Let's decide on our target market rather than going, No, it's already decided for us. We need to go out, do research, and find who buys our category. Once we know that, and we should have a deep understanding of that, then we can go on and be good marketers. Marketing Architects.

Hello, and welcome to the Marketing Architects, a research-first podcast dedicated to answering your toughest marketing questions. I'm Elaina Jasper, and I'm joined by my co-hosts Angela Voss and Rob DeMars. Today, we're joined by by Byron Sharp, a professor of Marketing Science and Director of the Ehrenberg BAS Institute, the world's largest center for marketing research. Byron is a renowned thought leader in the field of evidence-based marketing, and he's the author of one of the most influential marketing books of the last decade, How Brands Grow, What Marketers Don't Know, which is now essential reading for marketers around the world. We respect his contributions to research-driven marketing and have wanted to have this conversation with him for a long time. Welcome, Byron.

So good to have you. A legend.

Now, Elaina did say we are a research-first podcast. And so research tells us that you grew up on a sheep farm. So you went from herding sheep to herding consumers. Any similarities there? Any empirical laws for herding sheep?

Well, it was my dad who was the sheep farmer. I'm not sure I helped out that much.

It was very hard to find personal information about you. So that was about the best we could do was an opener about growing up on the farm. If that's a goal of yours is to be very private online, I I couldn't find anything else. All right, well, let's get into the questions you'll want to answer. We're back with our thoughts on some recent marketing news. We're always trying to root our opinions in data research and what drives business results. Now, before we get into our interviews, I usually tee things up with an article or a piece of research. But with someone like Byron Jarb, who specializes in research, I almost had too much to choose from. I decided to do something I've never done before, which is to ask you, Byron, about a topic that I actually haven't seen you publish a lot about, specifically by name. There doesn't It's not going to seem to be one single definition of this, but from our experience, it's growing in popularity as a movement in the US towards a greater focus on marketing that's more grounded in research and principles, which seems to align really well with your and Erin Bird-Bass's work.

But I haven't seen you focus on this in particular, like others have. I wanted to start with this question. What does marketing effectiveness mean to you and do you find it valuable?

Well, obviously, marketing effectiveness is focused on effectiveness rather than potentially efficiency, which is something that I and number of people encourage. But I think you're referring to the effectiveness movement. It's probably gone far too far. There's a lot of stuff in marketing that's called effectiveness, but it's actually some weird efficiency or terrible metrics. There's a lot of stuff that's just justifying covering your butt. I've got these metrics. You wave them like something that ward off evil spirits. That's not necessarily really doing effective marketing. At the Aaron Boobast, we notice our website has no cookies. We track some very simple, trustworthy metrics Very easy, very cheap to track is how many times you're mentioned in the media. We track things like that which show our growing fame and reach around the world. I'm a big fan of the Warren Buffet rule, which is he never invests in companies. He can't look at how they're making money. Those companies are very dangerous. Often the answer is they're not making money. It's just a shame. And it's the same. When you're buying media, when you're looking at metrics, it should be blindingly... It should be very trustworthy. People think scientists are obsessed with numbers and accuracy and things.

No, that's the engineer's. Scientists are much more concerned with generalisable patterns about how the world works. Andrew Ehrenberg once said the most important mathematical symbol, the equal science with a little squivel on top of it means a roundabout. And then an engineer might have a specific thing when they go, Okay, I've got Newton's laws or whatever, but I need to land this missile or plane or whatever exactly on the spot. Okay, well, then you get into levels of accuracy. But that's horses for courses. It's a practical thing, how much accuracy you need on the day. But that's not what scientists are obsessed with.

That's helpful. I wanted to make sure we are on the same page with our language because some people say marketing effectiveness, and then there's marketing science. Evidence-based marketing is a term that's come from Aaron.

Yeah, it's like marketing science. In fact, there's a journal in the States called Marketing Science. But it's not really marketing science. It's a marketing engineering journal. It does lots of optimization and showing off fancy statistics. This is far more important than the substantive findings. It's not a substantive, finding-oriented journal. Some years back, the Nobel Prize for physics was won for the discovery of graphene. It's a very important thing. This multi-billion dollar industry is now built on graphene. It was always known to theoretically exist. Was it one molecule thick layer? It's incredibly strong. And they got some graphite and stuff that's in pencils, and they put some sticky tape on the side and they kept shearing the sticky tape off. If you pull off layers, until they actually got down to one molecule thick and proved that you could actually have graphene in the real world. That would never get accepted by any North American marketing journal. It would be like, What? Just use sticky tape. That's a very interesting descriptive discovery in the world, but you need to sex it up with some statistical gymnastics or something really complicated because that's what we're about. That's not science.

