Transcript

To start the episode, Jason and Jeff offer up some clarity on the difference between brand awareness and brand relevance.

Brand Awareness vs. Brand Relevance

“Brand awareness is the brass ring, if you will, for professional services firms…The market recognizes my name. I’ve heard of Accenture. I’ve seen their ads at the airport even though they may not specifically know anything beyond that exposure.”

“Brand relevance, on the other hand, is a measure of a firm’s marketplace credibility and normally on an issue of capability. McKinsey really has relevance in the area of strategy. The Big Four firms have very strong relevance in accounting…and around audit or a particular type of audit, or tax discipline. And those keep cascading down into smaller and smaller issues and markets where their relevance stands out in conjunction with their awareness, but it is their relevance that is really driving the perception of those brands.”

Next, Jeff provides an example of a campaign around brand awareness—when Anderson Consulting rebranded as Accenture.

“I remember when Anderson Consulting was rebranded Accenture and how much money they poured in building awareness of that new brand name.They really had to. They needed to have enough rocket fuel to clear the gravitational pull of Anderson. I think the campaign was brilliant because it was singular in its objective, and that is to move from being known as Anderson Consulting, or AC, to Accenture. They weren’t concerned about relevance. They just wanted people to know that Anderson Consulting is now Accenture, and it was wildly successful.”

After that, they dive a little deeper into brand relevance.

“Relevance is about credibility, and it’s credibility in terms of a capability to solve a problem, an issue, or realize some possibility. Most professional services firms get this wrong, and they invest heavily in awareness and try to just build familiarity with the name, and they waste a lot of money doing that because it doesn’t really produce revenue for most firms. Whereas, relevance is…having a strong point of view and the wherewithal to be invited to the table.”

“If you want to get a measure of your relevance very cost effectively, just figure out how often you’re invited to the table in order to propose.”

Next, Jason shares his insight on brand relevance in terms of thought leadership and rebranding.

“There’s a direct relationship between relevance and thought leadership for me. I find it very difficult to imagine a reality where you can get a meaningful subsection of a market to really believe that you’re relevant in a certain capability or a certain area without having either a significant body of work in that area…or a depth of thought leadership as a proxy to that.”

“The other thing that jumped out to me was that, when firms talk about brands and rebranding, that actually does strike at the heart of what I sense their issue often is: They don’t feel that they’re relevant anymore. It’s not that they’re not getting invitations. They’re getting the wrong invitations.”

To close, Jason and Jeff share thoughts on the components of a brand as it relates to staying relevant.

“When we talk about brands I like to split them into two halves. I like to say there’s a strategy and there’s a platform. A strategy is: Where [do] you want to be relevant? For who? How and why? Then, the platform is just the physical manifestation of that. It’s the visual identity sense. It’s the messaging. It’s the language. I would argue that firms can fall out of touch in both dimensions.”

Transcript

Jason Mlicki: I don’t even know where we want to take this conversation yet, but the general sense that we had was to talk about brand relevance, and I was going down all kinds of other avenues before we even started talking, so I guess maybe that’s good or bad. I don’t know.

The first thing that for me, and I was making quick notes of things we could talk about, but awareness versus relevance I think is important. One of the things that I continually see, and I guess I don’t know if I see it as much as I used to, but we get creative briefs from clients. Creative briefs are the wrong things. That’s the wrong word. They’ll have a marketing thing that they’re looking for an agency to partner with on, and they’ll state their goal is to build brand awareness, and I always just question the goal.

I always feel like, whenever the goal is to build brand awareness, that’s just a lazy goal because someone hasn’t really taken the time to really think about what they’re really trying to do, because that’s just such an oculus phrase. It’s so difficult to really measure, so what are we really trying to do here. So anyway, that’s a really random comment. Awareness versus relevance. Maybe we just start with that just to be clear on what we mean by the two terms.

Jeff McKay: I think that’s a good place to jump in, because most people don’t make the distinction, or if they hear the terms they know one, or not the other. In my experience, brand awareness is the brass ring, if you will, for professional services firms. Partners, business developers love to pick up a phone and call people, and when they say the name that people know the firm name, they know what it stands for, and they’ll take the call. And relevance is something very different. Brand awareness is just, “Hey. The market recognizes my name. I’ve heard of Accenture. I’ve seen their ads at the airport even though they may not specifically know anything beyond that exposure.

