Top Ten New Business Development Myths
Blair is in the spotlight discussing some bad practices driven by assumptions he's seen his clients make over the past couple decades, a few of which are new to David.
10. Branding and Full Service Advertising are Specializations
9. The More You Have to Sell the More Likely a Sale
8. An Increase in Meetings Leads to an Increase in Sales
7. The Written Proposal is a Necessary Step in the Sales Process
6. Build Personal Relationships to Build Sales
5. Presentation Skills Training Leads to Improved Business Development Success
4. Chemistry Wins New Business
3. Selling is Persuading
2. It’s Everyone’s Job to Sell
1. You Have to Pitch (for Free) to Win a Creative Assignment
Original article on this episode’s topic by Blair Enns, “Top Ten New Business Development Myths”
The Challenger Sale by Neil Rackham
DAVID C. BAKER: Blair today, I got to warn you, this is going to be a little bit different than normal. You're in the spotlight to talk about the top 10 new business development myths. Okay, so the problem we have here is that there are 10 of them, which means you're going to have about three minutes or so with each. Of course, if I keep talking, you'll have two minutes and 30 seconds.
BLAIR ENNS: You're saying the problem of us always going beyond the 30-minute mark, it's me, I'm the problem.
DAVID: Basically, I am, so I have this very loud horn and when you start to ramble on and on or when I lose interest, you're going to hear the horn. I don't want to take you off your game. I just want to warn you, are you good with that?
BLAIR: I'm good with that. I have a horn and I'm looking around for it, it's not in the studio but for our next recording, I will bring the horn. It's a very special horn, as we will hear in the next recording. Yes, I will proceed and I will follow your cue when you subtly try to let me know that it's time to move on to the next myth.
DAVID: It won't be subtle. Okay, so the top 10 new business development myths. Can you give us a little bit of background about these? How long have you been thinking about them before I lead us down this path?
BLAIR: This is an article I published it says recently on my website, but it's a few years old, and some of the ideas in here I've written about over a decade ago. Most of these things, some of them I've been thinking about for almost 20 years.
BLAIR: They're meant to be provocative, as we shall see.
DAVID: Well, and some of these I had seen and I concur with but there were three in here that had never occurred to me so this will be interesting. All right, drum roll number one, branding and full-service advertising are specializations. What? Are you serious? Are those not specializations? I have never heard that before.
BLAIR: Yes, how much time do we need to spend on this? The reality is they are in theory, specialisms or specializations, they're just not meaningful ones. I feel like I've beaten this topic to death. I know you feel like you've beaten this topic to death and other advisors to creative firms as well. I like to say about branding, and I've probably said it on this podcast previously, an agency that specializes in branding is like a fish that specializes in swimming.
Because if you ask any creative firm who would declare their expertise says, certain disciplines, certain market. If you said to them, "Do you also do branding?" They would say, "Yes, we do branding, too." Many of those would include branding in their description. Now there are branding firms that just do branding, so identity work. At the core, that's what I would consider branding to be, but a lot of people are listening to this shaking their heads going, that's not branding and that's the problem with it because branding has become this big broad term that has anything to do with design, communicating a point of difference, et cetera.
DAVID: I just say that's a category, that's like me, I'm a consultant, that's a category. It doesn't separate me from all the other people that do it. I also have the same if you're not wrestling something to the ground and burning their asses with a hot piece of metal so they're screaming, then it's not branding people.
BLAIR: If there's no pain and searing flesh, it's not branding.
DAVID: Yes and if we're not leaving a permanent mark, so branding and full-service advertising are specializations. Nope, that's not true so that's a myth. Do you want to say anything else about that or have we?
BLAIR: Well, let's just a few words on full-service. I think as more time goes by, the idea of being full-service, perhaps maybe it's starting to become more meaningful as the market gets more fragmented and people are specializing as they should. Maybe there's a place in the future where full-service is actually a meaningful value proposition.
DAVID: Full-service is actually more possible if your positioning is vertical. In other words, a horizontal positioning, it's almost impossible to pull off full-service. I've often said to that full-service is kind of a myth below a certain threshold, number of people and whether that's 30 or 45, or whatever. Why do you think this might pop its head again in the future? Why is full-service possibly more relevant in the future?