Well, we are going to talk more about marketing research. But before we do, I've been trying to piece together your background based on LinkedIn stalking. And so it was like, Okay, where did he start from? And so you're getting your master's and you're a professor, right?

In America, a professor is anyone out of the university teaches, right? In Australia, you start as a tutor, and then your lecturer, then a senior lecturer, then an associate professor, and then, hopefully, professor, if you get promoted up.

In America, they just give those a way like candy.

Yes, we just hand those out rather than one, you think. Yeah, exactly. I do see that. That's part of the problem, right, that we have over here? Yeah.

How did you end up then involved with the Ehrenberg Bas Institute?

I was doing my master's, and I thought we could do stuff that was important. I encouraged some other people who are now a fairly famous professors. I somehow encouraged them to come and live off the pittance that you got from doing tutorials and come do their masters, too. It just grew from there. But we also won some grants from the Australian Research Council. We don't chase that taxpayer funding anymore. We stood up on stage and we showed some results. And that's what industry buys. It doesn't fund academics just to be nice. It goes, oh, that's interesting. I can use that. Can I talk to you? How do I get more of that? My advice to academics, when they say, well, how do you get funding from industry? I say, make some discovery. And then they will fund you. Don't go to them and go, I'm a very clever person and I'm worthy and you should give me this to study this important topic. It doesn't work like that. The industry is a bit like consumers. They know what they like when they see it.

Well, then you found a sweet spot with that in the Ehrenberg Bas Institute. I want to fast forward a little bit to, I'm sure, a question you get asked all the time, but we have to, which is when you published How Brands Grow, because it's now a classic marketing book. But I'm curious, what inspired you initially to write it? And then has its popularity surprised you?

Well, I wasn't inspired to write it. We were told to. We have advisory boards around the world made up of very senior people who are the companies that sponsor the institute. I think it was the European Advisory Board said, We need a book that we can give to the CFO or the CEO and explain that this time when we're making changes in marketing, this time there is actually some real science behind it. So they said, You've got to write a book. And obviously it needed to be a hard cover book and look good and have a prestigious publisher. We got Oxford University Press. I always joked, that's not too shabby a brand. So that's what it was for. I remember Elka, executive officer for the board, just rolling your eyes going, Oh, they're never going to do that. Because we're classic scientists. We're interested in the latest thing that we're doing. They wanted something that was about the importance and meaning of the earlier fundamental findings. It turned out to be very good advice. Thank you to our advisory board members.

Was it that positive from the very beginning?

Well, it sold out immediately. That's because Oxford University Press printed a thousand copies.

Okay. Exclusivity. I mean, you only have- No.

They thought, it's a researchy academic book. You print a thousand copies, you sell about 500 to libraries around the world, and then, hopefully, eventually, you get rid of the other 500. That's the normal model, but obviously it's old, so they had to print a few more copies.

Yeah, I mean, I think it was just so needed. One of those that we might not know as an industry we need until It presents itself. We're huge fans of the book. It's principles. We love the Double Jeopardy law. We work in TV. We're a TV-only agency, so using reach to drive growth. But I'm curious from your point of view, what principle or foundational belief within had the largest or maybe the most surprising reaction from marketers or those that initially saw it?

Well, the most famous, but that's a bit of a geek joke, because none of them are that famous, is the Double Jeopardy law. So that led to industry sayings of penetration is king, importance of reach, and the shock that, wow, okay, that law means where are these super niche, high loyal brands? What? Loyalty is predictable. It's like gravity. Or maybe air pressure is a better example. It's air pressure everywhere. It depends on your altitude and how much you get. That was a shock. Lots of consultants are peddling all these things. The loyalty marketing was very, very big at the time.

Oh, huge.

Absolutely. They said, No, that's not a path to growth. That was pretty shocking. But we poll new students and people coming in as new marketing scientists of which law they think is the most surprising. It's actually that user bases seldom vary. Each rival brand selling to all sorts of different people, but the same sorts of different people as your competitors. If you're a university student and you've come through a traditional marketing degree, which 99% of marketing graduates on the planet have, that doesn't fit with Almost every tutorial has been, right, let's decide on our target market rather than going, no, it's already decided for us. We need to go out, do research, and find who buys our category. And once we know that, and we should have a deep understanding of that, then we can go on and be good marketers.

