They did so much for them.

They tended to attract the type of person who really looked for somebody else to give them the model on how to do business. I think- this is my theory and I've talked about this to HubSpot audiences at their own conference- I think one of the complications of that has been that a lot of these firms that are their channel partners- it's not restricted just to HubSpot, you see it in other digital marketing firms- they look to the SaaS company that they are effectively reselling and adding customized services on to.

They look at how they're pricing their services in these monthly packages, their productized services and they're following suit with customized services. The impetus for me to write this article and to talk to you about it today is it's almost always a digital marketing firm who's going down this SaaS road because I think it's the SaaS companies that they look at and think, "Man, we keep sending you revenue and it's recurring monthly revenue and we'd like to take a page out of that playbook."

If you look at that SaaS company, it's built for scale. In theory, there's no limit to the number of clients that that SaaS company could have. That's the real trade-off when you start to productize. I mentioned that what the client gives up is perfect fit and you mentioned that you see all of these- agencies don't quite understand that because they think they're productizing and they're just going to sell this product that's on the shelf. Then they realize, "Every instance of this, the client needs it customized a little bit."

They're caught in this mushy middle of productized versus customized, and so this is the trade off in a nutshell. The client gives up a perfect fit because you're selling to the average in this segment and that average will not be perfect for anybody in the segment. The client is giving up a perfect fit. What do they get in exchange for giving up a perfect fit? The answer is they get a lower price, which begs the question, how do you, the agency, the business owner, how do you deliver these services at a lower price?

The answer is you make it up with scale. You pursue scale. The business model is you are selling a productized service that's not a perfect fit for anybody, but it's a pretty good fit for most all of your clients who choose to buy it. They'll take that pretty good fit because they're willing to take the trade off, which is a lower price. For you to be successful in business, you need to add scale.

If I look at all of these firms, and again I think most of them are digital marketing firms that are stuck in the mushy middle of being quasi productized, they've productized trying to kind of simplify the product and the sales part of their business and they've immediately felt the forces of commodification moving in. They've immediately felt this pricing pressure because they didn't understand that that's a trade off.

You want to prepackage and pre-price et cetera. You're going to be subjected to all kinds of pricing pressures. They're feeling these pricing pressures and they're not making it up with the appropriate amount of scale.

David: This would apply to a digital marketing firm that's doing similar to what you just described, but am I right in saying it would not necessarily apply to say, a PR firm that has a monthly retainer that's the same $12,000 a month, or say an SEO firm that's doing $7,500 worth a month of SEO work. You're not necessarily saying those people are productizing it?

Blair: Well, I think SEO might be a good example of where you can productize and you can pursue scale. It's a really crowded space though. I see a lot of SEO firms productizing. I don't see the scale coming with it and I don't see the margins in it, but I suppose in theory it could be possible. When it comes to PR firms selling, I dislike retainers for other reasons.

I dislike them less than I like kind of the quasi productization of your services. I think we've talked about retainers before. There's a way to do it right. I think the high-value services that we could put under the banner of consulting, that's a really great thing to package up into retainers and get regular consulting fees and then have the implementation work be priced above that. Then there's another extension of that that we haven't explored and that's the subscription based model, but you wanted to speak to retainers.

David: Yes. One of the things that bothers me a lot as I talk to firms, and this probably ought to be two or three episodes together, is people do love the notion of value based pricing that's in your book, Pricing Creativity. I keep running across people who have been to your seminars on that who tell me how valuable it's been. I just worked with one two days ago and said, "Yes, it made a $54,000 difference for us," but some of them move into value based pricing because they understand the theory and how to sell it effectively and how to listen more carefully to the client and so on.

Others move into it simply because they're sort of tired. They're a little pissed off of getting what they think is being taken advantage of by the client. These are the same firms many times who are not even getting paid for the time they're spending on the work they're doing, and I think there's sort of three levels. There's the average firm that's not getting paid for the time they're spending. Then there's the firm that's getting paid for all the time they're spending.