BLAIR: Because I think there is value to certain clients in certain situations to get all of their work of a certain marketing or communications type from one firm and that's really what full-service effectively or functionally means. The problem is the way the term is used, it's always been used by small firms trying to look bigger, so that's the code language where we're a small firm pretending to be bigger than we are and we can do anything you need.
DAVID: Yes, right, so branding and full-service advertising are a specialization that's the first myth. The second myth is, the more you have to sell, the more likely a sale.
BLAIR: Do you need to say that again?
DAVID: I think I do, because or maybe I just need to clean my glasses, the more you have to sell, the more likely a sale. In other words, the harder you try, the more likely you'll be successful.
BLAIR: Think of it this way, you own a stall, you're a retailer and the more products on your shelves, the more likely you are to sell something. In retail, perhaps that's true, but in the world of creative and marketing services, that's not necessarily true. In fact, I'll make the distinction. It's actually true that the more you have to sell, the more likely a sale, that's true with existing clients once you're in a relationship, but if you're trying to enter into a new relationship, you're trying to get a new client, you are far better off saying, "Hey, the reason I'm calling or reaching out to you is, we have this one thing that we do better than anybody else.
Maybe you have a need for it, maybe you don't. If you don't, that's fine let me know, I'll be on my merry way but our one thing is this." If you can put all of your eggs in one basket, goes the cliche, that focus is going to concentrate your attention. It's going to force you to build a firm of deeper expertise, you're going to quit hedging your bets and you're going to go all-in on one discipline or one market or one combination of discipline for market and you're going to lead with that.
I could make you a better salesperson if I took away everything that you had to sell but one thing as long as you had the ability to get better at that one thing. If you've got multiple things, you'll try to get a little bit better at multiple things but if all your chips are on one square, if all you can sell is one product or one service, you're likely to work hard to get better at that and you will have a more compelling sales conversation when you're only selling one thing.
DAVID: The way I read that really did mislead folks so it's really more about the more things or the more services you have to sell, the more likely a sale and you're saying that that's not true. Have you ever done any thinking about how many somewhat defined offerings, I don't mean fully packaged and put on the website and priced? I don't necessarily mean to that degree of specificity, but have you ever given thought to how many-- Obviously, you're saying that a lot of firms have too many things that they're offering to sell, but have you ever put that into a number?
BLAIR: No, and I don't think there's a number, I think it comes down to an idea. This is probably the first lesson I ever learned in my entire career because when I was 22 years old, the full-service marketing communications firm that I was working for, the President said, "You're pretty fearless, I'm going to put you in charge of new business." I said, "Great, who do you want me to call? What do you want me to say or sell?"
He said, "Well, that's the good news, you can call anybody because we do work with companies of various sizes, not-for-profit organizations, and government departments and you can sell advertising, design, public relations." The firm also did media monitoring, so you can call anybody and essentially say anything.
DAVID: We're full service, right? That's what you could say.
BLAIR: Yes and in that moment, I felt completely neutered. I felt like what do I do with this? If he would have said to me, "Listen, we do all these different things but what I really want you to do, I would really want to go after the advertising accounts of the five largest companies in this market." That would have been more compelling to me and I would have called and I would have led with advertising rather than full-service marketing communications, what do you need?
DAVID: Right, a little bit of an order taker method at that point. All right, so that's the more you have to sell, the more things, the more services you have to sell the more likely a sale. That's a myth. The next one, third one on our list here is this, an increase in meetings leads to an increase in sales. In other words, there's a direct connection, the more meetings you have, the more sales you will close and you're saying that's a myth.
BLAIR: What's your reaction to that?
DAVID: My first reaction is, oh, I don't want any more meetings, but I'm also thinking about the services out there which work for some firms, but for many firms, it doesn't. That the whole service is fashioned around getting them more meetings, and this would fly in the face of that in some cases.
BLAIR: Yes, and it's not like the opposite of this is true, that no meetings or fewer meetings leads to more sales.
BLAIR: It's just that I've never seen and to the extent that I do any research, I've never been able to correlate number of meetings to sales. In fact, in the article that we're referencing, I briefly tell a story of when I did contract new business between my agency career as an employee and launching Win Without Pitching initially as a consulting practice.
I did some contract new business work and the president of the firm I was working for, he wanted to pay me based on the meetings I got for him and I said, "I don't think that's a very good idea." He said, "No, trust me, just get me in front of people. I can always close people." I went, "Okay, meetings it is." A few months later I had made really good money and he hadn't closed anything and I said, "Do you want to revisit the compensation plan?" We did.