Yeah, we talk about this quite often on the podcast. Just even as a marketer, someone working in the industry, and as a consumer, it's embarrassing that I'm not more loyal to the brands that I love. I just had an instance, I'm a big fan of on cloud shoes. And yet I just recently bought some Hocas. Why do we do those things? It's an interesting little conundrum for marketers to tackle. And I think that and a lot of the other principles are just foundationals. When you get it in your head and you're like, okay, that's just the way the world works. And probably not something I can change. Your behavior changes in terms of what will drive success and how to try to grow the brand. So the book feels timeless. Marketing science has evolved a lot since the book was initially published, and you did just write a second edition that was very popular. What recent research in that second edition are you most excited about?

Part two was written to address when people would say, Oh, that's all very interesting, but France is different, or Luxury is different. Developing markets is different. Financial services is different. Durables are different. So that's what that book was written for. For me, the most interesting one is the luxury one because France is different. Yeah, of course, yes, you speak French, but you still have mass consumer brands and things. But the luxury, that was more plausible. They came up with a logic that sounded, okay, there might be something in this because what the luxury people said is, you can't do sophisticated mass marketing if you're a luxury brand. You have to actually deliberately exclude people, which is, I suppose that's classic contrarian marketing. But they said for us, it applies because if you exclude people, then they want it more. That drives massive price premiums and things like that, which is a possibility about that. So we went and looked and it's wrong. But as I said, the real world is a weird place. Our brains evolved over millions of years for survival. There's little shrew-like things up in trees. That's why we're scared of snakes.

For the grassland savanas, where we didn't know many people. We lived in little tiny tribes. That's why we love telling stories, because that's our main thing. And we're obsessed with celebrity gossip and stuff because we feel that they're the people in our village. That's the brain we've got. Whereas marketers are selling selling to mass markets of millions or billions of people with astonishing busy lives who occasionally buy the category. That's weird. That's like the stuff that physicists and chemists study. It's weird stuff. We make a mistake as markers of thinking, Oh, no, they're people like us, so I can just sit in my office and have a think about it. No, you can't. You'll end up selling to seven people. If you want to sell to millions, suddenly you're entering a very weird thing that your brain is not equipped for, and you're going to have to rely on science who comes up with weird things like a double jeopardy law. If you actually think about it, the double jeopardy law is very weird. It seems to not make sense at all, particularly when you do it for attitudes. So the proportion of people, the Austin Festival, do you know about this brand or this person or celebrity or whatever.

If they say yes, if they say no, obviously, they don't know about them, so you can't ask their attitude. But if they say yes, you can ask their attitude. And when you do that, if fewer people have said yes, the attitude score will be a bit lower. And It's like, why can't this few people just love this person? Why can't that be? We now know why it occurs. It's a weird statistical selection effect thing. But that's just not intuitive, is it? Not at all. It's not intuitive. Why can't there be, say, a new TV personality? They're very new, so not many people know them, but the people who do know them go, Oh, they're fantastic. When more people know about that person, then their average attitude score will go up a bit. That's double jeupery.

Well, Byron, As you mentioned, the principles that you talk about, sometimes they're against marketers' intuition. Marketers like to think that we just know things.

We shoot ourselves in the foot, right? Because marketers go, It's just intuitive. I should just be able to know it. Then they say, Everyone thinks marketing is just intuitive. The CFO has just said, What do they know? They're not a skilled marketer. It's like, you can't have it both ways, right?

Yeah, we want it. We want it that way.

If it's just intuitive, then anyone can do marketing. You don't need qualification, you don't need a high salary.

Good point.

What you and the institute are talking about, it's not always received super positively because sometimes you're challenging belief systems. What drives you to keep going, Byron Sharp, with your passion for evidence-based marketing? Does it come from just your career path or what keeps you going with all of this?

Well, there's a smart ass part of it. I think any scientist says, It's fun knowing stuff that other people don't know. But no, marketing has done amazing. Marketing has lifted billions of people out of poverty. The modern market economy is just an amazing thing. If we can make a contribution to make that a little bit less wasteful, a little bit more effective, that is a contribution to civilization, which is a fantastic thing. That's pretty motivating. It's actually fun when you see that people are shocked. Americans seem to get more shocked than other countries.