Then there's a value based pricing firm where it's more of a realistic perspective of getting paid for the value that they're bringing to the client. What I'm leading to here is that it seems like there's a fundamental problem in this recurring monthly revenue thing. How does it fit with value pricing, especially if you're stepping down into the dirty world of monthly retainers that are having to be reconciled by turning in hourly time reports, like explain to me how that's going to yield value-based pricing?

There's just so many issues with it. It's a deep subject and what I wish people would do before they think about what are the alternatives is what's driving this push into monthly recurring revenue or productizing the service. It'd be helpful to, I guess, facilitate a really honest discussion about that and then maybe together as a group, we could lead ourselves to the right solution there, but it's driven by some really weird things, in my experience.

Blair: You're right. There's this direct conflict between recurring revenue whether you're productized or not, but especially when you're productized, and value based pricing. In fact, I've been aware of this problem with digital marketing firms for five years or so now, but the biggest impetus for me lately is I spend probably 20% of my time these days either through workshops or private training, training people on how to conduct a value conversation.

We've talked about that before. I've written about it many times, and the key to the value conversation is really you're switching your focus from you and what you would do and what your services cost and how much money you need to be able to do things right. You're switching that focus completely to the client. The big thing that I notice is as soon as a firm starts to productize, as soon as you have a thing to sell, and that thing is some service that you've kind of packaged it up in some way, as soon as you have that, you quit focusing on the client.

As hard as you try, you are distracted. You're always leaping to the thing. You are the carpenter holding a hammer, and therefore you see everything as a nail. I see that almost universally, it's an epidemic. As soon as somebody starts to productize, they run into all kinds of challenges about the value conversation.

David: What drives them to productize their services if we could step back in time for a minute, what's the internal motivation to productize their service?

Blair: It's Marie Kondo. You don't know who that is, do you?

David: No, I don't, but I'm laughing because I feel like I should.

Blair: She's the Japanese lady who wrote What is the Magical Art of Tidying Up?

David: Oh, right. I do know who that is now.

Blair: I've got the title wrong.

David: There's all these seminars out there about how to--

Blair: She's got a show on Netflix. I've never seen it, but I listed that as my best business book of the year. I think it was three years ago because I read it and I immediately tied up my clothing and other stuff in my life, and then I thought, I'm going to apply this to my business. What I see is a little bit tongue in cheek. I see these agency principals trying to Marie Kondo their messy business because a customized services firm is a messy business, and you just cannot get around that.

The sales cycle is longer. It's more complex. You have to deal with people, not just one person, often multiple people. You're corralling all these decision-makers. Your staff, your proposals are bespoke. Everything is a creative act. You have highly coddled, highly creative, brilliant, genius people. The firm is built on that. When you start to productize, you start to productize because you think this is also messy. I'm tired of reinventing the wheel. I want to just be able to sell the same thing over and over again.

You see enough similarity in your services that you think you can package this up, but you're not aware of the trade-offs, and the trade-offs are now you're selling to an average. Now the client is giving up customization. Now your firm moves from essentially an innovation business to an efficiency-seeking business. The culture's different. You hire a sales team. You need sales management. You need to become a process maven.

It's about lowering your costs in addition to raising your revenue because your margins are slimmer, so it's a less innovative business you're pursuing. This might be in the nature of a lot of the principles, certainly not in the majority, but a lot of the principals listening to this. You might think, I'd rather run a less messy business with lower margins if I could have the scale, and then I could spreadsheet everything and I could take the risk out of the business, but most of these creative and marketing firms are better off being messy.

David: They are because they can't even spell scale. The idea of saving money on process or routine and like, oh my goodness. All right, so before people mail in their resignation letter, how do you do recurring revenue right? Before they give up completely on the idea and they want to explore this, what are a few tips about how to do it right?

Blair: In my article, which I hope is out by the time this drops, I list two great examples. One is Function Fox, which is the company that runs Time Fox. Time Fox was a product. It's a time tracking and project management software that was developed by Suburbia Advertising. You know that firm. I know them. We both know Function Fox well. They're friends of ours.