If you incentivize, if you see meetings as a step to this sale, if you see it as, get a bunch of meetings, send out a bunch of proposals and we'll get our fair share of work then you see the efforts go into meetings. Basically, anything that you measure will be improved. If you start measuring the number of meetings, your people will deliver more meetings and you will not necessarily see a correlation of any kind, in fact, I predict what will go up will be your frustration.
You won't see a correlation between the amount of business that gets closed and the number of meetings. Now, you could very easily make my argument seem ridiculous. I'm simply saying we should be more judicious about when we meet. I've encountered so many people doing new business for agencies, whether it's the principal or whether it's the employee who are eager to accept a meeting without asking the direct business questions around budget, around need, around timeframe, et cetera.
The other equally important questions that you should get answers to without asking those first on the phone. You should have that direct conversation on the phone before you agree to a meeting. The reason people don't ask those questions is they feel like if I get a meeting, I'm one step closer. Yes, you could be one step closer to wasting your time on a prospect that you have no business wasting time on. I've never seen any correlation to the number of meetings and the amount of new business closed.
When I say amount, I don't mean number of clients because that's part of the problem here that's wrapped up in this myth. It's not a numbers game. It's not more clients is better.
You're not looking to close multiple clients over there course of the year in the typical creative marketing firm. On average, you're looking for no more than one a quarter. It's not a volume game. We need to be more discerning. We need to be more judicious and we need to meet when it makes sense to meet.
As the principal of a firm, if you're providing guidance to your business development person, part of that guidance shouldn't be a set number of meetings because that math doesn't work in our business. It works in almost every transactional business. In a business where the sale is more transactional, it's not customized where you're pursuing volume, that model works and in industries, their standard kind of widely accepted ratios of x number of calls leads to y number of meetings and z number of clients so that math works in other businesses, but not necessarily in a customized services business.
DAVID: This advice, and I do agree with it for sure, it's so clear to me, even though I don't have the math behind it either, does run headlong into this concept, this sense that I get when I talk to principals as they're describing their challenge, they'll say, "Listen, when we get the opportunity to pitch." They'll even use that word sometimes or propose our services, whatever the word is. "We are really good at closing that. What we need is more opportunities to do that." There's something fundamentally wrong underneath that.
BLAIR: Delusional because everybody says it, right? Don't most of your clients, the creative people and creative entrepreneurs, in particular, they're optimists, so they all think their closing ratio is higher than it is and they do some post rationalizing afterward, "Oh, that was wasn't a real meeting. That wasn't a real opportunity," et cetera. I've encountered agency principles, I've never asked for this math. I've never asked for how many meetings have you had?
How many proposals have you submitted? How many clients did you win? But I've worked with lots of firms who have tracked that information and given it to me and I've seen some crazy high numbers in the dozens and dozens of meetings before it would end in a client. Like you, I have an aversion to wasteful meetings. I just couldn't pursue an avenue or an approach that was that fruitless.
DAVID: All right, so that's an increase in meetings leads to an increase in sales. That's a myth. The next one, fourth is this, the written proposal is a necessary step in the sales process and you're saying that's a myth. You're saying that the written proposal is not necessarily a step in closing the sale, so talk about that.
BLAIR: Yes, and these two myths are related. The idea that you pursue meetings and written number of proposals and you track those things and they are a leading indicator of future success and if the number of meetings and the number of proposals written goes up, then the success goes up. Again, there's no correlation between the number of proposals you submit or a very loose correlation at best between the number of written proposals you submit and the number of clients that you win.
What you do when you identify them as leading indicators, you're incentivizing your people or even yourself to produce more of them, so you end up producing more written proposals. You end up wasting more of your time. Your sunk costs goes higher and higher. The bias sets in. You're so far down the road with this client that you shouldn't be doing business with, with this prospective client and you think, "Well, I've come so far. I've put so much into it. I'll accept the business on their terms," whether that's price, whether it's other conditions, et cetera.
Somebody said to me years ago, "The proposal is the words that come out of your mouth." The document is the contract, now get through your head. I sound like admonishing parent and if you're hearing this for the first time you're thinking, "Yes, nice theory." It's not a nice theory. It's the truth. The proposal, you should be able to say to the client, "Here's what we'll do for you. Here's how long it will take, here's how much it will cost. If you're in agreement, in principle, we'll write up the contract for your review and signature."