Oh, we're going to talk about Americans. Don't worry. That's coming. But before we do, one thing I've just been dying to talk to you about is marketing research, because I know that evidence-based marketing is a central mission for you at the Ehrenberg Basse Institute. And your book, How Brands Grow, I know you were maybe even forced to write it, but I loved it, and it really inspired my passion for marketing research. So I wanted to ask you, how do you feel about the current state of marketing research and how might it need to change or evolve in the future?

Are you talking about academic research?

Yes, academic marketing research, but I'm also curious about vendor-driven research. And I know you have strong opinions here, but both sides. How do you feel about it?

All right. Well, let me talk I've been doing a vendor research. Because in the market research industry is a wonderful industry, very important, but I'm constantly pointing out to people that isn't a validation study. Let me tell you a story I've told before. I was years ago in London in the Museum of the Welcome Institute, which is one of the biggest medical funds in the world, billions of billions of dollars. It largely came from the Wellcome pharmaceutical company. Anyway, this museum is on the history of it. I suddenly stopped the guide and went, But wait on. When this guy started and really set up the company, made his fortune, there were no efficacious pharmaceuticals. This is pre-aspirant. We had opiates, we had alcohol, but basically we didn't really have any. And so what was he selling? And she was like, Oh, well, hope. Sugar, water, alcohol, that thing. This causes the realization, of course, there's demand. There's sick people with all sorts of ailments. They want something, you can sell something. We have to remember a lot of commercial research is just selling stuff because people want it. It doesn't necessarily mean it's been validated.

But the best stuff is the stuff that produces the data that we use a lot as a classic as the big panels that have been set up, the longitudinally tracked consumers, viewing and buying. Very, very useful. I'm a big fan of the basic work that market research companies do, which is knowing how to collect quality data. I'm not such a fan of some of the analysis that they do, which is clearly just mumbo jumbo stuff. They even fool themselves, I think. But I'm equally critical of a lot of academic research Research, which is fashion-driven, produces findings that aren't trustworthy. There's two issues. There's a lot of research that's not trustworthy. No single study is important. No single study means anything. Science is built on replications and testing. But there's also studies that you wouldn't even bother replicating because you're like, who cares? It's just such a silly, trivial question. Why did you choose that question when there's so many important things to study? The answer is poor academics in business schools spend most of their time teaching, but they're promoted on publishing. So they stop teaching, quickly, I need to publish something. They quickly need to publish something, and they look in the journals and they choose something that is fashionable, topical, something that will impress other academics, because that's the job.

Impress some other academics, get it past reviewers, and get it into the journal. They're not like Louis Pasteur, who was like, No, no, no, there's this problem, right? I need to solve this problem. There are people dying.

Thank you. That's helpful, Byron, because it's a good thing that marketers are interested in research. But when I first started digging into it, I wasn't aware of how things could be twisted. And I I still have a lot to learn. But I think it's helpful to hear your perspective on.

I've messaged you a couple of times going, No, you can't.

I know. If I get an email that says, Byron Sharp, commenting on your LinkedIn post, my blood pressure goes through the ceiling. You have no idea. I get so scared. I just want to make you proud, Byron Sharp. I'm trying to be more careful about what I share.

At a recent advisory board meeting there with Bastian Street, Bruce Nicole, who used to be the Chief Marketing Officer of Mars. I think he's very much looking back on his career and Looking back on the evidence-based journey that Mars is on and been quite self-critical, I think, he feels that one of the things he should have put a lot more emphasis on was teaching his marketers how to judge evidence and more about the science. He was really pushing them to just learn the laws rather than learn how do you judge that something's law-like. He asked other board members, What do you think evidence-based marketing is? I think what he was getting at is, it's not just that you've got some evidence. To use that medical analogy I used in our brand, Scott, about how doctors, for thousands of years, basically Shorten people's lives. That was it. Some contribution shortening people's lives. It's terrible, right? They were killing people. But they had evidence. I mean, they were not. They would say good university trainings, but they had evidence. They asked people, What hurts? What have you been doing? What have you been eating? They had some evidence, but they just had an abysmal ability to interpret that evidence.

We should probably talk more about knowledge-based marketing than evidence-based marketing. Marketers are flattered with evidence, but they, oh, my goodness. They misinterpret That stuff all the time. Wow, our brand's got a higher attitude score. That must be what people must like it. That's what made us big. If you're bigger, you get the higher attitude. This interpretation, Net Promoter Score would be net promoter score be classic. Oh, it's called net promoter score. It asks people what their likelihood is they would recommend. So it's all about recommendations. No, just because something has the title doesn't mean it is that. Just because the bottle says WNDYQ, it doesn't actually mean it is a WNDYQ.