Brand relevance, on the other hand, is a measure of a firm’s marketplace credibility and normally on an issue of capability. McKinsey really has relevance in the area of strategy. The Big Four firms have very strong relevance in accounting, and you might argue that the Big Four has really strong relevance around audit or a particular type of audit, or tax discipline. And those keep cascading down into smaller and smaller issues and markets where their relevance stands out in conjunction with their awareness, but it is their relevance that is really driving the perception of those brands.

Jason Mlicki: Are there really any professional services firms that have big awareness? You know what I mean? And I don’t know if we want to dump it into average consumers. I think that’s probably the typical consumer. I don’t necessarily mean that, but maybe the average, just a general businessperson.

Jeff McKay: I think there are. They generally go hand in hand with size and age. McKinsey, most people have heard of McKinsey. I remember when Anderson Consulting was rebranded Accenture and how much money they poured in building awareness of that new brand name, and when that name came out there was a lot of fun made of how silly it sounded. But I remember my grandmother saying to me, “Do you now work for Accenture?” Because she knew I worked for Anderson, but that name transition and the amount of investment that they put into that reached a level of my 70-year-old plus grandmother, and she was aware of the change. That’s not their target market. She’s never going to buy anything from them, but she was aware of the change.

Now, she couldn’t tell you anything that Accenture did, but that is ubiquitous brand awareness. And I think anybody that walks through an airport, gosh, how could you have missed their ads.

Jason Mlicki: Well, and maybe to your point, the objective was pure awareness. They just wanted people to know that Accenture existed, and at that point they weren’t trying necessarily to tie it to capability. You could even argue that the huge Tiger Woods campaign, that I would say is one of the most successful professional services broad brand campaigns I’ve ever seen, tied Accenture to high performance, but didn’t tie them to any specific capability. It didn’t build relevance necessarily, unless you consider performance. Is high performance relevance? I don’t … I guess you think of Accenture for high performance in any way is the output of that, but no, that’s really interesting. Was Accenture publicly traded at the time when they made that name change? Do you remember?

Jeff McKay: Oh, I should know that but I don’t.

Jason Mlicki: I don’t think they were. I was thinking through my head why firms choose to make massive investments like that, because it’s rare, right? There’s not that many firms that have. IBM has. Accenture has. I’m hard-pressed to think of anybody else that has made any type of investment at that scale to be known.

Jeff McKay: They really had to. They needed to have enough rocket fuel to clear the gravitational pull of Anderson, and Anderson was a really, really strong brand, and Anderson Consulting contributed significantly to that. But in the arbitration they weren’t allowed to take that, and they needed to make a very clean break and get to their own identity very quickly. I think the campaign was brilliant because it was singular in its objective, and that is to move from being known as Anderson Consulting, or AC, to Accenture, and that’s all they were concerned about. They weren’t concerned about relevance. They just wanted to know, wanted people to know, that Anderson Consulting is now Accenture, and it was wildly successful. The rest of it came later.

Jason Mlicki: Well, the funny thing is, and you lived some of this so you’ll probably laugh when I say this or maybe even disagree with me when I say this, but I remember at the time when that arbitration ruling came out I thought it was going to be really damaging to Anderson Consulting, because I thought the Anderson name was such a powerful, had so much equity in the marketplace that that separation was going to really cost them. This separation, in my mind, ended up being the best thing that ever could have happened to them, because it got them out from under the massive trap that name became a few years later. And to your point, that huge investment had separated them so farly so quickly that when Arthur Anderson started having all those issues they weren’t sucked out into that ecosphere with them.

Jeff McKay: And I think that was serendipity. That was not pardoned.

Jason Mlicki: Yeah. That wasn’t planned. No. I didn’t mean it that way at all, but it was so fascinating how that played out. Yeah, sorry. I didn’t mean that. I didn’t mean that I’m glad that was part of the strategy.

Jeff McKay: There’s something important about that example in terms of brand awareness and what firms normally do or don’t do. If they do a rebrand and they need to build awareness, is it that firm over-invested in that change? And that’s represented by the fact that my grandma knew about it, but I think it’s much smarter if you’re going to do something like Accenture did, that you plan on over-investing, because those over-invested dollars weren’t necessarily wasted. As opposed, if you don’t hit that tipping point of changing the market’s perception and getting out of that gravitational field, almost all the money that you spent is going to be squandered. If there’s ever a time to over-invest it’s at that rebranding point building awareness for something new or different.