At a high level, that's how it works. Now, if you start to entertain the idea of options in your proposals, which you should and we've talked about before, then you're going to need some written documentation to sort through the different options and my recommendation is you limit that written recommendation to one page. The proposal is still the words that come out of your mouth, but you use a one-page written summary of the various options you're providing as a facilitation point or conduit for that discussion but you really should view it this way.
The proposal is the words that come out of your mouth and we don't view it that way in the creative and marketing professions, we can flate the idea of a proposal with a cell document that we call the deck and a contract. We can flate these three things together. Here's what we'll do for you. That's a proposal. Here's what we'll do for you, here's how long it will take you, here's how much it'll cost.
Then there's a whole bunch of convince in the sale document that we call the deck and then we actually put Ts and Cs and prices and a place to sign like it's a contract. It's not like we're the only professions who do this, but there aren't very many. We're making a big mistake here of confusing and combining these three different documents. You really need to see the proposal as the words that come out of your mouth.
DAVID: I've been in groups and I've been sitting in the back or standing in the back when you've been talking about this subject and I'm not sure there's anything else you say where people sit up straight and listen carefully and either shake their head yes or no at this point. Plus, I've also seen some feedback from your clients where they are so pleasantly surprised that it actually turned out the case that we closed this with a one-page proposal or whatever.
It's interesting for people to think about and I guess the net difference, the net effect of this if you follow this all the way through to its logical end is that it would be very rare for a written proposal to not be accepted. That would be shocking to you because you've already gotten their approval even though it wasn't necessarily official or legal so you're not putting the effort into writing something that's just not going to get accepted.
BLAIR: Yes, you got it. Again, just the myth here is that it's a necessary step in the sales process. If you think of your CRM, if you think of the opportunity stages, the picklist of opportunity stages that the typical CRM application comes populated with, you will have some stages that say, sometimes it'll say meeting, you've met with a prospect, and very often will say proposals submitted.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that those opportunity stages are in the CRM because they are intelligent or logical or even that the purveyor of that software is recommending that you follow them. As we've talked about before, they're populating all different things in the picklist and they expect you to go in and pull the wrong ones out and customize those opportunities stages but as soon as you see proposal submission as an opportunity stage, you will drive more written proposals. You will waste more time.
DAVID: All because of what somebody did when they were programming a CRM. Crazy.
BLAIR: You got it.
DAVID: All right. The next myth is build personal relationships to build sales. In other words, there's a connection between personal relationships and effective selling. Talk about why that's a myth.
BLAIR: I just want to marinate in the pause for a minute. Well, some people just completely lose their shit over this, and it's a high affiliation people who sell on relationship and it's not wrong necessarily. This isn't kind of universally untrue but it's not a helpful way to look at building a new client business. In this article, I reference a quote from Neil Rackham. Neil Rackham is the founder of Huthwaite which is a global sales training organization. He's better known as the author of SPIN Selling and is probably the individual that's done more research on B2B sales than anybody else on the planet.
He has a great line and the line comes from the forward that he wrote for the book The Challenger Sale which completely shatters this myth. The line is this that relationship is the reward for delivering value. What he's saying and with the research that underpins The Challenger book is saying is that in a customized B2B sales, especially a high complexity sale, you don't build a relationship and hope that that relationship results in the sale and an opportunity to create value.
You sell and you sell by challenging the client's notions of what the problem is and what the solution might be. You deliver value and then the relationship is ultimately the reward.
Now, this is highly personal. There are still people who are thinking, "Well, I can prove you wrong, Blair, because I've sold this way effectively," and people have. It's not universally untrue but if you look at the best way to sell complex B2B sales of any kind, it really is this challenger mode where you're not trying to befriend people.
You're seeing the relationship as something that comes after you've proven that you can add value in the approach that the challenger sale advocates, is you add value in the sale by challenging. It's a highly personal thing. It's not universally untrue and I'll also add that Alan Weiss had this line in one of his books where he said something like, "Make no mistake, selling consulting is really about relationships."
That line stuck with me for years because I didn't see it to be true but I also have very high regard for Alan Weiss's advice. What I see that he means now is once you're in doing business with that client that relationship again that develops from you adding value or delivering value, that relationship becomes very important for ongoing sales and for referrals. Does that make sense?