That's a great classic example of an innovation business that developed a piece of infrastructure, and so they developed time-tracking for themselves. A lot of firms listening to this are thinking, well, we've developed these apps that we use internally. When an innovation based business develops a piece of infrastructure technology or something that can be sold that's effectively infrastructure, the first question that arises or issue that arises is, hey, we could sell this to our competitors.

If you've ever built something that you think, wow, we could sell this to our competitors, that is a piece of infrastructure, and the way you pursue this is you spin it off, because a product company and a customized services company, the cultures are entirely different. The trade-offs that you make are far reaching, so if you want to build and sell a product, you really need to spin that off. You need a separate culture, separate sales structure management system.

Everything needs to be different. That's a great example. It was a great Harvard Business Review article from I think it was 1999. We'll post a link to it in the show notes. I reference it in my article. It's called the Unbundled Corporation. This idea of you can have an infrastructure business, you can have a CRM or a brand business like Calvin Klein. You can have an infrastructure business, so innovation brand, and infrastructure.

Usually, in most cases, when you have two of these in one business, they should be broken apart. Almost always when you have an innovation business, a customized services firm as our example that creates a piece of technology, that needs to be spun off.

David: That would be a fairly radical approach that I know maybe 20 firms that have done that very successfully, and then a bunch that have done it, but not successfully. They're not sorry they tried it. What about applying this to consulting? Is there a way to do this where it's not quite so radical?

Blair: Well, I suppose in consulting, like when I was a consultant, we had a fairly lucrative webcast subscription business, you can develop products that you can sell as a consultant. I think you can continue to run both of those as a consultant. You have to watch out though, because I'm fond of saying that the mechanism by which you pursue scale, especially in a customized services business, is the mechanism by which you will commodify your offering.

If you think of somebody who's a consultant will use that term loosely to apply to all kinds of different knowledge-based businesses. They decide, "I'm going to get into the online training business. I'm going to build an online course."

Well, what's the market value of online courses? $49 a month. You're pursuing some products and because you're chasing scale and recurring revenue, but all of a sudden now, you invite all of this pricing pressure.

David: Especially if you don't have any IP that's unique to yourself in either the knowledge itself or the way it's delivered or something like that.

Blair: Even the issue of IP is there's something about the package, Pricing Creativity is a book, the package is a book. The price is $320, with the most expensive version, and $100, for the least expensive. Pricing is a high ROI subject. I expect somebody who would read the e-book for $100 and instantly or very quickly make thousands, maybe many, many thousands of dollars because of it. People know that going in, but some people still think, "Yes, but it's a book. I can't bring myself to pay three figures for a book."

As soon as you package up that customized service and aim it at the average, you're going to drive the price down so you better have scale. I think of my business today, we're a training company. We are now a productized services company. Now I'm writing these books that cost hundreds of dollars. My audience, I've already built the audience, I have scale. I have an audience that I can sell these expensive books into.

David: Anything else we need to tell these folks whose heads are now spinning, and they're questioning the decisions they've made in the last year?

Blair: Be aware of the trade-offs when you're productizing this trade-off as you're no longer customizing, you're moving quickly. You're enabling your clients to buy quickly with less information. The trade-off is the price goes down, the client gets a better price and you need to add scale. Then the second order implications in your firm will touch every part of your firm, because the culture of a productized services firm is entirely different from the culture of customized services firm. My message is, simply be aware of the trade-offs.

David: This is very interesting. I learned a bunch as well.

Blair: You've written about this, too. I didn't even get a chance to ask you about your article, which I promised to do. We might have to come back and revisit.

David: We might.

Blair: Let's get the hate mail.

David: You're going to get all the hate mail, so forward it to me so I can read it.

Blair: Then I really think we should come back to this in two months or three months’ time because we haven't touched on everything. There are other examples. I mentioned subscription, but we didn't go into it. We could talk about retainers more, although I think we may have done entire podcasts on retainers. We'll get some feedback from people, I know we will.

Then I think we'll have some fodder to revisit this topic in a few months and ask some more specific questions. I would say to our listeners, if you have questions, you can tweet us, find us on Twitter, or you can email us if you can find our emails. Then we'll take those better questions and we'll do a second follow up episode.

David: Great. Thank you Blair.