Jason Mlicki: Do you remember marchFIRST by any chance? Do you remember those guys?

Jeff McKay: Yep.

Jason Mlicki: I can’t remember the whole story, but they did a similar thing, right? I think they were called US Web or something. USA Web or something really kind of innocuous, and they did this massive … They rolled up a bunch of companies at a digital strategy consultancy. This was in 2001, and they launched the whole brand on there, this massive umbrella with TV coverage, TV ads, a big launch on March 1st of 2001, I believe. The company name was marchFIRST. So they followed that blueprint. They subsequently imploded. I can’t remember how long after, but pretty quickly they imploded.

To your point, they had over-invested, not just on the brand, kind of across the board. They had massive growth plans hinged on a lot of false assumptions relating to the dot-com era, but kind of interesting. I don’t know if there’s a lesson there as well.

Jeff McKay: I think there is, and I think the other lesson that’s really valuable there, in my experience, and I’ve seen this time and time again, rollups seldom work. Mergers are, I don’t know, at best a 50/50 proposition. Accenture was able to make that leap, not just because of the investment, but of the culture and the people and the reputation that undergirded it before it even decided to rebrand itself. I think that’s an important lesson. A rebrand, a rename, building awareness of something does not fix underlying shortcomings, particularly at the cultural or capability level. I think that’s another important lesson that you illustrate there.

Jason Mlicki: Well, let’s go back to relevance for a second. If awareness is, and I like the way you frame this in the blog post. That was the inspiration for this. If awareness is about just knowing of the firm, maybe not necessarily being able to connect it to any one specific capability or competency, what is relevance really about?

Jeff McKay: Relevance is about credibility, and it’s credibility in terms of a capability to solve a problem, an issue, or realize some possibility. Most professional services firms get this wrong, and they invest heavily in awareness and try to just build familiarity with the name, and they waste a lot of money doing that because it doesn’t really produce revenue for most firms. Whereas, relevance is more consistent with the way Prudent Pedal and Rattleback think about strategic marketing and brand building, and that’s having a strong point of view and the wherewithal to be invited to the table.

If you want to get a measure of your relevance very cost effectively, just figure out how often you’re invited to the table in order to propose. And I don’t mean just necessarily our piece coming in over the transit, although that would be the first place to look, but if you’re not even being invited to the table, the market does not see you as a relevant player. Now, if you’re invited to the table, you may have relevance but you may be seen as a player but maybe not an expert player. So if you took for example, I’m sure McKinsey is oftentimes always invited to the table for those firms that have the wallets that can afford a McKinsey. But a firm like, say, LEK, who does good work but they may not be seen as relevant in solving bigger company issues at the level that a McKinsey is, or even a Big Four firm may not be invited to the table along with McKinsey, BCG, Bain, and then LEK. Because they’re not seeing a pure strategy.

Jason Mlicki: The interesting thing is that … Well, a couple things that jumped out to me based on some of the things you just said. For me, there’s a direct relationship between relevance and thought leadership for me. I find it very difficult to imagine a reality where you can get a meaningful subsection of a market to really believe that you’re relevant in a certain capability or a certain area without having either a significant body of work in that area that people can clearly point to and know you are a part of, or thought leadership, a depth of thought leadership as a proxy to that.

The other thing that jumped out to me was that, when firms talk about brands and rebranding, that actually does strike at the heart of what I sense their issue often is, is that they don’t feel that they’re relevant anymore. The thing is that they’re getting invitations for it. It’s not that they’re not getting invitations. They’re getting the wrong invitations. They’re getting invited to things that they don’t feel are the right fit, and that’s when that … When that starts to happen they suddenly say, “Well, wait a minute. Why are we getting these types of inquiries and not these other types of inquiries that we really want?”

Jeff McKay: That is spot-on, Jason, and I’ve seen that a lot as well, as a consultant in particular. I’ll give you an example. I met with the CEO of a market research firm, and they specialized in qualitative research. They wanted to rebrand, and they asked me to come in and talk to them about rebranding and positioning, and I sat down with the leadership team and walked them through Prudent Pedal’s growth model. And the firm had already allocated, I don’t know, 100 thousand dollars or something to a rebrand, and they were moving down that path of rebranding, updating their tagline and their visual identity.