DAVID: It does. We could take this off of the myth chart by simply reversing the order. We could say building sales leads to personal relationships, which leads to growing the account and referrals as well.
BLAIR: It's a great way to state it.
DAVID: Okay, so, that's the first five. Let's take a break and then we'll come back and cover the other five.
DAVID: Number six, presentation skills training leads to improved business development success. Presentation skills training leads to improved business development success. In other words, the two are not necessarily related, which doesn't strike me as all that intuitive, I would think that presentation skills training. Although you said elsewhere-- I just need to let you talk, but if you don't cover this next point then I am going to come back in. Okay?
BLAIR: All right. Conversations instead of presentations is one of the proclamations from the Win Without Pitching manifesto. I think it's the second one. We will replace presentations with conversations. We go into presentation mode it's all about us, us, us. What I'm advocating is forget the presentation let's break down this series of one way at a time communications and let's get back to having conversations. You becoming a better presenter is you putting your efforts in entirely the wrong place.
I accept that in some places in your business may be presentation skills are valuable but the idea that you're going to become a better business developer by becoming a better presenter, yes, maybe you'll gain some marginal improvement within the mode or model that you're currently using but your model is broken, it's flawed. I'm suggesting you throw it out completely. Let's get away from presentations. Let's get back to conversations where you're being honest with each other and nobody's wasting anybody's time, nobody's trying to talk anybody into anything.
DAVID: Wow, so maybe instead of that as a training module it should be a conversation model. How to be a good conversationalist, wouldn't that be interesting?
BLAIR: Yes. My friend Anese Cavanaugh has written a book, I've plugged it before, it's called Contagious Culture, she's got a new one coming out called Contagious You, she teaches something called IEP, Intentional Energetic Presence. It's really a model for how you show up. It's not just meant for sales, it's meant for how you behave with your people. It's really just about how you show up physically, mentally, everything about how you conduct yourself and I think that's a great substitute for presentation skills. The older I get the more I think the idea of presentation skills is I think it's just ridiculous. Unless you're trying to become a better public speaker.
DAVID: Right, okay. Next, chemistry wins new business. This takes me back decades because that used to be the central tenet of several folks who advised this field.
BLAIR: Yes, Stuart Sanders who you and I both had very high regard for he was the dominant guy in the agency new business development advisory space when I started my practice. I've never had the chance to meet Stuart but I'm familiar with some of his work and I know lots of people who've benefited greatly from his advice, but there's one thing that I didn't agree with him. One of his main assertions that chemistry wins new business and we have to parse this a little bit because it's actually true that chemistry does win new business, in fact, I believed this wasn't true so I did my own research essentially to disprove Stuart.
Again, nothing but the highest regard respect for him, but I didn't believe it to be true. I did my own research and I surveyed a bunch of my clients' clients and I asked them what was the number one reason why they chose my client, the firm that they hired. The number one answer was chemistry and then I went back, these were telephone surveys so I had dozens of conversations, and anybody who said chemistry I asked the question what do you mean by chemistry.?
The break down of that response, the varied responses caused me to see that that word in this context, chemistry in this context, really was a catch-all for pretty much everything because the number one response to what do you mean by chemistry was something to do with expertise. I felt they were the most capable firm, I felt like they were best in this domain, et cetera and there are all kinds of other descriptions that fell under the banner of chemistry.
Chemistry in this context is just a lazy word that we're using to describe many, many, different things. I feel a personal connection, I like this person, I feel like they're the best, I feel like they're not going to screw it up, all of these things. Number one, there's two reasons why I think this is a myth. Number one, that answer, that word is a smokescreen and number two, it's true that sometimes personal chemistry, "I really like you, I feel like we get along and we would work well together," that is the reason some times and it never should be.
My point is chemistry is like a price. Personal chemistry in the way I've just described it is like a price. It should be a tie-breaker when everything else is seen to be equal and by everything else I mean the client's anticipation or expectation of your ability to deliver value. If they see your ability to deliver value on par with another firm that they're considering then it goes to the tiebreaker metrics of price or chemistry. Sometimes it does win new business but you don't want to lean on that because you're foregoing the most meaningful differentiator which is the expectation of value creation.