Yeah, absolutely. I think we We crave it, right? Especially those of us that consider ourselves performance marketers, which is a genius term for whomever you look at.

Performance marketing is just physical availability, trying to catch your fair share of the people are buying today.

Yeah, someone's going to get it, so you might as well get your share. And then once you get your share, you probably drove it, whatever tactic led to it. But I think we crave it so badly, the science side of it, that we'll lean into even mistakingly. What we think is evidence that might not correlate to actual success, things like NPS, like you suggest. We're craving that answer. We're craving something to bring back to the executive team to prove this worked, this is what we did, here the outcome. Any more investment.

But also well-paid executives, they're clever people. They used to be clever. Tend to think if they can get something, they read the Net Promoter Score. I think about it, I think, Yeah, you're right. We shouldn't ask people if they're satisfied. We should ask them if they'd be willing to I recommend that. That makes good sense. Right, quickly change our tracker. We'll do that. How does this measure behave? Then you look at it and go, Wow, it behaves exactly like a satisfaction measure. Actually, if you really stop and think about it, if they're not satisfied, oh, yeah, and I'm really likely to recommend it. You got to look at the distribution of scores and then realize, gosh, they match perfectly a satisfaction. It's just another satisfaction measure.

Time for a spicy question, Byron. So us Americans, right? Marketing in general in the US has come under fire recently for being called out, for being behind on marketing and effectiveness, for really a lack of awareness for things like how brands grow. So what's your opinion on that in terms of the quality of marketing in the US? And don't worry, Angela is not that sensitive. So just what? We got to have it, Byron.

I'm ready. Look, I don't think anyone can sum up quality of marketing for a whole country. But what I will say is I don't think American marketing is bad, but it doesn't deserve the thing of thinking it's the best in the world. I think that is a tendency of Americans. I was on stage for Meta or something, and they said, Well, so you've got the best marketers in the world in front of you. What do you say? I thought, I've got a group of New York marketers in front of me. How do you know? It's natural thinking, American marketing is better. I don't think that's the truth. Yeah, it's been criticized. Well, it's a long history of it being criticized as being insular. Yes. Back, there's an article from an angry young academic called Andrew Ehrenberg. He said, Here I am. I'm at this American Marketing Association conference, and I've been put in the international track. I'm always put in the international track. Not that my paper is on anything international. It's because I'm from overseas. And he actually sent me. I don't know why this incredible insular, because it's not like American marketing research is any particularly good.

I don't know if they buy it on a bag. So there is this belief, if you look at the top rated marketing journals in the world, they're pretty much US journals. And this is just natural thinking of, well, they just must be the best. Not that these journals were set up in the 20th century when the biggest economy and most booming economy in the world was American. Partly that legacy.

Well, speaking of being on stage, you're going to be on stage again here shortly in the United States, I think, in Austin, for your How Brands Grow Live experience. So what inspired that? How did that come to be?

That has a long history. In fact, I knew I could write How Brands Grow because I've been doing some of the chapters where things, presentations. So that led to the, okay, I can write the book. And so the institute does How Brands Grow Live for our sponsors. I was thinking it's a magic product because it lots people in a room together. And over two days, they learn stuff, but they have to make commitments about what does this mean for the business in front of their colleagues. Under COVID, when we moved it to a virtual delivery, we realized it could still work even though people aren't locked in the room together. And then there was this thing of, what about people who aren't sponsors necessarily, just individuals? It dawned on us that apart from buying our books, an individual can't buy anything from the Irgendwoon Food and Gas Institute. It's like you're stuck unless you're in a sponsor company. We thought, well, why don't we take it out to the world. We've done this. We did in Singapore and in Bordeaux in France, and now Boston in the States. We'll do the same thing again next year because it's been such fun and so successful.

It's very senior people coming, and they I love it. It is transformational.

Absolutely. I think we've felt that, not been to a conference, but just in what you publish.

If you get to spend two days with Jenny and I and other people, and we do a deep dive. I mean, we cover the fundamentals there in How Brains Go, but we cover a lot more application things. It's one thing to say, you know something, you're familiar with it. Then it's another thing, can you do the exam? Okay. Then there's the other, could you teach that to someone else? Oh, my God, that's a different It's a new level of education and understanding, for sure.