In order to build awareness with millennials, a lot of their traditional buyers had retired or had gone into work in the same market as competitors for them. But after a quick conversation to them, they realize that the market had really shifted and people weren’t interested in qualitative research. They were more interested in social listening. They were more into the analytics and quantitative analysis coming out of more of the technology platforms where they had these huge data sets, but they didn’t know how to really decipher what was happening in them.

So this firm would have spent over 100 thousand dollars trying to rebrand itself and build awareness among millennials, when the fact to the matter was, their market had just shifted, their buyers had started to change, and they wanted something different, and it really didn’t have anything to do with millennials. The market had just kind of passed them by as you described, and they missed the telltale signs that you just described. They were starting to get different types of proposals. There were traditional buyers and buyers’ titles had changed, and they noticed it but they didn’t connect the dots.

Then, for them it was, “Oh. We need to rebrand because our growth has slowed and we need an awareness campaign so that people know we’re still here.” Well, they knew you were still there. They just didn’t see you as relevant to how they wanted to dissect the market.

Jason Mlicki: This is going to be a really strange comment, but what is a brand? I mean, whenever this topic … I’ve sort of come to … I always say this. I’m a recovering brand strategist, meaning that we have done tons of brand work over my 20 years in the agency business. I guess my experience is that usually when people talk about brands, they’re talking about the visual systems that represent a company, or they’re talking maybe about the tone of voice that presents the company to the market, like how the company talks. I guess I would argue everything that you just described is the brand, so the firm that you talked about, yes, they needed to rebrand. It doesn’t necessarily mean they needed to redo their logo. It doesn’t necessarily mean they needed to redo their website. I have no idea. I don’t know the firm at all.

They clearly had an underlying brand strategy framework that was broken. They didn’t have clarity on what it is that they provided to whom and what their compelling point of view was on how it should be done. That to me is the essence of a brand strategy model, regardless of what the visual representation of that might be. I don’t know if that makes any sense.

Jeff McKay: It makes a lot of sense, and if you look at that one little firm, their brand had some really solid attributes to it. The firm was primarily female. They had incredibly unique and deep relationships with their traditional buyers. They had a unique perspective on research and its fit into growth and marketing strategy. It had a phenomenal foundational brand built around a culture and a point of view. What they had lost was a relevance in the market, because they let slip the focus of those core capabilities, or their core capabilities had become commoditized and they hadn’t adapted the core capabilities that sat on top of that cultural foundation. They didn’t invest in their expertise of these emerging areas of either issues or solutions, and they started to fall off the screen as a result.

From a brand perspective, they had 80% of what they needed from to keep a strong brand, but what they didn’t have were the other components. Because the three brand drivers, these are universal for professional services. They are expertise, I’m going to pay you because you’re smarter than me in something. Demonstrated results, so that I am not afraid that you’re going to be able to deliver what I’m hiring you for. And relationship, so they had really eroded in expertise and results, and as a result their relationships were starting to falter, too. They just needed to churn the sales and get focused and be relevant in the new market and do exactly what you had said earlier in our conversation, incrementally take their game up and refine the brand as the market evolved with them.

Jason Mlicki: Yeah. Interesting thing about the mini case study you’re describing is that it sounds as though they had a pretty compelling point of view on the marketplace in terms of the role of research and accelerating their clients’ success. Yet, the underlying, the what … I like to call that the why. The point of view is the why. The what, meaning the actual way they went about research, was becoming seen as less relevant, which is pretty fascinating. Usually, we tend to see the opposite. We see firms where they kind of have a … Well, I’m not going to say … They have clarity on what it is they do for the marketplace, but they don’t really have a really strong sense of how it’s unique or why their point of view on how its done is different than someone else’s.

When we talk about brands I like to split them into two halves. I like to say there’s a strategy and there’s a platform. A strategy is everything that underpins the type of things we’re talking about. Where is it you want to be relevant? For who? How and why? Then, the platform is just the physical manifestation of that. It’s the visual identity sense. It’s the messaging. It’s the language. I would argue that firms can fall out of touch in both dimensions, so the firm you described had fallen out of touch in its strategy because the service offerings, the way that they were going about research was no longer relevant. Hence, they weren’t getting invited for the opportunities they wanted to get invited for, because quite frankly the buyers were looking for something different.