DAVID: The question I have is, well, if chemistry wins new business then why do people lose clients because chemistry doesn't necessarily change, it's something else that's changed. It doesn't make sense on the face of it. All right, so that's a number seven. Number eight is selling is persuading. Selling is persuading. Now, easy now because I used to have a publication called Persuading [laughs] but I didn't mean that it was about selling. You're saying selling is not about persuading or convincing somebody.
BLAIR: Yes, and I'm fond of saying in your role of selling the services of your firm you have no business trying to talk anybody into anything ever. People with really high sales drive who've come out of like highly leveraged compensation plans where they had to sell to eat they're going to disagree with this. I'm not saying I'm factually correct what I'm saying is it is a mistake to look at the act of selling as the active talking people into things, and I know we're low on time here, I'll just say, I believe selling is simply facilitating a decision in a conversation or in a two-way interaction with another human being, who's going to buy something from you.
It's helping to facilitate a decision that will take them closer to their desired future state. Sometimes that means hiring a firm that's not yours. If that's the proper outcome, that's the way you should be approaching it. It's not your job to talk people into things and a mistake compensation wise is to create a compensation plan for your salespeople or business development department that sees it to be in their best interest to try to talk people into things.
DAVID: Yes, you're playing the long game here not the short game, right?
DAVID: All right, number nine. It's everyone's job to sell so that's a myth and you're saying that it's not everybody's job to sell, why is that?
BLAIR: I don't believe it is because as soon as you flip it around, and we may have talked about this before, I see creative people who you tell them well, you know, it's everybody's job to sell and they say, "Well, I don't want to sell, I just want to draw, I just want to write, you hired me for my ability to draw," or to create in some form. As soon as you flip it around and say, well, what if it wasn't everybody's job to sell? Then all of these answers come pouring down from that inversion.
Well If it wasn't everybody's job to sell, then I could free up people to do what they really want to do and in Strategic Coach parlance, they would call it "work in their unique ability."
The idea that we all have this unique ability or we all have this skill, and we also have to sell is absurd. I think it's one of the most harmful ideas in all of sales. The idea that it's everybody's job to sell and some people mean different things by well, you're always selling, you're creating, you're putting forward a creative concept.
You've got to sell it to your team. I'll grant you a little bit on that but I think a craftsperson wants to put their work forward and have it speak for itself and to be able to communicate it without having to sell or talk people into some reason why their's is the best option. Does that make sense?
DAVID: It does and I think a lot of people wouldn't object to this quite so vehemently if they took the other premise under consideration that selling is really helping, it's not convincing. when people say, I don't want it to be my job to sell, they're really reacting to the traditional definition of selling as well but regardless, it absolutely does make sense. That carries over into why you don't necessarily want to build a compensation plan that would reward anybody in the firm for a lead because it just doesn't make sense. It kind of comes from something that was maybe prevalent a decade ago and doesn't really make sense now.
BLAIR: Yes and that's a good point that previous myth selling is persuading. If you let go of that myth, and you see selling as facilitating a conversation then you could make the point that it is everybody's job to sell.
DAVID: Yes, right. If it is everybody's job to help. All right, the last one is, you have to pitch to win a creative assignment. Now, this one's kind of cheating because I think you wrote a book about this?
DAVID: You're saying we don't have to pitch for free anyway to win a creative assignment, that's a myth?
BLAIR: Yes. How much time do we have? I've written a book about it. I've built an entire practice around this idea and it's worth stating again just because when people hear the phrase, win without pitching, whether it's somebody who's been told about the book or who's sitting in an audience when I'm delivering a speech, the reaction is often, "Yes, it's a nice theory, I get the ideal but that's never going to work in my business. You don't understand my conditions are such that I actually have to give my highest value product away for free or I'm not going to get any clients."
I think by now, after almost 20 years in this business, and hundreds or even thousands of firms served, I think I and my robot army has proven that to be wrong.
DAVID: All right, so this is interesting rather than repeat all 10 of them, we'll just put the 10 in the show notes so that you can get a shortcut to these. Two or three of these were new to me so it's always interesting to go back over this stuff. As much as we've talked I'm still learning some things so thank you, Blair. Really appreciate these 10 myths of business development.
BLAIR: Thanks, David and no horn. Fantastic.
DAVID: Yes, I couldn't find it.
BLAIR: [laughs] All right, will see you next time.