So we, I mentioned before, we work in TV. We're a TV-only agency, and we wouldn't presume to think that TV is right for every brand, of course. But one marketing principle we think is lacking is just attention from marketers in the US on the power of TV. And so I'm curious, how important do you think TV advertising is to modern marketing, and/or just your thoughts on the channel in general?

The discovery is, in my concern, it's probably pretty I'm positive for any fast and vast media. Tv is still up there with one of those big media, although it's fragmented and splinted. Well, if you include YouTube and TV, I mean, YouTube is a global TV company, advertising supporter. Then you go, I mean, TV is healthy as it ever was. Actually, I do think TV is going to be big news for marketers in the next decade or so because all the streamers will become advertising-supported.

See that happening already?

I can't go on losing money forever. We'll end up with, I don't know, half a dozen big global advertising-supported TV networks that can do geographical. I mean, they can do IP address-based targeting. That's a pretty exciting thing. They deliver video and they deliver it on full screen. We know about the levels of avoidance for TV. It's one of the nice things. It's a very trustworthy metric. You tell us how many impressions we have. We know how many actually translated to real impressions. That's pretty attractive for a marketer, particularly in big audiences. But I suppose with IP addresses, can match then. You can match cinema, where a local restaurant goes, My catchment area is only this. Can I just hit those? Yeah, you can do that.

Yeah. It'll be interesting, though, because I think just with the growth of CTV, and you mentioned YouTube, definitely that digital transformation of a space that forced marketers to not hyper-target and have to go broad reach. I think that's one thing that we balance how consumers view television and therefore how marketers should view television as well. It's a screen on the wall. And those powers that a linear television has or a radio has, and that ability to drive that broad reach, don't lose it on the CTV side. There's all this technology and growth, but reach was a superpower, is a superpower as well.

Well, we manage two assets. We manage mental availability and physical availability. And the performance marketing, the retail media, the work we do in stores, the display, the Google search, is all about catching the people who are buying today. That is an important thing that we have to have, and we have to optimize that. We can because it's actually really easy to optimize because you see your results immediately. You shut the doors in the store, what happens? Oh, sales stopped. Oh, right. Maybe we should open the doors. But the other asset we manage is mental availability. That is way different. That's relying on people's memories. We don't have to hit them just before they purchase or anything. We have to hit all of them, even though lots of them aren't going to come in. They just bought from the category. Oh, they're not going to come back? Probably, no, not for quite a while, maybe a year or two. But you still got to refresh their memories because there's some other brands that would like to get into their head as well. And that's a different ball game. Tv has always been a fairly vast reach medium.

So even with today's fragmentation of things, it just takes longer. That's fine. Most of us don't have the pressures of like, We're launching a new movie. If we don't get people in the cinema tomorrow, we're dead. Then that's okay. This media can still do it. It can still deliver our real video impressions and put a spotlight on our brand. It can reach everyone, not denied, but over a month, over a year, it can do it. Wow, that's nice. And at a really low price for the exposure.

We appreciate the work you've done, Byron, because like you said, it definitely supports TV. So we've been able to use it to talk about the value of TV for our customers.

The problem, and it's a particularly American problem, they don't understand the difference in physical availability and mental availability. And I think advertising works by, it should show up tomorrow in my sales. Because advertising is supposed to produce... This is the logic. I mean, it's very obvious logic, right? If advertising affects sales, I should advertise and I should see my sales change. But if you're, no, it does. But it does through mental availability and on a population where the proportion of the people who saw your advertising who are in store this week is so tiny. A vast amount of your exposures are not on those people. So you can't use what's happening in store this week to judge that advertising stuff. And that is not well appreciated in America.

We're generally not patient, just in general.

Yeah, everything should bounce around.

Well, Byron, I wanted to end with some closing words of wisdom for American marketers, but I feel like that is perfect We're going to save that and we're going to share it with all the brands we talk to. That's it for this episode of The Marketing Architects. We'd like to thank Iona Claffhawky for producing the show and Taylor DeLos Reyes for editing. You can connect with us on LinkedIn, and if you find the show value available, please leave us a rating and review. If you'd like to hear more from us, subscribe to our weekly email newsletter. It's built for marketers seeking research-first analysis of the latest trends. You can go to marketingarchitects. Com/newsletter to subscribe. Now go forth and build great marketing. I know you need to get on with your day. We need to go to bed. In Minnesota, we're in the middle of a crazy thunderstorm, too. I can't believe our power is still on.

You're sitting in the dark, yeah. Yes, I know. Great. I will go out into some Australian sunshine. Architects.