Then, the platform itself can also become out of touch, meaning that a firm just looks and sounds out of touch, sounds dated, looks dated. The best analogy I can think of is the whole Buick campaign, right? This is not your grandfather’s Buick. Everything about Buick as a company looked and felt and sounded old. The company was aggressively trying to change that, and I guess what I’ve seen in the marketplace for a lot of firms is that they neglect that side of the story. They just think, “Well, logos don’t matter. That’s all noise.” But at some level, if you don’t iterate a little bit as you go, if you don’t really make investments to modernize your communications and the way you look and the way you sound and the way you communicate as a firm, eventually you’re just going to be out of touch. You’re going to be way out of date, and then you’re forced to make a pretty big correction.

There is that sense when you hit a firm’s website or you’re first interacting with this firm, if they just feel dated then you just exit as a buyer. Like, “No. I don’t want to do business with these guys. They just don’t look like they’re contemporary. They don’t feel like they’re contemporary. They don’t sound like they’re contemporary. They just sound like they’re out of touch.” Even if they have all the capabilities underlying it that you need. So there’s some iteration cycle that a firm needs to follow, I would argue, on the platform side of this. They can’t neglect it. They can’t just not invest in those types of things, because you will find yourself irrelevant even if you have something powerful to say if the way you’ve packaged the story is not current.

Jeff McKay: I’m thinking about that. Yes. I think you’re right. I think it’s nuanced. Maybe this is the consultant in me coming out. I’ll use some consumer brands to illustrate this but then I’ll bring it back and apply it to professional services. I think there are brands that are cutting edge, new, and fresh, and always are that way. Apple, Amazon, Google are those types of companies and they’re very successful. But I also think there is a time and a place for traditional timeless brands. Brooks Brothers, for example, timeless, traditional brand, but they stay up to date, but when you look at them you think classic, never out of style, and there’s a strengthen in that as well. Tiffany’s I would put in that traditional timeless brand. That Tiffany box has not changed in over a century, but what goes into the box combines traditional and new stuff, but it’s that experience at Tiffany that is just timeless. When you see that Tiffany box and that robin egg blue it stirs some emotion in you.

And when I talk about brand I always use Tiffany, because I think that box is that timeless brand identity component that you talk about, that when that gift is presented you know exactly who it is, but what’s most relevant is what’s inside the box because you it’s going to be something good. I think most firms should think in those terms. Get your box, but what goes into the box needs to evolve with the market, and that is the thought leadership and the point of view and the expertise associated with the box. If you go and look at a law firm, for example, that is a market where traditional Brooks Brother type of branding could be really, really beneficial and leveraged well, but you could become out of date if you don’t manage it well. If ever there were a professional services industry that could benefit from that, that stability, that timelessness associated with law, that’s a place to exploit it.

Now, a company like Accenture or an upstart firm around technology, West Monroe Partners, those have to be evolving until they’ve reached that point where they can be timeless. And that timelessness won’t come for decades, but they still need to be cutting edge.

Jason Mlicki: I agree with a lot of what you said. I agree with the notion that what’s most relevant is what’s in the box, sort of that idea of, well, in the case of a firm, the expertise, what it is that they’re selling, what they’re delivering to the market is where they probably need to be most nimble because the market is going to evolve. I would say it’s very dangerous to present the marketplace as having two polarized ends, one that is cutting edge, and one that’s traditional and stoic and stayed. I would argue that’s more of a continuum. I don’t know if you meant to present it that way, but there’s a fluid gray space from the left edge to the right edge, and most firms occupy somewhere within there. The analogy I’ll give you is this. What’s an oldie to you? What are the oldies? When were the oldies produced?

Jeff McKay: Right. All right, so for the purposes of your example I’ll step into this trap. I would say, for me, the oldies are the big bands.

Jason Mlicki: Oh, wow. That’s actually further back than I would have guessed. The big bands are the 20s, right? The big bands are the golden age, so in your mind when you think of something that’s traditional and something that is timeless, you harken back to that. If you go to my daughter, who’s 12, and say, “What’s an oldie,” to her, the oldies are the 80s and the 90s, to be quite frank. The oldies are the 90s. Something that feels tied to the 80s or 90s to her would feel old. The reason I’m making this comment is, when you think about these timeless, traditional, especially on a consumer side, traditional brand expressions, those are carefully managed and manipulated to constantly feel traditional and timeless.

They’re not just left to pasture which is really what most firms tend to do. They say, “Well, we want to be traditional. Hence, we’re gonna leave this thing alone that we haven’t touched since 1982, because that’s core to our brand essence that we’re going to be a traditional brand.” The reality is, is if you want to maintain that traditional feel, you essentially have to constantly iterate what traditional means and feels like to stay relevant. That’s why I would argue it’s more like a gray continuum. It’s like you have to think about somewhere along that lines.

Now, where I will totally agree with you is, I just don’t think it’s quite as important as any of what’s inside the box, right? At the end of the day, what a logo looks like, what a … It’s hard to make a case that, that packaging that wraps around the story is as important as what’s inside the box, the expertise. I think you called the expertise, the results in relationships. Those are clearly more important, and I would never disagree with that. I would also say it’s very dangerous to jump into a path that says that the packaging is not that relevant and that we want to be timeless. Hence, that means we don’t have to touch it or think about it. I think that’s a big mistake, because usually that’s what gets firms into traps, at least on the platform side of the brand, is when they think, “Well, we’re traditional so we’re just going to leave this alone.” Then, they find themselves out of touch.

Then, they have to do a reset, and when they have to do that reset, now, suddenly they’ve had to fast forward what was traditional to their new version of traditional, and they’ve completely broken what they initially were trying to deliver in the first place. I would argue, and you need to be constantly … Not constantly. That’s an extreme exaggeration. You need to be regularly thinking about whether or not the way you’re presenting the firm to the marketplace is still relevant relative to how you want it to be presented. And what does regularly look like? I don’t know. Every four or five years, three to five years, something like that. It doesn’t mean you have to do a radical reinvention every three to five years, but you need to be looking at that side of your story with that level of regularity I would say.

Jeff McKay: I think you’re absolutely right. It is constant vigilance, and without being too ethereal and losing our listeners.

Jason Mlicki: Oh, I think I may have already done that.

Jeff McKay: I do want to go back to your music example because I think it’s very applicable to firms who are trying to figure out how to position and how to grow. And this whole concept of awareness versus relevance is really manifesting the types of discussions that go on inside firms or should be going on inside firms. If you go back to your music, you talked in terms of oldies. Oldies is a relevant terms, and it’s an easy one to throw out to the market, and depending on your ideal client, which is the fundamental starting point for all of this, how they define oldie is going to be relevant. Your daughter would define oldies as 80s or 90s. You might go back to the 50s or 60s, and you put me back even further than that.

But, the big but, I think a more relevant way to think about brand and positioning and relevance is more by genre, so if you look at jazz or blues or classical, those are timeless genres. And you could position in one of those as, “We are a jazz firm. We are a blues firm.” Rock and roll would probably be timeless to some degree, but I would argue not as timeless as those earlier three. Hiphop would not be timeless at all. It’s cutting edge. Then, you’d throw country somewhere in there, or R&B. Those, to me, would be traditional but really morphing in a lot of ways. If you listen to country music they even have … The sound of country music has evolved considerably over the last 20 or 30 years, and they’re actually introducing rap into country. To me, that’s the kind of incremental relevance to a newer audience than maybe a George Strait or even before somebody like George Strait. That, I think, is a more relevant way to think about how you position around timeless or cutting edge.

Jason Mlicki: I really like that analogy, and I like that analogy a lot, because it’s just a different way of slicing the same thing. And what are you trying to make the marketplace feel about your firm from a brand perspective, which is just an extension of what you want them to think about your firm from a relevance perspective. We want them to think that we’re leaders in strategy work, or we’re leaders in analytics. We want them to feel that we’re this type of firm, and that, to me, is the essence of the platform of the brand. I really like that analogy.

I also think, because it’s such a good analogy, it’s such a great place to stop. I don’t know if we’ve covered new ground or not, but we certainly have dissected the role of awareness versus relevance and how they fit together in a firm, and I hope that those of you listening enjoyed it. Thanks for hanging with me this last half an hour, Jeff, enjoyed it tremendously.

Jeff McKay: Listeners, just make sure you know what problem you’re trying to solve before you start investing money. Otherwise, you’re going to need a lot of time and resources.

Jason Mlicki: I would say that’s prudent advice, but I don’t like the word prudent so I’m just going to say wise. I’ll talk to you next time.